1984 05 21
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 21, 1984
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson
Councilman Geving
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as
presented-With the addition of Discussion on tax forfeited land. Motion
seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were removed from the Consent
Agenda:
a. Final Reading of Sewer and Water Ordinances.
d. Fees for Service Agreement, Lake Ann Interceptor.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the
City Manager's recommendations:
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request to Allow for the Establishment
of Commercial Stables/Riding Academies in the R-1A District.
Final Reading.
c. Lake Ann Park Expansion Acquisition.
e. Recertification of Tax Forfeiture Properties.
f. Authorize Application to State for IRB Entitlement Designation
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and
Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST, 501 WEST 79th STREET, PRAIRIE HOUSE
"RESTAURANT: - - -
Councilman Horn - I am just curious why this is part of Visitor
Presentations-Dn the agenda.
Don Ashworth - If the applicant is go to through the Planning
Commission he would have to make a filing. The issue presented is pri-
marily one of an interpretation of the ordinance. The request from the
applicant is that his belief is that he would like to approach the
Council feeling that this signage is in line with the theme for the
property. If the Council agrees he could leave the signage as is. If
the Council wishes him to have the item heard he would be directed to
the Planning Commission to do through the hearing process. It is an
odd procedure in this case but it really does become an interpretation
as to the intent of the City Council in passing the Sign Ordinance.
Councilman Geving - Would our action delay the signage on the
structure?
Don Ashworth - The sign is up right now. The question brought up is
whether or not that conforms and if you look at the ordinance it beco-
mes a definition of whether or not it is in violation of the intent of
that ordinance.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-2-
Councilwoman Swenson - Is this less than 15% of the area?
Scott Martin - It is within the total coverage requirement. The only
question is the language on that one sign.
Councilwoman Swenson - I thoroughly agree with your letter. I don't
see how there is any question of interpretation. I don't think we are
intending to set a blacksmith operation up in there.
I
Mayor Hamilton - Do you have a problem that it says blacksmith.
Councilwoman Swenson - According to the ordinance this does not adver-
tise a service or product sold. It is very explicit and I don't think
we should deviate. There must be something else that he could put up
there.
Mayor Hamilton - It is a part of their motif.
Councilman Horn - Is the idea of this that it is misleading to the
public or t~dea that it doesn't totally represent and isn't there-
fore necessary?
Scott Martin - In my view it's the second one. It's unnecessary
clutter on the building.
Don Ashworth - Mr. Korzenowski's point is that this is a part of the
theme to bring you into an early 1800 period and that he feels that
that is necessary and basically is part of his business sign.
Councilwoman Swenson - Are they intending to print their menu's on the
bottom of the Prairie House sign? The free standing sign?
Scott Martin - For daily specials.
I
Councilman Horn - I guess if I went by the letter of what the ordinance
said I migh~ve one opinion. I look at the purpose and intent sec-
tion of this, to me should always be the overriding intent of what the
ordinance is trying to prove, it is saying that they are trying to
encourage a reasonable degree of freedom while at the same time
assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed, distracted by
unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use such com-
municative facilities and I guess we have to find that it violates one
of those issues to have a problem with it. I can't believe that it
would be unsafe or disorderly and I am sure in their mind if it's done
as part of their theme, they look at that as a necessary communicative
facility.
Mayor Hamilton - I certainly agree.
Councilman Geving - If you talk about purpose and intent that is pro-
tect the health and welfare, I don't see anything wrong with that. I
don't see any health, safety or anything like that. Personally, I am
not offended by that sign. I am in favor of moving ahead with this.
Mayor Hamilton moved that the sign be allowed as it is. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn.
Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-3-
MINUTES - Amend the motion under HIGHWAY 212, CITIZEN'S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE in the May 7, 1984, Council minutes: Mayor Hamilton moved
that John Neveaux be appointed as the citizen at large, Al Klingelhutz
as Chamber of Commerce representative, and Tom Hamilton and Clark Horn
from the Council to the Highway 212 Citizen's Advisory Committee.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the May 7, 1984, Council minutes
as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen
Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented,
checks #021446 through #021523 in the amount of $243,946.39 and checks
#020012 through #020126 in the amount of $79,432.60. Motion seconded
by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega-
tive votes. Motion carried.
BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST, OUTLOT A, ANDY'S ACRES:
Bill Monk - The request tonight by the Ellsworth's is to build on the
northern-portion of Outlot A north of the sewer easement that bisects
the property. When Bob Waibel and I reviewed this initially some weeks
ago we didn1t see any problem with issuing a permit. It was only upon
finding that there was a restriction on the plat itself that required
it to come before the Council for their review. My comments are that
since utilities can be extended in on a permanent basis that will not
have to be relocated as the extension of the road would be undertaken.
I do not have a problem and find the request quite reasonable and I am
recommending that the Council approve the request by waiving the
buildability restriction as originally placed when the plat was
approved.
Councilman Horn moved approval of the building permit request for
Outlot A, Andy's Acres. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, KETTNER'S FIRST ADDITION:
Scott Martin-=-The Kettner's prepared the final plat and came here
during the period when the Council changed the policy to allow simple
subdivisions of three lots or less to be done by metes and bounds.
They are subdividing it because there are two existing residences on
the property and they want to be able to sell off one of those.
Councilwoman Swenson - How does the applicant propose to have ingress
and egress from this when they are not allowed to go out onto Stoughton
Avenue and not allowed to go out onto Highway 212?
Scott Martin - They would be required to use the same access that is
there today which is on Stoughton Avenue. The county is saying that
they are not allowing more. There are two homes on one lot and they
want to subdivide into two lots so they can sell off one of those.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-4-
Councilman Geving - The Planning Commission indicated that they had a
problem with the evaluation of the on-site sewer system.
Scott Martin - They recommended that before any improvements be made to
the basement house that be evaluated. That would normally be done
anyway.
Councilman Geving - I think what this does, it cleans up and makes
legal two existing properties. I kind of like what I see here even
though it's not a standard 2! acres in an unsewered area.
Mayor Hamilton - The only thing that bothered me was the easterly resi-
dence is a basement structure. Is there somebody living there now?
Yes. It is being rented out right now to me. We rent
from the Kettners.
I
Mayor Hamilton - If this split takes place, are you planning on buying
it and building the rest of the home.
Yes, I am going to finish it off.
Mayor Hamilton - That should be one of the conditions of the sale
to avoid having to a basement home so that should this division take
place that the basement structure could not be lived in by anyone other
than its current resident unless upper portion is completed.
Councilman Horn - Is there something in our current Subdivision Ordinance I
in the unsewered areas that tells about auxiliary structures. In other
words could somebody come along with say, four acres, and put up a
house and put up an auxiliary basement structure and then say, well,
gee we have got two people living here now we can split this.
Scott Martin - No, it would have to predate the ordinance. The
controlling mechanism is a provision that says you can only have one
principal structure per zoning lot, one house per residential lot. You
do have cases where you have more than one but that can not occur under
the current ordinances.
Councilwoman Swenson - If we do approve this I would like to have the
minutes reflect that I, at least for myself, the reason that I would be
inclined so to do on less than 2! acres is because there is already an
existing structure on the lot.
Councilman Horn moved preliminary plat and final plat approval for
Kettner's First Addition with the stipulation that the split be made
contingent that the current resident can remain but should that pro-
perty change hands no one can live there unless the upper portion of
the home is completed. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
We won't take possession of the property right away
because it's going to be a contract for deed and we do plan on
improving the property and building a house on top. I don't know how
soon it's going to take place. It just depends on our financing.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-5-
PROPOSED WETLAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE:
Mayor Hamilton - Since there is a great deal of interest in this item,
I would like to run this with as much parliamentary procedure as we
can. There are several people here who want to speak to the issue. I
will allow them to do so. They will be allowed to have five minutes to
speak. We have a lot of ground to cover. The purpose for having this
on this evening is for discussion and review. There is no intended
action to be taken on this item this evening.
Ladd Conrad - What I would like to do is take about three minutes to
create a little scenario of where we have been and to bring everybody up
to where we might be today. I think what you will see tonight has been
an outcome of about two years of work. Two years ago there was
generally a charge by the City Council to do something with the Lake
Study Committee because it appeared to have run its course and to
decide if there were activities that the Lake Study Committee could be
part of and one of the ideas that the City Council had was to broaden the
scope of what the Lake Study Committee was doing to incorporate the
entire town of Chanhassen. I believe the Council also felt that a
couple years ago as it decided to charter the Environmental Protection
Committee was to have it take a look at the resources that Chanhassen
had and to decide if and how to preserve those limited resources. I
believe the other major objective at that time was that the Council
wanted to make sure our ordinances were up to speed and could handle
what we perceived to be the mass development that going to occur in
Chanhassen in the upcoming years. With those three charges I believe,
the Environmental Protection Committee was chartered under the
leadership or the guidance of my particular group, the Planning
Commission and at that time when we started out in the Planning
Commission we wanted to do a couple things with the Environmental
Protection Committee. One, we wanted to develop a positive zoning
program. A zoning program that would tell developers what we wanted to
protect and probably to get us out of other issues, negative zoning or
getting into developers back pockets. In other words, we wanted to be
very specific as to positives in the community and to regulate what we
wanted to preserve. We wanted to keep Chanhassen unique, also at the
same time, a phrase that we use in advertising for that is "position",
we wanted to position Chanhassen as a very unique community. A com-
munity that wasn't like Eden Prairie or wasn't like Bloomington or
wasn't like a lot of other cities. What are those unique charac-
teristics that Chanhassen has. From the Planning Commission perspec-
tive, we wanted to detail the things that we saw in the Comprehensive
Plan that are not easily enforced. You go back two years ago, we had a
Comprehensive Plan on the book, it was a big thick document that people
spent many many years over and many of the words in there said preserve
the natural habitat, the surroundings, a lot of words but from a
Planning Commission standpoint those were nice words but they are
always tough to enforce when the issues got at hand and we looked at a
developer or we looked at a citizen landowner, we didn't have anything
on the books to help guide us. The Comprehensive Plan is terrific but
there wasn't a step down to the real world. We wanted to communicate
to developers. We wanted to tell them what to expect rather than
letting them guess and finding out that they might have guessed wrong.
We wanted to really guide the environmental stewardship of the resour-
ces in Chanhassen. We are supposedly looking out five, ten, twenty
years to help plan where the community is going. We also, by the way,
wanted to take a look at some water quality issues that were left over
from the Lake Study Committee. The purpose of the committee was to
broaden what the Lake Study Committee had done. It was to review the
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-6-
clear cutting. It was to review erosion control storm water manage-
ment. Noise. Pollution. Wetlands. The first item that they decided
to take a look at was the wetlands. I believe the Planning Commission I
selected some very capable people out of the community. We had a great
deal of participation as far as people wanting to get on the committee
and I guess just for the sake to give them some kind of public notice,
they haven't received a great deal of thanks at this point in time.
The people such as Jack Mauritz, Dick Vogel, Hank Sosin, Rick Murray,
Susan Conrad, Court MacFarlane and Ellen Chilvers that there service, I
think, gone beyond the call of duty. The committee has gone through
several things of research. They have researched with Fish and
Wildlife Department, the City Planning of Lakeville, they have gone
through many existing wetlands ordinances. They have taken a look at
the Metro Council model ordinance. They have met with city staff and
Planning Commission. They have held joint meetings with the City
Council, Planning Commission to get direction. Out of the public
hearing they took the words that the public were saying such as fair-
ness and went back and took another look at that ordinance and due to
that public hearing they rolled a few new items in such as some
hardship clauses and some density credits. They also tested the ordi-
nance against real life situations where we tested three different
situations, took it through to see what it would do to particular par-
cels of land. Tonight, I guess, what you are seeing in front of you is
two years of work on their part. A lot of time from the Planning
Commission and a lot of staff time. I believe from a Planning
Commission standpoint it is a fair ordinance. We have reviewed it
many, many times. It is doing the thing that we laid out in the objec- I
tives. It is preserving some things in Chanhassen. It is taking a
look at what is unique in Chanhassen and it is an ordinance that is
necessary at this time.
Court MacFarlane - In the last year and a half I have been chairman of
the Environmental Protection Committee and rather than myself standing
up here and talking about the ordinance we have asked two people to
come this evening to speak to the issue of water quality and water
resources and this is part of the investigation process that we went
through and some of the people that we had talked to during the time
that we were formulating the ordinance as you see it now. They have
been kind enough to come to the Council meeting this evening. Larry
Smith is the Field Office Supervisor in the St. Paul office for the
Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. Dr.
