The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 02 22AZ m~ 237 W~ nc c( {ANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL 'X~3LAR MEETIN~ · R[~=RY 22, 1988 tyor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The ~ting was opened with the .edge to the Flag. D4BERS PRESENT: Oouncilman Boyt, ~ouncilman (~ving and Councilman Horn ~BERS ABSENT: Councilman Johnson iAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, James ~affee, Lori Sietsena, Todd Gerhardt and. Ell~ott Knetsch, City Attorr~y. ~PROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor' Hsmilton seconded, to ~orove the agenda as presented with the following additions: Mayor Hamilton three items he wanted to add to the Council Presentations. Referenda, ~lic Safety (kmanission ~ the use of mailbox solicitation. Don Ashworth nted to discuss Absentee Ballot Counting Board. All voted in favor and .tion carried. ~SENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's =~ndations: a. Approval of Develo[a~ent Contract for Riley Lake F~adows, Richard Vogel. b. Resolution #88-13: ~ccept Utilities in Hidden Valley - Phase 1 and2. j. Accounts Payable dated February 22, 1988 k. City Council Minutes dated February 8, 1988 Planning Cc~mission Minutes dated February 3, 1988 1. Accept Securities in lieu of Retainage Agreement, Shafer Construction. · _ Z voted in favor and motion carried. .~SENT AGENDA: (F) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPH2IFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO .(E BID~ FCR PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE EXPANSION. ~ncilman Boyt: A question for Gary. You mentioned $17,0~0.00 for leaks on ~ Public Works Garage expansion. It looks like we have the capacity ar~ the ount of money provided to cover that. I don't understand why we would want put off repairing leaks in the roof. ry Warren: I guess I'm hedging my bets until I see the quotes that come in. zk could be done if the final dollar bids come in at a co.fore-hie level and could come hack with that piece of the puzzle. We've lived with it. We're t talking about huge waterfalls of water when it rains but we just have s~me ?ing problems that could be done at any time. until we actually see the City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 bidding climate and get the dollar bid amounts in here, I'm just preferring not to include that in the bid package. Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question? Councilman Boyt: That answers my question. I don't happen to agree with the logic but it answers my question. CONSENT AGENDA: (H) COLOR SELECTION FOR N~ WATER TOWER. Councilman Boyt: On choosing the color of the new w~ter tower. It is my opinion that there are s~me people who are going to be living very close to that water tower. I think those people should be given a few options and asked to choose one. Mayor Hamilton: The only concern I had about painting them was if there's any opportunity on the bottom part of it, to do more of a mural type painting so it looks like there are trees or a house or something around the bottom the same with the tree level that is there now and the top from there and the background from that could be something. I don't know how it w~uld look but it se~ms like it might blend in with the scenery around it better in the wintertime. In the summertime I don't think you're going to hardly see it. Gary Warren: With the change of seasons, it's hard to decide which way to go with that. It might be something, a mural we can always add as long as we've got scme basic background color there that we could add. We do have the passive park that is supposed to be developed around the base of the tower. That might be appropriate to consider if we would want to do any murals as a part of that park. Tae other thing is, as I was suggesting, the color for this tank ought to also be utilized in our other two towers so would that mean you would want to involve the neighbors from the other two tanks in the selection process? Councilman Boyt: What I'm saying Gary is, this is a pretty significant structure and it's in the backyard of a number of people. I think to sit here and arbitrarily choose a color that they're going to live with everyday, there's a better way to do that. Councilman Horn: I think they should be neutral in color. Mayor Hamilton: I agree and I guess I feel that's why we're elected is to make those ki. nds of decisions. If you have to go back to the neighborhood with everything you try to decide, we'd be here forever trying to get something done. ~nat's why we're here and I think they're shown confidence in us by electing us and those are the kinds of issues we deal with. If we were going to pick orange or something, then I think they've got a legitimate complaint. Councilman Horn: I think since w~ w~nt to put our logo on it, this is probably one of the better colors to display our logo against. It's a very passive color. I've seen towers that color. It's about as earthtone as you can get. Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't have any problem if we were to say this AH-52 is the color that we feel the tower ought to be. Maybe you can do an artist C~ty Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 c~lorirg of the tower as it sits in there ar~ send it out to the neighbors and s~y this is how it's going to look when it's painted and if you have any nts you wish to make, forward thsm-tO. City .Hall. C~uncilman Boyt: That sounds reasonable. If we're providing an opportunity f~_ the neighborhood to respor~ to the color before we've got the tower p~inted, I can agree to that. 239 gz h~ a~ ,or Hamilton: Is s~methirg like that possible? ~y Warren: I might suggest, there's a tower right on the Crosstown and 494 It is a very similar to shade. You could send a notice to ~er large of a ~up you would like and indicate that the color we're anticipating is located ~e. That would give them a better perspective than what we could do in an fist rendering. ncilman Geving: There aren't too many neighbors in that particular ghborhood. It's difficult to pick out 50~ feet or 1,0~0 feet. You'd just ha~.. e to pick most the hemes. I like the idea. ., F~_.~or Hamilton: I think someone could take that AH-52 and just do a hand sketch if they have to and paint the whole thing kind of to scale. It doesn't have to be an artist drawing but s(m~ething that's kind of to scale. Draw s(m~e tr~es around the bottom and say this is the proposed color. Gaky Warren: We do have s~me renderings when we were looking at the logo, if ~Y~. recall, that they have done perspectives so I'll talk with-~ and maybe 11 color up one of those and have it on display here and also ser~ out a no~ice in the mail. C~jncilman Boyt: The notice will include the color? Ga~y Warren: Yes. COGENT ~: (I) APPRf)VAL OF GENERIC VERSION ~F DEVELO~ ~ (D~VELOPER INS~J~D IMPROVI~{~S). Co~mcilman Geving: I particularly liked the comments that were made by Gary Warren, our Engineer, and our City Attorney on this particular it~. I think they picked up s(~e major improvements to our develoIzaent contract. I pa.Zticularly liked the iteu on erosion control whereby the City will pick up an~ re~ove the hales and other things that are out there and charge back to the deF..eloper. I think it's ~ a problem that Gary's had for a long time. Also the street lighting. I think it's a major improvement on how we handle that. Then I want to mix in with this, comuents on 1(1) where we're substitutirg a securities agreement. I would like to not only include the language in the securities agreenent shown in' it~a 1(1) into the revised DeveloImment Contract. It-seems to fit here under securities. It's a new mode of security and I think th~s is a good point. As lorg as we're having to rewrite that area anyway, to include that as an itu. Do you have any probl~ with that Gary? Ga~y Warren: No, that's a good c~mmmt. Typically, in the larger projects like we have with Shafer, we wpuld really be able to make. use of. that. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: It seems like w~'re doing a r~odification of it anyways so this would be a good time to do it. That's all I had Mr. Mayor. Councilman Boyt: I was looking for the reference point. We might as ~11 start with construction hours which is Miscellaneous (m). Page 18. I agree t_hat this is what ~ typically ask people to do. I'd like to see us include Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday in the holidays, as far as non-work days. Mayor Hamilton: Thanksgiving day and what others? Councilman Boyt: Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday I think are typically holidays. I think it's more than just Thursday. Past experience has told me that this is not going to fly but I still think asking th~ to not work on Saturdays makes sense. Unless there are other members of the Council that feel that way, I'm not going to push it. So that's what I had on (m) was to ask for Thanksgiving to be included. I think that on page 10, Point 7, Clean-up. We've discussed this a few times. We've included it in other develol~nent contracts and I think we should reference it here to maintain a neat work site specifically in reference to blowable itens. Are you with me Gary? Gary Warren: Yes, I guess you had brought that up a number of times and I've tried to get some wording that you'd like to suggest. Whatever way you want to go. Councilman Boyt: I think something on the order of a neat and orderly work site would probably cover it. Gary Warren: The developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and daily clean-up. Sc~ething like that? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Mayor Hamilton: I wish there was a better way w~ could control blowable materials. It's frustrating that stuff blowing all over town. Councilman Geving: It's mostly the insulation that you see or the insulation wrapper. Mayor Hamilton: When they do shingling too, they tear the wrappers open on the roof and just throw the paper and pretty soon it's 4 blocks down. Councilman Boyt: Maybe it's under Park and Trail dedication but I thought I saw a reference to a 10 foot trail easement. That might have been an item l(a) that you referenced back to this general improvsment agreement. Is that correct? Gary Warren: I'm sorry I was writing. Councilman Boyt: In the development contract for item l(a), which you referenced to any changes that occurred in l(i) would be reflected in l(a). I'm not sure if it was in there or if it was in l(i) where I noticed that you had a 10 foot trail easement. Park and Rec historically asks for a 20 foot C~ty Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 241 ~:ail easement so they have some room to swing their- trail to get a~6und m ~tural obstacles and that sort of thing. G~-y Warren: That's in l(a) for Riley Lake Meadows ar~ that was pulled right ~t of the condition of approval. B Lrbara Dacy: Right. The 10 feet ~s specific to that subdivision because t mt was ~ the north side of Pionc~cr Trail. C ~uncilman Boyt: Thanks for clarifying that. ~hat's all I have on l(i) then. ~Y°r Hamilton: Let's go back to your first one. Page 18, it~ (m). You want t~ add Thanksgiving day. · C~uncilman Boyt: Thursday and Friday. a~yOr Hamilton: I could along with Thanksgiving Day I guess but not the day ter. I don't know what the rest of the (k)uncil thinks. Cgur~ilman Geving: I agree. .C(~unci lman Horn: Yes. : yor Hamilton: Then your next one was Page 10, Clean-Up and the w~rding that s going to be added there. C~.uncilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent A~enda it~m~ pursuant to the City Manager's rec(mm~ndations with the noted c~anges: f. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Resolution ~88-14: Authorization to take Bids for Public Works Garage Expansion. h. Color Selection for New Water Tour. . : i. Approval of Generic Version of DeveloI~t Contract (Developer Installed Improv~m~ts). · A~i voted in favor and motion carried. V.]~ ITORS PRESENTATION: : Mawr Hamilton: Bob Haak is back again for how many years? I know you're back a~ain for several times and you have the same problem. I keep thinking w~'re going to get your problem resolved but apparently w~' re not. Are w~ making progress? B~b Haak, 770 Pioneer Trail: No progress so far. I do have a runoff problem a~ it seems to be getting worse. I've had this problem since 1973. Here are sc~ photographs that I 'ye taken over the years. ~ne most recent ones are this 1.a~t s~er. Anytime w~ get a rainfall fr~m 3" to 10" as in last s%mmer, or le~s, all the water that I can '-cc, the area that I have to my north, to the City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 east, to the south all comes down through my property. I don' t mind so much if it cc~es through my property but I guess what I mir~ is that so much of it does and it's restricted by a couple of culverts and I wish something could be done about it. A few years ago, ar~ it doesn't only happen on my property but my neighbors to my east and west are affected by it. I have tried to make improvements to this by widening the ditch, taking out all the dead wood, mowing it all the time and it .really doesn't help. Several years ago when the 201 program was put into effect, the County wide sewer thing, I asked to have a mound system put in because it w~s already bad and getting worse so I ended up with a mound system and a pump tank. Now, what happens is the water that flows through there, backs up and fills up the pump tank which is like 10 feet deep so it renders it useless because it can't keep up with the water that's flowing into it. The problems are getting worse with the development of Gagne property, if they pave West 96th Street, the develo~x~ent by Bluff Creek Golf Course, if that happens, it all contributes to more water flowing down through my property. I feel there is a solution to it and I think some restricting culverts further down the road but s(m~e wider ones closer to my home w~uld alleviate pretty much this problem. Like I say, I don't mind if the water goes through there, it has to. Tnere's no other w~y but if we could make it go through faster, that would really, really do a lot and I guess what irritates me a little more than anything is that I sent a letter in 1977 and I did get a response, no action. Here in 1987, I sent a letter to Mr. Warren and the Council September 28th and I have not received an answer yet. Councilman Geving: When you say the culverts should be increased in size down the road, do you mean to the east? Bob Haak: To the west. Councilman Geving: ~ne water runs to the west there? Bob Haak: The water runs to the west to Bluff Creek. It goes in Bluff Creek about a mile down the road. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, could you set up a time to meet with Mr. Haak so you can review the situation and scc if we can't do s~ething about it prior to the spring when he'll probably have more water. Gary Warren: Yes, we've been talking to the County, as this is a County issue here and we'll set up a meeting with him. Give him a call temorrow. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could leave a number with Gary that he can reach you at so he can be sure to get a hold of you. Councilman Horn: How many of these pictures were taken after the big rainfall last summer ? Councilman Geving: Is most of the water that you get come from the north? From 96th Street? Bob Haak: I cannot say that. If I look north, east, west, it even cc~es across from the southeast corner of TH 101 and Pioneer Trail. There's a culvert that goes under Pioneer Trail and then there's a culvert that goes under TH 101. It c~mss from all over. Especially on the south side, the hill C.[ty Council Meeting ' February 22~ 1988 ~ the south side2 (~ uncilman Geving: Let me ask you from a sanitary standpoint or safety st ~x~point, do you feel your hc~e is beirg affected by this water ar~ the 2~1 ~tic system that you installed? ~ Haak: If my home is beirg affected by it? Ck,uncilman Geving: The water quality in your home and the septic systsm that mJ ght be l~hed because of this problem. B~ Haak: I think just the water quality flowing anywhere from my place w~uld b affected ~ because it all soaks into the grourzl, I 'm sore that there must O uncilman Geving: Have you ever had your water tested? ~.