CC Minutes 2000 07 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 2000
Acting Mayor Senn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Senn, Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman
Labatt
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mancino and Councilman Engel
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Dave Hempel, Teresa Burgess, and Sharmin A1-Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
agenda with the following amendments: Holding the public hearing on item 2, Approve Feasibility Study
for TH 5/West 78th Street Improvement Project No. 97-6, but not voting on the item and deleting items 4,
Consider an Amendment to the City Code Allowing Petting Farms as an Interim Use in the A2,
Agricultural Estate District; and Request for an Interim Use Permit to Operate a Petting Farm in the A2
District 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard, Susan McAllister; number 5, Consider Amendment to Section 20-906
Regarding Non-Conforming Lots of Record; and number 6, Consider Amendment to Article XXV, Section
20-1176, Landscaping and Tree Removal to Change Buffer Yard Requirements for New Developments
because those items requiring a 4/5 vote to pass. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution #2000-50: Authorize Preparation of Wellhead Protection Plan and Authorize Request
for Proposal and Qualifications Based Selection Process for Engineering Services; Wellhead
Protection Plan, PW379.
Resolution #2000-51: Accept Utility Improvements in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th & 8th
Additions, Project Nos. 99-11 and 99-14.
Resolution #2000-52: Authorize Condemnation of TH 5/West 78th Street Utility Easements,
Project 97-6.
d. Resolution #2000-53: Approve MnDot Right-of-Way Acquisition, Project 97-6.
g. Approval of City Code Amendment re: Animals in Parks.
h. Approval of Bills.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Boyd Peterson: Okay, name is Boyd Peterson. Reside at 9860 Pioneer Circle. I'm here regarding a
business that has been in operation next door since 1983 and the bottom line is, it's grown beyond back
yard business. I don't feel it's a home occupation and I got several issues that have been going for a long
time. I've been told I've got 5 minutes. My wife would be here tonight. She's uptown with the kids at a
softball deal. I went through a lot of issues. Number one, I'd like to thank the city Planning Commission
that's been working with me on this since June of last year. I'd like to thank Mr. Scott Botcher for putting
me on here tonight on very short notice. I'm a pipe fitter, not an attorney. I've somewhat got things
together I think but I'm going to go through it. This particular business, according to the City Attorney's
office, is a legal non-conforming business. I think there's several issues here that have been overlooked and
I'm going to try to concentrate on that since I've only got 5 minutes. Number one. We'll just go through
what I've got highlighted. You can just either listen to me or read it yourself. I'll try to be quick. First
letter here is Cindy Kirchoff was out on the property seeing what was going on and recently come to my
attention that the contractor's yard is operated. Site inspection revealed materials, equipment, vehicles to a
contractor business. The zoning ordinance specifically prohibits contractor yards, landscaping business
and home occupation. Please cease all contractor operations and remove all contractor yards no later than
Wednesday, August 11th. Go onto number two. Number one it says here, first it's my understanding that
Mr. Nelson is proceeding to conform to the fence on the westerly side of the property of the existing code.
I believe that Mr. Nelson has been interfacing with staff and taking steps to remedy any violations. To this
date that fence has never been touched. It has never been modified. Another issue came up, diesel fuel
tank. We have such strong diesel fuel smell in our home that that was part of the reason why I finally had
enough of this. That was supposed to be off the property. At this time it is still being used and is still
being operated. Mr. Nelson purchased his property in 1991 from Chris Branvold, masonry contractor. He
moved to Colorado. The use of this property by the Branvold's conformed with the zoning ordinance in
existence in '83. When the zoning ordinance was changed in '86, clearly home businesses were restricted.
