Loading...
1984 02 13 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened with Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson and Councilwoman Swenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin Howard Noziska, Planning Commission APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented. MOtion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: The following consent agenda items were removed to be discussed later in the meeting: c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Powers of Zoning Board of Adjustments. e. Review Data Required for Subdivisions not Served by City Sewer and Water Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pur- suant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. Approval of Prosecution Agreement with Carver County. b. Redesignation of Contractor, Sealcoating Bituminous areas and Resurfacing Tennis Court in Lake Ann Park. RESOLUTION #84-06. d. Resolution Supporting Transfer of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax from State General Fund to Highway Trust Fund. RESOLUTION #84-07. f. Plumbing Inspector Fees, 1984. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SOLID WASTE UPDATE REPORT: Al Klingelhutz, representing Chanhassen on the Solid Waste Committee, gave a progress report. He suggested the City put together a new package using a lot of the material used to fight the site at the public hearing and possibly take test borings on the property prior to the next public hearing in April. The City Engineer was instructed to prepare cost estimates on what this backup data will cost. MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the January 4, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the January 9, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the January 23, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -2- Councilman Horn moved to note the January 19, 1984, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Councilman Horn moved to note the November 30, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the January 11, 1984, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the January 25, 1984, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. TH 101 REALIGNMENT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, CHANHASSEN MEADOWS: Councilman HOrn-ffioved to approve-t~ire-p1an for an 18 unit apartment building as depicted in the site plans dated received November 28, 1983, and as con- tained in Planning Case 83-3 Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. That the proposed building be located at least 50 feet from the existing apartment building to the northeast. 2. That the proposed building be constructed having the same architec- tural treatment as the existing buildings in the Chanhassen Meadows I complex. 3. That line "BII on Exhibit 6 which was suggested by the City Engineer on the southwest side be adhered to. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAKE ANN GATE FEES: Arnold Hed was present asking the Council to set the same fee for persons that work in Chanhassen and live elsewhere as what Chanhassen residents pay. Councilman Geving moved to set the gate fees for Lake Ann Park as follows: $4.00 yearly resident seasonal pass $4.00 daily gate pass free Senior Citizens $8.00 yearly pass for persons working within Chanhassen $25.00 non-resident not working in Chanhassen yearly pass Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. Councilman Horn - I have no problem with the fee structure. I do have a problem with stickers. I think a sticker is ridiculous. A pass makes more sense and you don1t have to worry about I a second vehicle. Some people have a lot more than just two vehicles that they want to use. This is a family pass. 1 I I Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -3- PARK DEDICATION FEES: The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the Council raise the fees by 5% over the 1982 fees for 1984. Councilwoman Watson moved that the park dedication fees remain the same as 1982 and 1983. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: The following sections were amended: Section 1, 22.01 Creation and Membership. There is hereby created a Board of Adjustments and Appeals which shall consist of three regular members and one alternate member, all of whom are to be annually appointed by the City Council. Section 1, 22.02 (3) The Board shall not be empowered to hear requests for lot width, depth, and lot ~rea variances in conjunction with the sub- division of land. Section 1, 22.04 Appeals. Where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administra- tive officer in the enforcement of this ordinance, appeals shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of the issuance of such order, requirement, decision or determination. Se~tion 1, 22.05 (5) Council Action. The City Council may reverse, affirm or ~odify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the Board and to that end the City Council shall ha~e all the powers of the Board. The Council shall decide all appeals within thirty (30) days after the date of the required hearing thereon. Councilwoman Swenson moved to place in final reading an Ordinance Amending Section 22 (Board of Adjustments and Appeals; Variances) of Ordinance 47 as amended and entitled "Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance 47" and as amended February 13, 1984. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REVIEW DATA REQUIR~D FOR SUBDIVISIONS NOT SERVED BY CITY SEWER AND WATER: Councilman-Horn - I may-not have had t~same understanding tha~veryone else had when we set up the "subdivision" in the unsewered area. As I understood this thing, the main thing that we were allowing was single residences in that area. I never envisioned the subdivision in the unsewered area. I see this thing treated as a subdivision request and I look at the division of a single' parcel to place a home on in a much dif- ferent perspective than I look at "subdivisions". I am not quite sure we are all on the same track on this thing. Councilwoman Swenson - I thought of that too Clark. The only thing that made me think of it was the problem that we ran into with Coey when he wanted to divide his property on Lake Lucy into three lots. I assume that that was what prompted this. Bill Monk - We have had two or three other ones since that time. Staff has a1ways-assumed that this 2! acres went with subdivision and not just with individual, a breakup of one lot into two lots. If that's not what the Council meant then we had better back up. Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -4- Scott Martin - Somebody could come in and take 300 acres and subdivide that into 2~ acre lots. That's possible under our ordinance today. Councilman Horn - I think we need two sets of rules then. I find what is 1-.- being propo~here is very restrictive for the person that just wants to divide off a chunk to put a house on. Scott Martin - It wouldn't logically be required in terms of street grades and things like that. In order to get a good legal description for a piece of property it's got to be surveyed. In order to have a good legal description after it is surveyed it's best to have it platted. If a guy was to have a 160 acre farm and he wanted to cut off a 2~ acre corner out of it which I suspect you are going to see quite a bit of, that's not what our purpose is here. The purpose is for the type of subdivisions that we are seeing already, the Klingelhutz subdivision that you are going to see at your next meeting, should be treated the same as any other subdivision. There is a street involved. There are access issues. Councilman Horn - The thing that I thought initiated this thing was the type of developments like the Dypwick proposal. I am not sure that I have really put enough thought into the 2~ acre subdivision ordinance that this points to. Maybe I understand now what some of the concerns were from staff when we addressed this thing because you were looking at it from that aspect and I was looking at it from the aspect of a farmer that wants to have his sons live on the home place and take a chunk of that property and put another house on it. When you start getting into three and above then I think we have to put a whole new perspective on this thing. Bill Monk - The intent of this was ordinance says and to lay it out. changes let us know so that we can is directly out of the Subdivision to point out to the Council what your If the Council wants to make some go back and revise the ordinance. This Ordinance. I Scott Martin - T~e proposed ordinance that the Planning Commission has been working on does provide for the major subdivisions and minor subdivisions. Basically, the line is drawn at three or more. By definition, a sub- division is any subdivision of land whether it's one parcel into two or one parcel into 200. The shear number of information in here looks very cum- bersome but is a guy is cutting off a 2~ acre parcel, he is probably not creating access problems or future subdivision problems for the larger par- cel and so the big issue is going to be how the soil is going to perk out and where is your access going to be so a lot of these things can be done administratively. Mayor Hamilton - As long as somebody who is administering this can use that discretion wisely. Scott Martin - That's the approach that I would like us to take, apply the specific ordinance requirements reasonably given the situation. I guess the point that I want to stress is that an unsewered major subdivision is no easier to review than a major subdivision in the sewered area. I think you are going to find when you review it that those are going to get more I complicated as you start concerning yourself with how might this sub- division be resubdivided in the future if we extend sewer and water and now it's no longer practical or financially feasible to serve 2~ acre sites. Right now our Subdivision Ordinance states specifically that there shall be no private streets. The proposed ordinance provides for private stTeets so long as you don't serve more than three homes. I I I Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -5- ~ Klingelhutz - Are you adopting the County septic ordinance? Scott Martin - The City adopted the septic system ordinance last year and what we are saying is that subdivision review was never a problem before because the City didn't approve subdivisions without sewer and water. Now that we are approving them the time to determine whether or not the lots are going to be suitable is not after the subdivision has been filed and the lots are going to be sold off and somebody wants a building permit but rather before hand and that's one of the proposals is that as part of the soil information we