Loading...
1993 07 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dockendorf COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows by Mayor Chmiel: Correction to Ztem 2(a)(2), and adding ?.5, Approve Liquor Concession Agreement with International Theatres Corporation, Century Park Pictures Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Approve License for NSP for Installation of Electrical Conduit on Audubon Road 8ridge. d. Approve Plans and Specifications for 1992 Sewer Rehabilitation Project; Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Project 93-7. e. Approve Revised Grading Plan for Oak Ponds, Project 93-9. f. Approval of Accounts. g. City Council Minutes dated July 12, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 1993 h. Resolution ~93-64: Resolution Establishing Operational Cost to be Recovered from Hazardous Material Incidents. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A. STONE CREEK PHASE II AND PARK PROPERTY. Mayor Chmiel: The correction to item 2(a)(2) is under condition (p) and that was in liue of park and trail fees, the property labeled as park shall be dedicated on the flnal plat as an outlot and deeded to the clty as parkland. In addition, the developer shall construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trall segment between Lot 5, Block I and Lot 1, Block 2 from Boulder Drlve to the rear City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 property line of said lots. With that addition, or that correction and as an addition to the consent agenda ~ would move this. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiei moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the final plat and construction plans and specifications and development contract for Stone Creek Phase II and park property as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Joleen Roy: City Council members, my name is Joleen Roy. I live in the 8oyers Sterllng Estates Addition and I am representing all homeowners in our development. Council. man Wing: Just a clarification. That's on the agenda and lt's upcoming~ Joleen Roy: Are we not to it yet? That was my question. Mayor Chmiel: You're right, it is. This will be coming up on the agenda. aoleen Roy: Okay, ~'11 pass. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But it's certainly nice to see you and we'll appreciate seeing you again. Thank you. Are there anyone else? AWARD OF BIDS: UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. .- Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On July 16th, 1993 bids were recelved and opened for the underground fuel storage tank removal and replacement project, a total of 4 bids were received. The bid also had an alternate providing for an above ground option. However, this was from the bids found to be more costly and also less desireable. Low bid was received from Zahl Equipment Company of $72,290.00~ This amount fits in with the budgeted 208 Equipment Replacement Fund compatibly. References were checked on Zahl Equipment Company. The>' have done this work and we received favorable reference check on them. And we would recommend that the underground fuel storage tank replacement program be awarded to 2ah1 Equipment Company in a contract amount of $72,290.00. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You left me hanging there. Charles Folch: Z left myse!f hanging. Mayor Chmiel: I did have an awful lot of questions on this and I contacted Haroid Brose regarding this. And I think he pretty much resolved some of my concerns. The first concern I had was regarding the potential of thls not becoming required until 1998, which gives us 2 years down the road~ And if I remember correctly, this ls golng to have to be done or the requirement of meeting some federal regulations regarding underground storage tanks for fuels. We presently aren't qulte sure if we're loslng I gallon or if we're losing City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 anything or if we're 5 gallons. We're using the, as you probably read the dip stick method of trying to determine how much fuel is contained within a tank for ordering. And by putting in a proposal as to connections that would be done to this and monitoring it, this automatically shows where we're at and what fuel is there and knowing whether or not there's any leaking to this. One of the other questions I asked is, can it be retrofitted for the time being. And it was like, let's not put money down a sandhole and lose it, really is what it really amounted to. And I agree with that because once it becomes due in 1998, we're going to just automatically have to dig it up and take everything off that we're paying for and it would be duplicating it one way or the other. I said if we wanted until 1998, 1997 or 98, that would give us a few more years. We have appropriations for it right now. We don't know whether we'll have it at that particular time but by doing this in the timeframe of getting to it now, making sure there isn't any problems with the soils, we can come out ahead because I'm sure that if you prorate this over the next 5 years, and with everybody else within the state going to move to do the same thing we're planning on doing at that time, if we're doing it at that time, I'm sure the cost would escalate considerably. And so I just wanted to point out a few of the things and a few of the questions that I had had with them. And knowing that we have the appropriations at this particular time, we budgeted $70,000.00 for this and we do have a bit of a slush fund for the additional $2,290.00, that will take care of it. So with that I'll be quiet and I'll listen to everybody else here. Councilman Wing: Was he trying to sell us7 Councilman Mason: I think so. Hayor Chmiel: No, I had to sell myself. Councilman Wing: If we could take these Pollution Control regulations and pass them onto the next Council and let them wrestle with it. Let Harold come back in 1998 under pressure and do it. That's one option. The only thing that I didn't see that, this is a real thorough report. It answered all the questions. The only thing that Harold didn't cover here that I should have asked him was I don't see, did you look into just putting a good supply of 5 gallon cans? It just wasn't listed here. It seems like it would have been cheaper. I would so move this, for discussion, award of bids. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Ha/or Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's not so important that we're complying with the MPCA regulations as it is, let's find out if the leak is underground. Resolution ~93-65: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal and Replacement, Project 93-19 to Zahl Equipment Co. in the amount of $72,290.00. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting -July 26, 1.993 NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR BOYER~ STERLING ESTATES HOMEOWNERS_~SSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Public Present: Name Address ,]oleen Roy Mary Jo Moore Dick & Marilyn Hanson Paula Roettger 8i!1. & Mary Rydell 3110 Oartmouth Drive 3281 Dartmouth Drive 32410artmouth Orive 3221 Dartmouth Drive 6210 Barberry Circle Kate Aanenson: This item appeared before the Planning Commission on June The main issues that 'the Planning Commission had, and based on complaints or concerns of the neighbors was the fact that thls had open access to the beachiot. It is a paved surface and in the winter people bring fish houses down and snowmobiles and there's concern that lt's unrestricted. The other lssue ls the 'Fact of the dock extension and meeting the dock setback zone. This one does have a 11ttle bit more documentation in the fact that there was complaints and at that time Roger looked at the level of use. The Planning Commission did recommend the 2 boats, whlch ls consistent wlth the survey wlth one dock with elimination of the extension~ In addition they ask that the good nelghbor pollcy, whlch seemed to be agreeable to the Association is try to restrlct the access to the beachlot by posting it or putting up a gate or something like that. So not anybody could get down there~ The neighbors have glven me a petition that they'd like yo~ to look at too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time that would like to address us? Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger. Roger Knutson: Maybe I could just make a comment before the discussion begins. This will be nothing new to the Council but ~ just want to put everyone on the same track. The purpose of the ordinance is to register a non-conforming, all non-conforming beachtots in the communlty. What the ordinance requires is that the Counc11 decide what was there in 19837 Kate Aanenson: Roger Knutson: '81, excuse me. Hy date's right. 1981. That's ail the Council is going to decide. They're not going to decide whether it's an appropriate place to have a beachlot. Whether it's a good ldea. Whether there's trash down there. Whether the neighbors like it or don't like it or anything else. There's only one issue and one issue only. What was there in 1981. Mayor Chmiet' Thank you for clarification, Roger. Please. Joleen Roy: Well if 'that's true then you're. City Council. Heetin9 - July 26, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Could you just come up the microphone please. State your name and your address. Joleen Roy: My name is Joleen Roy. I'm at 3110 Dartmouth Drive in Sterling Estates. If what you say is true Mr. Knutson, you're rendering our outlot useless to us, except for 2 out of 10 neighbors. Now to me the lntent of the restrictions are to preserve Lake Minnewashta. Not to prevent our using our outlot. And I have a proposal here that I'd 11ks to share wlth you whlch puts forth a way that we can use our outlot. We can use the lake yet we will not be addlng to the pollution of Lake Mlnnewashta. I do have some mentlon in here of increasing our boat dockage to 4 boats rather than 2 but please just bear with me on that. I do have some background to share on that. Nay I go ahead and give you my idea? Mayor Chmiel: Please. Joleen Roy: I am speaking on behalf of all homeowners in Sterllng Estates. As of the July ?th meetlng of the Planning Commission we homeowners had not met to discuss our feellngs on the use of our outlot. I called a homeowners meetlng on July l?th and share the outcome of the July ?th Planning Commission meeting concerning our property. The Plannlng Commission's recommendations, as I understand them, were to remove the T formation on our dock because of setback problems to prohiblt both the use of motorized vehlcles on our access road and the use of a ramp to allow only 2 motorized boats at the dock on an overnight basls and to allow no new structures to be bullt in the future. Please understand our discontent with these restrictions. In the titles for our homes in Sterllng Estates it is stipulated that we have an outlot for the purpose of getting on and off Lake Minnewashta. We own it together and pay taxes on it. Originally the developer, my father Joseph Boyer, set up Sterllng Estates to provide lake access to all property owners. We had a road, a ramp and the idea was for a dock large enough to permlt each off shore property owner to keep a boat on the lake when Sterling Estates was fully developed. This was passed by the Chanhassen Clty Councll in 1966. Because the property was not fully developed until the late 1980's, full use of the dockage priviledges were not realized. The maxlmum number of motorized boats ever kept on our outlot number 4, as written testimony from former and existing residents of Sterling Estates attest. You will flnd these statements in your packets. Our feellngs are, as stated in James Hofer's letter to the City Planner in 1987, that we should be allowed at least 4 boats. To 11mlt 10 off lake homeowners to only 2 boats ls unreasonable given the fact 'that off lake property was bought and sold under the agreements of 1966 whlch provlded lake access to all 10 lots. We would appreciate the City Council's first consideration then this evening to increase our overnight boat dockage to 4 boats as we requested on July ?th. Secondly, as our petition outlines, we are concerned over the fact that the Planning Commission has stated that we can no longer use our road, reconstruct our ramp or put up other structures on our outlot. Whether or not City Council increases our boat dockage to 4, rather than 2, the questlon remalns. Wlth the need to restrict power boat dock priviledges, how can our remaining homeowners make use of thelr outlot and galn access to Lake Mlnnewashta as the tltles to our property have provided since 19667 Well before new regulations came into existence. As a resutt of thls questlon we are petitioning the City Councll for the following. You should have copies of these requests and signatures from the homeowners showlng support of them. We are asklng for approval to put up a raft City Council Heetirlg ~J .3uiy 26, 1973 to hold 2 canoes or small sailboats. To put up 2 rowboats, to pull up 2 rowboats onto our property. To put ou.t a picnic t. able and to store our dock on our outlot during the winter,, One other item not listed is to continue with our T dock formation as on it we have a wonderful seat for which to view -the lake. We plan to T the dock to the left~ 'rather than to the right, so as not to infringe on the lot. line of the neighbor in Minne~ashta Heights. This would also provide a protected space to pull up our rowboats. We feel justified in making these req~ests as an outlot really is no good to us or for our property value if we can't use it to get on and off the lake. The right to do so was guaranteed in i966 and we are paying for it now. Rather than intensify the use of the lake, we simply want to exercise rights that have been in existence since 1966. We fee1 approval of these requests would be a compromise which we could live with since they would at least give us some wa>' to use Lake Mlnnewashta and still satisfy the ONR's need for conservation. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you, appreciate that. Are there any questions at this time? .Xf not, okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council on t his? Mary Jo Moore: I'm Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I own the property just t4est of Boyers Sterling Estates. Z've been before the Council and the Planning Commission on numerous occasions over this beachlot ordinance and the lake useage. Tonight it's very difficult for me because these are neighbors and friends and Z'm here opposing any expansion. As Mr. Knutson had stated, the object here is to determine what was there in 198,t. at the time of survey. And Z was the one, t and Ray Roettger who owned the property just east of the lot, finaily had to fi!e a complaint with the City over the useage because it kept expanding. We at that time were able to prove that there were 2 boats and 1 dock. Mr. Knutson, Z believe in your packet there's a letter stating this and that's what has been determined. Z don't think there should be any further expansion. This is a very small lot. It's been abused. ~ think 2 even is too much for this size property and Z request that the Counc11 go along with the Planning Commission recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Chmiet: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Bick Hanson: My name is Oick Hanson and I'm in Lot G over there which is right next to Mary Jo Moore. Z guess Z have a bigger complaint about the offshore people on the lake. These people are my friends as well and Z hate to be opposing to them but there are so many offshore people now havlng access to the ].aka that the lake is absolutely becoming over ut£11zed, Z think. And every week in my mall Z get something from the Planning Commission or somebody else, off the lake is trying to get on the lake and to me it's time, we've got to stop that. And that's all Z have to say. And here we've got somebody with 35 feet. They want to get, ~ don't know how many people off the take on the lake and '(hey say they pay their fair share. We pay on the lake for the footage on the lake to take care of the milfoiL and everything else, and we've got ~ don't know how many people back there paying for 55 feet of lakeshore and they're not paying their fair share. Thank you. Mayor Chmie!: Thank you. Anyone else? City Council Heeting - July 26, 1993 Paula Roettger: Hi. My name is Paula Roettger and I own Lot i of Sterling Estates. I live at 32210artmouth Orive and I'm in favor of our recommendation for our outlot because when they first bought their houses they were under the impression that they were able to use that outlot and I think that they should. And so I'm in favor of it and I don't have any problems with any type of expansion because they moved into that neighborhood to live next to Lake Hinneuashta. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. I'd like to bring it back to Council. Richard. Do you have? Councilman Wing: Hr. Hayor and Council. Every time we go through one of these we seem to have to reinuent the wheel. I think Roger tried to cut us off this evening and try and emphasize why we're here tonight. This is our 14th or 15th one we've done and the word is consistency. The word is no growth. No expansion. They're not iT's or bur's. We're not here to look at petitions or requests for expansion. We only want to know what's here in 1981. And the Planning Commission meeting I attended I think vas quite comfortable with there was one dock and 2 boats there in 1981. That's the only issue we can discuss. We can't discuss '66. He can't discuss '86. He can't discuss expansion. Those aren't our options. We have beaches with 150 feet restricted the number of boats and if someone can prove to us what was there in '81, that's the absolute. There's no further discussion. It doesn't matter what covenants are. It doesn't matter what the requests are. It doesn't matter what we like. It doesn't matter that there's 10 houses and only 2 boats. We've had cases where there's 60 houses and only 4 boats. And we could go back to the history of '78-79-80 and discuss why the '81 ordinance was put in but I don't think we should spend time on that tonight. We've done it 14 times in the past so I don't mean to be harsh to the people petitioning but our position here is black and white. We're only looking for what vas there in 1981. And as I see it there was a dock. One dock and 2 boats. So that's really our only choice to discuss tonight. The other thing that comes up is that in 1983 when the park opened and we were given 26 parking spaces, that was predicated on all other launch areas on the take closed off. Whether it was Leech's. Whether it was the one we just did on Hinnewashta Parkway. There's no longer, you can't have private access or launches anymore. The State already determined that and they closed them all. So whether this one was there, I see as irrelevant to this discussion. With the park opening an access, we all put our boats in at the same place. So there's a lot of arguments here tonight but my only, along with every other one we've done up to 14 now, we've only tried to determine what was there in 1981 and that's the only question I can ask you. What was there in 1981 and if you had a boat dock and 4 boats and a picnic table and so on and so forth, then I don't have any problem. But the proof we have is pretty conclusive that there was one dock and 2 boats. So I'll have to support that position as we've done on every other one. The other issue we have is that the dock setback zone ordinance was passed this year. It's retroactive. It affects me as a lake owner. It affects non lake owners. It affects everyone. It means that I can't put my dock and my boat, portions of docks and moor boats in front of anybody etse's property. And the ordinance states that no dock, no portion of the dock, no boat, no boat lift or moored boat can be in the dock setback zone which is 10 feet from the property line, 10 feet. And I want to make sure that's clear tonight also so there's no confusion. From your property line in t0 feet, there can't be anything in that area by city ordinance and that affects myself and everybody else on the lake. City Council lteeting ,~ July 26, 1.993 And that came about because some of the lots were puttlng in docks and expanding boats to the point where they simply took over the neighboring property by 10, 20, 30 feet and those complaints and those in fact lawsuits 'forced this Council to pass an ordinance to keep everybody on their own property. So Z think that's the history of it and unless somebody can show me that there was more than a dock and 2 boats there ~n '81, I think we have the responsibility to maintain that 1981 ordinance as voted to do. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank yotz. Colleen. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Well, having Richard say that. We don't enjoy these issues at all because they do seem arbitrary. They almost are arbitrary but they're there for a -reason. We could go through all the history as to why this 198~. decision was made and the purposes for it but I think that you've heard it all before. And all that we can do as a Council is uphold that because it has been determined in the past that that's the standard that we want to use to restrict access to the lake and to protect our lakes. So without repeating everything that Councilman Wing said, I guess .T. would have to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. However, I do have a question to Kate. From what I see here in the 1.981 survey there were no boats on the dock. Is that correct? So it does seem 11kc this is somewhat of a compromise. I'm looking at the first page at the top. Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission, based on the evidence they had presented felt that there was. Resident: Is there a storm sewer in there at any one? Kate Aanenson: That wasn't part of the inventory. Resident: It is now. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that is sort of inmaterlal to what the position ls rlght I]OW. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anyway, I agree with the. Resident: ...extension? Councilwoman Dockendorf: 2 boats, i dock. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Well I haven't liked any of these much and I don't like this one either because no matter what we decide, I like it better when we can make decisions to please everybody, but that's not why I was elected to sit up here I guess. I do think councilman Wing said it pretty well. We have, I think we need to be consistent as posslble on these and I think almost wlthout exception we have concurred with the Planning Commission and I was glad that Mr. Knutson made the comment that he made. Our issue was what was here in '81 and that doesn't make it any harder or easier for anybody. Least of all us but that's not what you folks are here to hear. To be consistent ~ feel compelled to go along with the Planning Commission, whether I like it or not on this and that's City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 the issue of useage on the lake. I have a little trouble wrestling with that issue. You know at what point do we get to elitism or not but I don't, I guess I don't think that's the issue on this one so I will be concurring with the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mike. 3oleen Roy asked a question. Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. I'd be more than happy to. Joleen Roy: Councilman Wing, what is the intent of the restriction? Councilman Wing: Mrs. Roy, back in '78 and '79, and I wasn't, I guess I was involved in the '81 process but the City put forth a lake study committee. It became obvious that developers were buying 50 foot tracts of land and then tacking 60, 70, 80, 20, 40 homes into that 50 foot tract and it became obvious that the lake was going to be heavily populated because they were selling lake access and boat dockage to these 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 homes on this 50 foot tract of land. So the Clty got together, and your group was lncluded as well as everybody else. The Sterling Estates was part of this process as was everybody else on the lake, and declded that something had to be done to curtal1 thls massive expansion. So as a homeowner, one of the things that happened, I was taken back. State law allows me to have 5 boats. I was restricted under clty ordinance to 3 and those have to be blood relatives. So I can't have friends havlng boats at my house. And as part of the process then all of the recreational beachlots also were included in this process and no one wanted to be hurt. No one wanted to step on anybody so every recreational beachlot, Minnewashta Heights, and we had 16 of them in the city, were all grandfathered in in 1981. What was there. Whatever dock. Whatever boats you had. That was fine. No arguments. But then that was the end of it and a new beachlot ordinance came in that restricted that. Now you have to have hundreds of feet and each hundred foot gets a couple boats or something and there's a whole recreational beachlot ordinance. And thls really wasn't, and then these problems and complaints came in. So the city finally decided the past year, we have to do something about thls. A permlt process was established and after lengthy debate and public hearing, which you people were ali prlvy to and there's no questlon because a lot of your neighbors were there at the tlme, we decided as Council to go with the 1981 boat count. Rather than go to '91 and start all over. Enforce the '81 ordinance. So all we're dolng tonlght ls enforcing the 1981 ordinance that had a complete history and then that paralleled the 1983 lake study whlch then opened the publlc park. Restricted them to 26 parking spaces and that was predicated on the number of boats and what they basically dld ls take the DNR boat count for our lake and spllt it in half. And they gave to the iake owners, which then meant I went down to 3, and they gave all the rest to the non-lake owners whlch were the park and the recreational