1984 06 25
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 25, 1984
Mayor ProTem Swenson called the meeting to order.
with the Pledge to the Flag.
The meeting was opened
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
Mayor Hamilton came late
Member Absent
Councilman Geving
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Roger Knutson
Jim Thompson, Planning Commission
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda with
the following additions: Ordinance #5 and Regional Transit Board
Appointment. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in
favor: Mayor ProTem Swenson, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were deleted from the consent agenda:
b. Approve Final Plat, Construction Plans and Specifications and
Development Contract for Fox Hollow, B-T Land Company.
d. Amendment to Ordinance #62, Adopting the Uniform Fire Code, First
Reading.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pur-
suant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. One Day Beer License (July 10) and Wine License Request, Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum Foundation.
c. Approve Resolutions Authorizing Filing of Application and Execution
of Agreement:
1. Lake Ann Boat Access. RESOLUTION #84-30.
2. South Lotus Lake Park. RESOLUTION #84-31.
Motion seconded by Mayor ProTem Swenson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor ProTem Swenson, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
FINAL PLAT, CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
FOR FOX HOLLOW: Rick Murray was-present.
Bill~nk - Mrs. Hulett, who lives to the north of Fox Hollow plat and it
was-discussed in some detail about furnishing access to that property.
One of the reasons that an outlot was platted in the northwest corner of
the property and Mrs. Hulett raised the point that by the leaving of the
outlot it does not give them any access guarantee in the near future. In
talking with Rick Murray of B-T Land it looks like by adding one item to
the developer agreement whereby we state, if this plat is finalized and if
the construction of Fox Hollow takes place that a mutually agreeable loca-
tion for that right-of-way would be designated so that if the City was to
receive a petition from the landowner to the north, we could actually have
that right-of-way platted for access if that was prior to the developer's
platting of the outlot. It does protect all the landowners and was just
brought to our attention today. I would recommend that all items be
approved with the addition that such a provision be put in the development
contract. That a right-of-way would be designated so if the property to
the north was platted prior to the outlots subdivision that a mutually
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-2-
agreeable right-of-way would be in place. This is not for construction of
the road or for any other item other than to designate right-of-way.
Rick Murray - I guess my feelings on this was we were going to leave the I
area blank in our plat where we could work out an access to the property
to the north but if for any reason our plat didn't get platted or filed or
didn't sell any lots or construction wasn't feasible, we don't want to be
forced to put a road in to provide someone who we feel right now maybe has
some reasonable access to their property, if our development wasn't
feasible to go through and be forced to put it in and I think what Bill is
saying says that.
Bill Monk - We would condition it upon those items, construction of his
development. It would be conditioned upon 1) the platting of the property
and 2) the construction of his addition so that he wouldn't have to pro-
vide access across a piece of property that wasn't built on.
Rick Murray - I would like to see that limited to the east 50 feet if
that's possible. That's where we designed it for in your sketches.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat, construction plans and
specifications and development contract for Fox Hollow with the addition
that an easement be granted through Outlot A for the property owner imme-
diately adjacent to the north. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson.
The following voted in favor: Mayor ProTem Swenson, Councilman Horn and
Councilwoman Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 62, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, FIRST READING:
Councilman~orn - It looked like there might be some potential impact on
structures that are already in existence, for instance, the section where
it talks about having barbeques and things like that on balconies. Does
that affect our existing apartment buildings? What impact is this going
to have on any existing structure in Chanhassen? Would there be ramifica-
tions to some of our existing buildings?
I
Mayor Hamilton came at this point in the meeting.
Councilman Horn moved to table action on this item until questions can be
answered by the Fire Marshal. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
RECERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX FORFEITED LANDS
Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. The following interested per-
sons were present:
Francis Trinka, 10670 North Shore Road, Waconia
James Gerharter, Attorney representing Rollie Carpenter, Dixie Harrell
and Allan Carpenter
Bill Monk - Thirteen parcels in the City went tax forfeit recently. The I
County did hold a public sale of those lands. As they go tax forfeit and
they are sold whatever monies that are received go first towards the
county's bookkeeping and expenses and the rest of the money is put forward
to payoff any outstanding special assessments and that has been done. Of
those 13 parcels, one was not sold. It went to the State and basically
drops out. There are 12 parcels that were remaining. Of those 12, it is
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-3-
proposed at this time to recertify, which is allowed by State Law, five of
those properties and that is shown in page 2 of your packet. There is no
interest or penalty proposed to be assessed. State Law seems to be quite
explicit about that cannot be done so the original assessments, in most
cases, minus the money that came from the County are proposed. I will try
to give the Council a brief rundown on my thinking on all 13 parcels, why
I am not proposing to re-assess parcels that were originally assessed
because I believe they do not derive benefit from the improvements that
were originally put in. The five parcels are Lots 2527-2529, Lots
3191-3192, Lots 648-650, Lots 583-584, Lots 564-568, Carver Beach. Many
of those, it is proposed just to relevy the area charge since they were
not big enough to build on and still are not big enough to build on. That
area charge was $200 per lot.
Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak
about any parcels?
James Gerharter - I am here to represent Rollie Carpenter, Allan
Carpenter, and Dixie Harrell. The parcels of land that they own are Lots
648-650, 2527-2529, 583-584, 564-568 and also .96 A in Lot 3, Section 5,
Township 116, Range 23. I understand that that particular parcel will not
be assessed. I had a conversation with the City Engineer this afternoon.
I guess that would be assessed at $4,724 and already $4,874.95 has been
applied to that so that there would be a refund of $152.95. When my
clients bought these properties they were told by the County Auditor,
Richard Stolz, that these properties were being, that they were taken off
and the assessments were suspended so that they could be sold and so that
they could be put back on the tax rolls and that they had not been on the
tax rolls for years. It is his understanding, my clients understanding
that any monies that they paid would go to the assessments but that the
assessments would be suspended. I am not familiar with the factual
situations since this is my first orientation with it but I have made a
little review of the law on this particular subject and I think it's clear
that the assessments are contrary to the State Law. Basically, what the
law states is that you can make special assessments on property if that
property is benefitted by the improvements for which the assessments are
made. However, you have to show in order to do that that the property has
been benefitted by those improvements in an amount at least equal to the
assessments. In this particular situation four of the properties that we
are talking about, they were valued by the County at $50 per parcel and
yet they are being assessed anywhere from $400 to $760. Their value is
worth about $50. It was appraised a short time ago at $50, therefore, the
assessment is grossly excessive of the value that those improvements. made
to that particular property and is such is contrary to a long line of
rulings by the Minnesota Supreme Court. For these reasons, I would
request that you not assess those properties and I would also say I have
talked to my clients and they have told me that if those properties are
assessed that they will appeal this decision to the District Court and
that they will also ask that they be reimbursed for their costs and dis-
bursements in bringing that action before the court.
Mayor Hamilton - Would anyone else like to speak about the re-assessment?
Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-4-
RECERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX FORFEITED LANDS:
Councilman Horn ~This is the same procedure that we have used in the
past?
Bill Monk - We have never had tax forfeiture property before. I believe I
this rs-the first tax forfeiture that has occurred in Carver County as a
matter of fact. The property has to go tax delinquent for five years.
This project occurred in 1976/1977. In the cases that gentleman was just
referring to, all those assessments were area charges and I don't know if
any of the present Council Members were on the Council then but all excess
property, land owned by somebody who owned a house there or any property
along the improvements was assessed an area charge. It's unusual. It was
seen that that property did have a benefit if it was sold to adjacent pro-
perties or owned by people who already had houses along the improvements
and it was done, I think, to put some incentive on people to try to get
property to develop it or sell it to people who already lived along there.
Four of the cases that gentleman was discussing are those type of area
charges and in those cases they were along the route of the improvements.
I am not going to say the original area assessments were incorrect so I am
saying they should be re1evied.
Councilwoman Swenson - Do I understand that on Parcels 2 and 5 that the
property is not buildable?
Bill Monk - Parcel 2 is three lots grouped together and under existing
ordinances would not be eligible for a building permit as it stands right
now. Parcel 5 is also three lots and would not, without a variance, be
eligible. That is the reason it did not get a full unit assessment but
instead was charged the area charge. That was how the Council decided to I
charge the properties at that time. What I have done is gone through and
looked and those parcels that were not along the improvements, I have said
that we should not assess because I don't see how they could benefit at
all. That these properties are along the improvements and the improved
street but they are not buildable without a variance as they stand right
now.
Councilwoman Swenson - Are they consistent with any other lot that we have
given variances to for construction?
Bill Monk - No. They are about 2,000 square feet.
Councilwoman Swenson - Number 13, we have a different situation there.
Obviously it would appear that we have sufficient size here.