~ Haak: Yes. That was several years ago. ~iyor Hamilton: Please let us know if you don't receive a call from the City E~ineer or you're cc~pletely satisfied. . J~dy DeJoode, 811 Pio_r~-cr Trail: I'd like to speak also. We live right next t~ the _Haak's and where the culverts'I think are holding everything up. When 't~ey redid our street and blacktopped it, they put a huge culvert which water down the Bluff Creek Golf Course in torrents, just terrible ar~ that can't urger our t~n driveways. It backs up in addition to' everything else. I a~so wrote a letter on July 27th to Mr. Warren which was never responded to. W9 also have Scme real concerns, the water-does go through our two culverts but i~'s errodirg just terribly. When they developed the land, Pior~r Hills just w~t of us, that was all dug up. There was a big bole there. I don't know if ygu came out to look at that or not. Our fence line is goirg to go. Something h~s to be done. M~yor Hamilton: We also have another visitors presentation. Jim McMahon who the First Assistant Fire Chief with the Chanhassen Fire Department would l~ke to tell us about the actions of one of our citizens that we should be made a~are of and make a presentation. Ji~ McMahon: Specifically, what's in reference here is on January 18, 1988 C~an Aslesen of Minneapolis was eastbound on ~H 169 when he approached a car s~tting on the ea__~tbound side of the road. His lights were on and the car was .p~rked there. Chad felt there was scmethirg wrorg ar~ that he should stop to i~vestigate. Upon doing that, he found the driver to be unconscious. This r~ticular vehicle was involved in a hit ar~ run accident and while trying to ive the driver he noticed that the car also had caught on fire. He then p~l_, led this driver frc~ the car while he was unconscious and dragged him a safe d~.stance from the car, flagged down a truck who radioed for ~ergency service. B~. the time that our first emergency vehicle arrived on the scene, the car was c .d~pletely engulfed. Had Chad no stopped out of concern for this particular ir~ividual and his vehicle, there's no doubt the man would have died. As a wi~ that he did have concern over this, the man survived the incident. So that, in appreciation from the City of Chanhassen and the Chanhasse~ Fire 243 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Department, we'd like to award you with this plaque Chad and thank you personally for your act. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad and certainly thank you for your showing outstanding courage and timeliness in an incident like this. The world and our c(m~nunity and others like it can certainly use more people like yourself. Thanks again. STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA P~Y ON PROPERTY ZONfD RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. VARIANCE TO THE RECRF2%TIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIO~L BEACHLOT. Mayor Hamilton: This its~ was discussed at the Board of Adjustments and Review and it was voted by a 2 to 1 vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the applicant would like to have the Council consider this iten. The reason given for the vote was both Carol and Willard did not want to issue a variance to the 100 foot lot depth. My feeling is that it's one piece of property. It's under one PID number. It is one parcel and I 'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot depth exists even though there is a roadway passing through the property. It is one parcel. It's not two. You can't build a house on the lake portion of it. It's all connected. It was sold as one. It's under one ownership. Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think we reviewed it previously but you might want to show us what our alternatives are here. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting in essence three variances. Tne first variance is the depth requirement of 100 feet. In order to have a dock you must have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth and 30,000 square feet of area. The subject site does not have consistent lot depth of 100 feet. At the northerly part of the property, it does measure 115 feet. }bwever, the narrowest portion does measure 40 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have the dock and then the next request is to have four boat slips instead of the required three boat slips. Thirdly, the number of canoe racks in the ordinance is tied to the nu~lber of docks. One canoe rack is permitted per dock. The applicant is requesting two canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. The staff's rec~ation is based on the City Attorney's opinion which is included in your packet. That recomnendation is to deny the variance request. The Attorney's suggestion is to amend the ordinance rather than issue a variance. If the Council is going to approve the request, the following sunxnarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variance should be issued to the lot depth requirement first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Then the Council should decide on whether or not a variance should be granted to allow one additional slip. Finally, a variance to the number of canoe racks. Again, two being proposed and none being permitted. We'd also suggest that if a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to the plan stamped "Received February 18, 1988". Finally, in regards to the second item on the agenda, even if the variances were denied on all of these itsms, the applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a more Cit pas May Mar tha~ Cha hay the, it. obj Ray ~h~ he~ sid~ hut the hoa li~ Cour myt aga] Coul one rea~ rigf dev~ ril~ f Oouncil Meeting - February 22~ 1988 ~ive manner. That being a swimirg beach, recreational area, etc~2 )r Hamilton: We have m~nbers here in the audience that I think w~uld like ~peak to this issue. Did you want to comment again? Jo Moore: I live on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Association has a dock. It's gotten totally out of hand. I think this ordinance that ~9~assen came up with, it was after a 2 year study based on the fact that we .~ too many of these associations arour~ the lake. They get out of hand ar~ ,'re not maintained. It's a good ordinance and I think we should abide by I have no objection, because of the size of this property, I have no ~tion to a swimning beach, volleyball, whatever, canoes, but I don't think should be allowed a dock. Thank you. Ruttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my comment ~ms relative to the :ss road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time ar~ 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. ~ne neighbors me angry at us. Essentially, they had not maintained it. They do ~lutely nothing to maintain it or remove the dock or put a painting on the ~. There are cans out there. Whatever maintenance is required in the dock · Then they became upset because they couldn't put boat lifts out there it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but you're talking it large pontoon boats. ~ne last person who parked the big pontoon out ~e became upset because the realtor told him that he could put any and all ~ on the property. So we kind of indicated that he better check it out ~ the City· He better check it out with the Ordinance before you go ahead !buy a piece of property. I think m~at 'I'd like to do, I feel like Mary Jo the beachlot is fine and it is a good size piece of property. I would to see the City have some nice develolm~nt, some well done homes, nsive homes. I 'm lookirg for a larger tax base but I think it should be ced and I think if, as Tom indicated, go along with 3 boat slips. That it ild remain at 3. Be cast in iron and the people that buy the property or i lots know exactly who is to be allo~md to put a boat at the dock. ~hat it .id be very carefully policed because, I don't know if you want me to say but I didn't think the develolm~nt to the south is really maintaining what "re supposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the itional dockage. I'm talking about the condominium develoia~ent. cilman Boyt: Staff and the Attorney recommended that we not grant this ar~ osition would be to support them. If we r~ to look at the ordinance in, let's look at the ordinance again. I'm not convinced we do r,_~ to but convined that we've got to live with the ordinance we have. cilman Horn: I think we've already coapr~ised our beachlot ordinance in case. Apparently with some bad repercussions. I think in this case, the on that we did that was, we said that the beachlot was entitled to the ~ ts as a riparian hcm~sowner would have if they w~re to build a house on a e of property. If I heard the staff report correctly, this is not a ~opable lot for a hcme. Therefore, it would not have a h~me and be a rian hcmeowners situation. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary for us mnpromise beyond what we have already done in our ordinance and I would ~st that we go alorg with staff's rec~m~_ndation. =ilman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 and by denying the variance we wouldn't be denyirg th~m reasonable use of the land. ~ney can still use it for a beachlot, for swimming and playing but it certainly doesn't meet our ordinance and I think I would not be in favor of granting the variance simply because it is precedent setting. We do have a m~morandum from the Attorney with his recommendations and on that basis, I would stay with the staff and the Attorney's opinions that the variance should not be granted. That's the end of my comment. Mayor Hamilton: I would just call your attention to one of the questions that. the Attorney, Roger Knutson, addressed. I felt that he asked more questions than he answered. That was the issue of the 100 feet. I felt that his answer to that question, part of it is that you could count both halves of the lot. The lot size requirement. What about setbacks, coverage and lot frontage? So I think there are some unanswered questions here yet. If it is in fact a single parcel, and I'm not sure how we determine that. Maybe Ell iott can help us with that question. Elliott Knetsch: I'd be happy to. I guess what you're referring to there in Roger's letter is that under the existing ordinance the road, being where it is, the proposed beachlot is one lot and the portion across the road is a separate lot under the existing ordinance so it can't be counted to meet the depth requir~nent of the beachlot ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Under our existing ordinance? Elliott Knetsch: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the beachlots as well as the Zoning Ordinance in general. The existing interpretation is that that would not be considered all one lot. What you did mention earlier at the prior meeting that he raised more questions than he answered. I think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetorical there. If you start getting a different interpretation of what the lot is, then all your other zoning requirements such as setbacks come into question too. Where you measure from. That becc~es a question where you start to put your setbacks. The size of a lot and lot covereage. All those things come into question. Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with it. I think we should probably address those questions. Elliott Knetsch: I think the basic recc~nendation here is, if it's the feeling on the Council that something like this is appropriate, the way to address that is not through a variance but through an amendment to the ordinance. Under the existing ordinance you have our opinion that it doesn't meet the test for granting that variance. If the Council's uncomfortable with that position, what they should do is take another look at the ordinance. Once the ordinance is on the book, it should be followed and if you don't like the ordinance, it should be changed. Mayor Hamilton: To go back to the point that Clark made too, I don't think it's right. There can be riparian rights here if the developer decided to sell five lots on the lake, those five lots would have riparian rights and you would just deed that part of the property on the lakeshore to those five owners that he has plotted out on the front of that. They would have 100 feet, is that our ordinance? 100 feet of lakeshore? What's the minimum? ¢ity Council Meeting - February' 22 ~ 1988 P. mrbara Dacy: Of lot width alorg the lake? M~yor Hamilton: Yes. ~mrbara Dacy: 75 feet. M~yor Hamilton: So he could have even more than that. B~rbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to g :ant almost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots between the road and the l~ke. Again, because the current ordinance defines if you have a parcel that's s?lit by a road then each piece is a separate lot. M ~yor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doing that, in my opinion, we a :e taking his property. We are in fact forcing a hardship on him and the City h .~tter buy his property because what we're telling him is we're not going to a [low you to divide that property into five lots and let him put five docks out t~ere and the use of the lake for those people. He can't do it and I think ~ mat's a taking. I would certainly see it that way. I'm not an attorney E [l iott Knetsch: My response to that is, the City has the opportunity to f ~mose reasonable regulations. Obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear cat standard and I'm not sure I could tell you ~ahat a Court would say. In our c ~inion, this ordinance, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does h ~ve reasonable use of his property. M lyor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you want to make some cxaum~nts? B )bert Pierce: Originally, when I drove by this parcel I looked at it and I ~ Dught, wow, look at the lakeshore we have. There's got to be a way to have s~ae lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there. We have 50~ feet. So I w.~nt into it a little further and I checked it out ar~ talked to the City PLanner then I w~nt to the Planning (2mmission reacting and at that point, at ~ Planning Coamission meeting I went there for one reason. Multiple reasons b ,t the one major reason was I wanted to ~ the feeling amd get some direction a that point because we were into a contract to purchase the property, and see W. mat they would have to say. At that meeting, it's in the Minutes, it was p :etty clear cut that, some language to that effect, that to deny us a dock with that type of useage certainly wouldn't be reasonable. That's the d[rection they gave us. I believe we came in with a really light, light useage f, )r this parcel. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the neighbors ~mt are living on the north and I had quite a long discussion today with the m :ighbors to the rear of the property, to the west ar~ to the south. Each one o.~ them, I think, excuse me I should make reference that the one to the north r~ally didn't care what went on. She just said, whatever we'd like to do is f}ne with her but the others I think would definitely like to see a develo[m~ent w~th a higher grade of h~mes in there. Without the docks it's just not pgssible. Plain amd simple. We're looking at 15 lots. In my way of thinking, ~ can reduce the valuation on each hcme by about $10~,~00.00 per package which i:~ a million and a half dollars to this single subdivision. In tax revenues, I d. ~n't know what that would exactly ccme out to for the City but if we could s'mrt this out, in this develoImment, and we could put toget~ a nice package o: high quality hcmes, it would make sense to me that the area that's City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 developed, and there is a lot of land in that area that is going to develop at a higher quality. I think that is certainly in the minds of the neighbors is a real plus. I would think that also in the minds of the City would have to be a real plus to get more revenue out of it. Also, there are beachlots I know up and down this road and I know at sometimes there has definitely been problems. I understand, but very few of ~ have the width that w~ do and the type of screening. We've been really cautious to try to meet the needs of the neighbors. We've worked with the City extensively trying to just meet every criteria that they would have. We would like to work it for everybody's benefit but we need the docks. It's an important part of this development. Otherwise it just changes it. The neighbors I think are for it. To me, the way we're going right now, I can't even have a dock on 9 acres. It's one parcel. The taxes one parcel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kind of beyond my thinking that we can't put this one dock in there. Tne neighboring property, Mrs. Campbell just to the north, I talked to her today and they have not had a dock on their parcel. Tney don't have the width. Tney don't have the areas that we do. At this point, without a variance, that's not even lakeshore anymore because the ordinance has concluded that. I think there is something wrong there. In order for us to do this project, we need those and we will do a good job. I think it will be an asset to Chanhassen. It will be an asset to the neighbors. If we' re denied that, and we must go along without it, then it's going to be on a much less of a scale. Plain and simple. Councilman Boyt: I guess I would suggest that there is a certain amount of logic to what you say about having a long strip of lake frontage and not having