Rossillon who is the President of the Freshwater Foundation who will
also speak.
Larry Smith - I would like to just give a brief presentation on what I
believe to be maybe a larger perspective. We handle the activities of
the State of Minnesota. We review the activities of other federal
agencies who may directly impact the water resources or permit or
license such activies. Our office gets to see a lot of the implications
of wetland developments state-wide. Briefly, wetlands have been deemed
important by the federal government as well as the state government and
the programs that we deal with are primarily related to wetlands and I
water quality specifically as they relate to wildlife resources. One
of the biggest programs that we have dealt with has been the regulatory
jurisdiction of the corps of engineers who have been and are now in a
similar situation in terms of having been directed by Congress through
the Clean Water Act to set up a system for the regulation of water
quality. That program has undergone a number of changes. What I would
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-7-
like to say regarding that program is that it tends to be somewhat per-
vasive. I has reached at times I believe to Lotus Lake itself in
Chanhassen. What I would like to do is congratulate the City of
Chanhassen for entertaining the possibility of a wetland protective
ordinance at a local level. From a federal perspective, I believe that
many times the local level is the best level to protect your resources.
My reason for saying that is that many times the local level is the
primary contact point with developers consequently if you don't have a
well defined wetlands ordinance that basically lays out the ground
rules for developers hoping it's constant with any other regulations
that may exist, the developer and the City are both saved a lot of time
and money. I have been involved in a number of actions where no
wetlands ordinance per se existed. It was found out subsequently that
there were other authorities involved than say the corps of engineers
and the developers involved have been severely penalized financially
because of the extra time involved in conforming with other ordinances
that could have been handled at the local level. I believe it saves
everybody money. I guess there has been a possible problem associated
with the enacting of the ordinance as it relates to the taking
question. I don't have them with me at this point but there have been
several court decisions basically stating that non-development of a
wetland does not constitute a taking. Once I get back to the office I
could supply these to the Council. One other thing I would like to say
is that despite the possible other levels of jurisdiction there are
right now many holes in these levels of jurisdiction and at times the
City would be the sole regulator of development as far as it comes to
wetlands. As a wetland protagonist I would like to see a strong ordi-
nance enacted. I believe that's where it should reside.
Court MacFarlane - The other gentleman who has agreed to come here this
evening is Dr. Rossillon who is the President of the Freshwater
Foundation of which the Freshwater Biological Institute is a part. He
is not here to speak so much as to the ordinance but as to speak to the
underlying importance of water quality as far as we are all concerned.
Dr. Rossillon - A Geologist from the U.S. Geologic Survey probably put
water in the best prospective a number of years back when he said the
thing to keep in mind is that water is an intimately interrelated
system and man intervenes into that system for good or bad. The impor-
tant thing I think we have to keep in mind all the time with water is
you can't manage it, you can't alter the system, all you can do is
adjust within it and adjust to it and what we have tried to do in the
past was modify it to suit our needs. We are beginning to learn now
that we have to adjust our needs to keep it functioning and there is
good reason for that, you see if all the water that we have in the
world only 6/l0ths of one percent is usable fresh water. It comes to
less than 2,000 gallons a day per man, woman, and child in the world
and right now in the United States we are using in excess of 2,000
gallons per man, woman, and child and that's why we are running into
some very difficulties in the United States. We have had an increase
of 90 million people since World War II and in effect what we are doing
is we are overloading all of our delivery systems in the United States
and that's something we need to go through and keep in balance. The
next important thing to keep in mind about water is that water is not
clean. Water is Mother Nature's sewer system. One of the jobs of a
wetland is to sit there and let the bacteria do their job like a septic
tank so it's a very integral part of our water delivery system in this
state. Right now the State of Minnesota says the number one problem in
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-8-
the state is ground water contamination and you read the paper you can
see the communities that are losing their water supplies because of
contamination one way or another and I think it behooves all of us who
have responsibility for it to see to it that we supplement and enhance I
the natural systems so that we preserve our own water supply five or
ten years down the road. I laud you for considering this and it's
obvious you need to have a ordinance that will work and one that most
of all you can manage and maintain. But the nice thing about water
supplies that we have learned in this country and that is if you don't
take care of your water supply you are the one that gets penalized in
the long run. Stewardship, in my definition, is being wisely selfish
and I think you are doing a good step in that regard and I laud you for
it.
Peter Beck - I am an attorney here tonight representing Frank and Mel
Kurver~The Kurvers have a substantial amount at stake tonight as the
Council may know they are the owners of a parcel of undeveloped land on
the east side of Lotus Lake. A significant portion of which is
classified in the wetlands overlay map as a Type A Wetland. My office
has conducted a fairly thorough review of the prior draft of this ordi-
nance and provided an analysis to Mr. Kurvers. We identified a number
of problems with that draft, some of which have been addressed now in
the final but a number of problems remain. I would like to make it
clear to the Council that neither I or my office nor the Kurvers or any
sensible person that I know argues or contests that the protection of
this City and indeed our State and our Nation's water resources and
wetlands is important. Of course it is. What we are here tonight is to
ask whether this proposed ordinance is the best way to achieve the maxi- I
mum amount of protection while staying within legal and policy bounds
which the Council is obligated to follow. We feel, first of all, that the
range of wetlands protected by the ordinance is too broad. Specifically,
the inclusion of Type 2 wetlands adds a level of regulation which goes
beyond any existing regulation. The DNR does not regulate Type 2
wetlands nor do any of the other agencies. Also, state regulation by the
DNR and others is limited to wetlands of 2i acres or larger. This ordi-
nance does not contain that type of a restriction. It presumably regula-
tes a wetland regardless of its size. We feel that there is no need to
regulate very small wetlands. No need to regulate Type 2 wetlands.
Also, as an aside, I would like to point out that one of the most serious
problems and I don't press to be an expert in water quality so I could be
corrected quite a bit, it is our understanding that one of the most
serious problems with water quality is the use of fertilizers. In par-
ticular lawn fertilizers in the areas adjacent to lakes. The ordinance
doesn't address that question. On one hand it is broadly regulating Type
2 wetlands and on the other hand it maybe has some shortcomings in regu-
lating other uses that impact water quality. The particular issue that
is significant to the Kurvers is the prohibition, the absolute prohibi-
tion on docks in wetlands, including Type 2 wetlands which are adjacent
to a body of water which captures the Kurvers property within that defi-
nition. We can all agree, I think, that the value of lakeshore property
is determined in large part by its availability to the lake, its right to
lake access, so called riparian rights which is a fancy word for saying I
that the right to access to the navigable point of a body of water. This
ordinance has removed that right as it applies to many people in the City
including the Kurvers over a portion of their property on Lotus Lake. It
raises two questions, really. The first that I would like to present to
the Council is a policy question. Does this Council really want to take
that valuable right from a number of its residents? The right to enjoy
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-9-
and make use of this City's lakes is one that should be enjoyed by all
lakeshore owners and I think as a policy matter this Council should con-
sider seriously whether it's necessary to remove that right for some.
The second question is a legal question. Does the City have the right to
prohibit docks in those situations and therefore appropriate that right
of access to the lake? Our research would indicate that it does not.
The City does have the right to regulate docks in particular but it does
not have the right to prohibit docks. The regulation is along lines of
what you have in your Shoreland Ordinance. The size, number, that sort
of thing but to prohibit docks from a certain piece of land, we don't
feel that that right exists. The City Attorney, I don't know if he spe-
cifically addressed the docks, he has a letter that's in the packet of
material that you have that indicates that to prohibit a use it must be
shown that it's necessary to prevent serious harm. That's generally
accurate when applied to this situation. I think it causes problems
whether there is going to be a serious harm by permitting a dock from
Type 2 wetland into a body of water. There is a reference, also, in the
materials to a statement from the Attorney General, apparently it is not
a formal opinion. I don't know if the Attorney General has been
requested to provide a written opinion to the City, I believe he hasn't
but to the extent that quote would lead the Council to believe that the
Attorney General has authorized the taking of recreational uses. There
is no case law to that affect and I don't think the written opinion from
the Attorney General would come down that way. I will conclude with
that. The major issue for the Kurvers, of course, is the docks. They
also feel that the ordinance has gone beyond what is necessary to protect
this City's water resources.
Al Klingelhutz - I am going to use the opening statement of the Wetlands
ordinance. IIWetlands are a valuable resource.1I I think we all agree
with that. IIThey help maintain water quality, serve to minimize problems
with flooding and erosion, serve as sources of food and habitat for a
variety of fish and wildlife and are an integral part of the community's
natural landscape providing the aesthetic benefits of open space.1I I
do want to compliment the Wetlands Committee for some of the changes that
were made after the public hearing. They were considerable and yet I do
find some problems with this ordinance. After looking it over it still
only shows a 25% density transfer from wetlands to good lands. A fellow
has got a 20 acre piece of land, 10 acres of it are wetlands, he has to
put in a upland holding pond to control the water from his good 10 acres
before it goes into the wetlands. He gets 100% density transfer from
that. It probably uses an acre and a half of land, five or six units.
In the overall density transfers only 25%. I think when you look at that
first statement of this ordinance showing the value of wetlands, I would
say has a nice forest or a hillside that's too steep to build on, he has
got 20 acres of land with a steep hillside and 10 acres of it is too steep
to build on, you get the same density for that 20 acres without losing
75% of that density so I really believe that as valuable as wetlands are
to a community that there should be some more just compensation in that
density transfer. I really feel that it isn't sufficient. I studied
this ordinance quite thoroughly and I like what you said about con-
taminating ground water and yet Carver County has been one of the key
counties of the state for hazardous landfill disposal site, we have got
four proposed sanitary landfill sites and there is a little correction
that this ordinance definitely needs. Section 28.7 (1) disposal of waste
material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris, hazar-
dous and toxic substances, that's the one I underlined, that normally
would be disposed of in a solid waste landfill. To me that's not the
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-10 -
place for hazardous and toxic substances. I definitely feel that should
be removed and under 28.8 (1) it uses that same phrase, that should be
removed. I have got a little problem with the 200 foot setback from a I
Class A wetlands. 200 feet is a long ways. I think there is room to get
a little closer to a wetland than that especially the way a lot of
wetlands are situated. The bank drops off rather rapidly. There is good
high ground up here and if you have got to go back 200 feet you won't
even see the aesthetic beauty of the wetlands from that home because you
will be back too far. I noticed one thing, public access and boardwalks
over Class A wetlands for public use and I am wondering if that doesn't
do as much damage to a wetlands as a single family residence that is
using it a lot less frequently than the public would use it.
Court MacFarlane - The minimum structure setback is 75 feet, not 200
feet. Item 2 at the bottom of page 13.
~ Klingelhutz - Being on the Council and Mayor for many years, variances
are kind of hard to get especially in the Zoning Ordinance. In order to
get a variance from this ordinance those variances would have to be named
in this ordinance or the ordinance would have to be amended to give
someone a dock into a lake. I don't know if the City Council wants to go
through that problem. I think that's another thing that should be looked
at.
Dick Vogel - I was a member of the Environmental Protection Committee and
on a minority opinion I would like to express on prohibited uses in
wetlands with the docks, on page 6, number 7 and number 8, "Privately
owned permanent or seasonal docks" and "Privately owned walkways and I
boardwalks" to be changed to permitted uses in Class A wetlands. I
talked to one person at the DNR today. They said that the affect of a
dock in a wetland would be minimal and right now we understand you can
take 2500 square feet and tear the weeds out or whatever you want to do
with them to get yourself out to open water in a lake. The other point
on the density credit, I would like to see it left up to the Council if a
developer was putting in a proposal. Maybe they could use that to
bargain to get more green space to allow more density transfer. Also on
the size of every Class A wetland, the DNR has 2! acres. I am not
suggesting that but I think there should be a limit as to what would be
protected.
Henry Sosin - I have one thing that's new that should have been intro-
duced to the Council before. It's a letter from the Regional
Administrator of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and it does
relate to the problem of the 2! acre size. The intent of the letter
demonstrates that it is their; it says, however, those legal parameters
do not in any way limit our desire to see smaller basins preserved.