Bill Monk - The size is sufficient. What I looked at on 13 and perhaps I
shou1~ve gone into that a little bit more. Thirteen has sewer and
water available in Fir Tree and water along Highway 7. When I looked at
that and I looked at the residences around it, the access situation which
is controlled on Highway 7, I could not come to grips with how we had
assessed it for two units. My recommendation is to down that to one unit
until such time as development plan might come in to build it up to two
and we would then handle it as a connection charge. At this point I think
we should reduce it down to one full unit which would be $4,724.00. There I
is room but it did not seem to me to meet the criteria of depth and
access. It really has only 20 foot of frontage where an access drive
could come off of Fir Tree. You can not access off of Highway 7.
Councilwoman Swenson - I find it difficult to assess somebody for an
unbui1dab1e lot but I think 13 is a justifiable assessment.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-5-
Roger Knutson - What happens when property is forfeited is not only the
special assessments need attention, all the back taxes need attention and
the County does not just use it to payoff special assessments. They
distribute it to the County and to the School District and a little bit
comes to the City to reimburse us for general property taxes and for spe-
cial assessments. If the County advised these people that a special
assessment would never be levied, the County was just wrong. The Statute
says you have the authority to re-assess. It is obviously true that you
can only assess to the extent of benefit which is measured by the dif-
ference in market value before and after the improvement is installed. If
the property is not buildable, it's difficult for me to judge right now
whether you would grant variances to each of these parcels since you don't
have enough information but if you judge the parcels as not buildable you
will have to decide whether there is any benefit from the sewer. One
possibility, of course, is that if someone does come in asking for a
building permit you could at that time under your new sewer and water
ordinance levy a connection charge. These are very modest amounts.
Councilman Horn - It seems to me that the main value with this type of
property wo~be as an addition to one of the adjacent properties. In
that case the area assessment looks be valid.
Roger Knutson - Are the adjoining parcels already built upon?
Bill Monk - In most cases, I would say, yes, that there are parcels on one
side or-another that are built upon.
Don Ashworth - Since the objection was just received this evening and I
don't believe Roger is familiar with the assessment practices as they
occurred at that point in time, there are some salient points here including
the assessment was partially for streets as well. I guess, I can see
where the sewer or water could be a question as to whether or not it
would be a benefit but streets would be another issue. I would suggest
that the item be tabled at least in regard to these where objection has
been received so that the City Attorney can research the law on these
items and report back to the Council.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to
seconded by Councilman Horn.
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson
votes. Motion carried.
table action to July 9, 1984.
The following voted in favor:
and Swenson, Councilman Horn.
Motion
Mayor
No negative
MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the May 21, 1984, Council minu-
tes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to note the April 10, 1984, Park and Recreation
Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson,
Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to note the June 4, 1984, Board of Adjustments and
Appeals minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson,
Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-6-
WETLANDS ORDINANCE, FIRST READING:
Mayor Hamilton - What I would like to do is proceed as we did last time
when we went through the ordinance. Section 28.1, Statement of Findings
and Intent. Anyone have any comments on that?
I
Court MacFarlane - In the original version it had the word stewardship in
there. If there is some way to leave that in there we would like to see
it. It would fit after the word "regulations" in the third line from the
bottom of that paragraph.
Mayor Hamilton - "Regulations that establish a program of sound
stewardship and strive toward zero degradation".
Court MacFarlane - Stewardship is the long term effect. That's what we
are doing here in our lifetime, we are stewarding the wetlands.
Mayor Hamilton - Anyone else have any comments on 28.1? If not, 28.2,
Statement of Purpose.
Court MacFarlane - On the last portion of the sentence just prior to the
numbered items, "through sound management of development by", would that
be better to say "just through sound management by" and then the numbered
items. We are doing more than managing just developments in the manage-
ment of wetlands are we not? Development sounds like building or making
use of the wetlands for something else rather than just preserving them
in their natural state.
Mayor Hamilton - I think the intent of this ordinance in the first place I
was to help us in development. To say that we are trying to have sound
management of development within a wetland area, it think that's not just
limited to that.
Court MacFarlane - Granted the whole ordinance is aimed at that so they
know what they can and can not do in that area but you are also managing
the wetlands area.
Councilman Horn - I think it should not be just development. We are
talking abour-Tandfills, everything else and that's not really develop-
ment. It's a condition of being in existence, such as the landfill that
we had down south where somebody was dumping hazardous waste. That
really wasn't as a result of development per se. It was just as a result
of poor management of the natural resources.
Mayor Hamilton - Why don't we say "through sound management of develop-
ment and preservation of wetlands by"? Would that satisfy you?
Councilman Horn - Yes.
Mayor Hamilton - It seems to me like we are saying management, sound
management means not only development to me but management of the
wetlands.
Councilwoman Swenson - I have a question about the interpretation
"reducing the need for piped storm water improvements, page 2, #7. I
just don't understand what they mean.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-7-
Mayor Hamilton - Some people feel that by not putting pipe in the ground
you utilize the ground water runoff better by perhaps putting rip rap
rather than putting in pipes running underground.
Susan Conrad - How about #12, controlling development outside of the
wetland district, can the word district be used here if no wetland
district map is used or it's not called that any more? It is being
called a wetland area rather than a wetland district.
Don Ashworth - I think Roger just missed this one.
Mayor Hamilton - Item 28.3 Establishment of Wetland Areas.
Councilwoman Swenson - I am having a lot of difficulty with the last sen-
tence. "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to allow anything
otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is
located unless expressly listed as an allowed use herein." This would
supercede any of our other restrictions contained in the Zoning Ordinance
regardless of whether it has anything to do with wetlands or not. I
don't feel that this is the intent that we have here. If we say no, you
can't do something, let's say we have a hunting ordinance that says you
can't hunt north of Highway 5, I have talked with Roger about this and
also Don and Don I will ask you to comment on it.
Don Ashworth - This section could have the effect of reversing other
ordinances that you have on the books and the intent is clear that we
wanted to insure that the wetland area would have a use and that's the
reason that it was put in. In the hunting restrictions, at least on cur-
sery review could create a problem for us. You could have someone
hunting north of Highway 5 in a wetland area and claiming that that use
is allowed by this ordinance and therefore ordinance whatever that prohi-
bits hunting is not valid and they would have a pretty sound position.
The structuring of the ordinance as far as the prohibited versus allowed
uses, I think in this area it would be beneficial to understand how items
are classified in terms of what is allowed and what isn't. You basically
have three sections, items that are permitted within a wetland area,
items which are uses that are prohibited and uses that are allowed by
permit. If it does not fall into one of those three categories, it is
prohibited. We were talking just this afternoon, if there were some way
to clear this up because in our other zoning ordinances you have per-
mitted uses. If it's not listed as a permitted use, it's not allowed.
We were trying to come up with, is there some means by which you can
maintain the integrity of the base zoning district and still go through
prohibited uses and then uses that would be allowed by permit and it all
relates back to this basic issue. What we are trying to do is maintain
the integrity of the base zoning district that you may live in or that
wetland may occur in.
Roger Knutson - A possible way of restructuring it is, Class A wetlands,
for example, you could say you can do everything that is allowed in the
base zoning district except as further prohibited or regulated by this
ordinance and then you could have a list of prohibited uses and you could
say, the following are allowed by wetland alteration permit. If it
wasn't listed as prohibited by this ordinance or wasn't listed as allowed
by a wetland alteration permit, then you would just look to the base
zoning district as see what's allowable.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-8-
Councilman Horn - Couldn't we just leave off the last part of that sen-
tence and accomplish the same thing?
Roger Knutson - The concern I would have to do that is someone who owns I
small acreage, let's say he owns two or three acres and it's in an R
District and let us say in an R District, as far as I know farming is not
allowed, as it is structured in a Class A wetland he could not build a
structure so if they can't build a house we are faced with the question,
what can he do with that property unless you let them farm it or graze
cattle there or grow fruit trees or something.
Court MacFarlane - I understand the conflict that is here and in struc-
turing the ordinance we tried to allow for all uses and I realize we had
a permitted use section and a prohibited use section but it was our
feeling that anything that was not included in either of those would fall
under the classification for uses by permit.
Henry Sosin - You are saying that other ordinances which are not included
in the base zoning district may be side stepped by this phrase. That's
not in the base zoning law is what you are saying so that since that this
only says that you must take into consideration only the base zoning law
here plus this ordinance, you are excluding the hunting ordinance, is
that what you are saying?
Don Ashworth - The question that I posed to Roger was, if this ordinance
says that an allowed use is hunting in wetland areas and this section
here says that "unless expressly listed as an allowed use herein" there-
fore that use supercedes any other ordinances.
Henry Sosin - I think you could solve the problem by adding a phrase that
says "nothing in the ordinance shall be construed to allow anything
otherwise prohibited in the zoning district or other ordinances.