beachlots and then those boats were divled up. That's why there's only 26 parklng spaces over at the park. tf we expand your use from 2 to 4, we've doubled the 50~. We no longer then can say to the park, you can only have 26 boats. They can say, walt a mlnute. You're lettlng all your neighborhoods double their use. We're going to double our use and then it gets out of control. So thls has a very, very long hlstory. A long hlstory of publlc hearings to get where we are tonight and you can almost be apologetic that you don't have the history and I understand, how ~le've 9otter it to ~,~here it is tonight but before you hit with any more questions, I want the City Attorney to clarify that our or~ly thing we're listening to tonight is the '81 issue. Joleen Roy: I understand that. i understand that. Ny next question is about, you're trying to limit the number of motorized or any boats? My question is, how does a canoe, how would a canoe contribute to the pollution of Lake Nlnnewas hi a. Councilman Wing: None tahatsoever. Jo!een Roy: So then why can't we have a canoe? Councilman Wing: Well, let's go back to the attorney's statement~ bid you have a canoe rack in '817 Joleen Roy: No. Councilman Wing: Okay. Then we real].y can't, is it my understanding we can't ~ t addleso tna? issue thens Joleen Roy: But in 198! we all had the right, we had a right to keep a power boat on a dock which was taken away. Councilman Wing: Did they have that right Roger? Roger Knutson: Before there were any regulations they had the right to do anything. But the regulations went into effect in 1981 and after that date you cannot expand the ~se of that property. Joleen Roy: Are you talking about from the time that our community was developed up to '81, that number of boats is the number of boats we should be given or only what was there in '817 Roger Knutson: What was there in Joleen Roy: Yeah. So the idea of gettlng 4 boats is out. t understand that but, what is wrong with a picnic table on our outlot so we can sit and enjoy looklng at the lake? Or what ls wrong wlth a rack to hold a couple canoes? The idea here is that if we go to sell our homes, we would like to be able to offer to the people who are buying our homes the same thlng that we bought them for and paid money for. i want to be able to say to a young couple, yes you can keep a boat down at the outtot. But we can only have 2 motorboats but we could have like a sailfish, which is a non-motorized boat that would not contribute to the pollution of Lake Hinnewashta. Or a canoe or a 'rowboat to take a sma11 child out fishing in. Z mean to expect a young mother moving in to haul a boat over to the public access, and put it in the lake, is unrealistic. The reason ~e bought our homes in Ster].ing Estates was so that we could get on the lake. Roger Knutson: i guess the only response that t can respond just briefly. Is the ordinance that was passed does only one thing. It says what was there in 198.1.. Not whether it's a good idea to have more or a good idea to have less, But just ~hat was there in ].981. And that's the only thing the Council's doing 10 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 here tonight is making that decision. What was there. Joleen Roy: I think that the Council should be, rather than looking at the letter of law, they should be looking at the intent of the law and the intent of the law was to conserve Lake Minnewashta. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Hr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Regarding the picnlc table, you can certainly have a picnic table. That's not part of the ordinance, from what I understand. Isn't that correct? Roger Knutson: It's just a matter of what, Kate. Kate Aanenson: Well it's not addressed in the ordinance specifically but that goes back to what Roger explained earller. Your recreational beachlot, if you were to come in today, you'd need 30,000 square feet and 200 feet of lake frontage. If you quallfy for that, then you can have a dock wlth 3 boats. Then you can have a canoe rack. Okay again, we're going back to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Rlght, but lsa plcnlc table part of that at a117 Kate Aanenson: It's not addressed at a11. Neither is swimming. Anybody can swlm at a beachlot. But to have the canoe racks, agaln that goes back to that level of use. Councilman Wlng: And lt's true, boats don't make a h111 of beans. I mean I could care less... Kate Aanenson: But it's still the level of use. Councilman Wing: But then does everybody else come back and say well, so then we open up the door. Resident: Bottom line is taxes. I mean... Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your name and your address. Bill Rydell: Bill Rydell, 6210 Barberry Circle. If the case of what Kathryn is saying, you have to have so many square feet on the lake, we've got these condos that were bullt after '81 and I thlnk they have 11ks how many sllps down there for boats? Councilman Wlng: I was in on that one. Bill Ryds11: They weren't there in '81. Councilman Wing: But they've got 600 feet of lakeshore. 11 City Council Hse~.,i. n9 -- 3tl!y 26, 1.973 Bill Rydell: ldhat's the difference? Hayor Chmiel: You have to have a m.inimum~ Bill Rydei!: The bottom line is taxes, If you'd increased our taxes~ .would you 1. et us put boats on there? Councilman kiing: If you had a minimum of 200 feet of lakeshore. Naxor Chmiel' No, that's not the point. That's not the point. Bill g?de!l: If the point is~ we want to preserve the lake and that's been mentioned a number of times, then why do we keep approving lots for building on ~,e Hinnewashta. [,lhy do'r, t we just stop building houses on it? Ha. rot ChmLel: Because everyone has a right to build on their property Lf they're in conformance with the requirements that you have to have to build that home~ so you have to be in conformance w~th the. Bill RydeiJ..: kiel], let's take it backwards once. kihat if we had 20 boats at our d",-b i Councilman kiing'~ You'd have 20 boats. Itinnewashta Heights has 18 boats, l'hey had 18 boats ~,~.tth a picture. Aerial photographs in '8.t and we passed them. Didn't argue. Bill Pydel.!: $0 bottom line is still 'taxes with the whole thing: t mean if you want to spend the money and have 600 f~o" ' e,~[ of shoreline, you can have as many boats as you want. Councilman kiing: No. No. If you had 10 boats in 1981, we wouldn't be debating ,~:s ,.onight Tf you hay,'~ proof, whether you re paying no taxes ilayor Chmiel: See it really boils down to the word that's been used a couple times this evening, consistency. When you vary from what you're proposing or doing, then we're defeating the whole issue of what we're here for. ~o determine ~,~hether or not, and ~ guess it's not easy for us to make these decisions. It really isn't, kie're just trying to do what's right by everyone with what's there and consistenc? is the word that is used. And if it wasn't for that, anybody in town too could do anythlng they wanted if they didn't follow what the ordinance basicsaliy implied. Bill Rydell: And t understand where you're coming from and t appreciate your explanation but ()kay, councilman Wing. You're allowed 3 boats there right? Did you have 3 boats in '817 Councilman [~Ji. ng: $ boats. Bill Rydeli: YOU had 5 boats. matter of 'Fact I had a friend's boat there. Bill Rydel].: See that's where I don't understand. i2 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 Councilman Wing: See I've got 100 feet of lakeshore and I've got 3 boats. State law allows me to have 5. We went down to 3 and those are blood relative boats. I mean what's the polnt? I've got 110 feet of lakeshore and I have one power boat. A power boat, that's ali. Then a sailboat and a canoe. Bill Rydell: If our neighbors on the lake would say, hey listen we only have one boat and if you guys want to bring your boat down and put it on here, we can have 3 down here and we wouldn't have any problem? councilman Wing: I just told you, you'd have to be a blood relative by ordinance. Bill Ryde11: Okay. You did say that. Okay, thank you. Nary Rydell: I'm Mary Rydell and I'm 6210 Barberry Circle and I guess the only thlng that I would like to add, obviously we're not golng to have anythlng different happen here tonight and I think we've listened to everything there is to say but I really thlnk that for future people who are movlng lnto Sterllng Estates, I think that something needs to be said to the realtors of the area. Mayor Chmiel: I agree very much. Mary Rydell: It's very, very frustrating to have been sold something that is unuseable and our supposed frlends over here who have not been our frlends at all, but have been fighting us and are the ones who indeed actually brought thlngs up to begln wlth and stlrred up the pot for us, and caused us not to be able to have 4 boats but instead 2 because of the controversy and the fighting wlth the plctures and the proof that we collected. They collected other proof, which whatever. That's the bottom iine but we own something which is unuseable. For 8 of the 10 of us, in fact 9 of the 10 of us. It's an unuseable plece of worthless property that many of us feel we could just as well sol1 back to the clty or glve to the clty or do whatever and some of us are actually talklng about that. 8ut the realtors are the ones who need to be told, hey look. This is unfalr. You've got 10 more suckers comlng along. We've got a couple suckers sitting here who bought from the Hofer's. Mayor Chmiel: You've got a sucker sitting here too. Mary Ryde11: Alright. So what are we going to do to get the Realtors Association to be truthful when they're se111ng us lake access, ha ha. Thank yOU. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I was going to interject into this, because I didn't want to do repetition here is I live in Greenwood Shores which is off of County Road 17. And we have an access supposedly onto Lake Ann. When I bought my home I was told we have an access to go down there and put your boat in and do what you want. Well, that's not true because the ¢lty owns the property and I had to check it out myself and we did. And the city owns the deed to it but the realtors are the ones who do tell people, unfortunately, and it's some of that buyer beware that you have to really check and see as to what's happening. Mary Ryde11: Some of us moved from out of state and we trusted Minnesotans. C.i. ty Counc.[! Meeting -,Lfuly 26, 1993 Councilman Hason: I want 'to comment on it too. You know, as many of you know, ..T. iive in Carver Beach and there was a ~hole bunch of land around me and the realtor assured me that the city owned the 100 feet behind my lot and not to worry. Ue].]. buyer beware. And Z think that is something, and ~ happen to kno~ some very reputable realtors and I happen to know some that aren't quite as reput,sble and ~ do think it does, and it particularly in a situation like this, it's encumbant upon us to let people know that are buyln9 to look out. Hake sure they're getting, because yeah. Thls is a bad situation. ~ agree. Mary Jo Moore: If Z may again address the Councll and also Mr. and Mrs. Ryde11. ~. don't J. ike this any more than you do but Z also have to protect my property. Z bought in 1980 in Minnewashta Shores. A house up by Highway 7. Z was told by the realtor that Z had a dock and boat rights. T_ had legal counsel review my title flrst before Z let that closlng go through. T found out ~ dld not have it ,and it took quite a bit of effort on both the sell. er and the my part to get that straighten out on my deed. Zt's just one of those things. Zf you value the lake, and you're buying for the lake, which Z figured was a $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 add on that home, you make sure that you have that access and that's what I did. And Z'm sorry but .I also have to protect my property and I also am concerned about the lake. Z lived on Lotus Lake for 10 years. Z saw Lotus Lake go from a very serene, lovely lake to one way traffic and it's terrible. You can only go so fast and you can only go one way. ~ don't want a Lake Minnetonka on Lake Minnewashta and i've been fighting this for 10~i5 years. I've been involved in thls ordinance as both an off shore in Four position and now as an on shore. And .T_ am sorry. ! really don't like this. I don't like it with Weber's and Z talked to them when they bought and Z sald Z hope Jlm Hofer dldn't tell you you had dock rights and I'm sorry that he did. But it's just one of those thlngs. And I have to ask the Council to go along wlth the Planning Commission. Z've been here so many times they're getting to hate my face. Thank you. Joleen Roy: ! just have one thing to say. ! moved into my house in 1978 and I did have dock rights at that time. Uho's to know when the City Council's going to 'take them away. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that, hopefully the City Council did not take your rights away. Joleen Roy: Whoever. Someone did. Mayor Chmiel: There's no need going into any other reiterating with what already was said here. Wlth that Z'm golng to call the questlon wlth any addLtion81 disc~ssLon req~tired. Can I have a motion? Councilman Wing: Did yOu make a motion? Mayor Chmiel: I'm asking for a motion. Councilman Wing: I think we've gone through enough.' I think we all decided to abide by the Planning Commission recommendation of ~uly ?th, 1993. Mayor Chmiel." Okay. !ncludlng recommending 2 boats be docked overnight with no motor vehicle access to the take. The Commission recommended placing posts at 14 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 the entrance of the beachlot to prohibit access and the Commission also recommended that the 10 foot extension off of the 50 foot dock be eliminated. Councilman Wlng: I thlnk in fairness, so everybody understands, the clty ordinance that the dock setback ordinance be included as part of the permit. So we don't get caught in that lssue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that your motion Councilman Wing? Councilman Wlng: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit for Boyers Sterling Estates Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot to permit two (2) boats docked overnight at one dock 50 feet in length, with the 10 foot extension permitted if it meets the City's dock setback ordinance, no motor vehicle access to the lake, and recommending that a post be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the lake. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Kate, how many more of these have we got? One more? Joleen Roy: Are you saylng ue...take the T away because of the setback problem? In this letter from Roger Knutson, it says that legal non-conforming docks don't have to observe the dock setback zone. The zonlng ordinance provides... Roger Knutson: That was written quite a few years ago. That was in 1986. Joleen Roy: 1986. Roger Knutson: Rlght. The ordinance the Councilman ls talklng about was just passed a year ago. 6 months ago. This is a new ordinance. Joleen Roy said something that was not heard on the tape. Roger Knutson: Then you don't have to take the 10 feet off because of the dock setback. The only, dld the Plannlng Commission flnd that the extension was not there in 19817 I assume that was the issue. Mayor Chmiel: I believe that yeah, that was the issue. Councilman Wing: It was just a straight dock in Mayor Chmiel: Right. 3oleen Roy: No, I think it was there in 1981. Because that dock was always in as it is now. 15 Cluy Council Hee'ting ~- ~]L~ly 2~>, 1993 Kate Aanenson' Yes, there was. The survey in '81 showed the extension. Councilwoman Oockendorf: And it does meet the dock setback? Kate Aanenson" That I'm not aware of. So if you want to just clarify to say that they meet the dock setback zone. Roger Knutson: They can keep it. Councilman Wing: I have no trouble ~Jith the extension or the bench whatsoever on my motion as lorlg as it complied with the dock setback zone ordinance. Co~xncilwoman Dockendorf: Second agrees. Mayor Chmielz Okay, good. Thank you. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WORK HOURS FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION~ ARGUS DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT Charles Fotch: Hr. Hayor, members of the Council. The City has received a request from Argus Development Incorporated, the developer for Lake Susan Hllls ?th to extend the working hours on their project for the grading, utility and street construction. Currently thelr development contract restricts them from ?zOO a.m. to ?zOO p.m., Monday thru Friday and 9zO0 a.m. to .5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Because of the extremely large size of this project, the amount of grading work that needs to be done prior to home building and the wet weather that we've had this year, lt's pretty much delayed many projects in the city and so they'd like to try and pick up some ground on this year's schedule and they're asklng for a variance to extend the work hours an additional 2 hours into the evenlng, 'Monday thru Friday and then an additional hour in the morning and afternoon early evenlng on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to ~:00 p.m. and thls would only be for the grading, utility and street construction work aspects of the project and not the home bullding itself. They have sent, the developer has sent notices of this petition or request to all neighbors within 500 feet of this site. We've recelved some comments back both favorable and also some comments of concern. But it would be staff's recommendation, giYen all things considered that the work hours be extended to be ?:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 8z00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and this would only be for the site grading, utilities and street construction work. Mayor ChmieZ: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to this proposal? Would you like to come forward and please state your name and >'our addre~o. Robert Smlthburg: Well that group excited me. My name's Robert Smlthburg and Z Live at 8657 Chanhassen HiJ. ls Drive North and I guess I'm going to say something because of them. As far as this project has gone, it's really been a paln I think for everybody and it's not anybody's fault but their's that they came in wlth such a shoddy proposal initially and were delayed 2 months. I mean weather's an act of God understandably but I think the request is really out of 11ne. And I am representing and speaking not only for myself but for a number of other residents in my neighborhood that i spoke with over the last week. And we live adjacent to thls development. Run lsaak is asking you, the Counc11 and 16 City Council Heeting - July 26, 1993 we the residents to endure, I will quote him, a temporary inconvenience by extending construction hours and working hours to complete this project in less time than anticipated. Obviously Argus is in a rush because already, as short as the project has been, they've been shut down once already by the city for grading and clearing before final city approval. And we are strongly opposed to extending the construction hours to this contractor. This would be an inconsiderate request and are asking you not to grant this request. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Charles, in extending the timeframe, what ls the 11kely tlme it ls going to take them to do all thls gradlng and getting the utility and street construction aspects in for this project? Charles Folch: At this point probably 2 months. A good 2 months. Mayor Chmiel: Two full good months. And that's part of the problem wlth developing areas of what you get. Unfortunately I'm well aware of that and we've had other projects that have gone in and a lot of discussion because of the nolse and the poundlng and whatever else goes forth afterwards. Taklng roughly 2 months, being July, August, September. It's almost tlme to pull in for the snowbirds. Councilman Mason: Yeah, but you know with all the moisture in the ground, it's going to take a long time before it freezes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think we have any roads to put in so it probably won't snow until Oecember. But I guess I'm trying to determine how do we do thls wlth the amounts of work to be done. Do we take any consideration of any klnds of declbel readings within that particular area or if they obtain greater amount? And that lsa cost that's golng to be born back to the clty but I thlnk should be born back to the developer in putting this in. In other words I'm saylng, nolses that you're golng to get from construction of dolng thls or the grading that they have to go through. What those might be at the property line for those individuals that are concerned. Can we do something or look at something of that nature? Charles Folch: And that's something that can really vary from day to day, depending on. Mayor Chmiel: On the winds. Charles Folch: Winds. Equipment being in a certain area. Best guess without doing any of that work is that you probably, the nolse coming off of this project won't be any different than any other subdivision project outside of the fact that they're requesting to create or continue to create this noise longer 1ntb the evenlng, is what it amounts to. Mayor Chmiel: And starting a little earlier in the morning as well. Charles Folch: Just on Saturday. Mayor Chmiel: Yep, 8:00. Okay. 17 City Council Meeting -~]u!y 26, 199~1 Robert Smithburg: I'd like to add one more comment. To dispute you, I'm a sailor and Z work at 'the airport so Z'm into sound and wind. Our neighborhood i.s on the north and the west side over a meadow from this development. The ~:~inds toward tile fal.1, switch to the north and 'the rest. We're going to pounded all day and into the evening by noise. Predominant winds from that area. And as far as noise goes, it's going to be relentless. It's a iarge project. Heavy equipment constant. So I'll trade homes with you. Mayor Chmiel: Does it have a long drive. Be closer to the airport too. Okay, Mlchael~ Councilman Mason: Going til 9:00. You know I think of when Triple Crown went .in across from my quiet little neck of tile woods and that's oh a couple hundred feet away. They had a variance to work and boy thlngs would get qulet around suppertime and ~'d just start to relax and then...and you know people put in a long day. They want to come home for some peace and qulet and then, lnstead they get to spend, if we have any nice weather remaining, they get to spend it indoors because lt's too dog gone nolsey because of the bulldozers. I'll give them working on Saturdays but I just, golng until 9:00, that's relentless. They're going to wake up to that., The neighbors are golng to come home to it and some of them, and the kids they're going to try and get to bed at because they're 6 or ? or whatever, are golng to be complaining about the noise. You know, my house that I'm having b~.~ilt is 2 1/2. weeks behind because of tile weather. Well so be it. I've got to eat that up. I've got to flnd a place to live in a couple of weeks you know. That's life. ~ persona].ly don't thlnk that Bob and his neighbors should have to listen to that from 7:00 to 9:00 at nlght. ~'11 give them Saturday but ~ don't Like that extra 2 hours. I really don't. Ma?or Chmiei: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Oockendorf: i concur and I don't think surveying residents within 500 feet does the job~ You can hear it a lot further than that and ~ know, havlng been woken up the last couple of mornings at 7:00 a.m., I think that's too early but that's what city ordinance is so ~ agree with Michael. Saturdays ls okay but not the extra 2 hours in the evenlng on weeknlghts. This pro~ect is going to be long. It's a heavily populated area. ~ mean the next one we have comlng up, there are probably 2 people that are golng to hear it but thls one, there are too many people around to be inconvenienced for such a long time, partlculariy if lt's going to be 2 months. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess one of the concerns i had was asking that question the length of time was because of school starting in September. And you're looking at the first part of August and you have August and September and you're going into maybe parts of October. And so that was one of the reasons for my questioning 'For the length of time. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I think the ordinance was put in for a reason and whether regardless of the weather, the ordinance was there for a reason. But !'m going to differ with my two colleagues here because my wife puts in long hours and every Friday she says thank goodness I don't have to set that alarm Saturday mornlng. It's my one day I can sleep in. And listening to these cranking, squeaking tracks and the gunning diesels, I'm thinklng of her at 8:00 in the morning so I don't mlnd extending Saturday until 6:0Opera. from 5:00 p.m. but not 18 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 starting before 9:00 in the morning. Not on Saturday. Not on our one day to sleep in. Councilman Mason: I'll give you that. I don't have any trouble with that at a11. Councilman Wing: So I would support the Council with the exception of 8:00 Saturday morning stays to 9:00 and I would extend it to 6:00. That's one hour more on Saturday. These are 12 hour gradlng days. Councilman Mason: Yeah. That's non-stop. Councilman Wlng: Tlme to take a break. Councilman Mason: Yeah. So you're saying 9:00 til 6:00 on Saturday then Rlchard? Councilman Wing: 9:00 to 6:00 on Saturday and you said 7:00 to 7:00. Mayor Chmiel: 9:00 to 6:00 for Saturdays. Okay. And you're still sticking wlth the ?:00 to ?:007 Councilman Wing: Do you have any comments? Mayor Chmiel: Everybody's sort of stole my thunder. Not much more to look at it except I did want to address one of the letters that was written to our City Engineer. I'm hopeful that Peter Kurth and Judy has recelved a response to thelr questions. Is there a time limit on thls permit? Not really until it's completed and lt's normally about 2 1/2 month timeframe and what specifically does the permit cover? Excavation only or will it include home construction. Thls particular permit ls strlctly for the excavation and the roaduayw and does not include home construction. Is that correct Charles? Charles Folch: I'm assuming this letter was responded to but I'll, it actually came in while I was on vacation but I'll make sure if it hasn't, that a response gets out to Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. Alright, let's not. Let's recelve a motlon. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I would move that we approve the variance for construction work hours for Lake Susan Hllls West 9th Addition, Project 93-5 to extend the working hours from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and have it remain 7:00 to 7:00 durlng the weekdays. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: 9:00 to 6:00 on Saturday and 7:00 to 7:00 for the balance of the week. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve a variance to construction work hours for Lake Susan Hills West 9th ~ddition, Project 93-5 be adjusted to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and ~emaining at 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday thru Friday. The variance in the construction hours shall 19 City Council Meeting -July 26, .t. ge3 be limited to site grading and utility and street construction aspects of the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~ONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WORK_HOURS FOR ROYAL OAK ESTATES, PRO3EC~ 93-12. Charles Folch: Similar type of request from a project situation. Although this is, the request for this extension is basically for Saturday. Requesting again an hour earlier start and a hour later. Working on Saturday only. So that's the only difference between this and the previous request. Mayor Chmiel: Oka>,. is there anyone wishing to address this? I knew you had that gleam in your eye. Brett Davidson: I~11 wear two hats here. First, I'm the nearest homeowner to the pro~ect, which is also Z'm the developer of the pro~ect so that gives me a 11ttle bit of a shaded polnt of vlew. Obviously if I was a homeowner as close as ~ am I wouldn't appreciate it too much but this is a relatively sparsely populated area. I don't even thlnk we have any homes, other than my own home within 500 feet. So Z guess that's the biggest difference between this one and the other one is it's very sparsely populated. Mayor Chmiel' What is 'the closest home? Brett Davidson: Mine. Mayor Chmiei' No...what might be the farther distance than 500 feet? Brett Oavidson: t was sitting here trying to think of that while the other one was golng on and we're probably oh 600 to ?00 feet maybe. There's a new home that Darlene Turcholters have built and that is actuaZ!y in front of the property adjacent to mine towards the south and probably 200 to 300 yards back off the road. And then there's a house directly opposite my house that sits back up in the woods that's also a couple hundred yards off the road. So we're probably looking at the nearest one to be 500-600 feet. Mayor Chmiel: The oniy reason I ask that is I just recently met with some friends of ours who moved into an area in Plymouth when Plymouth was growing. Friday, in opening my packet the subject came up, because they were early residents within the area and construction became all along there. Her expression which was pretty strong for Mary to come up wlth, was that almost like me going bunkers listening to all that noise and she says, I know one thing right now, ~ will never, ever move into a community where there's golng to be growth around me and new construction coming in. She says I'm going to buy where it's all done. But unfortunately we have to get this done. So I can sometimes appreciate it. Okay. Any input on this one Richard? Councilman Wing: Well t agree it's more isolated. 7:00 to ?:00 on Saturdays, don't know. I keep hearing that speaking grates and those gunning diesels no matter whether it is. i hear wha-t the rest of the Council's got to say. Especially Colleen. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Mr. Oavidson, are you the brown stained house? 2o City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 Brett Davidson: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Rlght next door. That was the only household I was concerned about. Other than that, that one across CR 117, seems to be far enough away. Have you spoken with them? Brett Oavidson: To be fair to the Turcholters, no I have not spoken with them. However, my contractor that's dolng the gradlng told me the first day they started, she came over on a weekday to find out what the grading hours were for the week. Now they were actually working on the Rottlund piece of property which is directly opposite their's so it wasn't on my piece of property and no, I have not spoken to them. But to be falr and honest to them, they dld come out and they did show a concern from the Rottlund piece of property about what the work hours were. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was she concerned with the weekday or the weekend? 8rett Oavidson: Yes, she was concerned at that point with the weekday. Whether she had a concern on the weekend or not, I couldn't, to be honest to her, I couldn't say one over the other. The one advantage I guess they're getting that we have over the Rottlund plece of property ls they are dlrectly across from our piece of property, it's kind of, their house kind of sits behind a little knoll and off to the distance. But I'd be afrald to speak for her other than just telling you what she just said where she did have some concern the first day that they were gradlng Rottlund's property. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Okay, thanks. Yes, ?:00 in the mornlng on a Saturday ls rough. Llke Z sald, Z don't 11ke it on weekdays but. Charles Folch: Actually, excuse me Colleen. The request is for 8:00 to 6=00 on Saturday. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, thank you. Thank you. No, the request I believe is from 7:00 to 7:00. Brett Oavldson: My contractor's request is ?zOO to ?:00 on Saturdays. The staff recommended 8:00 to 6:00. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Okay. Wetl then I can support staff's recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I can support staff's recommendation on this one too. I'm a iittle concerned about Turcholters, is that the name? Yeah about but I guess on thls one I can live wlth 8:00 to 6:00 although I wouldn't be opposed to 9:00 to 6:00. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I pretty much feel the same way but in the event, if some complaints come in, I would like to leave that hour adjustment there. Brett Davidson: We would also do this. That is, all the way to the back of the property obviously ls where we would try and start on Saturday mornings. As a matter of fact, they try to start there all week. Weekday mornlngs back there 21 City Council Meeting -~ ,July 26, 1993 too. Obviously that's not always going to be the case~ You can't always do that but we would t.r'y and do that, to stay to the back. It makes me happier too. Councilman Wing: Is that Prince just north of this? Councilwoman Oockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Wing: What's he got to say? Has anybody talked to him? Councilman Mason: Well you know he talked with me just last night. Mayor Chmiel: He~s gone~ He's gone for the next couple months. Brett Oavidson: Yeah, he's on a touT- actually. Councilwoman DockendoYf: Didn't you know that? Councilman Wing: if it's not the Beach Boys I'm not up on it. I'll second whatever Colleen says. councilwoman Oockendorf: Old I move on it? Councilman Wing: No. Mayor Chmiel: If we couid put that in front of the cart too. Councilman Mason: I like that. Your comment on that Oon about if there are some problems, we can stop it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: $o I move the variance to construction work hours for Royal Oak Estates, Project No. 93-~ to go along with the staff recommendation to extend working hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless we hear some complaints from the TurchoLters, at which time we will reconsider our variance. Mayor Chmiei: Can we also just include in there that that can be worked out ~ith staff and that the hours of starting would be an hour later? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Mason: I'Ll second that. I would also like to thank Mr. Oavidson for his willingness to discuss the issue~ That helps. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Oockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to grant a variance to the construction work hours for Royal Oak Estates, Project No. ~)3-12 be adjusted to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless a complaint is recelved from the neighbors, at which t£me staff will adjust the work hours accordingly. The varlance in the construction hours shall be limited to site grading and utllity and street construction aspects of the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 22 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1993 APPROVE LIQUOR CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL THEATRES CORPORATION, CENTURY PARK PICTURES CORPORATION. Mayor Chmiel: This is the one that I mentioned that Roger wants to see a revision made to the agreement regarding approving that liquor concession agreement wlth the International Theatre Corporation, Century Park Plctures Corporation. Roger. Roger Knutson: The letter is pretty self explanatory. The exlsting owner of the Dinner Theatre is in the process of selling it. The Oinner Theatre, as everyone knows, has a 11quor 11cerise. The new owner wlll be comlng in and asking for a liquor license but there is not time to process that 11quor license application between the tlme when they would 11ke to close and the tlme they'd like to take over. So what the ordinance says ls, unless you have an liquor 11cense, obviously you can't sell 11quor. To cover these klnd of situations, what's happened in the past is the setler and the owner enter into what amounts to a management agreement whereby the seller wlll keep all the proflts from the sale of 11quor until the new owner gets the 11quor license, assuming the new owner does. And unt11 that polnt the exltlng party, the seller, keeps all the profits and this allows them to continue to sell iiquor. Now the wording of thls has a few concerns ulth, Z don't thlnk you really need to worry about that. If you recommend it's acceptable to you to approve thls subject to us working out the detalls on the wordlng. Mayor Chmiel: Does that mean we get some additional revenues from this as well? Roger Knutson: Well they stay in business and they have to get a new liquor 11cense. For your information, the only thlng I have to cover ls maklng sure that the new owner doesn't derive any of the profits until they're on the liquor license. You can't get the profits until you have the license. And this needs to be tlghten doun...but there's an agreement in concept. Mayor Chmiel: I always like to think about what's good for the city is good for the city. So with that. Councilman Mason: I would move approval that we approve the attached concession agreement contingent upon the City Attorney and thelr attorney working on a revlslon to the sectlon regarding fees. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council approve the Liquor Concession Agreement with International Theatres Corporation, Century Park Pictures Corporation contingent upon the City Attorney and their attorney working on a revision to the section regarding fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: I think we do get additional money out of it. It's been a long time...but I thlnk the way it goes is the old owner gets a rebate of the remaining months but the new our, er has to pay an entire year's new license. So you actually get. 23 City Ootxnci] lteeting---,.~u].y 26~ .1993 Mayor Chmiel: Good. I'm glad you clarified that because I thought there was some kind of thing that came up regarding that. APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Mayor Chmiel: t4e met this ~veni. ng to do the last review with Clark Cummings and prior to last, last ftonday, or ~ should say July 12th we met with Jane Meger and Rod Franks. And maybe what Z'd like to do, being that yogi didn't, make that one Richard. Naybe we could just sort of go over some of Clark Cummings. Councilman t4ing: Did you as a group make a decision? Councilwoman Docker, doff: No. ltayor C:hmiel: Not real.].>', no. We got down. here to the Council meeting because were running a little Late up there. CoLtncilman Wing: Don't review for my sake. Other than I read the applications and ! really am comfortable with the commission's establ, ishing who they fee.]. they can get along uith and if there's a consensus between the 3 of you, i'm going to stay OUt Of it. Hayor Chmiel: Well I sort of came up with my conclusion. ! don't know if it makes any difference. I think all three of the appl. icants are excellent candidates. .It's a~ways hard to come up with a conclusion. Z did not f}~p a coin. And I sort of came up with two different ones that Z really .-Liked. l liked all three but the two that Z think have some additional input, ~hat they can put into what we're Looking at because of their educational backgrounds. One being Recreation Administration and the other is a resource and conservation as well and the answers that Z got, 1 was satisfied with. But the two that I'm looking at are Clark Cummings and Jane Hewer... But those are the t~o that I. Councilman Mason: Those were the two that I came up with and I think in deference to, therefore in deference to the Park and Rec Commission that spent a_li the time doing the interviewing, I guess because of that I'd tip the scales to Jane because that was I believe their 'first choice. If I'm not mistaken, i believe the? ranked the. Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, I liked what Jane's background is. Councilman Hason' But I did agree. All three of them I think would have been fine but Jane and C~ark did stick out. Hayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman bockendorf: I would agree it's tough. I mean you get people who want to serve our community and very qualified people and I was, and a toss up as well but I guess I would defer to the Commission's recommendation. ftayor Chmiel: Richard. You were there for the last one, weren't you? For Jane? Councilman Wing: Yeah~ ! have no comment, 24 City Council Meeting - July 26, 199~ Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay. I guess I lean a little more towards Jane, although I did like some of the answers that Clark had given this evening. Excellent returns on the volleys I'd say. So I would like to make a motion that the new applicant for the position of the Park and Recreation Commission would be Jane S. Meger, Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Jane S. Meger to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: And thank you to the other applicants as I've indicated as well. Just don't stop now with another application or if another posltlon comes up on some of the other commissions, I would like them to please reconsider making an application because lt's great to have people do that. Councilman Wing: I always, when the agenda. Mayor Chmiel: When it comes to Council Presentations, no you can't talk because Z said I was going to be done by 9:00. Councilman Wing: Well I'll be done. I just want to make a quick comment. On these recreational beachlots, Z want to urge this city to monitor, to enforce and follow through and pay attention. And that ls if we have to hlre full time to monitor. I don't want to ever put any of this on future Councils. In any way, mean or form. Thls ls the worst stuff in the world. And Z'd 11ko thls enforced every year. Every month right straight through so we never address these issues again. Ever, ever, ever, ever. Councilman Mason: I second that emotion. Mayor Chmiel: It never happens unfortunately. Councilman Wing: The other thing, under Administrative Presentations. And you want to be out of here by 9:00. You may choose to table this but Z want to bring it up. Between Kate and Todd, all the 1and at the west end of the city is bought, sold and belng developed or proposed. And lt's been made clear that we . want a park out on the west end and that park no longer is going to be free. That park ls golng to cost somebody money or we're not golng to get one and I'm just wondering if you would allow Todd to update up on the status of the deficient park area and what may be occurring and what may be costing us out there. I don't know if it's appropriate tonight. Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk what we could probably wlnd up dolng ls puttlng that on the next agenda so he at least has that time to sit down to come up with some of his conclusions. Councilman Wing: That's fine with me. Kate Aanenson: We've also received petitions from some of the neighbors in support that we told them we'd put in the next Council packet. Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I would ask for a motlon for adjournment. 25 City C:ounc.ij_ Heet:~.ng --Jul? 2~ i993 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carrled. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth C.~ty Manager Prepared by Nanrl Ophei~ 26