Sever Peterson - If I could, I live in an area that's considerably
wetlands. It under water right now. We dike our areas down there in
many ways to preserve the wetlands and we pump water onto them to con-
serve them and preserve them and to seed them in. We are firm believers I
in wetlands and, I believe it was just last year when the State put in
their wetlands law, I sat on a board of review for that, myself, and
there was a lady there from the DNR and there was a gentleman there from
the Department of Transportation. The appeals came to us and there was
testimony there and often times they would have experts come and testify
and I remember one wetland in particular and the DNR was proposing this
be declared to be wetland and they had several people testifying as to
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-11-
the fact that this should be declared a wetland. It was up to us as a
review board to go out and inspect these areas. That particular area
that was really contested. The landowner was saying, look, it's not a
wetland and the DNR was saying, yes, it is a wetland and it fits all the
criteria. We went out and looked at it and I recall walking through this
whole area and I remember the lady from DNR had a pair of penny loafers
on and when we sat down afterward to discuss our findings she said, it
just really bothers me that I couldn't even get my feet wet but she
wanted to call it a wetland and she was bound and determined to declare
it a wetland. It really concerned me because I remember when we had to
prepare our report and we felt it should not be declared a wetland and
she said, gentlemen, do you mind if I disagree with you and I couldn't
believe on what basis it would be called a wetland even though it had
been testified by the DNR that it was a wetland. What I am saying is I
believe there are some dangers. I feel that certainly wetlands are a
very positive thing and a very necessary thing and they are all the
things that were presented tonight and they are absolutely essential but
I would encourage your caution and your discretion because it's
bureaucracy that I couldn't believe as I witnessed it.
Georgette Sosin - Since I won't be called on by your group, not being on
the committee, I would at least like to put my two cents in right now.
I just want to remind Council that the reason that it came up in the
first place was because of all of the problems that we discovered where
permits had been given by the watershed district, by the corps of engi-
neers, by the DNR, and situations which as we closely studied them we
disagreed as for instance, the park on the north side. All those permits
were given by all the agencies to dredge and when we had the experts come
in and you remember your taskforce decided indeed that was a mistake.
The same thing happened with the Derrick property. Had we had this ordi-
nance in affect we wouldn't have had the problems that all of you had to
contend with about the dockage issue there where in fact all of us are
very unhappy about the compromise that had to be made in an emergent
vegetation area. Had this ordinance been in effect all of those deci-
sions would have been laid out and clearly cut. I would like you to con-
sider again, try to remember why this came up in the first place and why
in fact, it's so very necessary for our community to protect itself.
Mayor Hamilton - I would like to go through the ordinance section by sec-
tion. We can ask the Environmental Protection Committee that's here and
the experts that are here any questions you may have. About three years
ago there was a person by the name of Kathy Schwartz who was very con-
cerned about a development that was taking place on Lotus Lake and she
and I had many conversations about it and she pursued it and pursued it
and kept after me and I am glad that she did because out of our conver-
sations and out of all the work that Kathy did, we met with other com-
munities and several people who were knowledgable about wetlands and at
that time we were dealing with Derrick development. We didn't have
anything in place to help us and guide us with that development.
Consequently, I brought the item back to the Council and discussed it
here and determined that we should have some type of an environmental
protection committee to look at these types of things. It was my intent
at that time that we formulate an Environmental Protection Ordinance, not
specifically wetlands but dealing with all of the environment. I felt
that was the direction that we would go in. I think we have gotten off
the track a little bit. Certainly the committee selected probably the
most important thing to do first and the others are still going to have
to come. We owe a lot of people a lot of thanks for all their hard work
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-12-
and certainly Kathy for getting us started in the first place.
Consequently, the committee was appointed to begin their work. They have
done an outstanding job, however, I think we do have an ordinance that
certainly in my mind leaves considerable questions on some parts of it. I
Let's begin on page 1 with 28.1 the Statement of Findings and Intent.
Council members have any comments or questions or changes? There was one
concern that I had reading the last sentence. "Stewardship to conserve,
protect and enhance these environmentally sensitive resources through
proper management by striving towards zero degradation." I think the
intent of the ordinance is that that would take place by a developer or
builder an individual who is attempting to build a home in a wetland. I
would hope and perhaps it should say that in here that it's not the
City's responsibility to enhance these environmentally sensitive resour-
ces. I don't want the City to get into a position where a citizen who
could come in here and say, we have a wetland in our area and we want the
City to enhance it, to beautify it, to improve it or whatever. I was a
little bothered by that. I didn't want the City to suddenly find our-
selves in a position through an ordinance where legally we would have to
enhance a wetland. Roger, make note of that. Maybe nothing needs to be
done and I am just overly cautious. Am I right that the intent was to
have the enhancement done through the developer or the owner.
Court MacFarlane - Actually that was left in there that might be
something that could improve a wetland that might be done in the future
and I don't think we were looking at one particular group as having the
responsibility for doing it.
Mayor Hamilton - It seems as though if we have an ordinance it should be I
able to be used by a developer. If he goes in and is going to be working
in a wetland area that wetland area is not going to be degraded by his
work at the worst it is going to remain as it is after he is finished and
not that the City is going to have to go in to any place and enhance a
particular wetland.
Councilman Horn - I guess the way that I would interpret this is saying
many times things are enhanced by not further degraded just by the
fact that just remove the things that are causing it to be degraded and
they enhance on their own and that was the way I interpreted that sen-
tence. Not that you have to physically do anything but just remove the
problem.
Don Ashworth - In looking through this item, I would suggest to the
Council, as we have had other ordinances come before the Council what we
have attempted to look at is why the options or alternatives associated
with with a particular issue or the ramifications of a particular section
or the ordinance itself. As we are going through this ordinance or at
least the recommendation that was made as a part of the staff report on
this, is that as we are looking at these items or sections that we look at
why an item is in the form that it is, what the basic intent is, what
alternatives or options we may have open and of course what the ramifica-
tions of that particular section may be. I apologize to the committee in
terms that we have not been able to provide you as much staff support as I
we would like. Many of these questions that I am bringing up at this
point, with Bob Waibel's leaving we have been unable to provide additional
background to the City Council. Starting out with 28.2, you have 1)
Establishment of a wetland overlay zoning district. The number one state-
ment tonight has been in the subdivision of land and the development of
land and I guess my question would be why have you chosen this form? Why
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-13-
is it in the form of a zoning district rather than one of a subdivision
control? What had the committee looked at? Why did you pick an overlay
district as the means to accomplish this prohibition?
Henry Sosin - We had looked at different ways of doing this. First of
all, it was one of the ways that was suggested by the 7-County Metro
Council that did put out several documents concerning these kinds of laws.
It does cover what you want it to cover. It covers the wetlands. It does
not exclude wetlands because they are not going to be a developmental par-
cel and it controls the wetlands or it allows for management of the
wetlands when there is no development next to it. If you were to put it
only in a subdivision ordinance you would control it only in a subdivision
and only at the time of development. That would not control it when it
was not in a subdivision development program so that you would not have
any laws about dumping, building or anything else. I can understand why
it should be in a subdivision ordinance but that would only be secondary
to the primary ordinance itself. You could incorporate that in the sub-
division ordinance if you thought that would be important but to put it in
a subdivision ordinance alone would exclude a lot of the wetlands that are
currently there now and would not allow the Council to control any of them
until the point of development.
Don Ashworth - Is it possible to potentially have Roger (Knutson) make
comments as we are going through these?
Roger Knutson - There are a number of places you can put various elements
in here, the subdivision ordinance, the surface water management ordi-
nance, the zoning ordinance or a combination of those things and I guess
it's for the Council to decide where they belong. Some of these proce-
dures in here would only be operative in a subdivision situation. Park
credits, for example, if I owned one lot and I want to build a house and
my lot abuts the zoning ordinance, I wouldn't be paying a park charge
anyway or if I am not going to have a storm water pond, it's already a
pre-existing lot and I am not going to subdivide it. Those credits don't
do me any good. That section in particular, seems to me as aimed at just
subdivision. It refers specifically to developers. Another example on
the docking, it could go in here or it could go in your surface water
management ordinance where you already have some provisions.
Councilman Geving - Does it belong in this ordinance?
Roger Knutson - I don't think it makes too much difference. From a legal
point of view it doesn't make any difference in which document it occurs
in but it's best to stay in one place and that way you don't lose what you
have got.
Henry Sosin - This includes boardwalks. You would not put a boardwalk out
in the middle of the lake but you might put a boardwalk across the wetland
and wetlands away from lakes, by definition, actually are not controlled
in water surface usage ordinance. Wetlands are controlled in other docu-
ments, I believe. So it's not the place to put this in the water surface
usage ordinance. Docks are already mentioned in the water surface usage
ordinance. This, as it is written now, is only consistent with that which
is already law.
Roger Knutson - It's consistent but it adds to it.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-14-
Councilman Horn - I think the purpose here would be to write this ordi-
nance to reference that section of the lake usage ordinance so you would
refer to that in here by referencing that ordinance. That way, any time
that's updated this one would be automatically updated. The intent and I
purpose would still be in this ordinance but the actual explanation would
only be in one ordinance.
Roger Knutson - Some time people forget. You have references to this or
that in lots of ordinances. Right now it's very fresh in all our memories
but three years from now if this is not in constant use and people don't
come in and ask for documents and new staff comes on board, they remember
seeing it in one section and in certain water management ordinance but
they don't remember seeing it in here and they may totally forget about
this rather than having it all together. It has nothing to do with enfor-
ceability. It is just a means of administration.
Councilwoman Swenson - I find no fault with cross-referencing it.
Henry Sosin - You say people forget things. The purpose of the ordinance
is to alleviate problems. To eliminate them at the beginning. If someone
is coming in to get a building permit or get whatever they need to make a
development, do they read the water surface usage ordinance or do they
read the zoning laws? I would assume they would be much more conversant
with the zoning laws and that's another reason why this was made an
overlay district as part of the zoning law because it's going to pertain
more to the individual who comes to the city staff and says, I want to
build something here, what are the rules?
Roger Knutson - It could be next to a lake. It is speculation as to what I
a staff member would jar his memory, it's fresh now but several years from
now.
Henry Sosin - We talked with Mr. Knutson earlier. He thought it was an
appropriate way to handle it and city staff throught it was the best way
to handle it.
Don Ashworth - The question becomes one of, let's take that singular lot
that you were talking about and let's assume that part of it is in a
wetland area. You look in the zoning ordinance and find that that lot is
in that wetland area, does that constitute a taking? What type of legal
exposure is the city faced with by having that as a part of the zoning
document of the city.
Roger Knutson - That's a very difficult and complicated question to
answer. The Court will look at several items. They would look at, are
there any other reasonable uses of that land. For example, if part of it
can be used for farming and something else, probably not. They would look
at the need, how strong a compelling need is there for this regulation?
It you end up with a situation where someone ends up with a lot that can
not be used, the judge is convinced by the other sides experts rather than
the city's experts that the wetland is not serving an important function,
we would lose. There is a variance provision in the ordinance that I
applies to certain situations and not others. A variance situation could
allow variations from setbacks and that sort of thing. It could not allow
uses prohibited by this ordinance. If someone wants a dock and they are
in a Class A wetlands, this ordinance prohibits it and you can't get it
with a variance.
I
I
I
-15-
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
Mayor Hamilton - Anyone else have anything with 28.2?
Councilwoman Swenson - I would prefer to see that 2) Encourage the educa-
tion of the community about the importance and functions of wetlands, and
the impact of urbanization upon wetlands. I feel that some of these
things are things that the city really should not get involved in. I
think we should encourage the education of the community. 3) Instead of
"implementation", I think we should "require the implementation" of proper
erosion control practices, and in 4) instead of the "implementation of
sound management practicesll that we should "the establishment of sound".
Mayor Hamilton - The four that you just mentioned, I had the same problem
that you did in the very first one 28.1 that we say, en chance and
improve the present the quality of a wetlands within the community indica-
tes to me just by the statement of purpose that the City is going to do
some of this at some time or another.
Henry Sosin - The intent was not necessarily for the City to have to go
out and do all of this. The intent was that if there is going to be an
alteration of a wetland area it will not totally destroy it. Some
alteration is perfectly allowable if it is not harmful. If there is
going to be a required change, if the Council allows a change in a
wetland area which will cause degredation beyond what should be allowed
then there has to be something else done to enhance that function. It is
your sound management that will do the enhancing. The City does not have
to go out and do it.
Mayor Hamilton - I think we ought to say it.
Councilman Horn - Could we get a clarification from Roger on how to
interpret or word that?