a dock on it. It's just that, my opinion is that we don't have an ordinance that allows you to do that and to give you the variance to that ordinance is to basically throw the ordinance out. I don't know what the answer is. I can recognize the problem as being legitimate and a concern that I would have if I was in your position. I think maybe we need to look at the ordinance. I agree, you mentioned during the appeals situation that it might be a rather lengthy task. I suspect it would be because it's such a volatile issue. Robert Pierce: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know how long. If there would be some way to take a look at it, I'm sure it is volatile. I don't know. I have this development. It's going to go forward. We've come to a point, the dock issue. There's a period of time before we can get the project in the ground and there's a period of time before construction begins. I would be more than happy to work with the City any way possible, to make contacts or anything, but at the point that the first house goes in there, the whole tone of the development is taken. If 6 months later ~ get the docks, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It maybe will bring the value of those 4 lots on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don't have the wearathol to get into a year. I just don't. I plain and simple can not afford it. We're in an economic situation where this property right now can be developed. It can be done rather quickly I believe. It can get it up and get it back to a finished product rather soon. If w~ wait a year, w~ get into the economic situation can stop. I've had that happen before and it just sits. I personally just can not gamble on that. I don't have the ability to gamble on that. Councilman Horn: Where did you get the impression that a dock would not be a problem on this piece of property? It couldn't have been your reading the ordinance? C~. ty Council Meeting - February 22 ~ 1988 ! ~bert Pierce: No, from the Planning ~ission when I w~nt there. They ~lked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the [nutes I think you'd "_cc that it was clear that they said, let's give it to ~e Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I low that you have had problems in different areas and I believe you're even in 1 [tigation on one on a different lake, or there has ~ something in that order, but the t~D projects are totally, totally different. There's not ahythirg in common to it. We're talking 50 feet and the~ we're talking 500 feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like the word reasonable is the key and I think we have a very, very, very reasonable request before you. er it ~s to be done but I think time is a problem. Also, we do have, I t know if you want to go through it but we have a planner from Schoell ar~ here and he did do the project and be will explain what we're planning t~ do down there in a little more detail. It might be worth looking at. yor Hamilton: Does anybody want to see it? I guess we still have the ncern. You've got 31,400 square feet which is over two-thirds of an acre, 0 feet of lakeshore and we' re saying he can't use the lake. I think that's a l~ttle bit ludicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on t~ere with one dock. I guess the other concern I have is, the request was for, I! guess looking at the ordinance, it saFs we can only have one canoe rack for esch dock. It would =ccm to me that we certainly want to review that in our o~dinance. It seems like that's the type of thing we ought to be encouraging more places to have rather than discouraging and I would see if there ~asn't any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they c~_n't have two csnoe racks. As long as they're used for canoes and that's the purpose for .t~, canoes or sailboats on the lake is what you want to encourage people to use the~ for. (i)uncilman Geving: I would have a tend~ to agree with that T~n. I do agree t~at this is a fairly large lot. It doesn't meet the depth require~ents but on the other hand, ve got other situations where it hasn't met the total area r~guire~ents. I think they're really the same thing. But as far as reviewing the ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboating, I t~ink that would be a terrific enterprise in this particular develoI~ent b~cause it would lend itself to that. You've got a nunber of lots and any time YO.u get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're going to have contenti~ for those. But on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe racks with 12 canoes potential, you'd have enough for your neighborhood that .you're p~oposing Mr. Pierce. I agree with Tom, I think that has to be looked at. ~en though I'm opposed to granting the variance, I think the ordinance itself could be revised to reflect s~me new conditions. Oouncilman Horn: I agree. I think that stays within the purpose of the intent of the ordinance. I think we could make an exception to lot area size to the ome canoe rack. Tb~ problem always cc~es in when you start havirg dockage of boats. Canoe racks typically are not a lake congestion issue. ~hat ~ould be worth taking a look at but I agree, we sl~ouldn't do it as a variance. ~yor Hamilton moved to approve the variance to the Recreational Beachlot at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway for lot depth requirenent of 100 feet. To allow a City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 dock to be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allow two (2) canoe racks. There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second. Elliott Knetsch: May I make a slight amendment to that and suggest that you move to have staff prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance and the actual decision would be made at the next meeting when you have those Findings of Fact. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask why w~ need that? Elliott Knetsch: There's a requirement that you have Findings of Fact supporting your decision stating contemporaneously with your decision. Councilman Boyt: ~e have it. What would you call the Attorney's letter if not Findings of Fact? Councilman Geving: It would be just a restatement of that. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why w~ have to put that off until next session if w~ have all the facts we're going to have. Elliottt Knetsch: The letter doesn't address all the specifics that he may want to include to support your Findings. We haven't listed exactly what you want on there. Councilman Geving: Tnis is not unusual. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance request to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway and to direct staff to review the ordinance for the change in the potential for a greater number of canoe racks for this particular lot. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A R~CREATONAL BEACHLOT. Councilman Boyt: Gary I believe you mentioned in the packet that Minnewashta Parkway was being upgraded to 4 lanes in the distant future. Gary Warren: We said we were looking to upgrade possiblities. Subsequent information, the 66 foot right-of-way out there would be sufficient for that. Councilman Boyt: When I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remember the statement about timbered walls. Where were the walls going to be timbered on the beachlot? I didn't see that on the map or I didn't pick it out of the map if it was there. Barbara Dacy: You mean the steps down to the pathway? Councilman Boyt: That a timbered wall would be built. That's the reference that I have. ty ~ouncil Meeting £ February 22 ~ 1988 2'5 d O st ~ert Pierce: It's the steps going down. Steps or a ramp. ~ere's been s(m~e .scussion about... ~uncilman Boyt: I can ur~erstand the recommendation by the fire people to ok at a ram~. I w~uld think a ramp might create some erosion problems. Are ~ps less of an erosion inducer than a ramp Gary? Warren: Anythirg that w~uld minimize the rate of runoff typically helps tenalSo minimize erosion. The faster the water goes over the land, the more tial there is for erosion so the ramp, as you're sayirg from that spective w~uld be more an erosion hazard. ' a aJ o! ~rbara Dacy: This issue came up with the Knrvers Point recreational beachlot d I think the applicant can look at a design ~here you w~uld have a ramp plus lorger set of steps so you w~uldn't have a straight slope down to the beach ea. I think the main intent fr~m the Fire Department was to make sure that e steps weren't designed so that they could easily roll stretchers or atever down there. We've got the best of both w~rlds on both options. The e to control erosion and the other to facilitate access. sl it'stalled. uncilman Boyt: I know w~ all have our points of concern here and that was st an issue that I wanted to brirg up. The last issue is that I feel we ould make s~me effort to preserve the shoreline where you' re not having a ach area. I would propose that one condition of approval would be that it main natural all along the shoreline except where the sand beach is R~ert Pierce: I think that's what my proposal had. F~yor Hamilton: I think along the beach not there are trees that have fallen iq to the lake and there is a lot of garbage along the lake. R~ bert Pierce: When I mean natural, I think we want to clean up and improve it b~.t what we ~ant to do basically is leave intact anything that's alive and flourishing ar~ holds our bank in. MaNor Hamilton: I think what Bill may be referring to ~er is to keeping t~, weeds growirg near the lake. I don't know if that would inhibit the use of yo~? lot down there or not. . R~ert Pierce: The sand blanket area that we have there is probably the area tl~t we use for swimming mostly. The rest of it I hadn't really planned on tr~ing to change it much other than clean it up. ! · Ma~or Hamilton: You may have a volleyball court or s~mething. ~rt Pierce: It would probably be on the ~ area. ~e Prillaman: I live on Red Cedar Point for 25 years. Now I just heard ~ething that really bothers me. You're talking about a 4-lane highway Minnewashta Parkway. You can forget then the beachlot and anythir~ to do ~h it if you're going to have 4 lanes going down there. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There's no proposed 4 lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway~ Dave Prillaman: Isn't that what I just heard? Mayor Hamilton: Somebody just asked the question. They said, no, there is not a proposed 4-lane highway. Dave Prillaman: You've got 66 feet for right-of-way? How wide was that road going to be? Gary Warren: That road would be maximum 44 foot road section that could ultimately built. Dave Prillaman: How wide is it now? Gary Warren: That road now is maybe 31-32. Dave Prillaman: I guess all I'm saying is, if we're going to have this freeway, you can forget all the rest of it. All that road needs is to be maintained. It doesn't need to be any wider. The speed limits are not adhered to there now. Let's just don't, I know this is besides what you're talking about, but you're going to have an awful big argument with me if you widen that road. Mayor Hamilton: We're not planning on any widening. You'd probably have an argument with me too. I don't have that either. My motion would include the five conditions by the staff also. Councilman Boyt: What about keeping the shoreline natural? Councilman Geving: ...will be pretty natural anyway Bill. I think they're trying to make this a receational area but I think they want to clean it up, not destroy the natural beauty of it. I have no problem with amending my second to include that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit ~87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: . ~ne recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack(s) unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. . Tn, proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City counci 1. . All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. . A tree removal plan must be suhnitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. ~ouncil Meeting - February 22, 1988 1 1 The applicant shall provide a detailed gradir~ am~ erosio~ control pla~ for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. The applicant shall k~-----9 th~ shoreline natural except where the sar~ beach is installed. 1 voted in favor and motion carried. ~4 yor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as ~ ssible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and I d be happy to work with you o~ it also. If you don't want to request it, I wl 11. I think it's sc~=thing we should be reviewing and getting on with. t Pierce: I' 11 call then tomorrow. S~DIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (H~ PROPERTY Z(I~ED RSF, S~N~,R FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCA~ EAST OF ASD ADJAC~ TO MINNEWASh"5% P~AY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, ~-W~NC~Lr., APPLICANTS. ~rbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Miata P~rkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single F-~mily Besidential. The parcel is o% ~tlined in green on this overhead. The Planning (la~ission discussion focused o~ two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if y( u will. One was lot size and the secor~ one was access and that could be di vided into three issues. ~riveways versus an internal street. Potential v~riance request ar~ third, the maple tree that's located in t/~ property. I'd 1t ke to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single f~mily zoning district provides for a minimu~ lot size of 15,~ square feet. T~ere are a number of adjacent property owners in the area that w~re requesting t/at the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so t~ at the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more cc~parable to the lot st zee existing in the area. The Planning Co~ission discussed this at length a~d directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion, t/ere was no action taken o~ this particular item. ~er, the Council should ~ aware that the proposal does meet the minimun requiremm~ts of the Zoning O. dinance. All of the lots did contain 15,00~ square feet as required by the Z(ning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their pi 'operties or some time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided, t/e same requirements would be imposed. O uncilman Boyt: How big are those lots? ~ rbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre ~d a half in size ar~ maybe some of the property owners are here ar~ could w .rify my estimate. As to the secor~ issue of access, one of the issues was w~ ether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto ~ nnewashta Parkway which is designated in the C~nprehensive Plan as a ~ .llector. W~ asked the City Attorney to respor~ to that issue discussed by t/e Planning C~nission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence hts opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access fr~m "ir~ividual lots" ~ aning if there w~re 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be pi ohibited. ~er, since t/~ proposed driveways are shared, that does not City Council Meeting ' February 22, 1988 constitute direct access onto these lots. To answer that question, the variance request to the ordinance is not necessary as proposed by the applicants to share a driveway. The other issue was whether or not there should be two shared driveways or creation of an internal street. Tae applicant went back ar~ prepared a sketch plan of a lot pattern of the area if it were to be served by an internal street. We would still potentially have the possibility of getting 5 lots from this proposed lot pattern, however, Lot 1 at the top here would need a lot depth requirement and secondly, it would need a variance for a flag lot. As to the engineering issues and traffic issues, regarding an internal street versus driveway accesses, whenever you can minimize conflict points along a major collector such as Minnewashta Parkway, that is a desirable objective. In this option, you do eliminate one driveway access. It should be noted that the proposed street is located in roughly the same location as the driveway as proposed for the southerly shared driveway between Lot 3 and Lot 4 in the first proposal. There was considerable concern about whether or not the maple tree, located along the proposed lot line of Lot 4 would have to be r~moved. The Engineering Department has provided recc~mendations that despite the driveway being located there or the internal street, that a grading plan should be sut~mitted to address the sight distance in that area. Specifically, at least 180 feet of sight distance should be achieved. If you like, Larry Brown, the Assistant Engineer to address those issues in more detail, he can do so. In any case, the Planning Cc~mission's motion was a tied motion so in essense they took no formal action on the request and passed this item to the Council with their noted concerns. As far as the traffic issues are concerned, staff's r~endation would be that the internal street option does minimize conflict points and is a more desirable street pattern. However, the Council should be aware that that does dictate some lot layout problems for Lot .1. Finally, if the Council is to approve this proposed option, with the internal street, it is recommended that the plat be revised ar~ sent back to the Planning C~ission so the full street and utility detail can be worked out on this option. If the other option, if the Council chooses to act on, the application as proposed, you have two options. You can either approve it as presented and staff has included s(x~e recommended conditions or secondly, you can deny the application for 5 lots and 2 shared driveways. Would you like Larry to address anything further on the street versus the driveway? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think we should -~c that, unless nobody ~ants to. Councilman (~eving: The only thing I was concerned about, can we save the maple tree under your plan? Do you have information on that? Secondly, I think I recall a very deep drainage ditch that runs along the road right about at that point. Right near the road bed. I think that still exists there and the water cemes across from Lake St. Joe. That's scmewhere in that vicinity. Gary Warren: No, that's further north. It's kind of a high spot. Councilman (~eving: Okay, then I guess the only issue is the tree for me. Larry Brown: The issue of the tree, we went out and took some measurements. Some minor modifications may be possible around the tree. It's a very touchy area whether they can achieve the 180 foot sight distance without removing the tree. There is one ~aller tree around it that may be removed that might improve the situation but again, it's so tight that it's going to have to be C'~y Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 ! fi is Mi di s~ mid verified. ~ncilman Geving: Is this a public safety issue or is it an engineering sue? :fy Brown: It's a traffic engi_~--~ring issue guided by the standards fr~m ~m~=sota Depar~ent of Transportation, you must obtain 180 feet of sight stance. Due to the conditions of the curve located just south of that )perry, I did bump the engir~irg estimate down to 30 mlmh as the posted ~ would be 35 m~h. ~or Hamilton: Is the developer here? Do you have any cc~nents you would ~e to make? i~e Schwaba: As far as the tree is concerned, our intention was never to down the tree. I live in the neighborhood myself on Red Cedar Point and ve that tree and I walk by there and w~'re going to do everything in our .~feltO k~ that tree there. As far as the subdivision itself is concerned, we originally worked with our surveyor, he put together a subdivision that t would comply with all the ordinance~ which consisted of a lot size requirement of 15,000 feet. Mr. Knutson's interpretation of the access to the ra ~, which we feel we concur with. Ail the requirements for the setbacks and t3 .~ depth of the lots. We feel that we cumply with all those ordinances so we w~ ~ld prefer to go with our original plan based on the fact that it does cu~ply in every way that we can see. There are a couple of reasons for that. One of t~ mn is, if we have to put in a cul-de-sac, we are incurrirg an extraordinary a~ ~unt of additional costs as well as bringing the sewer up into that cu~-de-sac. It would increase the cost of the lots and them we feel it becomes hibitive because of the price we're paying for the property, with these itional costs, would make it very difficult for us to proceed in a logical ~r. So we feel like we'd like to pr~ with the original plan that we brought in to you based on the fact that it does concur with the Ordinance. Ma~ilyn Larson: We live just directly close by there and I feel that five lots v~~ld be a very crowded situation. I do agree with it would be much better to it more in line with scme of the other areas in the area. It just se~s crowded and it's just a matter of preference livirg close or right next to that it would just uc=n like houses right on top of each other. Kind of ses right on top of us too. So that's just. where we're at. J~ afl, ex c~ o1~ pr wi Borchart: I live directly east of the property. In your Zoning, under ./~oses, it says to protect commercial, industrial ~ institution areas frcm intrusion of inccm~matible uses. ~hen you have homes surrounding that all in .~ss of 1 acre, when you get to one-third acre lots, I don't feel that's a ~atible use. Also, Lot 1 on there, I can not find, when I read your ]inance, I can't find the 150 foot depth. I read it and I've had other )ple read it. I believe it's Lot 4 does not have enough roadway frontage. ~o, Mr. Heatherirgton and I have measured. There are no stakes on the )petty and we come up with the fact that the existing house that's left does meet, it depends upon which way you're measuring up because of the lines, ~er sideyard or frontyard setbacks. We c~me up with it ~s 3 variances mh the existing plan there. The other plan we have not had enough time to am)lyze. 255 City Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 Jerry Barber: I'd like to comment too. I live in the same area. I don't think it's compatible. That's my concern is that I've made a huge investment and I would like to see whatever is decided here to be compatible with that. I think that's fair. If these people want to use that property and divide it up similar to the useage that the rest of are using, then I think that makes sense. If not, then I think it should be looked at. Earl Heatherington: I own the property that goes around the east and north end of the Fisher property. I'm just going to ask you Councilmenbers a question, did you happen to receive a copy of t. be letter that I wrote? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it' s in the packet. Earl Heaterington: I felt strongly enough about this issue that I came back from Ft. Meyers, Florida Saturday to be here tonight. I don't take it lightly that an obvious attempt is being made on the 2.19 acres of the Fisher property to cut it up into oblique lots in an obvious mercenary attempt to make money. The 15,000 square feet may or may not be right relative to the developer's request but I think it goes beyond that. They may be found to meeting the minimum requirements but are we going to judge what happens to people's lives, the places that they live, are we going to allow a mercenary attempt to cut up a piece of property into strange looking lots just because it meets the ordinance and gives them the go ahead to build buildings on those lots? I don't think so. According to my friend Mr. Borchart who lives next door, someone in the City mentioned that, well if we don't give them the ability to go ahead and build, they'll sue us if they meet the minimum requirement. I say that's fine. Let them sue. I think we're going to have to stand up for what we know to be right and if the consequences are a lawsuit, so be it. This isn't right. Five lots on that property is too many lots. If you gentlemen would take the time to go out and look at it personally and pace it off and look at it, you would see that I'm correct in that assessment. I hope you'll read my letter. It's written with good gentlemenly intent. I have no objection to the people using the property but I think it should be used in a way that's compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. If it isn't, what we're doing here is a sham. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Anyone else? Okay, Bill you had a question of the neighbors. Councilman Boyt: I do and Mr. Heaterington may be the person to answer it. I gather that at the Planning Co~nission the developers were asked to contact the neighbors about a possible road access and apparently their att~n~ to do that were rebuffed. I hear you saying you would like to have larger lots in spite of the City ordinances limited ability to give you that and yet you're unwilling to talk to ~ about something they could use to maybe get something you could use. Jim Borchart: Could I reply to that? Councilman Boyt: If you' re one of the neighbors. Jim Borchart: Yes. The cul-de-sac would come within 10 feet of my front door. I have a very large house. A very nice house. I just finished it. My taxes are staggering. How would you feel about it? Under the law, you would have to buy my entire property. Are you willing to spend that kind of money to have Ci uncil Meeting - February 22, 1988 24 khe Cou five lots in there? ~cilman Boyt: I'm not the developer and I happen to agree with you that it ~nfortunate when 15,000 square foot lots directly abut upon larger lots. ng gone through that in the last year, I know first hand how you probably · Unfortunately, the ordinance is written to allow 15,~0~ square foot · As with the gentleman earlier this evening, the proper approach is ably to change the ordinance if w~ don't like it but once the ordinance is wri :ten, that's really ~ahat w~ have to live with. As far as other c~m~ents on thi~ particular item, I don't like the accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. I thi~k that anybody that thinks the traffic goes 30 ~ on Minnewasht. a _Parkway hasn't been out there. Larry, if w~'re doing our estimates on requlre~l di~ bys 30 mphs~ limit, w~'re asking for. future trouble... Even though ourl Attorney says that this manages to mc~ct~ the intent of our lnn~ted access ont) a major arterial, I don't believe it does. It may meet the letter of the laN, but it surely doesn't meet the spirit of the law. I w~uld add to that the fur ~her opinion that proposal 6 with the cul-de-sac and the long flag lot looks go Pax co£ lo, Ell in ~ssible to me. If the person who owned the long flag lot driveway wanted to .~orth, they w~uld virtually have to make a U-turn to get onto Minnewashta ~way. To do that is certainly inappropriate. I feel that the safety 3iderations involved with this develoIzm~nt necessitate that it have fewer ~ ar~ a better access syst~. Those are my c~n~ents. ~cilman Horn: My question is to the Attorney. Do we have any basis to deny request if we feel that there may be a safety issue or that it isn't ~tible with the neighborhood or we feel that it's allowing too many :sses onto a major collector? [ott Knetsch: Yes, those are all concerns that are legitimately addressed ~he review of subdivisions. ncilman Horn: So they don't have to require a variance for us to have itimate reasons to deny it? El~iott Knetsch: That' s right. do~ all ncilman Horn: It seems to me that there's another alternative here that we en't s~n~ and that is to put a cul-de-sac with four lots. I'm very cerned about the number of accesses onto the road. We've continually sat e as a body a~d ccmplai~ about the number of accesses Eden Prairie has put TH 101 and we've ~ always conscience about eliminating as many accesses we can. I w~uld strongly support having one access from any subdivision. I 't know if this not being a PUD limits our right to do that but I think in cases, we have to try and minimize that number. I do feel that this is in~tible with the area. I don't know how far we can push that but it altars to me ~'lat if we had 4 lots ins~d of 5, we'd solve all ~ probl~l~. It [w~uld make it more cc~patible even though it isn't still up to the standards oflthe neighborhood. It w~uld also give us a good roadway systsm with a good cu~-de-sac and one access. , Co~ilman Ga~ing: Is it ~ossible ~l. ark ~'mt you could describe how ti'mt four lo~, configuration ~uld look? Could we have you do that Barb? Co~cilman Horn.' If you look at tho lot, and just elimirmte ~ flag. City Council M~eting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: Did this ever come up at the Planning Commission? Either a proposal or a suggestion. Barbara Dacy: ~nis option was generated by the Planning Cc~mission discussion. Three of the Commissioners felt that there should be an internal street. After the Cc~mission action, we asked the applicant to put together a sketch plan. If it were to be four lots, I think what you would have to see is a rearrangement of the lot lines something like this. This lot would probably be r~moved and the lot lines reconfigured to have four lots. Maybe for ease for tonight, you could just imagine it without that. Councilman Geving: And the average size of the lots would go up to what? Barbara Dacy: You would be redistributing about 18,000 square feet over the 4 lots so each lot would probably increase 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Councilman Geving: Could I ask the Attorney? I'd like to know fr~m the Attorney's opinion, if what Clark is proposing here would stand up in the basis of Findings? That this is based on safety considerations, one access onto Lake Minnewashta Parkway for example. Give us your opinion on this particular item. Elliott Knetsch: I guess that's one thing that can be looked at. I think that's a very legitimate point and a strong consideration when you look at a subdivision on a street like Minnewashta. So that in conjunction with other findings could very well support what you may do. In addition, you can get back to the driveway access and Roger has indicated that a Court may not, or I guess he says probably would not be upheld but you just don't know those things. There certainly are legitimate arguments to be made that the kind of shared access is not the true intent of this ordinance and it really does say that that kind of group access is not allowed so I think that things are not always real clear cut and I think that the Council has already identified all the issues of concern. It's difficult to say how a Court would react to it. Councilman Geving: Barbara, if we were to act on this tonight as a r~ndations from the Council to go with a configuration s~mething like is being described here with four lots and a cul-de-sac which was not the request obviously, it's a revised request, then you're saying this would go back to the Planning Cc~mission with our recommendation and they would rework it? Barbara Dacy: Right. Staff's recommendation was that the Council motion would read that the plat be revised to reflect four lots, creation of a street and prepare a plat based on that and have that reviewed by the Planning Co~m~ission. Councilman Boyt: I would propose Dale that maybe rather than do that, although that may be where we're heading, is to send this to the Attorney for a clear definition of what we are in fact capable of doing. I agree with the direction but we're cutting s~me new ground here and I'd like to know how firm it is. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have the same concerns as the others. I think it's in compatible with the neighborhood specifically. Anytime you're putting on more drives onto Minnewashta, I certainly have a concern for that particular area. tyCouncil Meeting - February 22~ 1988 ~Lliott Knetsch: We could certainly look at that and give that opini0~ m~essary. I might suggest w~ ask the applicant if they have any objection to ~ proposed revision of going back before the Planning Oma~ission. gilie Schwaba: We're on a time schedule as most developers are and we'll... A o)uple of things of consideratioo for us is one, the purchase price we're !lying for the property prohibits us doing a cul-de-sac and having four lots. ~a~ we originally met with the Planning Department, our intentio~ was to · ~ply with the ordinances and we feel, based on the 15,~B0+ square feet on ~h of these lots, we are c(x~plying with these ordinamces. [] :yin Winchell: And they said that we did cc~ply with all the lots from the ~ ~-f start. Their reccm~ne~zlations from the planning department right away was ~ approve our original plans the way they are. We're adding o~e additional di ive is all that we're adding. There is already a driveway there. We've v~)ld by the City Attorney, from his letter in the packet, we're not in Lolation of the ordinance. o~~r Hamilton: I don't think anybody is saying that you're violating the nance. I haven't heard anybody say that. le Schwaba: We're not asking for a variance. We're not asking any for 7r la/~L~es o K~vin Winchell: Then why do we have to study it more? r Hamilton: You haven't bccn listening to the concerns we have then I s, ~vin Winchell: I have ~n listening to ~yor Hamilton: Then you should be aware of why we have s~me concerns and why think it should be looked at further. It's not c~tible with the ighborhood. We do have entrances onto Minnewashta that we're concerned about ~d we also feel, based on ~hat I'm hearing, that the Council would prefer to ~e a cul-de-sac in there in some way rather than the way you're proposing it. 259 t uncilman Horn: If you read the Planning O~n~ission Minutes, they recc~m~mded actly the same thing. yor Hamilton: Did you want to respond Barb to the c(~m~ents that were made? Blrbara Dacy: The Planning staff's original reco~m-=~]ation was for approval f~)r the original plan to the Planning Cc~mission. At the Planning Cc~mission ~ting, that's when ~ discussion ca~e up about the private driveways versus ~e internal street. Again, back to the applicant, the issue here is more of ~ safety issue of two shared driveways versus one internal street and the a 91icant has a couple of options. I think the Council has asked them their t me schedule for going back to the Planning C~ssion on a revised plat. The o ~her optio~ the applicant could request that the Oouncil act on ~ proposed a .