Councilman Horn - That is what Roger was talking about. That would
accomplish ~same thing as I was suggesting in putting a period after
the word located. Roger is talking about an extreme case where this
ordinance would take away the main use that that land was zoned for so
that it wasn't feasible to use it for that any more. Now he is saying
that this ordinance shouldn't allow that. You could use it for building
a house before but because of the wetlands ordinance he can't build a
house there, that we could allow some other type of use and I think in
that case that1s what I call spot zoning and that should be taken up on
an individual basis.
Roge~ Knutson - We can accomplish that, perhaps, by putting a period
there. We could even eliminate permitted uses. We could just have pro-
hibited uses and a wetland alteration permit for things that are not
listed as prohibited. You could look at the base zoning district and
then take out a chunk of them and say, these are absolutely prohibited.
Then you could say, certain ones require a wetland alteration permit and
if it's not listed as prohibited and it is not regulated by the altera-
tion permit, and it's allowed in the base zoning district, you can go
ahead and do it. Just like you can now.
Mayor Hamilton - Is that a more efficient way of doing it?
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-9-
Roger Knutson - I think one of the problems that staff has had in dealing
with this is we are used to looking at a zoning ordinance. You list per-
mitted uses and everything else is out. The way this is drafted is a
little bit different than a normal zoning ordinance is drafted and that,
I think, gives people some trouble.
Mayor Hamilton - It seems like it would be a whole lot easier for a deve-
loper or anybody to see it all in one ordinance. Everything is right
there. By changing the format and adding in to our zoning ordinances,
already, you are going to be able to look at that one ordinance. It
seems like it would be more efficient.
Henry Sosin - What you do by eliminating the permitted uses would be to
increase the work of the Planning Commission and Council by increasing
the number of permits that are required because those thing that are not
on the permitted list would be by permit.
Roger Knutson - What you could say is in the base zoning district there
are certain uses, all you have got to do is go see the Building Inspector
and you get your permit. You don't have to come and see the Councilor
anyone else. Automatic permitted uses would just be what is already in
the base zoning district. Anything that you want to do over and above
what's in the base zoning district, which is not listed as an allowed use
in the base zoning district, then you would have to come in and get a
wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Horn - Let's go back to the philosophy of just leaving the
period afterthe word IIlocatedll. Now your concern here is that if you
had a small property owner who would have the use of his land drastically
changed by this ordinance, in effect, what he would need to do then would
be to come in and ask for a variance of the base zoning ordinance, isn't
that correct?
Roger Knutson - You can't grant use variances.
Councilwoman Swenson - In your base zoning ordinance where you have your
permitted uses and then following that you would say, except that should
the area include a wetland area the following prohibitions will apply.
If we are adding prohibitions, we are not giving any more allowances we
are taking things away.
Roger Knutson - What you want to do to handle the situation that I talked
about, the fellow who owns two or three acres and can no longer build a
house on it because of the new regulation and if you wanted to entertain
the possibility to allow him to farm there, then you could list farming
as something that he has to get a wetland alteration permit for.
Councilman Horn - There is no way that we could put in here that if a
hardship occurs through the application of this ordinance that a variance
could be allowed for uses other than specified in the base zoning
ordinance?
Roger Knutson - We wouldn't call it a variance. I would call it a con-
ditional use permit. We could draft something that would say, more or
less get that job done, that would say if because of this ordinance you
have no reasonable use of your property then you could come in and get a
conditional use permit.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-10-
Councilwoman Swenson - The bottom line is what we are trying to do is to
not establish a piece of property which becomes totally useless. I think
this is fair.
Councilman Horn - We are also trying to not allow uses by this ordinance
that are prohibited by others.
Don Ashworth - There is a third part, that is uses that are in between.
Right now you have permitted uses, prohibited uses and uses by permit.
There is three categories. If something doesn't fall into one of those
three then it is prohibited just because it doesn't fall into them. My
concern is that it becomes difficult to second guess all of the types of
uses and so you potentially as in Roger's first example, say, here is a
base zoning where certain uses occur, here are the prohibited, here are
uses by permit, all other uses are allowed. You can work it in a number
of ways but one of the sections has to be increased to allow any other
use by permit, to allow any use as a permitted use or to take a position
that any other use is prohibited and my concern is that we can't really
forsee every use.
Roger Knutson - For the person to say who owns a 20,000 square foot lot
and that's all the property that he owns and it's within that 200 feet,
do you want to have the right to have that person come in and say, I want
a conditional use permit to build a house there or do you want to be able
to say a flat no, we don't want to talk to you.
I
Councilman Horn - The flexibility.
Susan Conrad - What if something comes up that we don't anticipate and we I
do remove permitted uses and what if it is something that really should
come before you, it won't in that case.
Roger Knutson - You can have it structured so that you look at the base
zoning district and there would be all sorts of things you can do in the
base zoning district right now and you can continue to do those unless
further regulated by this ordinance and one way for it to be regulated is
saying certain things are outright prohibited and the next category would
be things you can do by wetland alteration permit which are part of the
otherwise permitted uses in the base zoning district.
Councilman Horn - What she is saying is that we are saying in permitted
uses we are-not sure we can anticipate everything. We are in the same
boat with prohibited uses. Somebody comes in and wants to do something
that we think should be a prohibited use but we didn't think of it when
we generated this ordinance and now the cat is out of the bag.
Roger Knutson - That depends on what item it is. That's true with your
present zoning ordinance. That's true in any zoning ordinance that you
ever do. It's not going to be 100%.
Councilman Horn - Not if you list permitted uses. Then if it's other
than that they have to come in and get a permit.
Councilwoman Swenson - If you see your wetland alteration permit guideli-
nes, "no wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the Council
determines that the proposed development complies with the following
guidelines" as well as the intent and purpose of this ordinance. Isn't
that saying that if it isn't prohibited it doesn't automatically become
permitted.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-11-
Mayor Hamilton - We have the right to review anything. If something
comes in that we haven't thought of and they go into George for a permit
and they would say you have to go before the Councilor the Planning
Commission to have this reviewed. It's not something that has been
included in the ordinance.
Bob Petersen - I have had the opportunity of the City of Edina work with
wetland areas and I am just asking questions about it here, a certain
development on the intersection of County Road 18 and the Crosstown is
zoned double bungalow and in the center of this 12 acres it is designated
a wetland area, the builders could build right up to that wetland line
defined on their plat. The City also had the authority to change those
lines in cases where buildings wouldn't fit and present a hardship to the
builder. Who is defining the wetland areas? Who is drawing the boun-
daries? Do I understand you, in this proposal, that there are suggesting
that no building could be closer than 200 feet from a designated wetland
area?
Mayor Hamilton - That is true. We will get into some of those questions
that you have asked later on as we get into how you define and who is
defining wetland areas. It was originally proposed to have an overlay
district zoning map. In our redraft we are not using an overlay district
we are talking about a wetlands map.
Bob Petersen - Is it possible that a five acre plat, that two acres of
thTs plat could be designated a wetland area by whoever is drawing the
boundaries?
Mayor Hamilton - Certainly.
Bob Petersen - I share the concern with the gentleman on the end then,
that it could certainly devalue property for the property owner that's
planning on building a home and that's shot down because 2/3 of his pro-
perty is designated as wetlands. He has lost the value of his property.
I would like to see the City have the authority to change these lines or
grant conditional use.
Councilwoman Swenson - People have been working on this ordinance now for
over two years and what they have attempted to come up with is a unique
ordinance for a unique city and basically is the preservation of the
wetlands. Far too much wetland has been sacrificed on the pillar of
development and we don't want to see this done ruthlessly in the City.
What we are trying to protect here is protect the individual who has
already purchased a piece of property and has been sitting on it for
quite some time waiting to build a home. Not necessarily somebody who is
going to come into the City and buy five acres and think, well, the
Council will give me a variance. I think it is very necessary that we
don't lose sight of the fact that the intent of this is preservation of
wetlands while at the same time trying to protect the people who are
already here.
Henry Sosin - I think you are talking about two different problems. I
think the thing that Don first brought up was non-compliance of other
ordinances that aren't in the base zoning law, that's one thing that
could be handled by just adding that phrase to this and the second thing,
I believe, you are talking about is not being aware of all conceivable
possibilities and in that instance it doesn't matter whether you take the
permitted use category out or not because you are never going to
understand all possibilities.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984 -12-
Mayor Hamilton - I don't think we have a problem with that. We are never
going to come up with 100%.
Henry Sosin - I thought the impetus was to remove the permitted use cate- I
gory so that all of the things that you can't think about would be by
permit only.
Roger Knutson - One of the concerns that I have is they don't want to
permit anything by this ordinance that is not permitted already in the
base zoning district. That being the case there is no reason to have a
list of the permitted uses. You can just look at the base zoning
district and say these are the permitted uses there already.
Henry Sosin - Does the base zoning district say that you can put in agri-
cultural strand wire fences, for example?
Roger Knutson - As an accessory use for farming you can. If farming is
not permitted in that district where that land is, then no you couldn't
have that fence.