Councilwoman Swenson - Is it possible that maybe somewhere in here that
would handle this, at what point I don't know, that there would be an
established phraseology that would put the entire onus and responsibility
on the applicant or the developer? That would help to eliminate the
semantics problem that we are having and it would spell it right out in
the beginning so that all he has to know is from now on everything I read
is my problem.
Roger Knutson - To me the thing that is helpful about the statement of
purpose is that it helps to interpret what you are trying to get done.
In that way it can be valuable and should reflect what you want to get
done. It shouldn't be an overstatement.
Councilman Geving - I wanted to clean up that whole section of 15 items
and may be you could head up that particular section "The developer's
responsibilities are" and then take those 15 items and list them.
Councilwoman Swenson - It shouldn't just be included as part of 28.2.
This is an overall statement of responsibility of the developer or the
applicant.
Councilman Geving - "Statement of Responsibility for the Applicant.11
Roger Knutson - I will work out something.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-16-
Susan Conrad - In a previous meeting with Roger about this, he made it
look to us that typically in court with ordinances this section entitled
"Intent and Purposes" is perceived as philosophy, isn't that correct?
I
Roger Knutson - It sounds right.
Susan Conrad - I assume that if that's the way it goes through court then
it should be in this form.
Roger Knutson - I got a draft back in Mayor June of last year. We
reworked that draft and came up with designation of Class A and Class B
wetlands and came up with quite a few changes. Then it went back to the
committee and then it went back and forth, I forgotten how many times.
It was my understanding, you told me how you wanted it and I put it in
the way you wanted it. I reviewed it in the sense I was trying to take
your charge and put it down on paper.
Court MacFarlane - We have never asked you not to put it in the kind of
language that wouldn't be legally acceptable.
Mayor Hamilton - It is up to the Council. It is our responsibility to
sit down and go through it and that's what we are doing now. Are there
any other comments on 28.2? If not, 28.3.
Court MacFarlane - In regard to the wording, this is developer's
criteria?
Councilman Geving - Responsibilities of the applicant.
Court MacFarlane - Is this going to be just applied just to the
applicant? Doesn't this apply to all wetlands and all people that own
wetlands?
I
Councilwoman Swenson - Maybe that should stand alone.
Councilman Horn - I think our intent for Roger, it's like enforcing traf-
fic laws, everybody has to live by these rules and that's the intent. We
are hung up with terminology, what we call that person.
Councilman Geving - I think that this will look far different once Roger
has a chance to work this. We have not instructed him or directed to do
this yet.
Councilman Horn - I think we should ask ourselves one key questions, do
we want this-}Ust to apply to a development that comes in or do we want
this to be applied generally and if we answer that question as a Council
for Roger he can make it reflect what our intent is.
Councilwoman Swenson - Actually the statement of purpose should remain
rather as it is and that other stipulation about the onus maybe that
should not be included in that particular seection. Maybe that should
stand by itself as a separate article. We are establishing, it seems to I
me, a statement of purpose is for the entire City when we say that this
is what we want the City to become.
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-17-
Councilman Horn - As I look at this thing we are trying to give Roger
some imput as-ro how we would like to see this subject handled. He is
going to come back to us and say this part should be done here and this
part should be done here and this part should be done there and if we put
all of those things together you get the intent of what you are reviewing
tonight. Rather than us trying to decide how it's going to fit with
these ordinances we should decide on the basic intent we are trying to
get across.
Councilwoman Swenson - I like what I read here with the exception of
those three changes.
Roger Knutson - Maybe I can review all 15 with that philosophy in mind.
Mayor Hamilton - 28.3, Establishment of Wetland Zoning District, are there
any comments on that?
Councilman Geving - There seems to have been some classification of the
Class A wetland by members of the staff. Who did the original
classification?
Scott Martin - One through eight classification is a DNR system.
Determination as to which ones would fall into our Class A and our Class
B was made by the committee.
Councilman Geving - I want to be sure that your designation is in confor-
mance with some classification system and that there isn't any room for
further negotiation once this ordinance gets into law. Someone comes
back and says, why did you classify this particular piece as an A or a B.
Court MacFarlane - The source of the map, it was taken from aerial photos
that were taken by the DNR. They are vegetative maps. They show the
different types of vegetation and from the USGS contour maps. The com-
bination of the two were used to identify wetlands within the City. It
is also my understanding that certain field checking was done on a spot
check kind of basis to verify what was shown on the map.
Mayor Hamilton - When were they flown?
Court MacFarlane - 1976. That's the most recent one.
Councilman Geving - I just want to prevent any future challenges to this
kind of thing.
Mayor Hamilton - I guess I am really uncomfortable with that. I happen
to know for a fact that people have looked at some of those areas on the
map and, people who know those type of things and they say it is not a
wetland as far as I can see. Things do change and to go with an overlay
district map that does not have current information on it causes a great
deal of expense and restricted building for those people who may be
affected by it. We are just asking for more trouble than we can possibly
get and I think that perhaps if we want to use that type of a concept it
would seem to me to be more reasonable to take a map and say, we are going
to use this map as our overlay district map as a guide and if somebody
wants to build or develop in an area where there is a wetland or a
wetland is indicated on the map, we would then have a physical inspection
of that property by someone who is knowledgeable in that area and say
either it is or it isn't.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-18-
Court MacFarlane - There are other cities, I know, that use half-section
maps with overlays that show wetland areas within the half section.
Minnetonka is a case in point. They do identify wetlands on there as a
shaded area. Once development occurs or once someone comes in with a
proposal they have this particular map and if there is any dispute it
comes out at that point. I don't know if we have that kind of exactitude
as far as on the half-section basis within the City of Chanhassen. This
may be the best that we have.
Councilman Geving - I think you have to go to the experts and I would
like to call on Larry Smith to give us your opinion on the validity of
data from 1976 and the challenges that we might get into as we call this
Exhibit A in our ordinance several years from now.
I
Larry Smith - As I understand it generally speaking that survey was done
by an expert from the University of Minnesota. It was obviously one
point in time, however, the vegetation that is evident in those pho-
tographs was classified as wetland vegetation at that time. I would pre-
sume that despite agro10gica1 cycles you would still have those areas
primarily described as wetlands. How that relates to your classification
of A or B, that I can't comment on. I think the translation there is
what is crucial. Those definitely occurring on the map are wetlands.
How they are described in terms of A or B or types 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 is based
on the normal description of the hydrological cycle as it affects that
area. I would tend to think if somebody took time to categorize the
vegetative information on that map and took the time to translate it into
wetland types and I would tend to think that it would be accurate. The
hydrologic scheme of wetlands obviously changes over time and whether or I
not there is water in the wetland is not a good indicator of its con-
dition as a wetland. There are many wetlands that do not have water in
them all the time. The vegetation tells you. What I am saying is the
vegetative characteristics as displayed on that map are good indicators
of wetland condition.
Henry Sosin - Let me explain A and B. The map and the information
available is as far as we know, the best available and most current.
Wetland types 1,2,3,4, etc. that information is available. A and Bare
two categories that, actually this was Mr. Knutson's idea as to be the
cleanest way to present it rather than all the definitions of 1,2,3,4,
through 10,12 etc. and the large amount of space it would require to make
all of those definitions and categorizing each one of those as what type
of wetland that it is by its vegetative type. A and B was arrived at by
taking certain types of wetlands that are immediately adjacent to lakes,
streams, in other words the primary wetland next to the basic water
supply, those are type A's. Wetlands away from lakes, wetlands away
from important streams or rivers are type B. B wetlands, three or over
is not a B. This A and B is a separation made here locally. It is not
what you get off the other maps.
Councilman Horn - From a philosophical viewpoint, are there any areas in
here that may have been altered since this map was generated that if we
passed this ordinance tonight people would have to go back and I
reconstruct wetlands. That's my concern that in effect we are using a
1977 map we are making our ordinance retroactive to 1977. I am wondering
if we are putting an undue prohibition on that type of thing.
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-19-
Mayor Hamilton - That's why I would have hoped that use the map. It would
not be a zoning map. It would just be a point of reference so that when
a person comes in to develop something and it's an area which happens to
fall in that district and it will have to be determined at that time.
Roger Knutson - A possible solution might be, you have the map with the
presumption that those are the wetlands, someone who thinks overwise
because of changes or because of errors in the mapping, has an
opportunity to come to the Council and say, you put this down as wetlands
but I am on top of a hill.
Mayor Hamilton - But with the passage of this ordinance the only way they
can do that is through the use of a variance and you can't get variances
unless you change the ordinance so that's why I don't want to get that
into the ordinance now. If you put that overlay district mapping here
now then we have got it and the only way it's going to come out is if we
change the ordinance. The only way anybody is going to be able to build
in those areas is to request a variance.
Councilman Horn - What Roger is suggesting would be a public hearing on
the overlay map at this point before the ordinance is enacted.
Roger Knutson - There has already been a public hearing.
Councilman Horn - Was it to talk about each of the specific parcels on
the map? I see that as a separate issue. We are trying to adopt an
overall philosophy in this ordinance but I think before we can do that we
have got get our basic ground rule document in place. We need some kind
of mechanism to bring that down so that we have a base line to start
with.
Peter Beck - Any ordinance that has this kind of impact on property
values-ru5t by the fact of classification should have provision for the
reclassification of misclassified areas. This section touches on that in
the very last sentence in a very vague way that Council shall make
necessary interpretation, I think what has to be done is that a procedure
has to be established by which a property owner who feels that his pro-
perty has been misclassified because a mistake was made originally or
because of a change in conditions, again, I am not an expert but I what I
hear Mr. Smith saying is that these wetlands are not necessarily static
for all time, and particularly a Type 2 the difference between not a
wetland and Type 2 is one degree that is very narrow and may be over time
or through original misclassification, shown as a Type 2 and it's adja-
cent to water it's a Class A isn't. There has to be a way for this ordi-
nance to comply with basic due process for a reclassification in those
situations. How you do that, by variance, perhaps by rezoning, by just
an interpretation, a whole new interpretation process which allows for an
application for interpretation. There is a number of ways but something
has to be done. It's a very important area in this ordinance.
Roger Knutson - I was just going to point out that last sentence you men-
tioned about interpreting the exact boundaries, that's found in every
zoning ordinance and that has more to do with the fact, the scale of the
map. You can't look at that map and determine within three or four feet
where those lines are so someone has got to make an interpretation and
that's the Council. That provision there now does not give the Council
the right to say this is now dried up, this is no longer a wetland. The
Council would not have that authority as written. It you want that
authority it should be spelled out.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-20-
Councilman Geving - I believe we should have that authority.
Mayor Hamilton - Mr. Smith, I would like to ask you a question, also.
Are you familiar with how wetlands, there function in the total ecologi-
cal system how, it at all, they do help to regenerate aquifers, is it
strictly a filtering process for water as it moves from one area to
another prior to getting into a lake. The reason that I ask that
question is, I certainly agree that I don't want to see any more wetlands
destroyed and we do have an inventory of wetlands in our community and if
that inventory tells us that we have five acres worth of wetlands that we
want to preserve for all time, does it really matter if we have two or
three potholes right in the middle of town on somebody's farm where they
could be filled in and take that same square footage, add it to a larger
wetland increasing it so that at no time are we going to decrease the
total number of wetland acres that we have in our inventory.
Larry Smith - You are saying that as long as the total wetland aerial
base doesn1t change, does it make much difference. The water recharge
aspects are hard to pin down. There filtering capabilities are pretty
well known in terms of nutrient pick ups. It does make a difference if
you have wetland basins scattered about and you decide to eliminate those
and add to other wetlands in terms of wildlife. Wildlife likes isolated
basins. They use them for their early reproductive activities.
Sometimes these basins tend to dry up in the summertime and then they
move to larger wetland areas. From that ecological perspective you would
be losing by doing what you propose.
Mayor Hamilton - It is possible to create wetlands.
Larry Smith - It is, but it is hard.
Peter Beck - I think that it's safe to say there is room for disagreement
with hrs-last line of reasoning and it is my understanding, for
instance with DNR when evaluating specific development proposals often
times will permit and occasionally encourage so called mitigative
measures for which there are some allowances in this ordinance whereby
1) a small wetlands or a portion of a wetland will be filled and some
dredging done and islands created in other areas. May be there is room
for some disagreement, maybe it's just a matter of scale. I think the
concept of maintaining the same area of wetlands while, maybe,
rearranging it is something that not all experts would say is bad.