In reviewing the pre '86 ordinances, home businesses were permitted and Mr. Branvold's use of the
premises substantially conformed with the ordinance. In essence Mr. Branvold's use was non-conforming
but non-conforming uses are permitted to exist even after the change in existing ordinances. What I'd like
to state here is Mr. Branvold no longer lives there. He sold that property. If we go onto number 4, I ain't
going to read all this but I'm going to read this part. The ultimate purpose of zoning ordinances is to
confine certain classes of uses and structures to certain areas. The law generally frowns on non-
conforming uses because they undermine that goal. The general rules is this. If prior to the adoption of an
original zoning ordinance or a subsequent amendment or revision, property was being used for a then
lawful purpose, then the ordinance prohibits and renders non-conforming. The property owner acquires a
vested right. Mr. Branvold sold that property to another business not related whatsoever so therefore his
vested right is no longer there. Establishment of non-conforming use. Underline, it must have been
lawfully committed. To this day, well I'm going to keep going here. However when the invalidity of use
lies in the fact that the landowner failed to obtain a business license or to comply with requirements
imposed by an ordinance other than the one regulating land use, such invalid.., generally will not preclude
the property from acquiring non-conforming use status. The questioned use may not be grandfathered from
the operation of new zoning restrictions if it fails to reflect the nature and purpose of the pre-existing non-
conforming use. Is different in quality or character, as well as degree. Is different in kind and inspect on
the neighborhood where it is located. Down a little bit further. Whether the current use has a substantial
different effect on the neighborhood. Next page. Adding new facilities or enlarging existing ones is a
prohibited expansion of a non-conforming use. A little bit further down. In the absence of specific
guidelines in the zoning ordinance, a court seeking to determine how much a non-conforming use may be
expanded must look to the facts existing when the non-conforming use was created. Okay, we'll move onto
number 5. According to the statement of Chris Branvold, the property has been in continuous use as a
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
contractor's yard since 1983. Unless we can prove that the business has expanded since then, the business
qualifies as a legal non-conforming use. Even though the use is probably grandfathered. Next page. This
is from the attorney. Can you guys see it? Here's another underlying thing. It is in his opinion that the use
probably qualifies as a legal non-conforming use. Okay we'll move onto the next section. Mr. Nelson's
attorney reviewed my letter and relevant ordinances and concluded that the property owner is a legal non-
conforming use. Here's a little setback here maybe. I've enclosed a copy of relevant portions of the 1972
zoning ordinance and the 1984 zoning ordinance amendment requiring contractor's yards to obtain a
conditional use permit. To this date there's no permit ever been issued on that piece of property. That's
something Mrs. Kirchoff had sent to the Campbell-Knutson people. Mike Nelson Masonry has
approximately 35 to 40 employees. The business there prior to him had 4, 5, maybe 6 employees. At that
time he had 3 trucks. I've got information, I didn't get that copy here but he said he had 5 trucks. He
never had 5 trucks at that address. Now he's got, now Mr. Nelson has 5 trucks. Not today he don't. He's
got 6 trucks today. Rarely is all the equipment located on the premises if ever. You can come over there
and I welcome any of you to come over at any time and at 8:00 in the evening there's 6 trucks and all the
equipment's on site. Another little glitch in the situation we've got here. That piece of property has
always been taxed as a homestead. It has never, ever been taxed as a business. And I just determined that
and found that out about 3 months ago. Back in August of 1999 when this was all considered a legal
business, last year nobody seemed to go down to the County and say, we've got a legal business we just
found out about. Let's tax them. It took me personally to call the County Assessors to wonder what the
tax base is. The County Assessors didn't even know a business existed. Basically to finish off, one more
small issue. It's a personal issue. The individual that lives there is very seldom ever there because his live
in girlfriend moved out 2 months ago because number one, she got sick of living in the business. In a
contractor's lot. She now lives on Lake Minnetonka which now where this individual goes each and every
night and comes back to this property in the morning to run his business. This basically all started about a
year ago when he complained to me about mowing my lawn between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 because it
interfered with his private time sitting by his pool. This business starts operation at 5:00 in the morning.
These trucks are within 30 to 40 feet from my home. My house rumbles in the morning. It gets worse in
the winter. My kids wake up prior to when they should be waking up to go to school. In the winter when
it's cold the diesel fumes hang. I've got pictures. Staffs got pictures. The City's got pictures of a blue
smoke haze coming towards my house. And I'd like to basically resolve this issue and I'm asking the
council's help to force this issue further. Find these obvious legal whatever's that it is not a legal property.