Susan Conrad - Have you gone through all the permitted uses and that's
true in all of them?
Roger Knutson - Some of them would be allowed. Some of them would be
prohibited in a particular zoning district.
Peter Beck - I think what you are saying is that this ordinance would
list prohibited uses and uses only allowable with a permit. Any other I
uses would be permitted if permitted in the base zoning. For anything
else you would go to the base zoning. That only makes sense to me
because this ordinance is being enacted to address wetland concerns and
problems so you would identify those by prohibiting them or allowing them
with a permit and for anything else you would go back to the base zone.
I think with the concern about certain pieces of property, this ordinance
does permit development in wetland areas with a permit so I think you
would be able to catch those already.
Roger Knutson - I doesn't allow structures in a Class A wetland.
Peter Beck - I didn't read it that way. It doesn't allow permanent
structures except as otherwise expressly provided for in Section 28.10
which allows them with a permit.
Councilwoman Swenson - No. Only in Class B.
Roger Knutson - You couldn't build a house in a Class A wetland because
of 28.8, sub.6.
Peter Beck - I guess I read that to say you couldn't unless you got a
permit-under 28.10, (7), lists development.
Councilwoman Swenson - Well, (5), docks, walkways, and boardwalks would
be a structure.
I
feter Beck - (7) allows development within 200 feet.
Mayor Hamilton - We are getting ahead of where we are. I would like to
see 28.3 rewritten as we discussed this evening. I had a question in the
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-13-
last sentence on page 2. liThe wetland map, entitled 'Chanhassen Wetland
Map' dated May 22, 1984, is hereby adopted to establish the wetland area
and an official copy is on file", we are merely saying by that statement
that that map is a map of wetlands as we knew them in 1976 and there
isn't any overlay district.
Roger Knutson - This is a place to begin getting the picture. You have
got to start some place and that's where you start. In 28.4 it goes on
to say you may have to do field checks and what not to make sure that is
accurate.
Frank Kurvers - How do you pick up land that you really don't have
designated as wetland and which is there?
Mayor Hamilton - I suppose at some time we will have to have another sur-
vey done, aerial photo or something.
Roger Knutson - The map is only one tool. It states in the next
paragraph, liThe council shall make necessary interpretations concerning
the wetland boundaries based upon the wetland map, the definition of
'wetlands' contained herein and the intent and purpose of this ordinance"
so if something came to their attention they could amend the map and
secondly they would look at the definition of wetlands to see if it was a
wetland.
Councilwoman Swenson - In going through the minutes of May 21st I notice
that we all discussed and Councilman Geving and myself specifically, that
we requested right at the beginning of the ordinance there be a statement
of responsibility to the applicant and this would fall into that category
that it be a requirement that an applicant for a development would have
to make a statement as to whether or not the area in which he wanted to
develop contained a wetland.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.4. "An applicant for a development permit in
a wetland area shall provide appropriate technical information, including
but not limited to" that seems as though there is going to be a tremen-
dous burden put on a developer to supply that information. Are we being
unreasonable?
Roger Knutson - It is very difficult to say how reasonable or unreaso-
nable unless you have someone in front of you. If it's a big developer
coming in then it's rather minor. If it is someone coming in to build a
single family home and he mayor may not be within 200 feet of a Class A
wetland, for example, and he is uncertain it could be an expensive and
frustrating for that person.
Councilwoman Swenson - Do we have to specifically, can't we ease that
topographic survey on an individual residence? Isn't there some way we
can exclude a single residence as opposed to a development?
Roger Knutson - At one point we get into the specifics of a wetland per-
mit. I think it says something to the affect "if needed" but if someone
was coming in to build a flag pole, you don't want him to come in and do
$1,000 worth of studies.
Mayor Hamilton - The next sentence, lithe City Council may exempt land" I
have trouble with that since now the Council is expected to be an expert
and make determination on land that may be exempt or non-exempt. I would
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-14-
feel better if we up front appointed someone as a representative of the
City to give us that technical information that we need to make that
decision otherwise we are going to end up in court all the time.
I
R~g~r Knutson - You will probably have to rely on technical people but
u tlmately since it is a discretionary matter under State Law, staff
can't make those discretionary decisions. You will have to make those
decisions but you certainly can rely heavily on staff.
Councilwoman Watson - It gets a little complicated for us to sit up here
and make those decisions.
Mayor Hamilton - I would feel better if we had an expert who we could
rely on. It gives us another resource to give us information. All we
are going to do is chase our tail on this thing because if the question
comes up and we need to make a determination, let's assume there is some
land that we feel is a wetlands and someone else feels it is not, we need
to make a determination, we can get an expert that's going to come here
and tell us one thing and someone else can hire an expert to come in here
and tell us the opposite. Who are we going to believe?
Henry Sosin - On page 11 where it is talking about alteration permit pro-
cedures, the idea that the applicant had to shoulder the burden of
proving the proposed use, that it is not a wetland, falls on the appli-
cant and somewhere in here and I don't actually see it written, it was
the Council IS prerogative to obtain technical information from whomever
you wished or if need be have a separate consultant.
Mayor Hamilton - That doesn't change my thought that we are still going I
to be drawing straws as to who has got the best technical expert. You
can get a technical expert to tell you anything you want to hear.
Susan Conrad - Why isn't that the City Engineer?
Mayor Hamilton - Because Bill is not a geologist or a whatever ologist to
deal with wetlands.
Susan Conrad - But shouldn't he be able, more than anybody else, to
determTne among the experts opinions which is
Councilman Horn - He does that now.
Henry Sosin - The Soil Conservation, those are the people that made those
maps.
Mayor Hamilton - I would rather have someone from the private sector be
our expert.
Councilman Horn - I think we have this problem no matter what the tech-
nical sUbjecr-Ts. This particular area is one that we haven't dealt with
a lot but we find engineering firms that don't agree, law firms that
don't agree and in any area of technical expertise we are going to find I
that. It's going to be our job to sort out the people who are going to
give us the technical expertise. I don't see that that is any different
in this case than it is in any of the other problems that we have.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-15-
Peter Beck - I am wondering what the mechanism is going to be for the
Council making those kinds of determinations. Is it made in the process
of obtaining subdivision approval or is there going to be a separate pro-
cedure for seeking a determination of this nature?
Roger Knutson - If someone wants a development permit he would have to
come forward with that information at that time or if he didn't want to
invest the money in the plans until it's determined where the boundaries
were he could ask for an advance determination on that before he prepared
his specific plans.
Henry Sosin - I have trouble interpreting the last half of that compound
sentence beginning with the word "or". "Or if the wetlands preservation
or protection does not promote the intent and purpose of this ordinance",
I guess I don't understand what that means.
Mayor Hamilton - I would say that is consistent with stewardship, isn't
it?
Henry Sosin - I don't think this is consistent though.
Councilman Horn - I don't think the intent and purpose of this ordinance
is to make somebody's property unusable. That would be an example where
we would apply this case.
Henry Sosin - What would prevent anybody from coming in who has a wetland
on their particular property and coming in and say, you must prove to me
that this particular wetland is governed by the ordinance and is not sub-
ject to deletion from the controls of the ordinance by that one phrase.
I don't even understand that.
Councilman Horn - In most hardship cases it's the other way around. You
prove hards~ We don't have to prove to you that it isn't a hardship.
Henry Sosin - But I come to you and say, you prove to me that my par-
ticular wetland is necessary for the City or for the ordinance. This to
me seems like a statement that, I think I understand its intent but I
think it leaves everything open to question.
Roger Knutson - If you had a very small Class 3 wetland and we have our
professional who comes in and says, we have looked at this particular
wetland and it is not serving any function as a wetland for whatever
reason, in this particular wetland is serving no function. Maybe that
doesn't exist.
Mayor Hamilton - If we are going to look at every little, smallest
possible wetland, perhaps it doesn't need to be here. For instance, the
DNR looks at 2! acres or more. I am not sure if we have decided yet if
we are just going to look at 2! acres or more.
Rick Murray - There are a lot of drainage ditches in this community that
are-classified as wetlands under this ordinance and some of them may
serve a purpose but some of them may serve no other purpose than to con-
vey water to another wetland.
Bob Petersen - It seems to me when the state asks for a 75 foot setback
from a lake and you are asking for 200 feet from a wetland area, for
example if that ordinance had been in affect 20 years ago there would be
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-16-
no houses on Carver Beach Road on the north side. That 200 foot setback
is wiping out a whole lot of property. I was wondering why it's 200.
Why isn't it 10 or 0 or why isn't it 1,000?
Roger Knutson - It says if you are within 200 feet of a Class A wetland
and you want to build something, then you have got to get a special per-
mit. It doesn't prohibit it.
Mayor Hamilton - Any other discussion on 28.4? Section 28.5,
Definitions.
I
Susan Conrad - Can we go back to the point that we were just talking
about. About the fact that the DNR doesn't control anything under 2!
acres and you know they sent a letter that they would like to control
more of that. They would like to control smaller ones but they can't.