I
I
Councilman Horn - I am torn between two concerns in this issue. One is
making sure-rhat what we have established as a benchmark is correct. The
second one is I would like to have something more definitive for develo-
pers to know where they stand for a period of time. What comes to mind
off the top of my head is that we would establish a period of one year
for people to come in and plead their cases on each of the wetland issues
and establish that for a given period of time and have this be evaluated
every ten years or every five years or whatever rather than having each
time left to the discretion of the Council because I think developers
need to know where they stand for a longer period of time. All I am I
saying is that we allow the overlay map one year from the time that the
ordinance is enacted for final adjustments to be made and after that it
will not be changed for a period of four years, nine years or whatever.
Councilwoman Swenson - The hydrological cycle, I understand, is between
seven and nine years. I don't know how this would affect wildlife. I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-21-
think that on this overlay map, I agree, I think this is true because I
know of a couple of places that don't show on this map that I would cer-
tainly consider areas that should be protected.
Kathy Schwartz - Can't you cover yourself by the person contesting the
issue, if they produce a to po or flying over or some way showing that
this is not correct, wouldn't that be your gauge or benchmark for exper-
tise but for us to expect you to become an expert on what is or what is
not wetlands, look at the mess we got in with Derrick and everywhere we
went to ask they said, really, the Council is the last responsibility and
we found out even hiring experts they didn't agree either.
Mayor Hamilton - What we are saying is that should this ordinance be
adopted this evening, the way it stands, the only way for anyone who may
have some property in a Class A wetlands or Class B the only way for them
to get any relief would be to request a variance. The only way that a
variance can be granted is to have an amendment to the ordinance. That's
a rather expensive proposition to the person requesting it and it's
rather a lengthy process for us so rather than forcing anybody to go
through that process it seems to me it would much better to establish up
front, whether it's the way Clark has suggested where once the ordinance
is adopted a year for people to come in who have property that are in
Class A or B wetlands and say, I think you are wrong then they can supply
some data to us that may indicate that it is wrong. Then after a year
period of time we would have a map that would act the overlay zoning map.
Court MacFarlane - The USGS survey map that it was also based on is a
contour map. That does show elevations.
Peter Beck - One quick comment on the window concept. I would suggest
maybe that wouldn't be the best way because there may be some costs
involved to the owner to bring his issue up that wouldn't be appropriate
for him to have to bear until he is ready to develop. If you set up a
procedure that would be in place permanently then if my land was going to
be developed or an investment was going to be made then he could be sub-
jected along with his other development costs.
Mayor Hamilton - Clark suggested having a year and I would suggest just
having a map as a reference point.
Roger Knutson - My concern would be that someone that owns one lot and
doesn't read the newspaper is never going to know about this and as the
owner of that one lot we have created quite a problem for him.
Mayor Hamilton - Next section, 28.4, Definitions.
Peter Beck - It's unclear to me, there is a definition here of wetlands
which rs-based upon which the application of the ordinance intends. I
don't know if the intent is that these are only areas below the ordinary
high water mark. The ordinary high water mark is identified and it is
not clear to me if a wetland can occur above the ordinary high water
mark.
Court MacFarlane - It is compilation of several sources and was the best
definition that we could find.
Mayor Hamilton - Is this a definition that the committee wrote as a com-
pilation of other definitions you found or is it a definition that came
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-22-
from someone elses work?
Councilman Geving - It sounds to me like it came out of Circular 39.
Peter Beck - If the intent is to include the definitions from the cir-
cular then that could be done under the word wetland. It is done under
Class A wetlands but having the two definitions makes it unclear to me.
What it appears is that #6 is surplusage. If not surplusage, then is it
expanding on the circular definitions or is it not?
Henry Sosin - Class A and Class B is a local definition based on #8 which
is the definition of types of wetlands and #7, wetland watershed, is not
the same, it is something quite different and #6 is a common definition
of what a wetland is.
Mayor Hamilton - A common definition meaning one that you thought of?
Henry Sosin - You will read that in all kinds of places.
Susan Conrad - There is a more specific kind of reference to wetlands
which classifies them by vegetative type if you object to this one. The
references we used, the number types, is the one that's most commonly
understood by most people but there is a real specific one done by the
corps that is absolutely on vegetative types. If you want it more speci-
fic, we chose this because it is more widely understood.
I
Peter Beck - I can understand what the classifications are in the cir-
cular ~#6 I just don't understand if that's intended to add areas that I
would not otherwise be Type 2. If not, I think it could be deleted to
avoid confustion.
Henry Sosin - Wetlands can definitely occur above ordinary high water
marks and they frequently do.
Frank Kurvers - On this 3,4,5,6,7,8 that is in the U.S. Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service circular. Number 2 is definitely not
in, that is language that came from somebody else. It's not in the cir-
cular. As far as the Type 2 all the way, Type 2 is not a controlled
wetland. It is only controlled in this ordinance. The DNR does not
control it and neither does the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Larry Smith - Types 1 and 2 are wetland types. I have Circular 39 in my
hand and Type 1 is a seasonally flooded basin or flat and there generally
are two breakdowns of that, one of which can be a plowed field that
gathers water in the spring momentarily and the other one is a river
flood plane that seasonally floods. Type 2 is what is called an inland
fresh meadow and to read the definition it says, the soil usually is
without standing water during most of the growing season but is water
logged within at least a few inches of the surface. Vegetation includes
grasses, rushes, and various plants. It goes on to say that meadows may
fill shallow lake basins, farmland sags or these meadows may border
shallow marshes. Wild hay is often cut.
Peter Beck - I think that's a definition that the Council should listen
to very carefully because we have suggested that the ordinance did not
cover that Type 2 so if that definition were put on paper in front of you
I think you would have a better chance to understand our objection as to
the problems that the ordinance.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-23-
Larry Smith - Although the Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction
over this particular area, generally where they do have jurisdiction they
do look at the values of Types 1 and 2 wetlands, not only Types 3,4,5 as
the state does.
Susan Conrad - In Circular 39 there is a very nice definition of wetlands
here that would may be more appropriate for that #6 and we will copy it
and pass it along to you.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.5, Permitted Uses in Class A Wetlands.
Councilman Geving - In the permitted uses, I don't see grazing anywhere.
Would that be a permitted use that should be added. We have growing and
harvesting of hay and crops. Pasture lands. I think it should be
included.
Al Klingelhutz - Two-thirds of the pastureland in Chanhassen is Class 2
wetlands.
Councilman Geving - I would like to include #9 as Grazing. I think
that's a term everyone understands. There was a comment that Mr. Vogel
made that I think we should spend a little time on. I believe, Dick, you
indicated you had an objection to item #6?
Dick Vogel - Not in the permitted uses. In the prohibited uses in Class
A wetlands #6. I was suggesting that they might be put in with the per-
mitted uses, #7 and #8 of the prohibited uses.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.6, Permitted Uses in Class B Wetlands.
Section 28.7, Prohibited Uses in Class A Wetlands. This is where we come
to items #7 and #8. Privately owned walkways and boardwalks, I am not
convinced that boardwalks would hurt wetlands. Maybe #8 would belong in
28.9.
Councilwoman Swenson - I thought we were going to cross reference docks
to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. If they are not permitted in one
why should they be permitted in the other.
Councilman Horn - Are we permitting them in the dock ordinance?
Councilwoman Swenson - If you had wildlife habitat, I could certainly see
by putting a dock in there with motor boats running in and out.
Mayor Hamilton - Just having a dock in there isn't and of itself going to
be detrimental.
Councilwoman Watson - Even if it could be cross referenced, couldn't it
appear in the permitted section as well.
Dick Vogel - I am speaking of a dock to get to open water. You are not
goTng to have the boat come way up to the land. The person that I talked
with at the DNR today said docks in a wetland or vegetation, the effect
is minimal.
Councilwoman Swenson - Actually what you are referring to is #8 not #7.
You are talking about privately owned permanent or seasonal docks I think
most people are discussing something that is in the water, that boats can
be docked to.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
Dick Vogel - At the end of the dock.
Councilwoman Swenson - You have got #8 which is privately owned walkways
and boardwalks, isn't that what you are referring to?
-24-
Dick Vogel - I am referring to both #7 and #8. In #7 you are prohibiting
anybody to put a permanent or seasonal dock over a wetland. That's the
way I read it.
Councilman Horn - I think the point is whether somebody is going to drive
their boat through the wetland because they have a dock there or whether
they are going to put their dock out beyond the wetland and put their
boat out there.
I
Henry Sosin - Let me explain the difference the committee felt between
public and private. I think a majority of the committee felt that if you
are going to build docks which will take motor craft and all the
attending activities of boats in a wetland or through a wetland, that's
going to be harmful. The reason that it was put in here so that the
City on public owned land could build a dock or boardwalk was for the
purpose of establishing a nature conservancy area, a nature study area,
if the City were to decide to do that. The impact of the City doing
this, one time, is minimal compared to the impact that might be incurred
if you were to allow private docks and boardwalks through wetlands
because the impact would be infinitely greater. That was the distinction
made between public and private. The public would be for public use for
public good.
Rick Murray - I don't see that as a public privilege. I think if a I
gentleman owns a wetland and he wants to get into it, he has as much
right as the public. This point about the docks was, it depends upon
where you call it a dock, Pat, and where you call it a boardwalk. It
would be a boardwalk across the wetlands. It would be a dock by the time
it got to the water and there are restrictions on how far into the water
and how long it can be. If you can't meet those restrictions then I
guess the Shoreland Ordinance would govern that he couldn't put that in.
Some of us on the committee felt that these two items should be permitted
uses. The Council still has the say.
Frank Kurvers - I fully don't understand, are we on water or are we on
the shore? I hear a lot of comments. You are either at on time on the
shore and the next time we are in the water. I think, first of all,
let's get this explained, are we on boggy land and we are putting a
boardwalk across that boggy land to get to the shore where there is good
land and then we will put another boardwalk to go over some more bad
land, is that what we are saying or are we saying we are going over
wetland, which is considered 2,3,4, whatever it is, and then we are going
to put a dock out to good water?
Henry Sosin - I think Frank just made the distinction. A dock is what we
normally think of as a dock going out into the lake. A boardwalk is the
same kind of a structure which is put into a wetland or through a I
wetland. If you have, he is talking about his own piece of ground. He
has got good ground right next to the lake with a sand beach. He could
build a dock out there without any trouble at all. Yet, on the inside of
that he has got a wetland and that's where the distinction would be bet-
ween the boardwalk and a dock.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 21, 1984
-25-
Frank Kurvers - In my case, that's correct, but we did cover some other
ground here, too. Rick brought up the other point where you would be out
on bogs to get out to the water but yet you are only allowed 50 feet to
get out there according to the other ordinance so really that man could
never get out there. I think the whole thing covers too much area. If
we are on land and on good land and we go out into the water that should
be a permitted use.
Mayor Hamilton - I agree. I think it's not clear exactly what we are
trying to accomplish.
Councilman Horn - If I remember back when we were discussing this on the
Derrick issue-and what I see written here was exactly what I interpret
our intent to have been at the time. I am perfectly willing to rethink
what our philosophy is on this issue but to me what's written here is
exactly what we as a Council were attempting to do on that issue.
Councilwoman Swenson - I agree.
Mayor Hamilton - I don't disagree with that either. I guess I see
Frank's point. If you have got some property and you put a dock out but
you can't get to the dock what good does that do you.
Dick Vogel - Let's go to some other lake in Chanhassen where one guy
owns a lot, but there is vegetation or wetland in front of that land. He
wants to put a dock out to get to the water. One owner, one dock. I
don't think he should be judged by the people that are upset with
Derrick. That's all he is wanting to do. He owns that lot. He maybe
paid a lot of money for it and he wants to go fishing or boating or wha-
tever he wants to do but the way this reads if there is a wetland in
front of that or there is vegetation, he can't put a dock out there.
Susan Conrad - The intention of our committee when we made some differen-
tiations here were based on what you just said about motors being what
endangers the wetlands not necessarily a structure and so we assumed that
if a dock is put out that it has a tendency to invite motors more than a
boardwalk would and we decided that an individual would do no harm or a
family living on a given lot, walking through the wetlands are not going
to hurt it. They can walk out and photograph. On public property where
there is a wetland we didn't want to see 50 school kids plowing through a
wetland. Therefore, we wanted a boardwalk out there and if there were to
be a dock, a public dock, that our intent was that there not be boats
there and not be motors there and that's where we were coming from in the
differentiation between the two.