requiring the subdivision ordinance as it exists, we are specifying that means two perk tests per lot that meet the standards of our Ordinance lOA. ~ Klingelhutz - I guess I can agree with that to a degree but a 2! acre lot and a buyer comes in and buys that lot and you say do a perk test here and do one over here but he wants to set his house over there, what happens then? Mayor Hamilton - I would hope that if a guy wants to build a house some place that they do a perk test. Why doesn't he bring in a plan first so that somebody can look at it and say do your perk test in the area where you are going to put the septic system. ~ Klingelhutz - I agree a perk test is good on each lot but I am wondering about the reserve one at this time, that you have got to have two of them and designate where the house is going to sit. Councilman Horn - As I understood it, the reason for two is because of the history we have with septic systems in the area that allows for back up, not just for moving the house but if the first system fails it is another place to put another system. Councilwoman Swenson - That's the way I understood it too and I thought it was a good idea. Councilman Horn - What it does is it guarantees the perspective buyer that he is going-ro-have a buildable lot. It might not be where he would like it but that might be the only two spots on the whole lot where he can put his house but if he wants to do another perk test and move it some place else at least he knows when he goes in and buys the thing that he has got something that he can build on. We don't want to create a buyer beware situation. Scott Martin - The unsewered area developer has got to be sophisticated. He has got to be laying out his lots bascially where the building sites are going to be. Councilwoman Swenson - On the last page under (h) "Whenever a portion of a tract of land is proposed for subdividing and said tract is large enough or is intended for future subdivision, a tentative plan for the future sub- division of the entire tract shall be submitted." This is where we go, it seems to me, to the one where you say here is a fellow with 10 acres and he is going to cut one corner of it off, this is going to leave, according to this, are you going to require this man to come in with a future sub- division of the balance of that? Scott Martin - That's verbatum out of our existing ordinance. I think the intent there was future subdivision at an urban density. You may want to modify that to make it more of a suggestion than a requirement. Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -6- Councilwoman Swenson - On (h), page 2, we use the phrase "if in the opinion of the City Planner the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision", I would like to see something in there that we would have to have some reasons stated. I don't know that one individual can say that I it1s not suitable for future subdivision. Mayor Hamilton - It shouldn't say the City Planner. It should probably say in the opinion of the staff which I hope that particular item would be reviewed by the Planner, Engineer, Manager. Scott Martin - I would suggest that you say in the opinion of the City. Councilwoman Swenson - I think that we should have to come up with some specifics so that maybe five or ten years down the road and suddenly some- body decides that this property is suitable for development or can be filled in, we know that there are people that say that there isn't any land that can't be built on and it may be unsuitable today and ten years from now somebody decides that all those rules and regulations that were made ten years ago are out the window now so now you can build on that. I think we better have a reason for it so that we can't be accused of being arbitrary. In going down to Design Features (f), "Minimum front building setback lines are required by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance", why only the setback? Why not side yard, back yard? Bill Monk - Because the side yard, it doesn't make any difference one side rs-Too-fOot and the other side is 10. Scott Martin - The rear is going to take care of itself once you know that 1- they have got the front at 30 feet. In the unsewered area you are never going to have a lot depth problem as far as if it's deep enough. Councilwoman Swenson - Contour interval requirements, I really don't understand what that means. Scott Martin - A contour is a line on a topographic map where all the ele- vation is the same. When you have a two foot contour interval requirement you are going to show that contour and then two feet higher or lower will be where your next line is drawn. That's the normal requirement but that's not necessary in large lots. The thing to look at is the closer the con- tour lines are on a map the steeper the slope. Councilman Horn - What I would like to see even in this interim ordinance it clearly spelled out that major and minor subdivision and that we say that all that's necessary for something less than three tracts is that all they need is a perk test and the access point. Councilwoman Swenson - When are we going to get the proposed Zoning Ordinance? Al Klingelhutz - These two foot contour maps on these big plats, you get a ten acre plat it's going to cost you $1,500 to get the two foot contours on it. I found out from the County that Hudson Map Company has a complete I contouring