Mayor Hamilton - I said nothing about valuable or invaluableness.
Classifying a ditch as a wetland is rather ludicrous to me.
Susan Conrad - It's flood control. That's a major part of their func-
tion.
Mayor Hamilton - If you had a situation where you needed to put in flood
control pipes underground rather than just having a ditch there for the
water to flow through so you put a pipe in, you are taking away what you
classify as a wetland.
Court MacFarlane - The map isn't here right now. I don't know how many
areas are on that map that we had that were actually ditches.
Councilwoman Swenson - When you determine this 200 feet, do you take it
from the property line or where the actual structure would be?
Roger Knutson - Some of them might be a 100 acre tract and a 100 acre
tract may very well be abutting a wetland. You wouldn't say because you
happen to be abutting that you can't.
I
Don Ashworth - Page 9 they talk about "soil loss from a construction site
any partOfwhich is within 200 feet".
Henry Sosin - That's what's controlled. Development, any part of which is
within 200 feet.
Don Ashworth - You have a construction site but you may not be
constructing in that part of it.
Roger Knutson - You are doing a road project and you are doing temporary
slope work but that temporary work would be part of the construction pro-
ject and that would take you up to within 200 feet.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.5, any other questions on that?
Permitted Uses in Class A Wetlands.
you would be
Section 28.61
Councilwoman Swenson - If you were beyond the 200 feet then
all right.
Roger Knutson - We are going to eliminate the permitted uses. Section
28.6 will be eliminated, 28.7 will be eliminated.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-17-
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.8, Prohibited Uses ~ Class A Wetlands.
Councilwoman Swenson - What about 28.8 (6)?
Roger Knutson - I think there is an ambiguity here. As I understand any
kind of development, Class A or B wetland could come in and if it's con-
sistent with the base zoning, request a wetland alteration permit. You
might turn them down but they could make a permit request. What they are
saying is that in a Class A wetland or any other Class A or Class B
wetland, someone would have the opportunity to come in and ask for a per-
mit to do that development and then they would use the criteria in this
ordinance to determine whether they would give them a permit rather than
decide in advance they couldn't apply for a permit.
Court MacFarlane - Were you talking about taking that item 6 out of there
then?
Roger Knutson - Right.
Councilwoman Swenson - I have a question regarding the "disposal of waste
material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris, hazar-
dous and toxic substances", would it be a redundancy to specifically state
"solid land fill sites or hazardous waste sites" and why not? Not that it
would probably have any influence on anybody else but it would sure point
up the specific intent of the Council. I would like to see both of those
included in both A and B as prohibited uses.
Henry Sosin - I would like to bring up a sore subject for your con-
sideration and that's in prohibited uses and I would like to reconsider
the question of docks and boardwalks. If you put anything in by permit
section it means that you are going to be making judgments, yes and no, we
can do something here and we can't do something there. It seems to me
that the ordinance itself stands as the most definite body of information
which says wetlands are important and they are good and we have to protect
them. I would like to ask your indulgence for a second and consider what
criteria are going to use if I come to you and say I want to put a dock on
my property and it is all wetland. What criteria are you going to use to
either allow me to do that or to tell me that I can not do that? That's
the first question and the second question is then if you tell me no I can
not have a dock in a wetland and I find out that somebody else in the City
came to you and you said, yes you guys can have a dock, I am probably
going to sue you or I am going to ask the question, why not me and why
him? Unless you have real good criteria for making that judgment I see
you leaving yourself open to many more lawsuits and much more difficulty
than if you bit the bullet and said if this is really important and I
think it is and said that because of the ordinance and the information
contained herein that these are prohibited structures in a real wetland.
You may get one or two tests in court of the ordinance itself.
Roger Knutson - I am not sure which way you get more lawsuits is doing it
one way versus the other. I suppose you could look at it that way that if
it's a blanket no well then he might not try. Also, I suppose the alter-
native is a blanket no, he might say well I have no choice but to go to
court and if you gave him the opportunity to come in for a permit and the
Council gave him a permit well then, that's the end of that. I don't
really know which way they stack up.
Henry Sosin - What happens if the Council says no?
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-18-
Roger Knutson - They better have good reasons for it.
Henry Sosin - I guess that gets back to my first question.
Roger Knutson - But, the applicant has the burden of proof that he has met I
the standards of the ordinance. The applicant must come forward and say
my dock is not going to make a mess of things because my dock is different
or this wetland is such and such or I am going to use it for a canoe or
whatever and if he can convince the Council of that or if he can't carry
his burden of proof the Council can say no. I think that will hold up.
Councilman Horn - Could we use that as a condition if it's going to be
totally for-nDn-motorized boats only, will that stand up?
Roger Knutson - That's obviously one of the major concerns about docks as
I understand it. You get the motors churning things up in there. I
think, in most cases, it would seem like a very reasonable permit require-
ment. My only concern is not from a legal question it's somewhat of a
practical question, is who will be out there enforcing it? Other
lakeshore owners, from a practical matter, are the best policing force
there is. If they see someone out there with a motor they can call City
Hall and tell someone.
Councilman Horn - Can we put under prohibited uses, docks that will be
used by motor-boats?
Mayor Hamilton - It would seem to me that you are going to have docks,
walkways under activities requiring a wetland permit. That's going to be I
one of the questions we are going to want answered when they come in and
if you are going to give a permit I think it's going to say that.
Councilman Horn - That's true but there is a basic rule of enforcement and
that has to~with the best defense being a good offense and spelling
that out up front I think will make it much easier as an ordinance to
enforce than having them come in and say, well, gee, nobody ever said that
was going to be one of the conditions. If it's spelled out in here that
that is the condition, that is the concern, it's clear right up front to
everyone. .
Mayor Hamilton - To get back to Hank's question as to how we are going to
get the information. I would suspect we are going to, as we always do,
use the best information that is available to us to make the best possible
decision that we can.
Councilwoman Swenson - Would you be more comfortable if we were to include
in here docks other than those exclusively for non-motorized watercraft?
Councilman Horn - Absolutely. Then it's spelled out in the intent and
it's not really left up to the discretion of an individual City Council.
It's left up to the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Swenson - We have already established that we are going to I
have to make some judgment and we are going to base it on someone's taking
of this. To list one thing as a reason that we going to permit a dock,
there is bound to be other reasons and considerations that are going to
have to be brought in. I think it can be brought in with the rest of the
considerations at the time of the permit rather than listed specifically
as a prohibited use as though it were perhaps the only criteria.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-19-
Councilman Horn - But if we specifically know that's one why not include
it?
Court MacFarlane - You are not talking about other docks, you are only
talking about docks in a wetland area.
Susan Conrad - Couldn't that be one of those statements that exist in
ordinances like, including but not limited to, to satisfy what Carol is
asking for because we know absolutely that the motor is detrimental.
Mayor Hamilton - Someone could make a case that oars are detrimental.
Councilwoman Watson - Not that I disagree, it's just that it can be
established at the time that other rules and regulations and other things
that pertain to a particular dock in a particular place at that time.
Mayor Hamilton - Why don't we write that in there for the next draft and
see how it looks. We can discuss that again.
Peter Beck - I don't agree that every dock that would require a permit
under this ordinance would be located in a situation or place where motors
would be harmful. Many docks that would require a permit under here
because they come off a Class 2 wetland adjacent and that sort of thing
could go out to open water where a motor would not be harmful. I think
the Council should have the flexibility and the discretion to allow that
landowner a motor where it's not going to be harmful the lake or to a
wetland. Now if a dock is in a wetland area and there is a perceived need
there and a harm, then I think that could very well be a condition to the
granting of a dock permit but to take away that flexibility up front, I
think, would be a mistake and it really doesn't show much confidence in
the Council's ability down the road to make these kinds of decisions.
Henry Sosin - We only said docks in wetland areas though.
Peter Beck - What we are saying is any dock would require a permit under
t~ordinance.
Councilman Horn - I don't think we are reflecting anything about the
intelligence of future Council's. What we are saying now is that like in
so many other cases, down the road sometimes these things aren't as clear
in your mind, we won't have the Lake Study group who just completed a two
year study and we might forget the purpose and intent of why some of these
things happened and that's why you put them in there. As far as opening
up a can of worms saying that, well, he has got some open water or he
doesn't have some open water and that would change from the time of the
year I think we are really asking to get ourselves in a gray area if we
try to make a determination on where open water happens to be at the time
somebody comes in for a permit. I think as long as we make it clear up
front what the intent is we are going to keep ourselves out of a lot of
gray areas.
Bob Petersen - Then you are saying if I live on a lakeshore lot and there
is 100 feet of reeds between myself and the lake and I have a dock, that
some day you will come along and tell me to take that dock out?
Roger Knutson - If you had a dock there now you would be grandfathered in.