Rick Murray - It still stands though, we never had any hard evidence that
one-pod every 12 or 15 feet is going to do much damage.
Councilwoman Swenson - Are you talking about over the land or in the
water?
Rick Murray - I am talking about over a swamp and where that swamp hap-
pens to lead to another piece of land or if it happens to lead to water.
~ Klingelhutz - I am kind of looking at Mr. Steller's property. He has
considerable amount of lakeshore on lake Lucy and I know for a fact that
he has wetland on all that lakeshore. To deny that man the right to an
access to Lake Lucy to me would be taking considerable amount of
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-26-
something which he has a right to, away from him. A boardwalk across
that wetland with one or two people walking out there and possibly a dock
in the lake so he can moor his boat and go fishing is no more detrimental I
to that lake than a person that has a good shore with a 60 HP motor and
water ski's behind it running out to a good piece of land. Why deny one
person that owns lakeshore and let the other person use it as much as he
pleases.
Court MacFarlane - I don't think the concern was the impact of one dock.
What happens when that land is subdivided into 100 foot lots and every-
body wants to put a dock out through there. Another point that I wanted
to bring up is that isn't the Surface Water Usage Ordinance based on the
ordinary high water mark as being the beginning point of the 50 foot of
dock? You have an ordinary high water mark on the north shore of Lake
Lucy too and I think it would be pretty hard to get a 50 foot dock.
Henry Sosin - I would like to make a distinction that we just started
here that wetlands that we are talking about are not the few cattails in
the water by good land. That's not considered wetland. We are talking
about significant wetlands that are above the high water mark but may be
adjacent to navigable waters where you would put a dock and maybe require
a boardwalk to get to it. That was what we are talking about.
Frank Kurvers - I have a neighbor that lives right next to me. He built
a house somewhere close to a million dollars and on that particular pro-
perty he has land that's low and he took a dock which they are con-
sidering a boardwalk and started on shore and went out about 35 feet into
the water. Now in the five years that he has lived there, there has I
never been more than two people on that dock. That dock, to me, I don't
think it harms one bit of Lotus Lake except what it did do for the City
of Chanhassen they pay $20,000 in taxes. I think if you would deny that
man five years ago that he couldn't install that dock he would never have
built that house there.
Councilman Horn - I think, too, in thinking back on these issues I think
we started ~on this with the Derrick property too is that what our
initial concern was about was the beachlot situation where you had
multiple uses by a lot of people and one of the concepts I had was that
if you had a development that had individual lots that ran down to the
lakeshore then each of those lots could be allowed its riparian rights
but I think one of the things that we looked at was this lake use ordi-
nance was the difference between that type of usage where you had maybe
two people would use the dock and something where you would have an 80
home development that used the dock. That was one of the restrictions
that we originally started out with on that lake use ordinance. It might
be relevant here too because the Derrick property did not start out as
individual lots going down to the lake, they started out with as a beach-
lot situation.
Mayor Hamilton - Can you, Roger, take the comments that have been made
and see if you can make a suggestion back to us.
Councilman Geving - Before he can do that he has got to take our own
individual comments on how we react to items 7 and 8. I think that's
very important.
Councilman Horn - I, personally, would not have much problem with board-
walks. I think the dock is a whole nother issue. I would have to
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-27-
wrestle with this before I would suggest that that be put into one of the
alternate, permit uses.
Councilwoman Swenson - I think this has to be a discretionary thing. In
your case, you have got a perfectly good sand beach.
Frank Kurvers - That's right. Where are you going to stop and where are
you going to start and that's what we are here for.
Councilwoman Watson - Do you want this in the uses that would require a
permit, is that what you are saying?
Councilwoman Swenson - I am opposed to docks in wetland areas. I would
be perfectly happy if someone would want to put a fishing dock. My con-
cern is the use of high powered boats and a lot of that other activity
that is a companion with docks and there is no way that we can control
that.
Councilwoman Watson - I guess I am opposed to a certain extent between
the individual rights and the public right. I think there are cir-
cumstances where a dock may not be detrimental. I agree it is going to
be very difficult to then monitor that dock but I think that everyone has
the right to bring their plan here and their circumstance and ask for
permission to put in a dock.
Councilman Geving - I think that item 28.7, #8 should be moved to 28.5
allowing the walkways and boardwalks in Class A and that item #7 priva-
tely owned permanent or seasonal docks should be removed from this 28.7
as prohibited use and put in to a permitted category in another part of
the ordinance.
Councilman Horn - Would that be done then on the individual level or on
the developer-Tevel?
Councilman Geving - I think it could go either way.
Councilman Horn - Would this be something that each individual homeowner,
let's say we-had a development come in, each individual homeowner then
would come and apply for a permit or the developer at the time he develo-
pes it would apply.
Councilman Geving - I don't think you can distinguish between either of
those people. You cannot distinguish between the developer and the per-
son who has a piece of property and has what he thinks is the right to
riparian rights. He has the right to come before the Council and we
would hear his case.
Mayor Hamilton - From my standpoint, I think item 28.7 and 28.8 I would
like to see them both moved to 28.9 where they can receive a permit.
Each individual case we are going to review.
Councilwoman Watson - I agree, on a permit basis.
Councilman Geving - I agree.
Councilwoman Swenson - I still think somewhere in here you should cross
reference the shoreland management.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-28-
Mayor Hamilton - I think it needs to be consistent.
Councilman Horn - I think if we were to do that it would have to have
some type of mechanism to say that the person cannot operate their boat I
in the wetlands adjacent to a lake. If they were going to have a boat
that it stays out beyond the wetlands and cannot encroach or cut a path.
I think that is Pat's concern.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.8 Prohibited Uses in Class B Wetlands.
Section 28.9 Activities Requiring a Wetland Alteration Permit.
Councilman Horn - I have a question on #7. How is that different from
the setbackr--Henry mentioned that the setback was described as 75 feet.
What's the difference between developing within 200 feet or the setback
of 75 feet?
Henry Sosin - The setback is where you can place a structure. It's like
the Shoreland Management Act. This defines an area adjacent to a wetland
where you have to give a permit to build because what you do even further
than 200 feet away from a wetland will affect the wetland. If you are
going to be that close then you have got to read this ordinance.
Rick Murray - If you are going to build a road within 200 feet of a
wetland you are going to have to get a permit.
Councilman Geving - I would strike the last phrase in #7 "that may affect
the quality or quantity of water flowing to the wetland".
Rick Murray - The 200 feet is not a setback it is an area within which I
you need to get a permit.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.10 Wetland Alteration Permit Standards.
This is really a touch section. It puts a tremendous burden on City
Staff. Do you (Bill) have or do you have access to the Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Runoff, Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and Technical Field Guide?
Bill Monk - Yes. Calculations in there are more of a guide. They
give some standards for runoff calculations, storage calculations,
erosion and sediment and that type of thing. The numbers can be
generated and they will work as guides. What would occur in develop-
ments, the onus of proof would be put back on the developer. The
development requirements to show that these minimums would be met
would be put back on the developer. The calculations are general in
nature and are subject to various interpretations. I can do the
calculations and have run calculations for Fox Hollow which is the B-T
Land proposal but whether they would stand up to scrutiny of experts
I don't know. I don't feel very confident that they would but they do
give some basic guidelines. I am concerned with these sections but
they are in the handbook and numbers can be generated from them but
for anybody to think that these are definitive and final numbers that
will allow one thing and not others is wrong. I don't believe that
they are that definitive. I want to make sure everyone understands
that. They do give guides and can be used for certain purposes.
Mayor Hamilton - It seems like we are asking to spend some time in
court with this particular section. If somebody does the calculations
and another party says I don't agree with your figures. The City
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-29-
would be putting ourselves in a position where we are just asking for
trouble and we would have a difficult time proving it.
Roger Knutson - How much variance would there be? Would it be
possible for experts to come out poles apart or are we talking
slightly apart?
Bill Monk - It could be a wide range. In my own mind this section
could-not have been used wholely to stop that situation (Derrick) or
other ones that could occur.
Henry Sosin - What calculations are better?
Bill Monk - I guess in all the time that I have spent thinking about
this ordinance and re-reading this section and all the sections I have
not come up with a set of calculations that can be used. These are
criteria that can be applied and try to set certain minimum standards
but are not absolutes. I have no absolute standards that can be put
to a piece of property that will come up verifiable numbers that no
one will ever be able to argue.
Henry Sosin - I think the committee realizes that these are not 100%
accurate. It's not like adding one and one and getting two but it was
the committee's impression that this was, first of all, widely
recognized, secondly, accepting, at least the agencies that proposed
this and use it, and third, was the best available data that we can
use.
Rick Murray - The consultant that we hired on Fox Hollow, did he pre-
pare a set of numbers for you or did you prepare the numbers?
Bill Monk - For Fox Hollow, detailed numbers such as these were not
generated in all categories. The ordinance was not in affect. We
went over the numbers. One of the calculations such as "Any filling
shall not cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to
fall below the projected volume of run-off", one of the big problems
that comes up in these wetlands that are adjacent to lakes, they have
no maximum. You can not apply that criteria to any of the wetlands
that flow directly into a lake which knocks out a tremendous number of
them. It knocks out Fox Chase, it knocks out Fox Hollow and all the
other ones that abut lakes because there are no limits. The lake is
basically the limit and it doesn't have a limit per se. I just want
to point out that even if I did meet with the developer's engineer and
we came to some conclusions, those conclusions would not be above the
scrutiny and contest of other people. I just want that known that
these are not numbers where you will get a 2 and I will be able to go
to court and say the answer is 2.
Councilman Horn - Might I suggest that Bill and Roger review this so
that Roger can-get a feel for just how subjective we are in this and
come back with a recommendation.
Henry Sosin - One of the problems that we have heard was that ordinan-
ces are not specific therefore they are wishy-washy and lead to many
ways of interpretation. This, at least gives criteria for someone to
look at. We think it's the best available that we have come up with.
It does allow for someone to read this and say, these people know what
they are doing and they are going to expect such and such and such.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-30-
Everybody agrees that one and one is not necessarily two when you use
these formulas but it is the best way to do it as far as we know.
Don Ashworth - The problem area that I have in this section, you only
have a few major developments each year and it's not that major sub-
division that had engineers on board that can provide calculations and
hopefully come up with how to measure that, my biggest concern is as a
zoning control that is going to apply to every parcel within the com-
munity and with 4,000 parcels and a lot of red up there we are
touching a lot of people. Those people don't have engineers. If Pat
is within 200 feet of a wetland, if Pat wants to do something in her
front yard she is going to be in here seeing if Bill could do those
calculations.
Henry Sosin - It's when someone wants a permit to alter wetlands that
these criteria apply.
Councilman Geving - What he is saying is that we don't know whether
the guidelines will apply to anyone of those 4,000 parcels at anyone
time. If a person comes in to City Hall, our engineer or somebody is
going to have to listen to him.
Don Ashworth - Who is going to handle each one of those for what I
will call the minor fills, the shed, the extension of a driveway, any
one of 100 different types of land use areas. If, today, Pat comes in
and wants to put dirt in her front yard, Bill can take a look at that
and authorize that or not. This says it comes back to City Council.
Roger Knutson - In 28.11, if someone wants to come in they have to
supply the information.
Don Ashworth - I am saying that for all those residential lots out
there we could be adding a lot of burden to those people who for some
very minor types of improvements on their property and I am
questioning that. I am asking the question. There must be some means
by which to make this a little easier in those instances.
Frank Kurvers - I don't see anything in the ordinance that takes care of
other people's water from running into your wetlands. You are proposing
that individual has a wetland and the neighbors water runs into that
wetlands and there is nothing in here that gives any kind of a credit for
that. I don't think that I should absorb the neighbors water and fill up
my wetland and then get no type of credit for that because I am doing a
service for someone else.
Mayor Hamilton - How about the water from Eden Prairie?
Rick Murray - To the extent that neighbors within 200 feet of your
wetlands but that also reflects on Donis concern about those 4,000 par-
cels. We are talking about parcels that just aren't in red but parcels
that are within 200 feet of the red as well.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.11 Wetland Alteration Permit Procedures.
Section 28.12 Time of Permit - Extension and Renewals.
