03-02-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 3, 1982 -2- 6. CANDIDATES FOR PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION VACANCIES: A. Planning Commission Alternate - The Council reviewed the application of William Peterson, 2778 Legion. Mr. Peterson confirmed his desire to serve on the Planning Com- mission and answered questions of the Council about his interest in the City and how he felt he could serve the City by actively participating on the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson has been a resident of Lake Elmo for four years; and was the only applicant for the Planning Commission position. M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to appoint William Peterson as lst Alternate to the Planning Commission to serve until a vacancy occurs or until December 31, 1984, whichever comes first. B. Park Commission - Vacancy and Alternates - Three residents applied for -the Par'�C 'Commission positions, Charles Clausen, 63 Cimarron, Nancy Hansen, 8024 Hill Tr, and Arlyn Christ, 8928 36th St. N. Mr. Clausen was the only applicant available for interview at this meeting. Mrs. Hansen and Mr:: Christ will be available on March 16. Mr. Christ would like to be considered for the alternate position only. The Council reviewed Mr. Clausen's application and directed questions to his position on vandalism, past experience involving parks and his interest in preserving open space and natural resources. Mr. Clausen has been a resident of Lake Elmo for 3 1/2 yr. In fairness to the other two applicants,the Council decided to delay making any appointments. M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to table any decision on Park Commission appointments until all the applicants are interviewed. 7. PUBLIC INQUIRIES: None 8. CUP - CIMARRON GOLF COURSE: The Council reviewed Cimarron's response, as outlined in the Administrator's memo of February 24, 1982. --Mottaz - asked Mike Ahrens about the response,the Council requested, from their insurance company on add.ttional coverage that could be passed on through the green fees. --Ahrens - after talking to their insurance agent, they determined it would be more financially feasible for Cimarron to share the deductable amount of the homeowners costs on a 50/50 basis. --Fraser - finds Cimarron's response, as outlined in the memo, completely unacceptable. Two issues - noise - memo indicates Cimarron is going to inquire about improving - this is taking too long to do too little. Other issue - insurance,- responsibility indicated in Cimarron's letter is completely unacceptable - would p.reter,)to change concept to the wording that came from the City Attorney's office„(per Fraser's request), that being,that Cimarron shall be responsible for any damage to persons, passing vehicles or adjacent buildings as a result of activities on the golf course. This is the wording that should be in the CUP, --Mottaz - agrees with Fraser - not satisified with what Cimarron is committing (in their .letterl PCA standards is not the question - not the loudness of the noise, but the nuisance £actor of the noise. Nuisance factor is not established by State or Federal standards - nuisance factor is something determined by the local unit of government.