Just because you have got reeds doesn't mean you are a wetland.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-20-
Bill Monk - It goes by soil type and vegetative type. Reeds would not
necessarT1y mean wetlands but it would be a good indication that one does
exist there.
Bob Petersen - I think you are taking away some owner's rights.
I
Mayor Hamilton - Any time you zone something you are taking away owner's
rights.
Frank Kurvers - It seems like we are in the lake, then we are on shore. I
don't think you can drive a boat on a wetland that's on shore so it seems
like we are still crossing over that area. If you are controlling which
they call wetland, I suppose it would be lily pads or some type of weeds,
I don't know if lily pads are actually included in this as far as a
wetland, if you are controlling an individual on his dock that he can't
have a motorized boat but yet you are going to let fishermen go through
there continuously every day and you are not going to control them I think
you have really taken a right away from the individual landowner. It hap-
pens all the time. I see people going through the things that they are
trying to control and yet if you own the piece of land and try to get out
there you say no, you can't use it but if you are out on the water you can
go all through that with all types of boats and nobody is going to control
it.
Mayor Hamilton - Are there any other comments on 28.10? Section 28.11.
Susan Conrad - Before you go there, I want to back up to 28.10.
Activities Requiring a Wetland Alteration Permit the word alteration I
should be included. The following sentence liThe following activities are
prohibited in the Wetland Zoning District" should be Wetland Zoning Area
"indicated unless the City Council issues a wetland alteration permit"
rather than a wetland permit and then Item 2 at the end should refer to
28.6 not 28.5.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.6 is being eliminated. We just won't refer to
28.6 it should read "Pub1ic works in a Class A or Class B wet1and".
Henry Sosin - In the permitted uses there was "emergency public work" you
didn't need a permit for that so if you write it the way that you have got
it you would have to get a permit from yourselves for emergency work.
Roger Knutson - What I'll do is I can just say, "except for emergency
public works which will not require a permit".
Peter Beck - In subdivision 7, Section 28.10, it originally had a clause
at the-end that said "that may affect quality or quantity of water flowing
to the wet1ands" and I guess I would like the Council consider putting
that back in because if it's not affecting the quality or quantity of the
water in a wetland it doesn't seem that the Council would need to under-
take a permit.
Roger Knutson - Who is supposed to make that determination whether it I
affects the quality or quantity? If that were to be added back in and
staff persons were to make a decision that was not affecting quantity or
quality or some runoff and it were otherwise an allowed use then they can
just go in and see the Building Inspector and get a building permit for a
house or whatever.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-21-
Councilwoman Swenson - I don't think we want a developer to arbitrarily to
put in a retention pond just where ever he wants to put it.
Peter Beck - I suppose as a practical matter any development that would
require-a-retention pond goes through the subdivision process anyway.
There may be smaller instances where minor things are being done that
aren't affecting the wetland and for a matter of expediency if the Council
would not have to issue a permit.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.11. Section 28.12, Wetland Alteration Permit
Procedures.
Councilwoman Swenson - This goes back "the applicant shall furnish infor-
mation if required by the City including but not limited to," in Section
28.4 "an applicant shall provide appropriate technical information". In
the one we say "shall" which is mandatory and here we are saying "if" so
are we really being very consistent?
Roger Knutson - I think maybe the better way to do it is to say in 28.4
"provided it's necessary".
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.13.
Peter Beck - I would suggest in the very first sentence here "othersie
specified, a permittee shall begin and complete the development within one
year" I guess it would make more sense to me I think completion should be
specified in the permit, should be requested specifically in each instance
and testified in each permit. I think the completion date should be
specified in a permit as opposed to in the ordinance. I realize it says
"unless otherwise specified" but I guess I would suggest the language "and
complete" be deleted so that it can be handled on a case by case basis.
Mayor Hamilton - This is for work done or something being done that is not
necessarily for an entire development. I think all we are saying is we
want the developer to begin and complete any work that is going to be done
within a wetland area within one year. That doesn't seem to be unreaso-
nable. The development can go on for several years but he should be
leaving the wetland alone after a years time.
Peter Beck - A much shorter period of time may be more reasonable.
Shou1dn~the permit specify in each instance when it should be completed
and how long it should take so that the wetland isn't disturbed any longer
than necessary and so that if a particular project requires more than a
year that flexibility is available.
I would assume, as
and if for some
of it or it gets by
Roger Knutson - It is right now the way it's written.
a practical matter, each permit will a completion date
reason, it's routine one and the Council doesn't think
someone, there is something to fall back on.
Rick Murray - As I understand it this does give the Council flexibility.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.14, Inspection. Section 28.~
Responsibility: Affect. Section 28.16, General Development Regulations.
Peter Beck - I am uncertain as to the need for this section now that we
are operating within the framework of the rest of the Zoning Ordinance.
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-22-
Councilwoman Swenson - There are things in here that aren't necessarily
found in the base zoning. For instance 5, I don't know of a regulation
that is included in any other part of the Zoning Ordinance. I don't thinkl
it hurts to have it repeated.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.17, Wetland Credit.
Ro~er Knutson - What I did when I wrote this was to attempt to clarify the
prlor language which I found ambiguous. I didn't find it ambiguous but
when I talked to other people they disagreed with what I understood it to
be so they said I was wrong and I said they were wrong and that to me
meant there was an ambiguity there. The City Staff was divided 50/50 as
to what it meant. I wrote this, not in an attempt to change anything, but
an attempt to set down what I thought it meant. By saying that I am not
endorsing it or not saying it's good or bad, I am saying I tried to take
the ambiguity out of what was previously done.
Henry Sosin - There is one substantive change though in the first
paragraph. You said lIa developer of contiguous property under the same
ownership will receive a creditll and in the next line lithe City Council
shall grantll and I didn't think that was the Council's instructions. In
fact the Council was adament about making clear that they mayor may not
do these things.
Roger Knutson - As I understood it they wanted the opportunity to either
give them the reduced lot sizes or park land and if my understanding is
wrong them I think we ought to set some standards as to when people give
what or it.
Henry Sosin - My understanding was that the Council wanted to go from
anywhere from zero to full compensation, whatever they decided.
Roger Knutson - We have to set a standard then. May be this isn't what
you want and may be we have to come up with something to say under these
circumstances you get this and those circumstances you get something else.
I
Councilwoman Swenson - We get through giving all these credits you get, in
effect, wind up with practically no lot size at all when I was working
with figures of 15,000 square feet and the Manager has informed us much to
my shock, when he talks about 8,000 square foot lots, I cringe. However,
working with 70% more than is what is allowed in the zoning district we
could conceivably come up with a 4,500 square foot lot. 70% is just abso-
lutelyabsurd. It says to allow a minimum size lower than 70%.
Roger Knutson - It's prohibited. IIAdjusted minimum lot size may not allow
a minimum lot size lower than 70% of what is otherwise requiredll so if
10,000 is otherwise required this would allow you to go to 7,000.
Councilwoman Swenson - How can we equate that with the credits for park or
for other land that's not buildable. We already have land that's on the
side of a hill. We have all kinds of land that is not buildable. Why
should this not fall under the same category as that? By the time we get I
through giving all these land credits we are going to wind up with a bunch
of little houses on a hillside.
Henry Sosin - First of all in Don's examples there is an assumption made
that if a person had 100 acres that that 100 acres is used to come up with
the number of units. That's the assumption that Don made. In our commit-
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-23-
tee, throughout all the time that we talked about it, we never made that
assumption. Buildable area was the only part that you could calculate the
units. The wetland area was excluded and that's why the credit section
was put in. If you are already calculating that a person can build on all
the land and obviously no credit is needed off and I think that's the
basic difference. The committee in drafting this ordinance excludes the
wetland area in calculations of what you build on in that particular area.
Roger Knutson - Mr. Monk has a big smirk on his face because the ambiguity
is resolved in his favor.
Rick Murray - The way the ordinance is interpreted right now and if it was
ro-be interpreted that way in perpetuity then I guess there is recognition
for the public value that that wetlands serves for cleansing the water for
all the rest of the general public. However, in my experience, the very
first thing that every gets thrown out of a subdivision parcel or platted
parcel, the first thing they say is, are we talking about net buildable or
are we talking about gross acres and after you enact the wetlands ordi-
nance it's been my experience the first thing they start talking about
then is net acreage. From the committee's standpoint I always assumed
that once the ordinance was in place we are going to start talking in this
community about net acres because that's just the way it happens in every
other community. We kind of lose sight of the fact that we are preserving
this area, that wetland, as a benefit to the general public and part of
the impetus behind this credit is the fact that's a recognition of value
from the general public to that particular landowner that, hay, there is
something of value there that's valued by this community.
Councilman Horn - What you are suggesting then is that we will change our
traditional way of looking at things after this ordinance is adopted.
Councilwoman Swenson - I sincerely hope not.