Councilman Geving - I kind of like the idea of limiting the completion of
the wetland alteration within one year. The reason why I say that, many
of the things that we have done throughout our ordinances usually are
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-31-
completed within one year. We have a way of turning over a Council in
the matter of a two year period, if a person would come in on the cycle
you could have possibly have some new Council Members. I think you will
find to review things that we have done in hooking up the sewer and water
and lots of other things, once we give them a permit, generally it is for
one year and it's generally sufficient. After one year we are looking
for that individual to complete the action or come back to us and get an
extension. I would recommend one year.
Bill Monk - Could this be written in such a way that it would be subject
~ny other approvals that the Council might make. I am thinking that
it might be inconsistent with a development contract.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.13 Inspection. Section 28.14 Responsibility:
Affect. Section 28.15 General Regulations.
Councilman Geving - General Regulations, I don't know why but I kind of
like the words, General Development Regulations, does that make any sense
to you? On Section 28.15.
Mayor Hamilton - In 28.15 General Regulations, it is very specific.
There would be no latitude for the Council to act. If somebody comes in
with a proposal for a lot of less than 15,000 square feet, for example,
there is no room to discuss it. You deny it. It is very restrictive.
It takes away any control that the Council did have to make a decision.
Roger Knutson - It could theoretically come under the variance.
Mayor Hamilton - Then if you come under the variance provision you would
have to have an amendment to the ordinance so we are back to the same
problem. You are not going to get a variance.
Roger Knutson - You can get a variance without amending the ordinance
under 28.17. What you can't do is you can't get certain types of varian-
ces. You can't get a variance, for example, to prohibit docks. To can't
get a variance to allow a dock without changing the ordinance. That kind
of a variance requires an amendment to the ordinance but an amendment to
standards are theoretically possible in 28.17.
Mayor Hamilton - How easy is it going to be to get a variance passed?
Councilman Horn - Not very easy at all. The same as it is now. How many
times have we given variances to 15,000 square foot lot size?
Mayor Hamilton - Not very often.
Councilman Horn - I don't think it's that hard. It's no harder than it
is now by t~ordinance.
Roger Knutson - The basic purposes of variance is to prevent an unconsti-
tutional taking of property.
Councilwoman Swenson - What happens if you have got somebody within the
200 feet who has a piece of lakeshore property on which they are paying
considerable taxes and I think maybe they would have to build a 20 foot
wide house if they could they would have to get a variance to the road, I
am trying to figure out how they could get a house on there. What would
we do? We would have a variance according to our existing structures
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-32-
because we could see a definite hardship. This is one specifically that
I know of. I guess maybe I would have to rethink this one real hard
because I can see it as a general type but I think we are going to run I
into situations that are really going to be a taking because we would
definitely be excluding this piece of property.
Henry Sosin - You are talking about a single lot that's less than 15,000
square feet?
Councilwoman Swenson - They have 15,000 square feet but they would have
difficulty with the 75 foot setback.
Frank Kurvers - You are guided by the shoreland management classification
in all things that are done on any lake. There is no variance to the
shoreland management classification so if you are going to put something
in you are going to have to put it in now and it has to be in the Zoning
Ordinance because the only way you can get a variance, as far as the
shoreland management classification, is amend the Zoning Ordinance.
That's the only way. There is no other way. You are talking about that
lot that you want to let someone build on but there is no way the City
Council can give them permission under the shoreland management classifi-
cation as it exists.
Al Klingelhutz - I think Pat was referring to lots that are already in
existence. I happen to own one of those lots. It's a half acre but the
depth between the highway and the lake is only 122 feet so I have a 30
foot front yard setback and a 75 foot lake front setback and what have I
got left? The assessor, two years ago, has the lot assessed at $68,000. I
I got a sewer assessment on it. If you take that right away from me to
build a house on that lot, either I am going to lose an awful lot of
money or I am going to have to go to court and ask for compensation. I
will be sure I will go to court.
Henry Sosin - That's what I understand this hardship variance clause
could do if someone can't make the specification on the setback or
something that's where they come to Council, isn't that correct?
Roger Knutson - What this doe~ in part it dovetails into the regular
variance provision in the City ordinance. You have to meet the criteria
in the ordinance which are rigorous. They are designed to be rigorous
and designed not to be handed out willy-nilly. You can't give a variance
without amending the ordinance to a prohibited use. There is no such
thing as a use variance. As far as standard lot size, widths, setbacks,
and that, at least in theory it can always be granted a variance.
Henry Sosin - That's the purpose of putting that in there for the indivi-
dual who already has a lot that doesn't quite meet specifications.
Bill Monk - The question with this section and I had always thought was
just a restating of requirements that are already in. If it is, my
suggestion might be, would be to look at deleting it so that you wouldn't
get into the confusion of adding variances in a different ordinance.
Roger Knutson - The only thing where this differs is the mitigative
features. Does this mean that normally I would not meet the criteria for
a variance for whatever reason, an economic hardship for example which
does not entitle you to a variance, but by sufficient mitigative features
so that I am not doing any harm, I am rebuilding a wetland someplace
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-33-
else, I can get a variance anyway. If that's the case and that's the
intent then this variance procedure is different. We could spell out the
difference maybe a little better by just saying a variance is possible
under the'regular variance procedures and in addition to that criteria
consideration will be given to the mitigative factors.
Councilwoman Swenson - This particular property isn't on a wetland, I am
talking about the 200 feet that Don was referring to. It's independent
of the wetland but it would come within the 200 foot range.
Henry Sosin - The intent of the committee was that if the !ouncil is
going to grant a permit to alter a wetland that goes beyond the general
standards of allowance that you might consider, on special occasions,
allowing a person to do that if there are positive mitigative things done
within the same watershed district.
Roger Knutson - You are saying that you would allow a variance even
though it would not otherwise be allowed under the regular variance pro-
cedure of the City Ordinance, maybe, if you have these mitigating cir-
cumstances.
Henry Sosin - Let's say someone has to fill more than he should fill in
this particular wetland on this side in order to make a piece of property
usable but in order to do that, in order to allow him to do that he is
going to increase the size of the wetland on the opposite side, something
like that. Make up for it in some other way.
Mayor Hamilton - The next item is 28.16 Wetland Credit. Number 4 in
28.15, lowest ground floor elevation: 3 feet above the highest known
water level.
Bill Monk - I thought it was two.
Councilman Geving - I have got a note here that says, to be changed.
Bill Monk - I will have to confirm that.
Henry Sosin - The number came from the flood plane laws.
Mayor Hamilton - Wetland Credit, 28.16, I wish somebody could clarify
this. I think Bill has an example to show us how these credits might
wo rk.
Councilman Geving - Is it possible that that kind of illustration could
be built into item #1 also.
Bill Monk - All I did was put together a 'sketch of my interpretation of
what was-being proposed. I took a very simple example, a 100 acre square
and put on there a 20 acre wetlands. The current ordinance density range
100 acres at 2.2 to 3.4 units per acre which is our residential density
comes out to 220 to 340 dwelling units on this site. Proposed density
using wetlands criteria would be the usable space outside the wetlands
which is 80 acres at 2.2 to 3.4 units per acre plus 20 acres which is
wetlands in this case at 25% credit of the same density. When you go
through these calculations you come up with a minimum density 187 and a
maximum of 289. I think the reason for this illustration is just to
point out the difference between current and proposed and that the 25%
can have an affect and the major numbers here are 340 versus the 289.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-34-
This is my interpretation of what's in the ordinance. If it's not right,
say so now but this is how I interpret it. The major number is the maxi-
mum number of units. It's the 340 going down to 289. There is a net
reduction and what I wanted to make sure everybody understood was that I
this wetlands credit was not reducing that 340 to some number higher.
Good, bad or indifferent, that's how the ordinance is written.
Merrill Steller - Let's take my property for example, I am in an
unsewered area, does this wetlands credit apply to unsewered areas and
well as sewered areas?
Henry Sosin - The way it's written in the ordinance, sure, it would apply
to anything within the City.
Merrill Steller - My area is entitled to lot sizes of 2i acres. Out of a
50 acre piece they would take 20 acres, now is that going to enable me to
reduce the minimum lot size from 2l acres to somewhat less than that, is
that what a wetland credit is?
Councilman Geving - Yes, in affect that is what would happen because you
would get more density in that available land that you could build on.
Merrill Steller - I could, instead of 2i, I could build on 2 acre lots,
whatever it would work out.
Councilman Geving - If it doesn't work that way then he gets no credit
but he is giving up the wetlands.
~ Monk - To give you an example of a case in point, when you build you
can put up between, in that instance, 220 to 340 units, there are other
circumstances beyond the wetlands that will, one is the overall lot size
and setbacks and all kinds of different things. In that particular case
you may not even get to the 220 units on that parcel. All the ordinance
is saying is that it's allowable for you to go up to 340 and if you want
to come in with a different type of dwelling unit, that maybe you can
start to approach that but our ordinance as it is set up right now does
not say that you can waive your square footage and get 340 units on a
parcel of land. That's all part of the PUD process and how many lots you
actually end up with on any piece of land. These calculations may not
look right. This is what the ordinance says. I am not going to argue
it's one way or the other but this is what is down here. A case in
point, pick on B-T Land and Fox Hollow. Their latest addition is 47.5
total acres. 31.7 acres in lots and streets and 15.8 acres in wetlands.
The allowable density range based on current is 104 to 161, it's a wide
range but that's what is allowed. The allowable density based on the
proposed wetlands ordinance is 78 to 121. When they actualy came in ori-
ginally with the townhouses they had 140 units. Not allowable under the
proposed. That was downsized recently with a revised plan to 95 but you
can see that the 95 doesn't even reach the minimum allowable for that
site so, no, our ordinances do not allow for downsizing of lots to get to
these minimums and maximums and that currently is the way that things are
done.
Merrill Steller - Where does the landowner get the credit for the
wetlands that are taken away from them?
Councilman Horn - In effect what you are saying he gets five acres worth
of units for-that.
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-35-
Bill Monk - In essence what you have to say is that the credit as proposed
rs-a downing or a reduction in what's allowable under current ordinances.
Don Ashworth - You have different development standards. What Bill is
talking about is a planned unit development where you have an overall
parcel, you are allowed 2.2 or 3.4 units per acre. That means that
regardless of whether there is a wetland or not you can put on that total
number of units. By putting through the credit portion as it is shown it
actually reduces then the total number of allowable units. I think the
opposite would actually work in your case Merrill, where the ordinance
says they be 2i acre lots and that's the base zoning and so in that case
he would be allowed for 80 acres 2i units plus he would get a credit then
for the base zoning for this section so that he would actually reduce or
have more lots in this section. It may come down to two acres. The same
thing would apply where it would not fall under a planned unit develop-
ment. If it is a straight zoning where it's just a small lot subdivision
that requires the 15,000 square feet. In that case the individual would
actually be able to reduce from the 15,000 square feet because he would
receive a credit for this section but in a planned unit development it
actually works just the reverse.
Councilman Horn - But Don, in our unsewered area ordinance doesn't every
lot have to~e 2i acres? I you would have a portion of each of those
lots be a chunk of that wetland, theoretically you could have the same as
100 acres but if it's shaped like that there is no way that you could do
that.
Don Ashworth - I read that, it says that you get a credit to the
underline zoning. In the case of the unsewered area it's 2i acres. You
are getting a credit to that 2i acres which means you could go down to
potentially the two acres.
Mayor Hamilton - How did you come up with the 25%?
Court MacFarlane - It is based on comparitive values of the land. What's
the value of an acre of wetland as compared to an acre of good buildable
land and the only criteria we had to go on is what came out of the
assessor's office.
Myrna Kurvers - The 1akeshore land, well, you just did it on farm land.
There's a big difference.
Court MacFarlane - We looked at 1akeshore too.
Frank Kurvers - I would like to have him go over a clustered development
which is done on the lake. There is a lot of difference there too, from
a PUD and an ordinary 15,000 square foot lot. You get in all kinds of
different ramifications as to how you arrive at a density when you give
credit for wetlands because under the DNR regulations they are different.
Clustered development is different. It starts with the base zoning and
then they have a tier which goes back up to 1,000 feet so I would like to
have him explain how this ordinance is going to work on a tier develop-
ment and what type of credit because that's a whole different ball of wax
again and even Mr. Steller's would come under that same caretory. There
is another type of development which is called cluster development which
comes under the DNR regulation under the shore1and management act.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-36-
Roger Knutson - The shoreland management act refers to planned unit deve-
lopments in allowing for smaller lots in planned unit developments.
Bill Monk - It was handled the same as the PUD because our clusters are
~handled under the PUD.
Frank Kurvers - It's different. Each tier is different. Each tier you
get different types of densities.
Bill Monk - It was my understanding that when B-T Land cam in with the
eight-plexes, cluster housing, it was handled the exact same as if it
were single family. Just that it was over 24 units it was a PUD. They
are no different in our ordinances.
Court MacFarlane - We are trying to be fair but at the same time we
didn't want to see some situation happen where there was an artificial
increase in the value of what is actually there. If you give to much
density credit for the wetlands that are there then you are actually
artificially increasing the value of those wetlands beyond what they
really should be.
~ Klingelhutz - Take a 20 acres track and you have got 10 acres of
wetland and ten acres of good land to build on and you give that density
transfer to that piece of property, it's going to make some awful small
lots. Wouldn't it be better if the wetlands are so valuable for open
space and regeneration of the water to use some of that as a park fee on
the building permit rather than have 100 homes on a ten acre tract?
Mayor Hamilton - It's something that we have done in the past.
Roger Knutson - It's in there.
Councilman Geving - That's the one part of this whole wetlands credit
thing that I have the most problem with. I don't have any problem with
item #1 or item #2 but we worked awful hard to develop the park land dedi-
cation fee to build up and develop our park lands through residential
credit, charge for residential houses and charge for industrial and com-
mercial and it's the only way that we can capture either land or funds to
develop a park in a residential area. I personally would like to see.
this not be included in here but be included where it properly belongs as
it has always been at the time that the permit was taken out we charge a
park dedication fee. I don't believe it belongs in this ordinance.
Councilwoman Swenson - I understand where you are coming from with the
parks but I really feel very, I think all of us do, I don't think there
is anybody in this room that isn't interested in the preservation of
wetlands and water quality which I am sorry to say is not mentioned in
here and I think it ought to be because I think this really is directed
mostly towards it, I think this is really equally important because if
our future generations don't have this that this is directed towards, the
parks aren't going to do an awful lot of good if we don't have drinking
water.
Councilman Geving - We are going to give them credit for the wetlands
that they cannot develop on so those are going to be preserved anyway.
My thinking is that we should withhold the park land dedication fee at
permit time and keep that to develop that park.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-37-
Councilman Horn - Are you suggesting that we don't give a wetland credit
for the par~dication fee?
Councilman Geving - You bet. Still charge 100% just like we do right
now. I want to see item #3 deleted from this ordinance.
Susan Conrad - I know what you are saying. This particular item came
from Jack Mauritz and it's only a third option. It doesn't necessarily
mean that it's a given.
Councilman Geving - I understand that. I think we also ought to
understand that none of these are given. That the Council should be able
to decide that no credit is applicable in any given case. Item #1, if
the 25% goes with this ordinance, that the developer may receive that
credit. Item #2, is an and/or situation to me. He may also receive item
#2 in addition to #1 or he may only get #2 and not #1. I may be far
apart from most of you people out there in your thinking but that's how I
feel. Each of these have to be looked at individually. The Council will
decide whether to give you no credit or 5% credit or 100% along with den-
sity credit transfer and in the third case, to remove the park dedication
fee.
Councilman Horn - I don't think we can be that arbitrary. I think we
should have~spe11ed out in here. Based on what criteria would you
allow density credits?
Councilman Geving - I think 25% is fair. I think 100% is more than fair
in the second item. To allow a person 100% density transfer for putting
a pond on their land which they would probably be forced to do anyway and
still give them 100% is more than fair.
~ K1inge1hutz - But you are using good land to put in that ponding.
Councilman Geving - That could be true.
~ K1inge1hutz - You are saying it's up to the Council's discretion to
give you either one of these and if we get a Council in here that says
no, you don't get anyone of them, what do we get?
Rick Murray - I understand what Dale is saying. If I could explain a
little bit of where I was thinking that this density credit was coming
from. It's not an awful lot different than the range you have up there
of the 2.2 to 3.4. The applicant still has to prove that he can reaso-
nably use, he may never get to the 2.2 if he can't reasonably use it on
his site which Bill shows as a mimimum. It may be that he can't reaso-
nably use 25% credit or the 100% credit but I did feel in all fairness
that if he was going to be giving up a section of his property for the
public good and benefit of the community that he was going to get
something. That's why there were three options and if he couldn't reaso-
nably use either #1 or #2 that there was a third option that everybody
pays.
Councilman Geving - I think the difficult part for a Council would be to
know when to apply those options if there is no set rule.
Mayor Hamilton - Number one and number two are the primary and number
three is to be used only if one and two do not apply.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-38-
Councilman Horn - Right.
Councilman Geving - Are you saying "and/or" or just "or"?
Henry Sosin - The committee did this thinking that that is what the
Council asked for at prior meetings. It gives you total discretion as to
what to do.
I
Councilman Horn - Or.
Rick Murray - Would it be possible to give #1 and #2 because you are
giving up good buildable ponding land so that your development doesnlt
impact that wetlands which is there for the community?
Mayor Hamilton - That can be worded that way.
Councilman Geving - You can give #1 and you can give #2 or you can give
#3. In a particular case you could give all three.
Councilwoman Swenson - Al, do you have any idea of how many ago people
are enrolled in the State Water Bank Program or are listed as protected
wetlands?
~ Klingelhutz - I have no idea.
Dick Vogel - I donlt there are very many.
Councilwoman Swenson - It seems to me that really if you have a protected
land that is being set aside like that and you are exempt from building
on it, it is still not a total loss because whoever owns it is eligible
for these wetlands either from a tax standpoint or from a state bank
program.
I
Dick Vogel - I think with that water bank it has to be land that could be
drained but you choose not to and that's why the state buys it. It canlt
be a bottom land where the water all drains in.
Merrill Steller - Am I to understand that you may not get any wetlands
credit or is it up to the Council IS discretion whether you get 5%, 50% or
are you saying that you should get 25% under that first item?
Councilman Geving - The only thing I added to what has been placed here
is that it does say in the fourth line down that you may receive credit
by any of the methods listed below. One, you would get the 25% and at
the end of one, place the word "and II. You would get number 2 which
would be 100% density transfer credit for any ponding and at the end of 2
put the word Ilor" and the or involves the reserve of receiving park land
dedication credit.
Merrill Steller - I understand what you are saying but what I am saying
is in item one, receive a credit of 25%, why not spell it out.
Councilman Geving - "May" is the way it is written now. That "may"
should now be changed to "will". Will receive credit by any of the
methods listed below.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-39-
Susan Conrad - I have a feeling that you can't say 25%, you have to say
up to 25% because there may be a case where after receiving 100% credit
for the upland pond that you have created such extreme density in the
remaining area that 25% is going to overburden the land. I think that to
say, up to, gives the Council better leverage in that instance, to be
reasonable.
Merrill Steller - It doesn't give the landowner anything.
Rick Murray - I think you could say what we said and add the reasonable-
ness clause into the 25%.
Councilman Geving - The reason that I said what I said, Susan, the first
option is the one that you- took second. You turned it around. We have to
apply the first credit, the 25%, up to 25% and then go to the 100%. I
don't know the significance of the words "up to" will mean. When do you
apply this? That's when you get into a problem.
Mayor Hamilton - That gives us the leverage we apparently wanted so that
we can look at each case individually and determine how much credit should
be given which is exactly what has been done in the past.
Henry Sosin - It's possible that someone would develop a PUD which I
understand gives a developer the widest latitude of putting on the land
what he wants to do and gives Council that same latitude. There may be a
small wetland in part of this area and because of what you are doing in
the rest of the PUD and what other arrangements in the development
contract you make, the Council may decide that there should be no credit
given for that small wetlands or you may want to give him maximum credit
but the idea was, the way it was written now was let it give flexibility.
~ K1inge1hutz - When you say up to 25%, the 1andower has no guarantee
then of any kind of a transfer. It would be up to the Council to say, we
will give you zero percent, five percent or ten percent.
Mayor Hamilton - Right.
Councilman Geving - What guarantee was the 100% of the ponding?
~ K1inge1hutz - I think the way you have it worded, it could work out
because if you had a density transfer that was so heavy you could go into
#3 and lessen that density transfer but at least the landowner or deve-
loper would know that he was going to get something out of it.
Mayor Hamilton - I think we have always been fair.
Dick Vogel - This is another matter. Back in the permitted uses in Class
A Wetlands, Dale brought in grazing before and we thought we had
everything in there. They allow reti1ing property that is tiled. Some
people had used ditches that were there to let water drain out of a low
spot. Would that be permissible? That is not in here. It says you can
repair existing drain tile. What if a person had a ditch, could he clear
that ditch out without getting a permit? He has been using the land but
the ditch is slowly filling in and he wants to clear that out instead of
having tile.
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-40-
Frank Kurvers - If a person had a drainageway and you would pond a little
bit in the drainageway and put in a little rip rap and you would go all
through the process and you would eventually end up in the lake, you would
do something for that entire wetland. If you couldn't ditch that or clean I
out the ditch that is already there, none of that that you would do ahead
of time would do any good at all. It think ditch should be in there
because you can accomplish the whole mission.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.17, Variances. The question here is should we
have or do we need to have a variance process within this type of
ordinance.
Roger Knutson - I think we need to say something about the mitigative
affects. The rest of it is referenced back to the variance procedure in
the ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.18, Enforcement. Section 28.19 Severability.
Section 28.10 Penalty.
Roger Knutson - That should be increased to $700.
Mayor Hamilton - How long before we can have this back?
Roger Knutson - I can have mine drafted and to City Hall in about 10 days.
I will meet with Bill some day this week.
Mayor Hamilton - I would like it on the agenda for June 18th.
TAX FORFEITED LAND: I
COUncilman Geving - I didn't realize the significance of that property
(parcel #7, tax forfeit property) until it was actually sold at the public
sale. A number of the homeowners in the Carver Beach area were interested
in the piece of land because if was 100' by 100' and it was in a neigh-
borhood that they wanted to preserve next to the tot lot. They went to
the public sale and the homeowners did not bid enough. The piece of land
went for far more than what they thought it was worth and a contractor
bought the piece of land for $2,400 or something like that and came to
City Hall and apparently was told that it was a buildable lot and the
homeowners became pretty incited when they found out that a contractor
bought this. If you look at a map of Carver Beach you will see that this
piece of property can set a very dangerous precedent for that whole area.
Those lots are very long and every person out there could split their lot
in two and have a lot facing a paper street and have it buildable if we
were to extend sewer and water and street. Homeowners sent in a petition
several weeks ago, I am sure each of us got a copy of it. I am very con-
cerned about that lot and now I understand they are staking that lot. I
don't know if someone has allowed for a building permit to be issued but
if that's true or if nothing has happened, I would like at this point to
alert the City and the Council that we ought to take a real hard look at
this Carver Beach parcel #7, tax forfeited land sale.
Bill Monk - I did not say the lot was buildable. I did state a number of I
things-that would have to be done before the lot could be made buildable
namely extension of the sewer and water and street. I am taking a look at
that as part of this recertification and the way I am leaning right now is
that I will be recommending to the Council at the hearing that the
assessment as it was originally levied, an area assessment, not be
relevied and by not relevying it that the City would then be in a position
to not issue a building permit.
I
I
I
Council Meeting May 21, 1984
-41-
Don Ashworth - We did not issue any type of a permit. In fact the oppo-
site is true. We sent the owner a letter saying that he would have to
approach the City Council if he wanted to seek buildability status.
SEWER AND WATER ORDINANCE, FINAL READING:
Councilman Horn - My concern again is with the intent of limiting our
water usage-and to me if our intent for a sprinkling ban is to limit water
usage we ought to be consistent. If people can't wash their cars in dri-
veways then a commercial car wash facility should have the same restric-
tion put on them.
Don Ashworth - Very few communities will take away a mans right to earn a
livelyhood.
Bill Monk - I don't even know what mechanism you can use to shut down a
business. This is a very basic attempt to slow down misuse of water. I
think it would take a different setup to restrict businesses from using
water.
Roger Knutson - Lots of manufacturing use a lot more water than any car
wash.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve Sanitary Sewer Ordinance #5 and Water
System Ordinance #6. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and
Watson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried.
FEES FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT, LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR: Councilman Geving
moved-rQ approve the service-aQreement in the amount of $5,000. Motion
seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and
Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager