Laserfiche WebLink
-r-f ’ <br />t-* <br />! .t <br />fc <br />,; I- <br />/■ <br />:'i <br />■» <br />2- <br />March 8,2000 <br />TO: Mike Gaffron <br />Greg Gappa <br />cc: Dick Ogle <br />Richard Gay <br />FROM: Jim Zimmerman <br />SUBJECT: March 27 Council Meeting <br />E <br />I got your phone message at home about the March 27 Council Meeting. I personally feel that <br />we shouldn t be addressing this issue again since it’s been addressed txWce already and I felt <br />quite conclusively at the last meeting where it was discussed. I also believe that if the non­ <br />resident dock owners really feel the issue hinges on written easements, discussing the situation <br />without the one person whose easement is needed for anyone to get to any docks will not be very <br />productive. <br />While it would no doubt be a hassle to send a letter to eveiy’one postponing the discussion, I <br />think tae alternative is much worse. The alternative is every’one comes to the March 27 meeting <br />only to conclude that no resolution can be reached without Dick Ogle. At that point, this issue <br />will be put on the agenda for a time and people will have to all clear their calendars again and <br />show up for a fourth time only because the non-resident dock owners are unwilling to live with <br />and accept the parking restrictions set forth in their conditional use permits. This doesn’t make <br />sense to me and I don’t think it’s right. <br />As a neighborhood, we’re concerned about Tom Randgaard’s dock situation. Richard Gay and I <br />sat for over 3 hours at a Planning Meeting only to have Tom not show up and the Commission <br />decide that without Tom no decision could be made. The issue was postponed until the next <br />meeting. We cleared our <alendars for the next meeting to again testify only to get a call late the <br />day of the meeting indicating that Tom wasn’t going to show up and we would once again have <br />to clear a third night to testify on this issue. It seems that in the case of Tom Randgaard he can <br />inconvenience people as many times as he chooses and the city will grant him unlimited leeway <br />and only reach a resolution w’hen he ultimately decides he’s willing to attend a meeting. <br />If the city is willing to hav'e an unlimited number of postponements for Tom Randgaard, they <br />should certainly postpone this discussion in deference to the Ogle’s. The Ogle’s are as essential <br />to the discussion of easements as Tom is to the discussion of his dock. The major difference is <br />that Dick called 3 weeks in advance to request a postponement vs. simply failing to show up or <br />calling at the last minute as Mr. Randgaard did. <br />I felt w'hen w*e met tliat you w’ere in agreement that a postponement was warranted to get all the <br />background information on the issue and to be sure Dick was at the meeting. You indicated that <br />you were going to gatlier the following and thoroughly review prior to meeting on this issue: <br />A title search of the dock properties to see w’hether right of way or easements are addressed <br />in the titles. <br />• The minutes of the 1985 council meeting that dealt with the parking issue.