Henry Sosin - I think it would be specifically stated in here that you are
talking about net acreage so there is no problem.
Don Ashworth - The City has used gross in every project that I am aware of
for the last five years. I can understand the decision or desire to use
net but then you are going to be talking about using net as far as bluffs
and hills and all other type of terrain factors in a similar fashion. You
are absolutely right if we are talking about net acreage then there is
some rationale for credit. Then that credit should be applied if you have
a bluff or if you have a hill.
Court MacFarlane - How do you treat open water? If you had that same 100
acre piece of land instead of a 30 acre wetland in the middle of it, it's
got 20 acres of open water, so you still assign a density to that?
Don Ashworth - You can't apply that to open water.
Court MacFarlane - That's what you are saying. You can have open water in
a wetland.
Don Ashworth - But you can't plat it. It's not an ownership type of a
thing. When you are talking about what you own and how you are dividing
your property whether your property is a hill or a bluff or has on it a
lot of wetland, you are looking at the overall acreage. In some cases,
the amount of wetland on your property will only allow you to put one lot
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-24-
on there and, well, Rick's last project, his density on that project was
far below what the total would have been but because of the total amount
of wetland he couldn't look to any more of a density credit than what he
actually received. To give more of a credit would have done him no good
whatsoever.
Court MacFarlane - I understand what you are saying but I don't think you
have answered my question regarding the open water issue. It1s not a
lake, I am talking about a wetland.
Don Ashworth - You can't own it.
Court MacFarlane - If it's on your land and your land is surrounding it
you own the open water.
Don Ashworth - It's not counted in any type of calculations.
Court MacFarlane - You just said it was as far as gross acreage.
Don Ashworth - Not open waters.
Court MacFarlane - I am talking about wetlands. Wetlands can have open
water in them and not be lakes.
I
Don Ashworth - If they are p1attab1e property you would take that into
account calculating the gross acreage. Rice Lake Manor are platted
through the swamp and there is an example of the overall lot size was
basically controlled by the size of the wetland area itself. It would not I
have helped those people to have any more of a credit than what they
really received. The natural platting process will control the wetland
credit. That's my point.
Court MacFarlane - You give them a slice of the wetland as part of the lot
srze-requirement. What happens with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot
size? The lot bordering a wetland, the requirement is 15,000 square feet
and how much of that 15,000 are you saying will be allowed to be wetland?
Bill Monk - The answer to that, I think, is that there are other provi-
sions-rn-the ordinance that would control, you still have to meet your
setback. You have to stay away from the wetland. You have to stay away
from the street. That lot may end up being 45,000 square feet for you to
meet all those ordinance requirements. It's not just the lot size. All
those restrictions put together will control how you plat your property.
Henry Sosin - It seems the basic question that has to be clarified is how
you calculate, if you are excluding the wetland area when you calculate
that then you have to give a credit and if you are not excluding it then
this whole thing ought to be dropped.
Mayor Hamilton - What we are saying is that we have always used gross and
I don't see that we are going to change it.
Henry Sosin - I understand from the Planning Commission, that they are
talking about not using gross any more.
Mayor Hamilton - I don't think it's up to them to decide. We haven't seen
any recommendation coming from the Planning Commission that that's what
they want to do. Until such time as that1s changed we are still going to
use gross. I think the Council is in agreement on that.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-25-
Councilwoman Swenson - I concur with the Mayor's position.
Roger Knutson - I think some of the things that you have already done,
allowing someone to come in and ask for a wetland alteration permit, vir-
tually to do anything they can do right now. You are taking some of the
edge off it so someone has the potential to come in and do something with
his land, you might turn him down, which kind of takes away the need for
the credit situation. You are giving him a little more opportunity to do
something.
Rick Murray - I concur with the Manager's report as long as the Council
~the City continues to analyze subdivisions on a gross basis.
Councilman Horn - Maybe we could put an intent in this section to the
effect that-rr-is considered on the basis of gross density.
~ Klingelhutz - One thing you are going to do if you don't allow the
wetlands to be part of the lots is you are going to create an outlot and
those outlots would be left on the tax rolls for someone to pay the taxes
on but who is going to pay taxes on something he can't do anything with.
After several years the City would possibly own a bunch of outlots and
nobody would be paying taxes on them. If you let the lot run into the
wetland that person that owns that lot is still going to have to pay some
taxes on that wetland and he will take care of it.
Mayor Hamilton - Delete the section.
Court MacFarlane - If we had known you were dealing on a gross basis I
think we could have saved six months.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.18, Variance.
Peter Beck - I think this second sentence here I would only suggest that
it not~under the variance section but maybe Section 28.11 under
Guidelines. That it be along with filling and dredging because it's
really related more to those kinds of activities and be something that you
would do in connection, one of the accepted procedures, in connection with
getting a permit not something that you would have to seek a variance from
by going to the Board of Adjustments and that sort of thing.
Mayor Hamilton - It seems like it could be either. It seems to fit here
well.
Susan Conrad - The man from the Fisheries Service was talking about that
migitation thing. We all talked about how that should be something not
encouraged but perhaps allowed under a real extreme situation like the
business district project. It fits better in a variance, I think.
Mayor Hamilton - It gives you an opportunity to come back through the pro-
cess again.
Councilwoman Swenson - It states that the City Council may grant a
variance. It doesn't say the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It would
have to be through the Council.
Roger Knutson - You can say lithe City may grant a variance from the
requirements of this ordinance."
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-26-
Councilwoman Swenson - I think on something like this it should go to the
Council.
Mayor Hamilton - Section 28.19, Enforcement. Section 28.20, Severability.
Section 28.21, Penalty. Section 2, Effective Date.
I
Councilwoman Swenson moved to place on first reading an Ordinance Amending
Ordinance 47, the City's Zoning Ordinance, by Adding Wetland Protection
Regulations with noted changes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
BILLS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented: Checks
#021524 through #021604 in the amount of $332,874.95 and checks #020131
through #020243 in the amount of $199,069.09. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
JACQUES PROPERTY, LAKE LUCY ROAD, HOUSE MOVING PERMIT, PROPOSED REZONING
FROM R-1A TO R-1: -severar-residents of the area were present.
oon-AShWOrth ~u do have a request to move a home to 1206 Lake Lucy
Road. Mr. Blackstad is present to review the proposal before you. The
City Council may establish such conditions as it feels reasonable asso-
ciated with moving a home onto a property within the community. You are
looking at solely one house moving permit before you this evening.
Loren Blackstad -
that I propose to
building permit.
po i n t.
Mayor Hamilton - I think there has been some concern by the neighbors and
by the Council as to exactly what was to take place on the property.
Realizing that there was a permit granted for one house to be moved and I
guess my concern at this point was, we looked at a possible replatting of
that land into additional lots and what is your intent to move other homes
in that same area?
I have made some rough sketches. It is a three bedroom
move. It is a story and a half. I have obtained a
I am not sure what it is you want me to do at this
I
Loren Blackstad - That is something I would like to do because there are
an abundance of homes presently available in the metropolitan area because
of the highway construction and large apartment complexes being built. I
guess I don't see anything wrong with the concept of moving a house.
Mayor Hamilton - Probably a lot of people do. If you are going to move a
house that was built in the 40's into an area that has homes that were
built in the last ten or 12 years, architecturally you are looking at
something that's not compatible with the area.
Loren Blackstad - When I started with this process I checked with the
BUTTding Inspector and he gave me some parameters and I had mentioned some
lots that were possible on and this one was one of those that was I
possible. He didn't see any objection to this one so I went ahead and
made a purchase agreement on this. We applied for the splitting of the
large lot into two lots. It was brought up at those hearings that there
was a house going to be moved in there. I was told when I originally
bought the land that that was agricultural land and the City said that
they wanted to rezone it to R-l so we went through that process. I guess
it was mainly because there is sewer and water lines on the property.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
Originally I was going to put one home in there.
Jim Thompson - The State is saying that the Planning Commission can not
regulate the type of homes that are built. I am thinking of manufactured
housing. How can the Council not grant a house to be moved anywhere
within the City?
-27-
Mayor Hamilton - We are not not granting it. Personally, this is one of
the things that you get caught unaware of what was happening and perhaps I
just didn't review it thoroughly enough the first time, although I knew a
house was going to be moved on there. When I saw a picture of the home
that's something we hadn't seen until after the fact. I still think we
can place some reasonable conditions on the moving of a home.
Jim Thompson - As a Planning Commission we can't dictate what type of a
house is built.
Mayor Hamilton - As a Council we can place some reasonable conditions. I
don't know what a reasonable condition is, if that would include style of
house. Here you are bringing in houses from the 1940's and 1950's into
where there is houses that have been built in the 1980's and that doesn't
fit. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Roger Knutson - I think architectural review is something that is reaso-
nable. I think what you are talking about is the manufactured housing
code. What we are talking about is stick built homes and we are saying in
our ordinance that you have to meet present day uniform building code
requirements just like for a new house.