And it shouldn't be in existence there. He hasn't complied with nothing anybody's told him to do. He's
went from 5 trucks to 6 trucks. He's got guys there at 5:00 in the morning. I went through 12 different
times I've called the sheriffs department because the city planners told me to call them because it's a
nuisance. Tums out it's not a nuisance. They were issued no tickets at that site because the nature of the
business is, he's got his guys got to be on the jobs at 7:00 in the morning. Therefore if they have to start at
5:00 in the morning and take an hour to load trucks with Bobcats mind you, and if they've got to warm
their trucks up prior to operation, he's got the legal right to do that. And that's not a nuisance to me
and this happens 6 days a week. Memorial Day. Labor Day. Christmas Day. This is a 7 day a week
operation. There's trucks coming and going til 8:00 at night. Now there's so many people showing up on
there, there's days of the week that there's cars parked out on the cul-de-sac of my house because there
ain't room in the contractor's yard for everybody to park. So we went from a 4 to 5 business operation in
1991 to 35 to 40 employees to a business that has paid no taxes. Has got no permits but yet he sure the
heck seems to have a lot of legal rights and I beg to differ. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you Mr. Peterson.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Acting Mayor Senn: Should we just refer this to you for, to the City Attorney for, is this new information?
Roger Knutson: No. It's not new to me.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. So I mean do you want to.
Roger Knutson: I can write him a response if you like and copy you on it or I can discuss it here.
Whatever you prefer. Maybe the easiest, I'll just write him a letter and copy you on it or your call.
Acting Mayor Senn: What's council's preference? I mean pretty much we're bound by what the law says
SO.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess if you could do a written, that would be appreciated and the one thing that
we touched on briefly in the work session as you went through this was, what is that definition of
expanding a business.
Roger Knutson: Just to comment on it very quickly because this could take us... Although you cannot
expand a non-conforming use, the question is when the courts use the term expand, you're normally talking
about expanding the footprint of a building, or expanding the amount of, like buying another piece of
ground to add to the use. Those are the kinds of expansions that are easy to get your hands around and
easy to say no to. I'll just summarize from the treatise on this subject does it better than any of the case
law. Ordinarily an increase in the volume or intensity of use will not be regarded as a prescribed change.
Increase in volume, although renders the use more obnoxious to the neighbors is not a change. Now there
are exceptions to those general statements where things dramatically increase. An example is going from
100,000 to a million in one case. Those are the kind of dramatic changes so they'd say that is an illegal
expansion. On almost all the expansion cases, like the one that he's referred to in the zoning bulletin, is
where someone comes in and they want to add a building. They want to add parking space. They want to
add more land. That's a clear expansion. Increase in volume and intensity generally is not.
Councilwoman Jansen: So with a contractor's business, if he has increased the number of sub-contractors
that are coming onto the property. I'm assuming they're sub-contractors.
Roger Knutson: People.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Nature of the business, if it isn't to expand the building because the nature
of the business doesn't need a larger building.
Roger Knutson: I would make the analogy to I have a non-conforming convenience store. When it
becomes non-conforming I have two clerks working inside. I hire three more and my number of my
customers increases from whatever, 100 a day to 200 a day. Would that be considered by anyone's
definition an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use? No, it's not. That's not the way people want the
law to be but that's not the way it is. That's not an expansion that's prohibited. In this case the nature's a
little different. It's an outdoor use. It's pretty much outdoor use and so the fact that more people are
coming, at some point you cross the line. I don't think we're here yet. What we have done is we've
established a baseline. Not everyone may agree on exactly what the baseline is, but we have a baseline to
judge anything that happens in the future. Now the one thing that I wasn't aware of or probably was aware
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
but forgotten about, is the fence issue. I do not know if that's something we certainly, he didn't get the
permit for the fence and if it's too high or whatever, we can deal with that.
Councilwoman Jansen: And the diesel tank?
Roger Knutson: I know there's a diesel tank there.
Councilwoman Jansen: Is that allowed on the property like this?
Scott Botcher: My last understanding of it, and this was a week ago. No, it was right after I spoke to Mr.
Peterson so it will be about 2 weeks ago. Was that that was to be removed. Cindy said yes, that was to be
removed. Maybe Mr. Nelson's not moving along as quickly as possible. Maybe he would need some
encouragement from the City Attorney but that is the plan.
Roger Knutson: We'll definitely look into the diesel tank and we'll look into the fence.
Councilwoman Jansen: Does he also need a permit for the business?
Roger Knutson: No. We now require an interim or conditional use permit for contractor's yards. That's
what we require if you want to establish one now. He's a non-conforming use. To maintain your non-
conforming use rights you don't have to get a permit. That's one of the reasons they're non-conforming.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. And originally so there was no requirement when this was originally set up
to have a permit.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Councilwoman Jansen: I understand. Okay.
Acting Mayor Senn: Would you want to, on those two issues then just get back to us with an update at the
next meeting then?
Roger Knutson: Yes I will. I'll send you a note.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. And Mr. Peterson, just a quick question. I mean you have notified the Carver
County Assessor on the tax issue?
Boyd Peterson: I certainly have.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Just so you know the way that that works is the County Assessor is supposed
to be essentially, you know how would I say, studying 25% of the city a year and catching those things.
Boyd Peterson: I had about an hour discussion with Mr. Mike Fahey here about 2, 3 weeks ago on this
issue as well.., sure ain't seem to be getting anything done. But it's a nuisance to me and a nuisance to
anybody else, especially a business that in my book is not grandfathered because the original owner had
sold it in 1991. You can't sell, I don't see how you can sell a grandfather clause on a piece of property.
And the way Mr. Knutson stated, that Mr. Nelson can sell that piece of property to another business and do
the same damn thing.
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Acting Mayor Senn: Do you want to explain that real quickly?
Roger Knutson: That is correct. We regulate the use of the property, not it's ownership. Non-conforming
use rights run with the land.
Acting Mayor Senn: Alright. Okay, so we'll get an update on that at the next meeting on the 24th.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH 5/WEST 78TM STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 97-6.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Mike Burton
Chuck Gabrielson
Jay Dolejsi
Kevin Farrell
Betty & Larry VanDeVeire
Lundgren Bros, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata
2600 Arboretum Blvd.
Eden Prairie
7336 Fawn Hill Road
4980 County Road 10E
Acting Mayor Senn: As I mentioned earlier, we will go ahead and have the public hearing but the council
will not be undertaking discussion or action tonight on the public hearing because we don't have sufficient
members present tonight to do so. The public hearing is on to approve the feasibility study for Highway 5/
West 78th Street improvement project No. 97-6. Staff report please.
Dave Hempel: Thank you. Acting Mayor and council members. I'm pleased to bring before you a
feasibility study prepared by city staff for the construction of street and utility improvements involved with
the reconstruction of Trunk Highway 5 from Powers Boulevard out to Trunk Highway 41. Feasibility
study is geared to specifically the trunk watermain, sanitary sewer and roadway improvements associated
with the reconstruction of Trunk Highway 5. Which includes the extension of West 78th Street, or what I'll
refer to as the north frontage road from it's current terminus at Lake Ann Park out to Century Boulevard,
which is one intersection east of Trunk Highway 41. This would be Lake Ann Park. This would be
Century Boulevard. As I mentioned, the feasibility study is in cooperation with MnDot's reconstruction of
Trunk Highway 5. The City is required to prepare a feasibility study for installation and assessments of
the improvements proposed with the project. MnDot has opened construction bids for the Trunk Highway
5 project on June 30th. Has proposed to award the project first or second week in August. This is actually
the first phase of two phases of the extension of Lake, or extension of West 78th Street. The second phase
will be the continuation of West 78th Street from Century Boulevard out to Trunk Highway 41. That
project is proposed to be bid in December and let in January. The projects will work in concert with one
another with the completion date of approximately June, 2002. Primarily elements associated with the
project are the extension of West 78th Street from Lake Ann Park to Century Boulevard. Extension of
trunk watermain from Audubon Road to Century Boulevard. And sanitary sewer extension from Prairie
Flower Boulevard to just west of Galpin Boulevard. The estimated project cost for these improvements is
$1,651,863. Based on the feasibility study, we find the project to be feasible and recommend approval of
the project. If you have any questions I'd be happy to address those. I should make note we do have on
file one correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Benz regarding the request for deferment of their assessments.
However at this time we are not considering the assessment portion of the project. The assessment roll will
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
be considered, the public hearing for the assessments will be considered in August of 2001 or 2002,
depending on how much work they get completed this and next summer. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you Mr. Hempel. Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody here to be
heard on this matter?
Larry VanDeVeire: Hello. My name is Larry VanDeVeire. I own the property on the northeast comer of
Galpin and Highway 5. I'd just like to mention that the assessments, MnDot's doing a taking on my
property and the frontage once they're done will change and the assessments that are in right now are based
on the property that I own and I guess I'd like to have it looked at after the taking is done to see what I
actually own afterwards. So that that, I'll own less frontage is what I guess I'm saying.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Sounds fair to me. Mr. Hempel, any problems with that?
Dave Hempel: Again, at the time of preparing of final assessment roll we will go back and look at the
frontages, areas and calculate a final assessment roll based on that information.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, which will be after the taking.
Dave Hempel: Sure.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else to be heard on this matter?
Kevin Farrell: Hi, my name is Kevin Farrell. I live at 7336 Fawn Hill Road and I do have some questions
about the scheduling of the project. You talked about the Phase I project being completed and I guess I
didn't get the completion timeframe that you had through Century.
Dave Hempel: The estimated completion date, according to MnDot is June, 2002.
Kevin Farrell: And that is for both Phase I and Phase II?
Dave Hempel: That is my understanding, yes.
Kevin Farrell: Okay. And what will that entail? Will that be all utilities as well as the road?
Dave Hempel: That is a complete project, street and utilities, correct.
Kevin Farrell: Okay, excellent. Thank you.
Dave Hempel: I should add just a point of note onto that. We will have a more determined or accurate
phasing of the project when we have the pre-construction meeting with MnDot and deal with their
contractor.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. This is only for the West 78th Street portion, correct?
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Dave Hempel: That's correct.
Acting Mayor Senn: Just so everybody understands that. Okay, I mean essentially the plan is is once this
work is completed, this will effectively be the, is it the by-pass for the construction on Highway 5?
Dave Hempel: Partially correct. They plan on constructing most of West 78th Street initially to use it as a
by-pass while they work on Trunk Highway 5 widening. It's a timing, scheduling, phasing issue.
Acting Mayor Senn: So this is really kind of one of many phases is what I'm trying to go back to.
Dave Hempel: Right.
Councilwoman Jansen: Could I get a clarification of the answer. On the sanitary sewer. In the staff report
it shows that it would be extended to just west of Galpin. When you just said that this would incorporate
the utilities as well as the road up... does that include the sanitary sewer out to Century?
Dave Hempel: No it does not. Not with this project. This project only involves extension of sanitary
sewer to the west side of Galpin Boulevard. We are currently undertaking a feasibility study for the
extension of sanitary sewer from Galpin Boulevard out to Highway 41 and beyond actually. That
feasibility study will be coming before the council on the 24th of July. We have another project in line to
extend the sanitary sewer separate from MnDot's project.
Councilwoman Jansen: And why is it separate? I'm just curious. That segment of it.
Dave Hempel: The improvements that we're proposing with this feasibility study is a direct working
hands with MnDot. They're building the road so we want to make sure the utility infrastructure is in place
before the road happens. The sewer line that we're proposing with the other project is a trunk sewer line
which will be basically off the road. Bordering kind of the wetlands edge all the way out to Highway 41
and along Tanadoona. So separate project. Separate areas of the project as well.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Separate but at this point staff is going to be proposing that we do them,
proceed with them at the same time. Is that what we're going to see on the 24th?
Dave Hempel: The construction schedules will overlap one another, yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Dave Hempel: They have been petitioned by the property owners out there. The road's there. They can
develop the property. They also need sanitary sewer as well.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm glad to hear that. That was one of my questions as I went through this was
why we wouldn't just go ahead and do them both simultaneously. It just seems to make so much sense.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else here to be heard on this matter? Okay, if not we will close the
public hearing and as I mentioned earlier we won't be discussing or taking action on it tonight but that will
in fact be occurring at the meeting on the 24th so if you're interested in that, please come back for the
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
meeting on the 24th and it will be on the agenda once again. But not for public hearing. Okay. Thank you
for coming everybody.
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO THE
REQUIRED 60 FT. SETBACK OF A NATURAL WETLAND; LOCATED WITHIN THE
WESTERLY PORTION OF LOTS 14, 15, 16, BLOCK 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, CHARLES
CUDD COMPANY.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is requesting an after the fact variance to allow three structures and future
deck to encroach into the required 60 foot setback of a natural wetland. The lots are located south of Lake
Lucy Road, west of Pointe Lake Lucy, and north of Lake Lucy. That was a lot of Lake Lucy's there.
Referred to as Lots 14, 15 and 16 of Pointe Lake Lucy Subdivision. The site is zoned residential single
family and a natural wetland occupies the easterly portion of the site. The ordinance requires all structures
to maintain a 40 foot setback from the outside edge of a buffer. From a natural wetland. The buffer strip
has to maintain a 10 to 30 foot width with an average of 20 feet. Structures on Lots 15 and 16, including
the decks, are either constructed or have obtained a building permit for the construction of the structures.
The frame of the home on Lot 14 is completed. However, the deck is not built. Setbacks and buffer strips
are required to protect the quality and integrity of a wetland. A properly preserved and monumented buffer
20 feet in width would adequately protect the quality and integrity of the natural wetland of this site. It will
trap sediment, fertilizers and pesticide. Our first choice is to see a 60 foot setback from the edge of the
wetland. However under the present conditions staff believes that the wetland integrity will be maintained
through the implementation of staff's conditions and basically what staff is suggesting is a 20 foot buffer,
40 foot setback. The 20 foot would be within the 40 foot setback and monumentation identifying the edge
of the buffer to insure that it is not disturbed. We also, just one thing that I would like to point out. The 40
foot setback that staff is requesting, we're suggesting that it be taken from the edge of the easement. The
easement is actually 3 or 4 feet outside the edge of the wetland so in reality you're going to have more than
40 feet of setbacks from the edge of the wetland. With that staff is recommending approval of the variance
with conditions. And the reason we're recommending 40 feet is because existing structures maintain the 40
foot setback so there is a precedent established in that area. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks Sharmin. We have the staff report and staff recommendation for approval of
the variance. Is there anybody who would like to speak to any issue in relationship to that?
Rick Denman: My name is Rick Denman. I'm with Charles Cudd and a couple things I want to just
mention. First of all we're not a rogue builder trying to do something out of the code here. We spent quite
a bit of time and did our due diligence with the wetland, Phil Elkin from the City to try to determine how
these houses were placed on the lots before we purchased the lots. And before we sold the lots.
Subsequently we obviously have built the homes. We've sold all the homes that are there and as a builder
we're very concerned that we maintain the integrity of that wetland and we'll do everything we can to make
sure that, one of the reasons we purchased these lots by the way is that they're beautiful and the wetland
back there is beautiful and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that it maintains that. We
have some people that have purchased on Lot 15 and subsequently have closed who are here to basically
say whatever they would like to say too about that. I mean everybody who purchased the homes that abut
this wetland you know purchased them because they're beautiful lots and they want to make sure that that
wetland is maintained so if you have any questions about how that transpired or any concerns about what
we might do to maintain it, I'd be open to talking about that.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you.
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: I do have one question. When you just said what you would do to help maintain it.
As you sell these properties, does Cudd Homes provide a Best Management Practices as far as the
educational piece of living on a wetland and the best practices the homeowner can then implement? I know
the city has some.
Rick Denman: No we don't do that directly. We have a final walk through which we typically walk inside
the home and around the home and talk about things like landscaping issues and things like that but as it
pertains directly to you know a wetland, we don't really have somebody on our staff that is probably
qualified to go over that with them and be very specific about it. So we would reach out for an expert to
maybe help us in that field. If there were some specific questions about it.
Councilwoman Jansen: Sharmin, do we have literature that could actually then be tied to these properties
or shared with the homeowners via the representatives from Cudd?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Actually I've spoken to the homeowner and gave them Lori Haak's name who is our
wetland specialist. They will be working with her in the future to look at different types of vegetation that
is native to wetlands that they could use on that specific site. We could definitely provide them with
literature as well.
Councilwoman Jansen: And the buffer strip, is that something that we make sure goes in with the right
vegetation?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Rick Denman: The other thing, and I know this is difficult because we're not standing on the site but where
these homes are located and what appears to be the wetland to be seems to be a long distance away from
where we're talking about so it never crossed our mind actually that we were impeding at all in the wetland
area, because there's quite a distance and I think where they call the edge of the wetland seems to be you
know pretty, what would the word be? It's a larger distance than it would seem by looking at this drawing
but.
Councilwoman Jansen: At the rate we're getting rain, it will become better delineated, right. Okay, thank
you.
Councilman Labatt: You're comfortable with the three recommendations in the staff report?
Rick Denman: Pardon me?
Councilman Labatt: You're comfortable with the three recommendations?
Rick Denman: Yes I am.
Acting Mayor Senn: Alright, thank you. Any additional comments?
Bruce Miller: Hi, I'm Bruce Miller and I'm the owner of Lot 15. And when I purchased, I've learned a lot
about wetlands since I purchased this lot. I didn't really know going into it. Obviously we purchased the
lot because of the beauty of the wetlands but I didn't know what was involved in maintaining it. And I'm
10
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
in the position where I own the home now so anything that is required, I guess I'm going to have to pay for
and all's I need to know is clear responsibility. Who's responsible for what and what I need to do is really,
and I'll do it. So I guess if there is a plan for that buffer strip and if there is, I have a list that the city
furnished me of the type of plantings to go in there and if there's anything I need to do to protect it, I'll
certainly do it.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Great, thank you.
Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Let's see here. Anybody else? I'm sorry. No? Okay, this item requires
three votes in the affirmative to pass. So if anybody intends on voting no on that, they probably should
comment on that now to allow the applicant the opportunity to remove it from the agenda and carry it to the
next meeting if that is anyone's desire.
Councilwoman Jansen: I had asked my questions in the work session and basically that was the answer.
Just wondered if there was something that we could do to better fine tune our process to help make sure
that these things are maybe communicated a little better but I'm assured that this is a rarity and heaven
knows I hate granting variances on wetlands. I think I've got that reputation but I certainly appreciate the
homeowner speaking and having educated himself about the right thing, the right practices on a property
that is on a wetland. But no, I'm intending to go ahead and give this a thumbs up but with great
hesitations. But I understand it's a unique situation.
Councilman Labatt: I'll move approval.
Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? I'll second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Acting Mayor Senn seconded that the City Council approve Variance
#2000-8 VAR to allow structures to encroach into the required setback of a natural wetland located
on Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy as shown in plans dated received June 1, 2000, with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall maintain a 20 foot buffer strip along the edge of the natural wetland.
The applicant shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the outside edge of the Drainage and Utility
Easement surrounding the delineated edge of the Natural Wetland. The 20 foot wide buffer strip
shall be included within the 40 foot wetland setback.
The 20 foot buffer strip shall be identified by permanent monumentation. The monuments will be
supplied by the city. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of these monuments. The
monuments shall be placed as shown on the attachment entitled ~MONUMENT LOCATIONS".
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS IN
THE CITY (HUNTING ZONES).
11
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Scott Botcher: This has been, I think the genesis of this was when we internally at a staff level decided
we'd actually try to come up with a map and put it on the computer. We in the past previously just had, as
you know, the plastic overlay with white out. And as we've putt his map together we've been able to better
refine and identify the properties who allow bow hunting only and also allow gun and bow hunting only.
At some of the subsequent work sessions council members had indicated an interest in analyze, discuss and
reviewing ordinances that allow the discharge of guns and bows within the community. As our community
becomes more urbanized. As I said in the work session, I don't think staff has a recommendation so to
speak saying do this or don't do this. I think you've got to consider two points of view. Obviously there's
a public safety issue involved when you are a formerly primarily rural community becoming increasingly
urbanized. At the same time, it goes without saying that certainly hunting and the harvesting of some of the
game that is hunted within the community does provide benefit, not only to I guess the humans but also to
some of the wildlife. So those are the issues before you. We put this together largely at council's direction
for your consideration.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Acting Mayor Senn: Linda?
Councilwoman Jansen: Not of staff, no.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Let's see here. This is consider amendment to the city zoning code. Okay, so
it's an amendment to the existing code. Does somebody want to make a motion or is there discussion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I would be in favor of taking a look at some of the areas that are still open for
hunting and at least eliminating the ones that are currently surrounded by development. However in the
work session we did note that this will take three votes so if anyone is opposed to changing the locations on
the map, I don't want to carry on for any length of time if we should just be moving this until there's a full
council.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. What's the council's preference?
Councilman Labatt: I'm really not in favor of making any changes to it.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. And I'm not either. I think it's fine the way it is. There's not really an
applicant involved so I'm not sure waiting's going to change the outcome one way or the other. So I guess
it's, what does everybody want to do?
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I would like to make a motion to table until the next meeting.
Scott Botcher: That's certainly appropriate and it would be a courteous thing to do anyway if you've got a
split council to wait for the other two to come back. But it's totally optional.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Steve, it's up to you. Do you want to second that?
Councilman Labatt: I don't know. I mean I don't know what waiting is going to do. If it's going to make
any changes to it or not but you know, I suppose Scott's comment. Being courteous to all council people
12
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
according to our council rules and ethics, or rules of conduct we have so out of courtesy and all that I guess
I would make my point known that I'm not in favor of changing any of the shooting boundaries or areas but
out of courtesy I will second her motion for tabling for the full council.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. And that would be tabled til the 24th then, correct?
Scott Botcher: If that's what the motion is that you want.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and that doesn't cause us any problems?
Scott Botcher: It's going to be a full night no matter what you do.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: I could make it by midnight.
Acting Mayor Senn: Well I'm just saying, I thought when we, I thought there was some issue when we
extended it to tonight.
Scott Botcher: No, we'll be okay.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. With that all in favor.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table an amendment to the City Code
regarding discharge of firearms in the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Jansen: I had two things under council presentations, if I could. When we last week had
come up an issue on Highway 101 with Southwest Metro Transit and service to one rider down that
corridor being the representative on the transit commission. We did have a meeting on Thursday and I
don't know that any formal communication has been received but they are seriously working with MnDot
and looking at designating a stop at the comer for that rider. And I would have to say that they really
jumped on responding to a one rider issue and making sure that their service provided for his needs if you
would. When I last understood, they will be getting it designated unless something changes but the last that
I heard they were definitely looking into that. I had mentioned in the last meeting that I was going to be
attending the League of Minnesota Cities affordable housing symposium. Just an update. That was
cancelled. They didn't have enough people registered for that. It potentially could be rescheduled for later
in the year. They're looking at that now. So I thought I'd mentioned so I will not be attending that this
Thursday. And a question came up, and I guess I would direct this to Roger. To me in regards to the
Minutes for work sessions being the off council work sessions that we hold on the alternating Monday
nights. We currently don't keep even summary minutes and I went back to the conversation that we had
had, and it was the one meeting you were on vacation so it was a different representative from your office
and at that point it was specifically stated that if not verbatim minutes, we need summary minutes at any
point that you have full council or the quorum of the council meeting. Is that the case? Do we need to be
doing summary or verbatim by statute?
13
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Roger Knutson: Let me answer in a couple parts. First, you're the only city I know who has verbatim
minutes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: I'm sure there are, maybe Minneapolis or St. Paul, I don't know how they do things. But
so you definitely don't need verbatim minutes of any meeting. You're unique in that. Or pretty unique.
But as far as having minutes, I would recommend that you do have some summary minutes. It could be as
simple as topics of discussion or here's who was present.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Do we just need to give direction along those lines to have that happen or?
Acting Mayor Senn: Well I must be under a misunderstanding here. Yeah, I thought we've always had
them for the work sessions.
Scott Botcher: I'll double check.
Councilwoman Jansen: I think we're supposed to be approving. Don't they have to come before council.
Councilman Labatt: I've seen them on agendas.
Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, and I've seen them in our packets for approval.
Councilwoman Jansen: For the inbetween?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Scott Botcher: I remember dictating. I mean what happens is Karen takes the agenda frankly and says,
makes assignments. Scott you do this one. Todd Gerhardt you do this one. Whatever, Kate. You do this
one and we each do our part.
Councilwoman Jansen: Maybe it's just coincidental that the ones that I've gone to pull we don't have for
the inbetweens so if.
Roger Knutson: Again if you don't, I recommend you do.
Scott Botcher: I do have one thing and then we can go. Tomorrow will be cable TV submittal deadline.
We did our notice of intent in the paper. That's why the bills were $900,000. No, that's not true. We are
still expecting two additional providers to submit. I spoke with industry folks today and they expect both
parties that we had been in contact previously that we had discussed at the work session to deliver here to
me tomorrow applications. And then we take the, consistent with the calendar, I think we take the next 3 ½
weeks, give or take, to go through the application and make recommendations. All that sort of stuff so
that's going on.
Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you. Anything else?
Acting Mayor Senn adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:25 p.m.
14
City Council Meeting - July 10, 2000
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
15