of Carver County on a ten foot interval and that would be instead of that two feet. I am wondering if you couldn't adopt something of not more than ten foot interval so that we could buy these things from Hudson Map Company for about $15.00 for ten acres. I I I Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -7- Bill Monk - The ordinance says two feet. Basically as a part of the Coey item that came up and some other small ones that have come up, staff is looking for a little bit of discretion in here and we wrote that section and added some sentences about why we need contour information. If in staff's opinion you couldn't build on it, you wouldn't need contours. A lot of that came specifically from Ted Coey's subdivision. He didn't want to do contours on the wetlands, we agreed. I don't know about this mapping thing whether it's just a blowup of the U.S.G.S. or what it is but even if you had that data maybe you could reduce your costs by just having stadia runs in the field instead of actually contour lines to reaffirm that ten foot contours are okay. The Subdivision Ordinance as it stands basically calls for two foot intervals. One of the reasons for that is areas like Carver Beach where you have extremely steep slopes the Council needs to know where those areas are especially in urban areas. What we have tried to do is in the rural areas is give a little bit more, make it a little bit easier to get the contour information especially in smaller subdivisions but two foot contour information is still being called for. Councilman Geving - I found it to be helpful when we have had wetlands involved or lake homes where they are darn close to the water table. On the last sentence, "such other information as may be requested by the City Planner, Planning Commission or City Engineer", I realize we have to have a sentence like that in there but it certainly is a catch-all. If you were a developer and had some run in with the Planner or some commission member or even the City Engineer he could really run you around getting all kinds of extraneous information. I hope that doesn't happen. I understand why it1s there. Councilman Horn - Do you think it might be necessary for us to limit at least for t~ime being until the ordinance is in place, this type of sub- division to a certain number of units such as ten or fifteen or whatever? Scott Martin - What you are really talking about is controlling the density. What we have done here is basically try to refine what already is in your ordinance and the opinion is that we are not amending the ordinance at all we are just clarifying procedurally what it is that we are doing but what you want to do is a Zoning Ordinance amendment which would be rather complicated. It's really the idea that the Planning Commission is still holding in terms of zoning different areas of the unsewered area for dif- ferent densities. One unit in forty acre concept is proposed for large parcels. Councilman Horn - I am not thinking of it in terms of density. First of all, I have some reservations about us going into this kind of thing before we have thoroughly researched it and got the benefit of the Planning Commission and my original concept for doing that was for the Dypwick kinds of things. I think we have not really done our homework well enough to think that we have ourself totally covered in major subdivisions. What I am suggesting is that we partially open the door without throwing the baby out with the bath water and just put a cap on this and say, this now will go up to subdivisions with a maximum of ten lots until we get that ordinance. I am thinking only in terms of not letting this thing get totally out of hand on us which has been a staff concern all along with this thing, before we have done all our research and really feel that we have adequately addressed this issue because quite frankly am a little bit surprised that we are looking at this in terms of larger subdivisions. Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -8- Councilwoman Swenson - I think our major problem here is that all of us anticipated that we were going to have our proposed Zoning Ordinance done before the end of the year and if we would have gotten that so that we could have got working on it we wouldn't be confronted with this situation. I Mayor Hamilton - I think if we use this and have the major/minor and the major not to exceed ten or twelve. Councilwoman Swenson - Would you put a moratorium on anything over twelve? Mayor Hamilton - It wouldn't be a moratorium. It would just give us an opportunity to review it and see what other restrictions we may want to impose or add or delete. Scott Martin - If the Council wants to go in that direction I would like to get an idea exactly what you want to do. It's not as simple as saying we put in our Subdivision Ordinance that cannot subdivide in unsewered area more than ten lots regardless of the size of the propety being subdivided. Councilwoman Swenson - When are we going to get this Ordinance? Scott Martin - I received it from the consultant today. It's 180 pages. ~and I are going to spend the next two to three weeks going through it and Roger is too. We are meeting back with the consultant on March 6th to get any of our comments back into it and with the idea of getting it to you within a week after that so you will have until the end of March or however long you want to review it. The Planning Commission and the Council will be reviewing it at the same time individually. Councilwoman Swenson - What's responsible for the delay of this and how much more is it going to cost because it's gone over longer than it was projected? I Scott Martin - It's not going to cost any more and there is a number of reasons why it wasn't done the end of December. There was some start up problems in terms of the consultants ability to get working on it, there was some health problems, in fact a year ago there were a number of meetings postponed at the Planning Commission level because of lack of quorums and it just turned into a bigger project than we anticipated. The number of work sessions that we have had is greater than wha~ we envi- sioned, yet, at this point in time we are not looking at any increase in the consultants services contract. It is a very complex lengthy document that, at least I am very concerned, be workable and be complete and try to cover all the bases in problem areas that have been haunting us for the last several years and to that extent I want to have a good period of two to three weeks to really go through it. Mayor Hamilton - If we changed the name or title of this to state that it is the required preliminary plat data for subdivisions of not more than ten units served by municipal water and sanitary sewer service, would that answer your concerns. Councilman Horn - I don't know if ten is the right number but it answers my 1- concerns. Mayor Hamilton - We still are going to put in the major and minor. I I I Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -9- Councilwoman Swenson - So you are going to designate that the minor would be less than three. The major would be three to ten. Bill Monk - In the interim I would suggest that the staff will just use these-exTsting criteria to bring things to the Council that basically will assure the buildability, waiving whatever restrictions we see as over- bearing. I guess I would just as soon do something like that in the interim than writing up another ordinance and pushing it through. This is a major change if you want to restrict the number. Mayor Hamilton - I think you may be misinterpreting what Clark is looking for and that is if there is more than ten or whatever number that we want to have the assurance that we can review them to be sure that if there are any additional requirements that ought to be placed on that particular development that we have every opportunity to do that. Otherwise up to ten you can use this document as a guide. I don't see it as a major ordinance change. Scott Martin - If someone comes in with 40 lots and they meet the ordinance requirements you are going to be hard pressed to deny it. You will be seeing all of them. Mayor Hamilton - We don't want to be tied to this specifically. Scott Martin - These are not the only things. This is just the excerpt of the ordinance that are the minimums necessary for most subdivisions in the unsewered area and specifically highlighting that there should be more discretion in the topography area, there should be very grave concern about approving lots without knowing whether they will handle a septic system. ~ Klingelhutz - I guess Ordinance 45 was repealed almost a year ago, what have you seen come in since then? I thought I would see a big influx of lot subdivision come in after this happened but that really hasn't hap- pened. There has been some requests but I have even advertised an 80 acre farm subject to 2! acre subdivision and I didn't even get a call. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary plat data for sub- divisions not served by municipal water and sanitary sewer service including major and minor subdivisions. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following. voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. CITY MANAGER'S POSITION REVIEW: Mayor Hamilton moved to accept the Mayor1s evaluation of the City Manager and that the City Manager will be given $150 per month compensation for car allowance. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. Councilman Geving - I am very much in favor of giving him the cost of living increase of 5% but I am not in favor of giving him a car allowance. I would like to keep it the same way that we have for all othr employees that are increased each year with a cost of living. In my opinion the Manager is the Manager, he is the senior employee of the City, I don't feel he should be treated any differently. I think there is a car available at all times that could be used by Don. Council Meeting February 13, 1984 -10- Minutes amended March 19, 1984. Councilman Horn - From the City's stand- point, what the City has to payout we are going to be paying more out and in effect Don will be getting less for it. To me, the way the State works, I we have to be a little bit more creative in how we pay our employees and not do it in direct salary compensation. I think it's only fair to the employees to make things as equitable for them as we can and also watch what our cash outlay is. I don't understand what 5% gains anyway. Don loses and we lose. We lose because we are paying him more. Our actual cash outlay is more per month that way than it is with a car allowance. Salary is only one aspect of the total compensation package. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I I