12-06-2010 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 6, 2010 APPROVED 45 2. Code of Conduct- Administration Director Tesch reported that the council 46 recently added conflict of interest language to its own code of conduct. The council 47 asked about similar language for city boards and commissions and the ordinance 48 amendment presented would add the language to the city code. It was confirmed that the 49 language doesn't apply to the charter commission but since the commission has been 50 working on the matter, staff was directed to inform the commission of the council's work. 51 3. Off-Road Vehicle Riding Facility in R-1 Zone—City Planner Smyser noted that 52 this matter was previously discussed at the November 22, 2010 council meeting. The 53 background is that the city has received complaints about the impact of an off-road 54 riding/racing facility that is located on private property in an R-1 zoning district. Upon 55 hearing of the complaints, staff reviewed the zoning ordinance and worked with the city 56 attorney to develop a determination that the use isn't appropriate in an R-1 district. That 57 determination is being challenged by the owners of the property(with the riding track on 58 it). The zoning ordinance states that the council can make a determination when"a 59 proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied" as is the case with this use. Mr. 60 Smyser added that a question was posed during the previous discussion of this matter 61 about whether or not this is a zoning issue or a nuisance issue. He offered that the same 62 question could be posed to most zoning issues since it strikes to the very question of why 63 zoning regulations exist. He noted that there are interested area residents present at the 64 meeting tonight. 65 Mayor Reinert remarked that the use (riding track) is clearly a use that doesn't belong in a `,. 66 residential area even though the current situation exists on a rather large piece of land. 67 He noted that this matter could have ended with passage of the determining resolution at 68 the last council meeting but the council was interested in seeing if something could be 69 worked out. It would have to be worked out so that the use isn't bothering others, clearly 70 not the present case. The property owners (of the track)were asked to speak with 71 neighbors and see what could possibly be done. 72 73 Noel Foster, son of the track property owner indicated that he spoke with the Papp family 74 (who spoke at the council meeting)but wasn't able to reach others. He didn't get a 75 positive response and, while he understands that neighbors want to use their improved 76 properties, he has some concern about his own rights to use his family's property. He is 77 willing to put in a sound berm in certain areas and also add mufflers to the bikes. In 78 addition he would limit riding times in a way that would be a conditional use. He 79 continues to be open to communication with the neighbors and has always honored 80 requests to not use the facility at certain times. He is still also concerned that the motor 81 bikes are being treated differently than other motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles that 82 are not banned in the city. 83 The council discussed with Mr. Foster the improvements that have occurred to the track 84 over the past 10-12 years. Mr. Foster suggested that while there may be more use now, 85 there were certainly more people using it in the past. It was noted by the council that they 86 wanted to find a way to make this work for everyone because they recognize that the 2