~lication. Would that be correct? liott Knetsch: That' s correct. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Barbara Dacy: If I'm interpretting the Council's cc~rments, they are asking you what you would like the Council to act on this evening. Councilman Boyt: While you're thinking about that, if I read the Minutes correctly, the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mayor Hamilton: It was a tie. Councilman Boyt: Which means it fails. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. The motion Was to deny however, and it tied. The motion was made to deny it and it was a tie vote so the motion to deny failed. Councilman Boyt: Thank you for clarifying that. Councilman (~eving: I'd like to ask the City Engineer, if the cul-de-sac were to be built, would it be built at the urban standards? Gary Warren: Unless Council chose otherwise we would enforce our standard urban section. Councilman Geving: And what's the size of that cul-de-sac? 60 feet? Gary Warren: 50 foot radius. 28 foot wide back to back. Councilman Geving: Surmountable concrete curb? Okay. Ellie Schwaba: We calculated it out, based on our five lot printer with the cul-de-sac and without the cul-de-sac and the total square foot differential of the lots and that difference was 12,000 square feet but we would be lessening the size of the lots by putting in the cul-de-sac. Tae neighbors are concerned about the size of the lots but we're reducing that by making a cul-de-sac. Mayor Hamilton: We're not getting the question answered that we're looking for. Councilman Geving: I don't think I was so concerned about increasing the size of the lot as I was looking at the safety issue of the one access on the parkway. Even though there's a trade-off in the amount of land that would be given up to create the cul-de-sac, we would still meet the requirements of 15,000 square foot minimums on the other four. Isn' t that correct Barbara? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Geving: So we meet the standard. We meet the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Elliott could state again, or Bill, to the developers the options that we're looking for more clearly. We're asking them how they want to proceed. Perhaps you could restate that. Elliott Knetsch: Your options here tonight is to ask the Council to vote on your subdivision as proposed. They w~uld either vote to approve or deny. The other option which I think, apparently the sense of the Council would be that ~ity Council ~ting - February 22~ 1988 ~tu go back to the Planning (k~mission with a reconfiguration or further Study o: the internal traffic option and what are the public safety issues of access o] to Minnewashta. So, it's really in the applicant's hands. You can ask the O ~uncil to vote tonight or you could agree to go back before the Planning 0 ~missio~ ar~ the~ back to the Council. .! c~.lie Schwaha: I?~_re ~as another option mentioned earlier shout having the tM Attorney review the ordinanoe again. E]liott Knetsch: I guess that review, if the Council's inclined to make a d. cision or if you ask thsn to make their decision tonight, it would he more of a sense of the Council in that they would direct staff to prepare findings o ~sistent with either approval or denial dependi~ on which way they go. Once t~ey've given us that direction or staff, our office would prepare a specific FI ndings. The Council would have their reasons to support their position on p~per in front of the~ and they could then determine wheat, the decision ~ uldn't actually be made until they had those Findings in front of them. That ~ uld entail review by the City Attorney's office and other staff. E~lie Schwaba: So there would be mo decision made tonight from the City? Elliott Knetsch: Well, you'd get a sense of which direction they're going to t3ough by what they direct staff to do but they won't be bound by that decision cause they're not actually making it tonight. It would be made at the next uncil ~ting. .Ma~or Hamilton: The motion would be made to approve or deny it based on the Fi~ings of Fact. That would he the motion. S~ is going to propose a mdtion to either approve it or deny it based on the Findings of Fact by the s~aff and the City Attorney's office. That would then come back to the Council a~ another mucting for us to review again and to reaffirm our vote either to de~y or approve. What would your choice be? I guess we're giving you an o~ortunity here to take part in the decision. We r~ to move on. : Ke~in Winchell: I guess we would probably have you decide on the Findings of Fa~t and at the next Council meeting to vote on it according to ~ahat that Fihdings of Fact would say. voilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the Subdivision st 988-1 subsequent to Findings of Fact by the City Attorney's office. ted in favor and motion carried. I l bara l:~2y: Mr. l~yor, for ~ he, fit of the adjacent proparty d I just make a clarification? l~r Hamilton: Yes. k~lra Dacy: Lot 1, the question about the lot depth, the Council has changed ot depth requir~'~t from 15~ to 125 feet. Lot 1 a8 pr'opos~l did ~t 4~t. The other concern was the 90 feet. It's easily overlooked but that Lot id have 90 feet. There was 8 1/2 feet that is on the plan so that lot does ha~e 90 feet. There were s~e other concerns about setbacks am] the plat not , 261 Ci.ty Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 showing those. The survey that we have on file in our office does show the setbacks and their proposed building pad did meet all those setbacks. I just wanted that clarified for them. EXTENSION OF TFRPORARY USE PERMIT, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Barbara Dacy: I talked to the applicant before the meeting and they would request that the motion, if approved, that the time would be April 1, 1988. Supposedly the owner of the Murphy Building has given ~ until April 1st. Councilman Geving: April 1, 19897 Barbara Dacy: 1988. Councilman Geving: I was going to give you a year's extension. Roy Swander: The landlord has given us his approval to stay until April 1. However, we're finding difficulty finding a building to accomodate our size within the area, in our price range and for possibly one year. It's very possible, as things look now, that we could be in a building within a year on our own property. We've had preliminary approval frcm a bonding company to provide the financing. We're exploring the different designs and contractors to build and all those terrible details but provided that we have nothing that would stop us over the coarse of the year, it looks possible that a building could be erected on this site and we could be in that building within a year. So it's been mentioned that the City has some vacant buildings that w~ might be able to occupy for ~rary period of time. Mayor Hamilton: Once the Lutheran Church moves out of the old St. Hubert's church, that will be empty but that won't be until over a year probably or this fall. You were looking for property at one time up on TH 41 or did you purchase the property or something? Roy Swander: We have a contract for 10 acres there that we've signed. Mayor Hamilton: So you're still pursuing that. I just thought that might not have fallen through. Roy Swander: we have purchased that property on a Contract for ~ and the bonding program would include the property and so on. Councilman Geving: I'm confused by your extension request though. When I looked at this, I immediately said well, we'll just grant th~n another year and I know that's impractical because Murphy doesn't want you there for a year but give us a period of time in which we can extend this that would be reasonable. Mayor Hamilton: Realistic time so you don't have to come back. Councilman Geving: Realistic so this is the end of it. If you say 6 weeks or 2 months or 6 months. Roy Swander: To be in Mr. Murphy' s buiiding? ty - February 1988 Council Meeting 22~ , Omncilman Geving: Yes, because that's where you've got your t~m~or~wy a ~nditional use permit. ~y Swander: He has said he won't let us stay in there past April 1st. C~luncilman Horn: So really you only need the extension until then. ~y Swander: Right, just the 15 days. We've done everything to twist his arm tX let us stay in there. It w~uld be much simplier for us all around if we ~ uld stay in that building rather than finding another place to go and meet ol ~r acccm~tions. '~iilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to extend the Temporary tional Use Permit for Westside Baptist Church until April 1, 1988 at the phy Building in the IOP District. All voted in favor and motion carried. -! G~D. INANCE CODIFICATION: yor Hamilton: Does Council wish to through each go C~uncilman Geving: I don't have any questions with each of the ibs~s. We've en them several times. C~uncilman Boyt: There might be a couple. On the third page of Mr. Ashw~rth's m~mo he makes reference to, I think the issue that we were just talking about terms of private streets and drives accessing on arterials. My question for s~aff or D~n is, does this clear up the probl~ we just faced? rbara Dacy: The answer is no. Well, I'm going to have to say yes and no. at n~s to be done is that Section 6.2 ar~ the other section that was quoted regards to the Schwaba-Winchell case, what staff w~uld like to do is combine ose sections ar~ propose ordinance larguage that w~uld say urban area. The andard for that rural area and the standards for that. Beyond that, all I say is that the Planning (km~,ission ar~ the access to the collector ar~ terial issues really came up in the rural area over the past year and a half the Schwaba-Winchell case was kind of a recent develoI~ment that we hav~'t an opportunity to look at. I think it is clear that we ~ to clarify at "direct access" is ar~ what "individual lots" mean also. We do r~_~ to rk on that section. silman Boyt: Are you saying then that we want to correct page 1~8 as Don tated and then come back at it again or similar sections to address this la~est probl~? ~bara Dacy: Yes. Number one, I would like to get a feeling from the Council ~..~_ if the proposed standards for the rural issues are consistent with their lnkin~ and two, we will come back with a more detailed proposal at the March ~h ~ting. ax~ilman Boyt: That's all I had on that one. I don't know if any other co lncilm~bers want to respond to that particular itsm. I've got one on the ! I 263 City Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 Park and Rec dedication requirements. I think it~n (k) which is on page 2 in the packet says, in lieu of parkland donation, and then goes on, the City may require an equivalent cash donation based upon, I think it should be average similar land value rather than average undeveloped land value. If w~ go average undeveloped land value, there's no way that we can build a park in a urban area. Don Ashworth: I believe that' s a section directly out State Statute, is it not Elliott? I'll look at that. I agree with what you're saying but I'm confident that that wordage, average undeveloped land value, is taken directly out of State Statute. Lori Siets~na: Could I respond to that? I asked Roger to specifically put that portion into the ordinance so that we have something to base our park dedication fee on. When we go to charge a building permit, the $415.00 charge, the Park and Recreation Co~mission was concerned that we didn't have, that we're just picking these numbers out of the sky without any basis and they wanted to be able to go back to the Park Dedication Ordinance and say, based on something, we arrived at this number. So if you take the average undeveloped land which is different in the rural area from the industrial area and the urban area, average those out and figure them all out with what you're standard is, it comes out to what we are charging. It's very similar to what that is. It gives us something to review every year to see that we are staying in step. Councilman Boyt: Lori, what you're saying is that it- is. not lifted directly out a State Statute then. Lori Sietsema: I believe that it does relate to that but I had requested Roger to specifically put scmething in there so I could base it on something. He said, if we're going to go the way we're supposed to do it, go to the letter of the law, this is what you're supposed to base it on. I said, that's what I want in there then because it was real difficult to try and figure out and explain to anybody how you come up with this magic $415.00 or $1,035.00 per acre in the industrial when you didn't have in your ordinance how you came to that number. Instead of having some real obscure formula, Roger indicated that this was, if we're going to do it right, do it legally, this is what we have to base it on. Undeveloped land value. Elliott Knetsch: I don't know that you'd find that exact phrase in the State Law on this but like she says, you have to base it on undeveloped value. ~ae State Law just says that the dedication requirement has to be, again it's a reasonable standard and you can't automatically say 10% is okay because you could have very large lots versus one very small, ~nall lot or for high density and obviously the need on the parks generated by the high density is not the same as the large lot subdivision. If you have a flat 10% on both, it probably can't be sustained under the State Law. Councilman Boyt: That's why I would suggest that we'd be further ahead if we based on similar land so when we're out in a rural area with large lots that aren't worth as much per square foot, we're not getting as much. Maybe that's unenforceable or so complicated to not be worth it but I think we end up shorting ourselves out here when we say that we're going to try and buy parkland in a single family residential, 15,000 square foot develo~xnent with the same kind of dollars that we're going to buy parkland in an agricultural ar~ CO1 Dol CO1 y Council Mee. ting- February 22, 1988 ~. It won't happenl ~cilman Horn: Could we let the Attorney's research that and give us as much ~ay as they can on that? ~cilman Boyt: I'd be happy to have that. .iott Knetsch: Yes. i Sietsema: If you do it with the similar, w~n't that be different each e? We couldn't have a standard fee for a single family or multiple family industrial. It w~uld have to be different. Is that correct? ~cilman Boyt: I hope not. i Sietsema: From an a~instrative standpoint, that w~uld be difficult. Ashworth: We'll have the Attorney's check it. ncilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the First Reading of proposed Codified Ordinance with research by staff and City Attorney as itl°ned in discussion. All voted in favor and motion carried. on ob 'I~ SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCE ;~%I2~TS, FIRST ~ING. ~r Hamilton: I believe all of these, again w~ have discussed at various ~s. There are a few of these already that are going to need further action thsm. 'bara Dacy: I do ~ a motion on each it~ outside of the ones that ,iously w~ don't need to act on. ~cilman Boyt: I have a question on the barbed wire thing. I gather it's :tty consistent. I'm thinking that ~rcial and industrial barbed wire ~11 require a conditional use permit. I just want to clarify, that means ~t we can deny it all together? ibara Dacy: Yes. cCo~ncilman For Findings of Fact. Alright, I'm c~mfortable with that Boyt: · In 6(5) I guess it is, this is close to the e~d of the various ones, me gl buildings. District shall not have metal exteriors or be of metal co ~truction. I w~uld suggest that w~'re not going to stick with that. We're go .ng to allow buildings that have scme metal on their exterior. I can't imigine that w~ w~uldn't allow scme metal and maybe we should be looking for sQ ~ sort of percentage of maxim~ metal coverage. Ma~or Hamilton: Is that what you had in mir~ beoause you can have metal gu~.ters and metal soffits probably. COgnCilmanll Boyt: And you can have sort of ornamental metal. You can have meal siding that really looks quite nice and I think we want to stay away frc~ :. City Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 the thing that looks like a prefab building~ Barbara Dacy: That's exactly the direction that the Cc~mission gave to staff. Even to the point that they said, look our real intent is to eliminate a pole barn being in the industrial park or c~m~ercial district so they rec~m~er~ed that term because that's easily defineable. Staff is c~ming back to the Planning Cc~mission with reco~m~endation and revised language on this item. This item is not recommended for action tonight. Councilman Horn: In effect, we w~uld allow ornamental metal but not structural metal? Barbara Dacy: Tnat's the direction that the Cc~mission wanted us to look at. Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on 4. The word t~orary, it was never clear what temporary means. Is there a definition of temporary s~meplace? Barbara Dacy: That's exactly the issue. The Attorney's opinion is that a conditional use, once it is granted, runs with the land and the process of a temporary cor~itional use is in conflict with state law. Based on his recommendation, that's why we're recommending that that section be deleted. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of the following Zoning Ordinance amendments as presented: lo Revise Article V, Section 5(5)(3) and Article V, Section 6(5)(3) to state 125 feet. . Revise Article VI, Section 12, Fences and Walls, to provide for requirements regarding the use of barbed wire fences. 4. Delete Article VI, Section 4, Temporary Structures and Uses. . Add subparagraph 20 to Article IX, Section 2, General Provisions for Signs to require a conditional use permit for c~metery signs. Ail voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Items 2, 5, 7 and 8 need further review and will come back to us. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: RECONSIDER COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, COUNCILMAN GEVING. Councilman Geving: Sorry that I missed last meeting. When I arrived tonight I had to kick the structure on the outside of the building to make sure the mortar was still in place. It seams to me that sc~e of the decisions that were made tore the very foundation, in my opinion, out frc~ s~me of the things we had decided a lorg time ago in terms of co~mission appointments. So it's with that in mind that I'd like to read a letter that I've prepared for the Mayor only because I'd like to have it in the Minutes and then I will continue with the comaission itself. This is a letter to Mayor Tc~ Hamilton regarding my ¢[ty Oouncil Meeting "February 22~ 1988 z .~ignation fr~n the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals. E~r T~n: T ~ action by the City Oouncil on February 8, 1988 to advertise for all p ~sitions for all co~missions leaves me with no choice but to resign effective i mediately. As a councilman I have no intention of applying for a position to w lich I was appointed to many years ago. The Council's action showed a c ~plete disregard for the long tern voluntary dedication and service by all of t ~ current board-w~hers. I thought w~ were doing a terrific job ar~ had e ~tablished a team working relationship betwsen Willard Johnson, Carol Watson a ~ myself. I really enjoyed th~n and I think we have served the citizens of C mnhassen in an outstanding manner. I don't believe the Council fully understands the responsibilities of the Board m tubers. This is different fr~m many cu~missions in that it has the authority b approve or deny a variance. Therefore, it is essential that the board m tubers have a good understanding of the co~ma~ity, a substantial amount of el .perience in understanding the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. · ~lve years ago I was appointed by the Council to this board. At that time ~ e Council felt that it was essential to have a councilman on the board and to p'. '(wide the perspective that only a councilman can give. It is my rt ccumendation that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to stipulate that a member fl om the City Oouncil be appointed to serve on this board. I sincerely regret having to take this action but I am very frustrated at our n~ jot decision making process by the current council and think that this may be a good time to move on. I wish to say thank you T~n for your supportive ~ mments and the good just you portrayed at the February 8th mccting. Too ~ d some of the others weren't listening. I mresent that to you Mr. F~yor. I would like to go on to t~o items that came u~ . Ite~ 8(d) on the Council packet of February 8th. This is in regards to t] e Southwest Metro Omnmission. A cca~ission of 6 people for the operation of ti e Southwest Metro Transit. Wa have a cc~mission vacancy at the present time. Fs. Hamilton had to resign from this commission ar~ I must say this to the Cx ,,ncil. The Southwest Metro is in a ~tration period. It's a very fimen.t?l thing. We've just cu~pleted the first year of a 16 month stratlon period. It was very important for the Councils to appoint their and a councilman to this board. Now Chaska chose not to do that because had Gale Concannon, an Executive Director for the Metro Transit (kmm~ission ar F, ~ that was their car~idate. Basically all of the c¢~mission m~bers are ~her mayors or councilmen. We recently added a seventh position to the ~nsit Cc~mission so that we would have another member for guor~ purposes. had a hard time meeting a guor~ on several occasions and it was decided ~t we would add o~e more c~mmission membex at large ar~ it would be a ~iz~. This citizen position would rotate between the cities so Chaska chose lady. She is a bus rider and it represents the ridership. That fk~mission ~ership will change to Chanhassen next and then it will go to f~en Prairie. that reason, I really disagree with what has ~ laid out for us on the ruary 8th council agenda ar~ the rec~mm~m~dation of our staff when it says, is not required that a c~missioner be a council member. That's 'true but I only tell you that the people that represent their cities on the C~m~ission City Council ~=eting - February 22~ 1988 must speak for their cities. Must be in a position so that they know the hot issues in our co~unities. They must also be aware of what new develo~x~ents are taking place. That's why we put the mayor frc~ this city on that commission and a councilman. I su~x~it to you until that demonstration period is over and until the ~ission is up and running in very good swing, we should continue that. We should maintain a strong council representation on that commission. So I disagreed entirely with the comment that we should have a rider as our m~m~er for this c(x~ission. I can understand where Mr. Hamilton is ccming from. That's why I resigned from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. A councilman should never be judged by his peers. His peers are the voters. These are the people that elected you. It's very important in this particular case that we have a strong leadership position and it should not be a citizen. It should be a councilmember or the mayor himself that is appointed to the vacancy now created by Tom. I disagree with the advertisement for this position and I followed up with Beverly Miller, our administrator for the Southwest Metro today and it was her opinion and a co~ent we made when we started the co~mission that each of the cities would try to get their very best people on the c~ission to get it going. All of the other communities have done the same thing. There are currently two mayors on that con~ission. So she recc~m~ended that we continue with our e~hasis on board m~mbers being from the Council. I can only say at this time that I think that we can go ahead and advertise but if you put someone who is not a councilman on that position to fill that vacancy, we're making a mistake. So for that reason, I'd like to take another look at this. I'd like to reconsider the c~m~ission approach to the Southwest Metro Transit Cc~mission vacancy created by Mr. Hamilton and I recc~ that a City Council msmber be appointed to that position. Any discussion? Councilman Horn: I think we have to look a the structure of each of our cc~missions. Certainly the intent of what was done here was a follow-up of what was done at the planning session that we had and that is to r~move any doubt of having the good old boy syste~ in the appointments of our co~missions. The intent that I had when I supported that position in our last m~ting had nothing to do with council positions on co~missions. It was only in regards to non-council representation at those c~issions. I think there is a totally different issue there. Co~missions where we have a councilmember appointed, they are not in the same situation as the other appointments. I think when we have a councilmember representative, there's no point in advertising for that position. We know that we will pick one from our group to do that. Councilman Geving: If you state that tonight Clark, why didn't you say that on the 8th? That's an entirely new statement. Councilman Horn: The issue did not come up in that vein. The issue came up in terms of applicants for the Planning Cc~ission and the other commissions. Councilman Geving: Not really because they're talking, in fact this whole section had to do with the vacancy created by the Southwest Metro. If you read your notes starting here on page 62, Appointments to Co~ission, we started out with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and obviously that was three positions. Willard Johnson's, myself and Carol Watson's and you took off from there. I can quote you right here Clark. I would be in favor of advertising for all the positions, all of the appointments and then making our selection from all the interested people but I don't think we should delay the selection C: PI ge t) C ti b~ a2 ti g( it O! ty Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 ocess before we set our criteria. If you think that I, as a councilman are lng to make an application or any other councilman, and then be judged by is group whether or not he's going to be selected for that, I think that uld be totally wrong. uncilman Horn: I don't think it's even applicable because where we had ~issions where there's council representation, that clearly doesn't even ply and was not even a part of my consideration in that. uncilman Geving: Th~n that's why we s~ould reconsider this because that was t stated on the 8th. uncilman Horn: I agree. In fact, it never came up in all of our discussions em we planned for this, we were totally talkirg about non-council positions. it's why it didn't come up as an issue because it was not even considered as ~, at least in my mind. ~cilman Geving: Let's stay with the situation for the vacancy for T~ dlton on the Southwest Metro. Let's stay with that issue because that's the rst one out of the box. It's very important in my view to have strong uncil representation. There's one other fact that I should advise you on. e cities themselves are totally liable. If the Southwest Metro gets in ouble financially. Each of the cities are liable for any overrun of cost and at's why a councilman or a mayor is very important to bring this information ck to it's city and say, we are in trouble. We've got to come up with some ney to support this thing. yor Hamilton: Let me just make it clear that the reason I resigned from the uthwest Metro Transit (k~mission was simply because I'm also on the Public ftey Omanission which happens to meet the same night at the same time. I n't be in both places at the saue time. I did ask the Public Safety ~nission if they would change their mccting date to a different night and ey could not acc~modate that request. I felt strongly about r~aining on it co~mission as we're still in a growth process and I felt my services might r~ed there more than they are on the Southwest Transit because it's moving ong quite well. I'm not leaving it because I'm trying to leave anybody in lurch. I can't be in two spots at the same time. I do agree, I think it ould be a councilperson on there. We ~ to have a decision maker. Scmeone can analyze things quickly ar~ make the right decision. uncilman Horn: I think the other thing that Dale should be aware of is in r discussions at our planning session, we also said that we feel, at least st of us felt that the wave of the future is involved with groups like this ere we're involved with other commhnities in our vicinity. I think that's ing to become a more and more important way of getting things ~lished. yor Hamilton: You and I felt that way anyway. uncilman Boyt: I would like to say first, Dale not being at that meeting, 's certainly hard to pick up the flow of it reading the Minutes. You'll note page 66 that Jay Johnson volunteered and was assigned to the Sou~t Metro ansit Cxmmission on a temporary basis. I think if we would have had your m~t that evening we might have made that permanent at the time since he ~ressed an interest. I think you should also note, page 67 in the Minutes in City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 which we attempted, and I don't know if this happened with the Board Of Adjustment and Appeals and the other bodies but to quote myself in the middle of the page, "I think it's important that we get the word to the people who we're advertising the positions for, who are currently in those positions, that w~ would like them to not interpret this as a vote of no confidence." The whole spirit of this was we were dealing with how do we appoint people to our co~missions in the necessity to be consistent. I thought in making that statement that I was making it very clear that I didn't want people on those boards to feel that we were saying or that I was saying that I didn't support what they were doing. It was simply a matter of, I was very unhappy that we would advertise for one board position and not advertise for another. I didn't think that that was fair treatment and I still don't think that's fair treatment and I believe that's why the advertisement was done. I also have stated that it was certainly not fair treatment to advertise for a position that we had no intentions of filling without indicating in the ad that the incumbents were seeking to be reappointed. I don't want to generate 18 candidates for a position when I know the incumbents want to be reappointed and that they're doing a good job. So we tried to clear that up. I thought it was in the Minutes. I'm sorry that you took it the way you took it. Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that we discussed Dale, and we talked about this on our retreat also is that there is a need to do this and the reason I was opposed to it is because we have nothing in place to give us any direction at this time as to exactly what we're going to do. I don't have a problem with putting something in place but I still feel that we're trying to shift gears in the middle of semething. You're trying to change and go a different direction and you don't have any direction to go that way. I'm not saying it's wrong to try and change. In fact, it's perhaps needed but we've got to have scme way to get there. W~ don't have any way to get there. To just say we're going to advertise for these people raises all kinds of questions. Where do you advertise? How many times do you advertise? Do you advertise in all of the papers? Half the papers? One of the papers? Do you put it in the Post? Do you put it everyplace you can? DO you just put it on a bulletin board? All those questions haven't been answered and I think until they're answered, we don' t really know how we' re going to do it. Plus we haven' t addressed the issue of how do you handle those people who are incumbents? Of course, there are a couple people here tonight who would like to speak to that issue. No matter what you say as to not showing any non-confidence in their past performance, when you say you want to advertise for the position for their term that's up, they're going to feel by saying that, just by saying it, they're going to feel that you don't have confidence in them and you feel they haven't done a good job. I guess those are still my reasons why I think we made a mistake and I think the whole issue just needs to be resolved. Not right now because we're in the middle of some of them. The city isn't going to suddenly turn sour if we reappoint people who are on these comnissions to positions when their term is up and then let's get something in place so the next time we have some clear guidelines to go by and that the staff also has the clear guidelines to go by because they don't have th~m either. I think that was another one of the things we talked about that is not in place. We do not want to start giving staff direction to do something when they have no guidelines to do it. Councilman Geving: I agree Tom that we should have a procedure and I would whole heartedly follow that procedure. What irritated me in this particular case is that it, clearly we had people who were interested in continuing to 271 ity Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 erve on commissions. There really was no vacancy to be filled. Where yoU ave a clear cut vacancy, then we should follow the procedure for applying and ~ttir~3 an advertisement out and getting the candidates in and reviewing th~n ~d so forth. But where you have incunben~ sitting in a cc~nission and they learly want to remain on the c(~xmission, they're doing a good job and the ~uncil knows they're doing a good job, then I'd say that we should also have a rovision and a procedure for continuing to maintain their capability of ~aying on those cozanissions and mot advertising and getting a whole bunch of ~ople out there. Saying we've got t~o people that are already incumbents. We aow they're going to apply. We're advertising for another two vacancies so ~e people that are already sitting there ar~ then you get another half dozen .~licants, now you've got 8 people vying for 2 positions and it's not fair. t's really not fair. I think that I agree entirely with Tc~. There is a )int in which you kick in the procedure if there is a vacancy of if the ,=rfonuance of an individual is such that you want to r~nove him or her but .~ere you clearly have people that are doing a good job and want to re~ain on ~e cc~mission and there is really no vacancy. Their term happens to expire .~d that's the only thing that's happened but they want to stay on the mmmission, then we should keep the~ on the c(~mission. )uncilman Horn: There's already a precedent for what we're proposing appening ar~ that happened with the Planning (k~m~ission many years ago. When .~e Planning (km~ission members, of 'their own volition said, I think I should arow my hat in the ring along with every other applicant that comes in here. 3 a matter of fact, they've been operating under that mode. They chose to .do ~at on their own so not every cc~mission ms, greet feels that way. What we have .~ough is a hodgepodge of one cc~mission doing it one way amd another xmnission doing it another way and many times people think they should get on c(mmission the first time they apply ar~ that just doesn' t happen in most roses. People are getting negative feelings because we don't have a procedure. .umcilman Geving: I think we ~ a procedure but let's not turn the tables 'er and make the mortar that I talked about turning to mush overnight. We've )t to build on what we've done over a long, long period of time and put the cocedure in place at the appropriate time. i )uncilman Horn: I think you're forgetting one thing Dale and that is that this ~y still makes those decisions. We can still choose on that basis. Just cause we chose to advertise doesn't mean that we can't choose on ~ahatever ~sis makes sense. I can guarantee you that that will be the basis that I will ~ when I make my decision. ~yor Hamilton: I'd like to get the ommma~, I know Carol Watson and Willard )hnson are here to tell us their feelings about this issue and I guess I'd [ke to ask them at this time. Carol, would you like to? ~t~rol Watson: My only concern with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is mat it's not like any other coamission in the City. You don't make a ~mmmuendation, you make a decision. O~e of the Planning (kmmission membe~ )r instance has been in the city for 8 months. I don't feel a person like .~at, it's as easy for the~ to be in a position of making a decision. We don't i~ke reccmmer~ations to this body. We make a decision and it stands. Yes, we unless we deny. Bill, we can approve something ar~ it lives. If we make a nial they always have a right to come to this body with their decision but City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 when we approve something, they can go ahead ar~ get a building permit and do it. ~ney don't have to come to the City Council. Willard Johnson: I've worked with this board and I've been on it for a number of years. I went through a lot of mayors and I went through a lot of council people. We've got the best working board we've had since I've been on this. I've never had any trouble with the council people. In the past we used to have Planning Commission members. 50%, or I should say more like 75%, the Planning C~m~ission m~m%ber never showed up. If you look back in the Minutes, ever since I've bc_--n on, it's just tw~ people and you're not going to get a good working cc~mission. Plus you've got to go out to the job site and there's a lot of time consuming. If you're going to get a person that's going to do that and waste his time, is probably not their choice of words but spend their time going out to the job site. Chanhassen is 22 square miles. Drive all over the city of Chan for 3 variances. Mayor Hamilton: What was your feelings, I guess both of you when you saw the process that had been suggested by the Council on February 8th? I was just curious what your feelings were and what you felt was happening. Willard Johnson: No confidence. Carol Watson: I guess I didn't really look at it that way completely. My concern was just advertising. I think the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is different. I think there should be some background. Mayor Hamilton: I think you're right. You've got a lot of background. The more experience the better on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Willard Johnson: When it c~mes out in the paper and you see advertising for three positions and we've been holding these positions, maybe we aren't the best. All of a sudden you see this c~me out in the paper, three openings, and it makes you feel about that high off the ground. Councilman Boyt: I take it that nobody contacted you to tell you about this? Councilman Geving: Not really. Barbara Dacy: Jo Ann called to see if you were willing to reappointed. I know she did. Willard Johnson: We were all contacted to be reappointed, yes. Carol Watson: Yes, in our meeting back in October we were asked if we were interested in being reappointed. Barbara Dacy: It was my understanding also that she did talk to you about the Council's action. Carol Watson: After it appeared in the paper. We had all read it. Councilman Geving: The stat~m~ent that Bill read back here on page 68 wasn't part of what was given to these people. That's the probl~. There was no explanation of really what had happened on the 8th. di it .ty(lx~il M~eting - February 22, 1988 .273 ~yor Hamilton: Have the ads ~_n put in the paper? luncilman Geving: C~ yes, they're in. yor Hamilton: Have there ~ any applicants ceme in? rbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. yor Hamilton: For any of the positions that w~re advertised for? Then it ises the question, where did you advertise? How long do we have to vertise? It just goes on. We don't have guidelines to follow. It puts us a distinct disadvantage. m~cilman Horn: We said it at the last mccting, that we advertise until we ;e enough car~idates to fill the positions. ~r Hamilton: We already have enough. We had e~ough. ~ncilman Boyt: I think that Clark made th~ point that was the heart of 3cussion in our last ~ting which was, to fill positions without advertising to imply s~mething that wasn't true. T~ way to cover that in the short m was simply to advertise the position and the people w~re to be told that were takirg care of a procedural mattez ar~ not a matter of voting about ;ther or not we had confidence in the people in those positions.. That was h~art of the discussion as I recall it. I'm sorry that it c~me out the way did. That wasn't the intent. Ashw~rth: Point of clarification fr~m staff. I think I've-talked to sst all of the m~bers. I know Willard and I have talked at length. .ked to Dick Wing and Candy Takkunen. The probl~ occurs is that you're .kir~ about Mor~ay night newspaper really out on Wed~esdayar~ we have so ~yc~missions that by the timewegotback to many of these people, they 1 mad al ;eady see~ that. The other question becomes one of even stating what the go~l was, like with Willard, we really ~ to have the meetings with the in~.ividnal c~emissioners so they can hear from you what it is that we're lo~king for and goals, expectations, etc.. I know that Dick Wing accepted by .c~~ts. I don't know if he totally believed them. MaWr Hamilton: He didn't. He was very ar~3rY. I don't know what the Go~cil's pleasure is. I guess everything has ~' advertised for ar~ we'll ne~to deal with those very soon. We need to find some people or reappoint so I ~uess the staff will have to come bac~ to us. CoUncilman Horn: I thought when this ~as on the agenda tonight that we w~re go~ to call it tonight. Co~ncilman Geving: On the first issue, as far as the Southwest Metro is [ cco~_rne~ld~-- I'd like to see a councilman appointed to fill T~m's vacancy and be it because w~ are going to have a meeting on ~'nursday night. Oo~ilman Horn: We have a t~m~)rary. Co ~u~cilman Boyt: He's out of town. 'l .. City Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 Councilman Geving: The only bad thing about appointing Jay is that I don't know what his schedule is. It probably wouldn't be fair to appoint him full time for this as long as he's agreed to be a temporary. That might be good enough for now. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should talk to him and see if he's willing to take it on a full time basis. If he doesn't, I know that Bill would be happy to do it. I have your letter here Dale and I'm not willing to accept it so you're still on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Geving: So be it. Mayor Hamilton: There wasn't anybody who ever said that we felt that you were doing less than an outstanding job. I certainly feel that way and I hope that you will want to be reappointed to that commission which I believe you do. Willard Johnson: I think that's the way the whole Board felt. When it omme out in the paper the way it is, I felt like no confidence. Mayor Hamilton: That wasn't the intent for any of the people. Carol Watson: I would like to be reappointed in case there's any confusion. Mayor Hamilton: The next it~n was the referendum. I wanted to just address that very briefly. It's not intended to be a debate or an issue that's going to be discussed by everybody. I'm just rather frustrated and I think it's time that somebody has something to say about all of the misinformation that is being circulated about the ~nity. I think it's very unfortunate when you have people who have been previously elected to positions and those who are currently holding elected positions, take a position and put their name in the paper as being a part of a group who is certainly entitled to their opinion and thoughts about items on the referendum. However, when they tell falsehoods ar~ are not in the least bit accurate with your information and leave other people in the co~nunity to believe things that are not true, I think it's extremely unfortunate and it's time for us to take a look at what is really occurring in our com~]nity and look at the people who have been elected. This thing has gotten completely out of hand with the bad information going out. One side countering the other on an hour by hour basis. It wasn't intended to be a debate. It's a referendum that was put together by a group of volunteer citizens of the co~m~unity in all good conscience and faith that this was the best thing for the c~nunity to do and it's not an item that was intended to be debated or kicked around like a skraggy dog. Everybody has the right to vote the way they feel about it and to start doing a lot of name calling of myself and other people who have volunteered their times and effort, just isn't right and I wish it would stop. I'm very, very disappointed in the way some of the residents of this ~nity have reacted to the whole issue. Enough said about that. Councilman Geving: As long as we're on that subject though Tom, are you going to talk about this? Is this something that's going to be sponsored by the City?. Council minting - February 22~ 1988 275 ~ayor Hamilton: Yes, there is a newsletter that is going out this eveming that as the backing of the entire Council ar~ the staff. It is in response again accusations and inneundoes that have been made that are not accurate, are J nc(m~plete, takem out of context ar~ again, it's an attempt by the City to larify the misinformation that is being spread around town. There has never ~ any attempt by anyone om the staff or the Council to do anything other .man tell everything that ~s to be told and can be told about each and every z-=ferer~tum issue and to tell the truth about it. There's nothing to hide. The issue is before the residents. It's up to ~ to vote. If they don't like they can vote no. If they want to have it, the~ can vote yes. It's just .~at simple. C)uncilman Horn: I got a chance to read this over and I think it's very well )ne. It exactly states t/~ positicn we should take. We're not selling lything on this. We're giving information which is exactly what we should do. lyor Hamilton: That's right. I think we've given out the accurate, the true lformation has come from the City and it's continually distorted. (J )u nc i lman Geving: I'd like to ask Tcm if there is any plan to have a post r~:ferendum meeting, possibly Thursday or sometime after the ballots have been d)unted to assess our position. I think it would be very important for us ~ause we probably won' t be meeting again for another ~ w~eks officially. reason I 'm saying this is because we should be aware of the situation of ballot so as we get telephone calls, we know what has passed, what has not ~ssed. Ashworth: Tmere were a number of resolution itens dealing with the ri:ferer~]um itself that came before the Council, I would say approximately one ~th ago. One of those wes the canvasing of the election results. I'm ~nfident that you set 5:0~ p~. on Thursday, in other words the day following referendum as a special meeting time and place to canvas the results. O~ncilman Geving: I wouldn't have known about it until tonight. Shall we set at then? Ashworth: We have to set one within 48 hours after the date of the erendum. __~ilman Horn: I can't be here at 5:~. yor Hamilton: What time can you be here? uncilman Horn: I can be here at 6:30. .~r Hamilton: Bill, are you going to be in town? C~.-u.- ncilman Boyt: Yes, 6:30 is fine. C~ncilman Geving: No probl~. Any time after 4:~. Mm yor Hamilton: As long as I can rip out of here in 1M minutes. I have to be i~ Chaska at another mccting. City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 Councilman Geving: It won't take long. Let's kick it up a little bit. HOW about 6:157 Councilman Horn: I'll try to get here as quick as I can. Mayor Hamilton: The other item I wanted to address was the Public Safety Cc~mission met last Thursday and we had discussed the possibility of increasing the size of that commission to seven. T~ more than the current five. That cc~mission had reco~ner~ed that last fall at so~e time and it was never acted on. They're still recom~er~ing that that commission be increased to seven or two more than what it currently is. Consequently, they would like to advertise and they would like, first of all, have the City Council approve that, that they go to seven. Then to allow them to advertise for the two additional positions. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to increase the size of the Public Safety Co~ission to seven (7) members and to advertise for the two additional positions. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see the ad include that these are positions that aren ' t currently held. Don Ashworth: Just for clarification, I see that as an instruction to staff as far as the advertisement, the general desire. The membership is set up by ordinance so on upcoming agenda you will see that item then appear to confirm what you' ve done. Mayor Hamilton: Then the last item I had is a part of the referendum again, with all this information that's flying arour~ town. There seam, s as though everyone is using mailboxes and newspaper boxes, where they deliver newspapers, and it's just b~n~ a mess. There's papers flying all over the place. They drop thom out of the car windows and they don' t stop to pick them up. It's something that I think we shouldn't have to tolerate. I think it's something the residents shouldn't have to tolerate. Shouldn't be getting this garbage. What I'd like to see us do, if possible, is to have an ordinance that would eliminate this type of activity. I know it's illegal to put anything in a mailbox, but I'd also like an ordinance saying that you can't put anything in a newspaper holder, whatever you call those things. I would also like it actually to include you can't use an individual's mailbox from the ground to the top of the mailbox. You can't rubber it on. You can't glue it on. You can't do anything. You either mail to the individual's hcme or you knock on their door and hand it to them. If you don't want to do those two things, you don't give it to them. I don't know if it's possible to do that. Maybe Elliott can give us a little insight. I'd like to pursue that to see if we can accompl ish that. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that maybe what we're really after, and maybe one of the more upsetting things about this material is that it should have an individual's name and address on it. Preferably a phone ntmlber and if we find th~n blowing around the City, then we've got somebody we can hold accountable. Council M~eting - February 22~ 1988 277 ayor Hamilton: That was another point I meant to make. If people se~] out nsigned information, it ought to go directly to the garbage without passing If they don't have the guts to sign it to let the people know who's [stributing the information, then it doesn't deserve anyone reading it. There ~s the one that just went out recently, it said the Coumittee Against whatever was. When you have an election you have to sign it, your cc~mittee and it ~ to be a treasurer's name ou there. That should have to be the same thing )r any information being distributed in town. It has to have, like you say, samabody's name that's accountable. I'd like to see our Attorney's office ,~search that and see if we can't c~me up with some way to control that. )uncilman Horn: There was a lot of other garbage besides this that comes :our~ in those paper boxes. People are always oaming arourz] the neighborhood ~ putting th~n in there. Maybe what we should do is to probably get a .sting. I throw them all away so I don't read them but maybe we should get a lt~sting of who uses those and see if there are any legitimate things that we ~ntact those ageocies and let th~n know this. .~.neYOr Hamilton: Well, it would just be billposting. Any billposting can't be · You either mail it or you hand it to them at the door. Ring the bell har~ it to them. Otherwise, don't do it. Jim, do you have any other s~ggestions along that line? Chaffee: I did call ADS, they're based up in Cambridge, Minnesota. 're the ones that attach those black tubular boxes to your mailpost. They i~dicated that it is mot legal for anybody to place anything in their black b4xes. They say they don't take people to court where they fir&t out who does it t they direct their drivers, if they find s(x~e material in there that they ve not placed in there, that t~ pull it out and them they, fr~m corporate mdquarters call up these people who are on the handbills that were passed out ~ suggest to them that they pay the AD~ Corporatiou to deliver them. They ~ that most of the time they'll get cc~oliance that way but they do not rsue it legally and I'm not even aware if there is a legal problem with that. marly they said they own those boxes. It's for their use and no one elses. a! C] fo ja ~r Hamilton: Enough said about that. Don had an ite~ on the absentee .lot. ~ Ashworth: Yes. Jean Meuwissen would like to see the Council, the State ~tute provides a board for counting absentee ballots ar~ that would just help our process. The governing body of any municipality may, by ordinance, or ,~ School Board by resolution, authorizing an absentee ballot counting board the purpose of counting all absentee ballots cast in the municipality or .ool district or shall consist of a sufficiemt number of election judges ~tnted as provided in Sections 2.M4 (b). So we already have set our election k3es. It's just a matter of taking a portion of those judges am] putting m onto this board. What I would ask you to do is to pass an ordinance which /~orize the creatiou of an absentee ballot counting board that is to be loosed of me~bers of our election judges. Ma..~r Hamilton: Do we need to appoint specific people then? .]~. City Council M~eting - February 22, 1988 Don Ashworth: I'm assuming that the flexibility is built in here to insure that the election clerk, if that person sees that we're getting 5~0 of them, that t~ can set more election judges to count them. Mayor Hamilton: So what do we need to do? Don Ashworth: Again, the passage of an ordinance that establishes an absentee ballot counting board. Mayor Hamilton: Just a motion is all we need right now, right? If it's an ordinance, don't we have to publish it? We can't establish an ordinance right now. We have to advertise it and everything else. Don Ashworth: The governing body of any municipality may by ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: That's a Minnesota Election law. If we adopt the Minnesota Election Laws, aren't we accomplishing the same thing? Probably so, it says by ordinance. Elliott Knetsch: Yes, you still ~ the ordinance. Do you have any feel for how many absentee ballots there's going to be? Don Ashworth: Jean did tell me how many we had. I thought she said s(~mething like 70. Mayor Hamilton: What have we done in previous times? We've had absentee ballots come in. You must have handled th~n somehow. Don Ashworth: Tae decision to have an ordinance come before this board twice is a decision that we have made locally to insure that all ordinances that are potentially generally affected the populous, in fact get two readings. The City Council may waive those procedures and adopt an ordinance such as this if you find that it's prudent to do such. We've taken care of this in the past, I would ass~ne we can take care of it for this one. Councilman Geving: If you feel strongly about it, I suppose we can vote on it but it wouldn't serve any purpose because we couldn't make an ordinance out of it, other than our intent. Don Ashworth: Again, Jean, I don't know if she just found this. She left me the note earlier today wondering if this was a possibility and I just saw the section on ordinance. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to allow the Absentee Ballot Counting Board be composed of an adequate number of election judges to count the absentee ballots. All voted in favor and motion carried. PR~TION FOR VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK, MAY(~R HAMILTON. Resolution 988-15: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to proclaim the week of March 6 through March 13, 1988 as Volunteers of America Week. All voted in favor and motion carried. lity Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 M C. Al de on ~T~ QUALITY POLICY PLAN UPDATE, CITY PLANNER~ u:bara Dacy: If you would like to make any ~ts on the four mjor issues add or subtract anything, please feel free to do so. uncilman Geving: I'm surprised that Chaska is not a member of this group. that correct? rbara Dacy: That is correct. They have been c(xning to more mcctings on this ~sue, on th~ sewer policy plan issue but they have not ~ contributing to · Boland ' s expenses. ~uncilman Geving: The reason I ask that is I think I've seen ~ there. ~yor Hamilton moved, Gouncilman Horn seconded to accept the four ira, s of the .~ropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Chapter as outlined by the ty Planner. Ail voted in favor ar~ motion carried. DUB(~ ROAD R~/~STRUCTION, CITY ENGIN~. n Ashworth: The major portion of the report is written by myself. I did ye Gary do a cost estimate. In fact it was running late on Friday so my ample uses $7~,~00.~ as a total cost figure ar~ again, the actual cost is timated at $625,000.0~ from the engineer. Tae question ~ one of, will be looking to improving Audubon Road and at what time frame? Fn~l~ ]ustries is interested in coming into Chanhassen. They're concerned with mt expenditure. They have see~ the business park, in fact Mr. ~-Gi~ was ~ over the weekend, I just learned that today, taking pictures of our isting business park. I think it's fair to say that they are very impressed th the existing business park and would hope that they'll be a good neighbor the coamunity and again, locate in Chanhassen. Would like to see ~elopment standards set for their property similar to those that have ~_-~n in the Business Park itself. Of concern again to thsu, is Audubon Road ch previously ~ms old County Road 17. It's a roadway that the County turned :k to the City really leaving it in the condition that it was in advance of it turnback. Creation of tax increment districts are unpopular type of [ngs, especially in today's day and age but if there were a project that lid rightly a~d justly fall into a tax increment district, it is this one. Lynn's or other property owners that would purchase property or own property either side of Audubon Road, do not directly benefit from that roadway. 75.~.ally w~ could assess then ar~ we could assess them to maue viable 50% or Jthink you would find it very difficult to sustain that assessm~a~t. ' , if you did make that assessment, you would still have the nsnaining 25%or 50% GO, which would have to c~me back against the citizens as a whole. Wh4t my analysis attempted to point, out was that as being a part of a tax in~rement district, if it can be reduced to a 3 to 6 year period of time, we in fac t will benefit all of our citize~ by doing it as a tax increment district. N~ again, one of the underlying questions becomes one of the roadway itself a~ the necessity to do that work. Staff believes that the road functions as it is, that it could be brought up to a 9 ton standard but I think we' re only loc ling ourselves if within a 5 to 10 year period of time, we would be bringing City Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 it up to urban standards. I'm ass~ning Gary is ready for any additional cc~nents regarding the costs. Mayor Hamilton: Urban standards, you mean by putting in curb and gutter? Don Ashworth: Curb and gutter, street lighting. Mayor Hamilton: How much would you widen it? Gary Warren: You'd probably be looking at a 44 foot section. Mayor Hamilton: How far south would we go? All the way down to CR 187 Gary Warren: Just to merge with the approach to the railroad, where it's just south of the Public Works property. Councilman Geving: That's an expensive piece for a short ways. Is it only about half a mile? Gary Warren: About 6/10th's of a mile. We're trying to be very generous with our costs. Mayor Hamilton: I know that I'm not too much inclined to want to create another TID but I know the State is considering eliminating them altogether before long because they don't like them at all but we do need, that road is in bad shape. Councilman Geving: We couldn't afford to do it any other way. Tne thing that bothers me is that, have you talked to McGlynn? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Geving: Could this be a factor in whether or not they actually follow through and come to Chanhassen or not? Don Ashworth: They have been very good to work with. I think when they saw the total cost associated with bringing that road up, they were surprised t~lves. They in no way said that that would make or break their decision but I think if we came back and said that we were going to assess that 75% or 100%, I think they would reassess their decision to come. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you about the timing on there. Sc~ething I read about April was it? The TID, April 17 Don Ashworth: There is a piece of legislation in front of the legislature which would eliminate what has been a clause that allows construction within 3 months of the creation of a tax incr~nent district. Right now you can capture that value, ihe State Law change would say, they're eliminating that so if you created a district, you would not capture any values for 18 months following the date that you adopted the district. Councilman Geving: On the other hand, if we created the district, let's say in March, chances are it's going to take a good year before we would have McGlynn in there or any other developer in there. You really wouldn't be talking about ty Council Meeting - February 221 1988 ~es generated until 199~ I would suspect. So the 18 months really doesn't us. ,~ Ashworth: Except it's fr~ the date of the issuance of the building ~it. McGlynn does want to move alon~ to the point where they would seek a [lding permit in the June to July timeframe. June is preferably what they ~ld like to work towards. :ncilman Geving: I don't think w~'ve got any choice personally. I think we ~e to establish a district. ~r Hamilton: I think for a couple of reasons. I stop and think of all the .ngs we did for Beddor and their whole develo~ent ar~ that was all tax .~r~ae~t district and it's worked out really well. M~Glynn is bringing over a ~t of their operation. I think if we made that road nice e~ough and showed m~ we liked to work with them and we'd like them to be here, it's certainly a x] opportunity to move the rest of their operation over here at some time. I :tainly would like to ~lish that. mcilman Horn: Are there any other ar~ that staff would reco~me~ to set as a district or are just going to pill this thing? It se~ms to me we )uld look at the whole issue. ~cilman Geving: Can we bring it all the back to the new CR 177 Create a district there because we're going to be expanding the ir~ustrial park, I lld hope, fr~m where we' re at all the way over to Audubon. Ashworth: You could extend it all the way down to Lla~an Blvd., yes. mcilman Geving: I'm not thinking that far down. I was thinking just that :row band along the road. From CR 17 west to Audubon. Almost where we would ,id a new road. The extension of Lake Drive East. Ashworth: Actually, that is within tax increment district %1. . i~,~ilman Horn: I was thinking more specifically the area to include TH 1M1. ike to look at all of these potential districts in ome group if we could we discuss this issue. Do~ Ashworth: I don't know if you could establish a district. Fmve a parcel here. Normally the improvements go along with the parcels. I don't know if yo~ could have the parcel fr~m which you're collecting monies and then you're going to skip over a mile and make the expenditure. ' ! Co~nci~ Horn: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if we're going to es~blxsh one district here, would there be other areas where we would want to establish districts. I'd like to see all of those proposals at once so we get a ~eel for them rather than just take ~ as they c~me. Let's look at the wh~le picture. Co~ilman Geving: Don, would this be the district here? City Council Mseting - February 22, 1988 Don Ashworth: I believe the parcel is this entire parcel, was it not Barbara? So yes, that's the only section that had that. Councilman Geving: It's too bad in a way because don't you actually have as much adminstrative work in creating that 80 acres as you would if you were to expar~ for a much larger area? I don't know where the MUSA comes in there but it -__~-~ns to me we could come all the way south even though there are hc~es down there next to CR 18. Mayor Hamilton: That's outside the MUSA. Don Ashworth: As far as the road improv~nent itself, it could be considered all the way down though. You just wouldn't have sanitary sewer. Mayor Hamilton: But why include it in the district then? Don Ashworth: Only to the extent that the Council would feel that this section of Audubon is going to have to be upgraded at some point in time... Councilman Geving: We could pick up the cost. Don Ashworth: One thing about a district and bringing the thing back, the City Council can always cut it back. The only concern I would have is that the April 1 date is important. If the Attorney tellsme I can't get everything done, if you ask us to do all of this, then I will give him guidance to just focus in on the one section he can get done. Mayor Hamilton: Bring it back next meeting. DOn Ashworth: We will try to take and get it down as quickly as we can. The legal notice section is what I'm worried about. Mayor Hamilton: I think you've got unanimous agreement. POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN, FINALIZE 1988 REVIEW PROCESS. DOn Ashworth: Typically the Mayor has met with myself at the end where we have completed the overall position classification process. I would anticipate that the Council wants to follow a similar procedure. If that's the case, we would present this item then on our first meeting in March. Councilman Horn: Are you the only one who takes a shot at it? Mayor Hamilton: No, everybody does. I write it up and go through it with Don and then if somebody wants to add or delete they can do that. Councilman Geving: Is it your idea Tom that we would fill out these and give the~ to you? Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that in the past. Usually fill one out and I think everybody's gotten the one that I filled out and seen my comments on there. ty Council Meeting - February 22~ 1988 t~ }uncilman Horn: Would you like our cx~m~_nts before you review it with D6n? {yor Hamilton: Sure, that' s fine with me. tuncilman Gevin~: I've got c~ments and I want to provide ths~ to you. ~yor Hamilton asked the two young men in the audience their names ar~ what :oject they were workirg on. They stated their names were Clark ar~ Mark. ey live in (~anhassen and atter~ Minnetonka Jr. High School. ~hey stated ~y needed to interview the Mayor after the meeting. ed in favor ar~ motion carried. The meetirg was adjourne~ at 1~:3~ p.m.. C~yitted by Don Ashworth Manager Pzepared by Nann Opheim 283