Walt Hobbs - We go back to the original lot split, we were notified quite
properly. I looked at it and we were talking about breaking off 1.2 acres
and I certainly had no problem with that at all and I don't think any of
these other people did. Really didn't know what type of building was
going to go on the lot. When we found out that a home was being moved in,
didn't particularly have a problem with that either. I think in accor-
dance with the fact that it has to meet code and this type of thing. When
we got into it a little bit deeper and found out that Mr. B1ackstad was
talking about moving three homes in and I think he said earlier that these
homes are readily available now, I think a concern began to develop in the
neighborhood that what you have here potentially is a unique situation.
You have some very cheap structures coming available on a piece of pro-
perty that was certainly purchased, priced consistent with the type of
structure and I don't think the neighbors are out of line in saying that
we would like to review and find out exactly what is going there because,
we don't know, this has all been a surprise to us over the last couple of
weeks and I am not trying to incinuate anything but the possibility, the
very real possibility exists with the amount of money that potentially can
be put into three building structures that they will be moved in there
very cheaply. If they are going to be rental units they could be rented
out very profitably with very little upkeep and I think there is a lot of
difference between this type of structure going on a piece of property and
New Horizon which is certainly a high density development but you are
looking at each one of those quads somewhere in the neighborhood of
$60,000 to $80,000. Whether you agree or disagree with the type of
housing is immaterial. They are being very well maintained. If you look
today at the single family homes, a lot of them are coming up on the four
or five year paint job that we all have to do and they are being painted.
We may well not have any problem with Mr. B1ackstad but I think what we
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-28-
are saying tonight is we don't know and it's a little bit incongruous for
us to sit here and listen to a 2! hour debate on the wetlands workings, in
trying to work in terms of our quality of life and then on the other hand
say that we can split off an acre, resplit it into 15,000 square foot par- I
eels and anyone can move anything in and we can't say anything about it.
I think that's where we are.
Mayor Hamilton - You and I have talked about this and there is a problem
in the ordinance and it's one of those things that we have never had occur
in this town.
Bob Petersen - I didn't get notified. I don't know if I was supposed to.
My question would be, I have been designing homes for 25 years. I work
with a lot of different villages and I know if we need to get a building
permit on a home that I have got to draw the plans. They want to see what
it looks like. The Village Council is properly concerned about the size
of the building, what it looks like, etc. The reason for that, I assume
is, the Village Council's primary interest is to maintain the neighborhood
and it's surprises me that the Building Inspector did not ask for pho-
tographs, maybe he did.
Loren Blackstad - He did. I furnished him some photographs. He made an
inspection of the house.
Bob Petersen - It doesn't sound reasonable to me that a 22 x 30 foot
building is compatible to the neighborhood. I am more concerned when I
hear talk that there might be one or two more buildings moved in. I
understand that they could be on a common driveway?
Loren Blackstad - Right. That was brought up at the meetings. They were
concerned about access onto County Road 17 and also how far away from
County Road 17 a driveway can be and the most efficient use appeared to be
a common driveway.
I
Bob Petersen - Fifteen or so years ago I had to go through quite a proce-
dUre to share a driveway with someone through the Village Council and pro-
perly so. It seems to me that three buildings on a common driveway almost
looks like multiple housing which the property is not zoned for.
Mayor Hamilton - We haven't seen a plan and I don't think we want to
discuss that.
Larry Kerber - I share Walt and Bob's comments on this but in addition I
own the land directly south of where the proposed house is going in and my
concern is for the development of my land. I certainly didn't have this
type of development in mind putting small moved in houses on my land so
therefore I am greatly concerned as what's going to happen there as to
what I am going to do with my land in two, three years down the road. I
certainly don't want to see that type of housing 50 feet from my property.
Mayor Hamilton - Did Mr. Blackstad ever contact you and discuss what he
was planning on doing?
Loren Blackstad - No, I didn't. We had to get a list of all of the people
that lived within so many feet of the property and the notices were sent
to those people. I was not notified that I was supposed to do anything
beyond that point.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-29-
Mayor Hamilton - Normally it goes a whole lot smoother if you talk to the
neighbors.
Councilman Horn - Did I hear that there were pictures available that
weren't in our-packet. Why is that? Why didn't we have all the infor-
mation on this project?
Don Ashworth - The only pictures that I had were the three that you have.
Councilman horn - There was no indication at all in our packet as to what
the property was going to be used for.
Mayor Hamilton - You are not planning on having rental property? What
would these homes sell for?
Loren Blackstad - No. This first one would sell for probably in the
$60,000. Others would probably sell for in the $60,000, $70,000, $80,000's
range. I am presently looking at one that I would consider living in.
Larry Kerber - By granting the permit and the approval of the first house,
where it is, haven't you kind of left the door open for the other two?
The property isn't utilized at all with setting on little house almost up
to the road and 20 feet from the neighbors property line on 1.2 acres so
hasn't somebody made a commitment right there?
Mayor Hamilton - No. There has been no commitment made by the Council to
do anything. He hasn't presented a plan to us.
Larry Kerber - Has everybody done their job?
Mayor Hamilton - Absolutely. He has conformed with our ordinances and he
has met all requirements. Everything has been done.
Bob Petersen - Is there anything in the ordinance that talks about average
setbacks? If there is five houses and they are all 60 feet back from the
road and some villages won't allow the next one to be 30 feet. Is there
anything in the code about that?
Councilman Horn - We review those in a subdivision request. The dif-
ference is we-Tooked at this as a single request. I don't think anybody
had any intent that there was a plan for a group of houses in this area.
We will request when we have something like this, a ghost plat be pre-
sented so we can find out that somebody isn't landlocked but certainly
when we reviewed this there was no intention given that there was more
than one house moved in.
Walt Hobbs - I think what's come out tonight. We have all agreed on the
land split. If you were going to build a house I don't think it would be
any of our business how they sight it or how they build it I think 99 times
out of 100 the neighbors would be very comfortable with that. In response
to Jim talking about the State dictating what you can or can not do, I
think it's incumbent upon the Council to realize that while a moved in
home may be a very viable place. to live and we have some in town that are,
the rules regulating that are totally different even though George
may inspect it you are talking about a totally different set of guidelines
on how you are going to handle it. I would have never expected three
homes to be moved in. They may work very well but I really think that I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984
-30-
would rather you people give it a lot of thought on how you are going to
go ahead and not make guinea pigs out of us.
Councilman Horn - I would hope too that staff, in the future, would
recognize something that is an exception and be more diligent in pointing
that out to us at our review of this procedure.
I
Councilwoman Swenson moved to reserve an occupancy permit until after
completion of the move and that concrete steps are installed, a two car
garage architecturally compatible with the existing structure is
constructed, the driveway is installed, and that landscaping as presented
in the sketch exhibit as presented by the applicant be installed. Motion
seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved to rezone the property from R-1A to R-1. Motion
seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
Manager's Comment: No action was shown by Council regarding first reading
of Ordinance #47 regarding requiring house move per-
mits to be reviewed by the City Council. Based on
Council discussion the intent of acting on this was
apparent. This office would recommend amending these I
minutes to include referring Ordinance #47 to the
Planning Commission to complete necessary hearings.
CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETERY: Rich Lyman was present. Councilwoman
Swenson moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare the deed for
transfer of the property and authorize the Manager to complete a survey of
the property, including re-establishment of any missing lot markers.
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
FEASIBILITY STUDY, SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT: Greg Frank, McCombs-Knutson,
and Wanda Squire-Schlender were present.
RESOLUTION #84-32: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution
accepting the feasibility report from McCombs-Knutson, Inc. dated May 11,
1984. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: Greg Frank, McCombs-Knutson,
Inc., was present.
RESOLUTION #84-33: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution I
approving the project and instructing the City Engineer to contact MnDOT
for additional funding. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
I
I
I
Council Meeting June 25, 1984 -31-
FINAL PLAT, LETTER OF CREDIT, CARVER BEACH ESTATES: Rick Murray and Nancy
Raddohl were present:
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve final plat and construction plans and spe-
cifications and letter of credit with the terms and conditions setforth by
the City Manager and in agreement with Rick Murray and item 4 of the
letter of credit be changed from 110% to 90%. Motion seconded by
Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
JULY 4TH CELEBRATION: Mayor Hamilton moved to award the fireworks display
~to-Banner Fireworks Company in the amount of $2,500. Motion seconded
by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to approve one day beer licenses to the Jaycees and
Sons of the American Legion. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
SPECIAL MEETING: A special Council meeting will be held June 26, 1984.
ORDINANCE #5: Councilwoman Swenson requested that copies of Section 101,
Subsection-r: be sent to persons whose homes are not connected to munici-
pal sewer.
REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD APPOINTMENT: Councilman Horn moved to support Gail
Kincannon~The Regional Transit Board. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager