Loading...
1984 02 27 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Bob Waibel, Scott Martin Bill Ryan, Planning Commission APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: The following consent agenda items were removed to be discussed later in the meeting: c. Resolution for Railroad Signalization Improvements on Bluff Creek Drive d. Resolution approving No Parking Zone on Laredo Drive between Saratoga Drive and West 78th Street. Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pur- suant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. Agreement for Back-Up Building Inspection Services with Carver County. b. Approve Development Contract Amendments 2 and 3 for New Horizon. e. Approve Amendment to Chanhassen Fire Relief Association Bylaws. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING SUNNY BROOK DEVELOPMENT GROUP REZONING, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, 35 UNIT HOTEL AND MEETING FACILITY, AND APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPROVAL Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Barney Schlender, 6400 Emerson Ave. So. Wanda Schlender, 6400 Emerson Ave. So. John Lemley, Miller & Schroeder, Minneapolis There being no comments from the public, Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -2- REZONING, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN, SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT GROUP: The City Attorney recommen~that the Council action not include the rezoning. Action on the rezoning should occur at the time that the plat is presented. I Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the site plan and preliminary plat for the Sunnybrook Development Group. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS, SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT GROUP: RESOLUTION #84-08: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a preliminary resolution subject to the condition that the bonds be privately placed and that all requirements of City Resolution #81-07 be met prior to approval of a final resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING NEAR MOUNTAIN FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION REQUESTS Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Peter Pflaum, 18070 Breezy Point Road, Wayzata Rick Denman, Lundgren Bros. Const. Dennis Mulvey, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. I Rick Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. There being no further comment from the public, Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION, NEAR MOUNTAIN: ---- --- RESOLUTION #84-09: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution to accept the final development plan amendment, street and easement vaca- tion for Near Mountain PRO, Lundgren Bros. as depicted on the Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. proposed amended plan for Near Mountain and the Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. legal descriptions of proposed street, utility and drainage easement vacations dated received February 2, 1984. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the February Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Councilmen Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 8, 1984, Planning The following Watson, SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUEST, 1381 LAKE LUCY ROAD, TED COEY: Al Klingelhutz and Ted Coey were present. ---- ---- I Mayor Hamilton - I wanted clarification from the staff on two items. The applicant record the proposed subdivision in the form of a plat. If I can have some clarification on that, and the building plans for the proposed homes on Parcels A and B be certified by a registered architect or engineer. I I I Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -3- Don Ashworth - The first item is the plat, it is my recommendation after talking with staff. We have been trying to reduce procedures for smaller subdivisions. The Council should recognize that metes and bounds descrip- tions, especially for parcels that will remain as single family lots will be there forever, it's a significant burden for everyone who has to go through a process of trying to locate land if they are recorded in a metes and bounds format. The work in the City alone is tremendous every time you work out any type of a notice, notification of property owners, etc. To the best of my knowledge we have had very few metes and bounds descriptions over the years and those that have gone through have been larger tracts, in fact Mr. K1inge1hutz had been before this Council six to nine months ago and at that point in time was proposing a metes and bounds and I had abso- lutely no problem with that because we were assured it would come back again and be later subdivided in a plat. In terms of the second question, the Council had shown concern like in Trolls-Glen area where homes were being put on the side of a hill and there was a question, what would happen if at a later point in time a home would start falling into the lake as you have in the southern California area. You had taken a position that on very steep lots that an architect or someone knowledgeable about soil con- ditions should sign off on that proposed development. You did it in the Carver Beach area, and Trolls-Glen. Councilwoman Swenson - Is there any possibility of potential lot splits in the future? Bill Monk - I don't believe on these two. ~ K1inge1hutz - As far as the metes and bounds, it's subdividing two 5 acre lots off of a much larger tract. He (Ted Coey) has his home on the larger tract. I don't know if Ted ever intends to subdivide the large tract. If you took him through the cost of platting this at this time, we just talked to Rick Sathre who was here, and he told us it could well cost an additional $1,000 to plat these two lots which, we feel, for a five acre tract and would you be requesting to plat the present home site with the 17 acres and the two 5 acre lots in one large plat? Scott Martin - That would be the ideal way to clear up the legal descrip- tion for the whole tract. ~ K1inge1hutz - But then at some time in the future something happened to Ted or he decided to sell the lot with the home on and he has a 17 acre tract and he could subdivide it again, then that person would have to go through a complete new rep1atting process and have the same costs allover again. I feel with the tracts as large as they are now, the platting pro- cess as far as the final plat is concerned these two parcels on a metes and bounds description which the land in the United States has been described by since the founding of the Colonies and everybody has seemed to have got- ten along pretty well. I realize metes and bounds descriptions are hard to read for an ordinary person who has not done it before, but to me being in the business that I am in, I believe that I can get more out of a metes and bounds descriptions than Lot 1, Block 2 because when I read the metes and bounds description I know the exact dimensions of that parcel. Don Ashworth - My comments only dealt with the two lots that are proposed ro-be,as I see it, in final form. The 17 acre lot was not to be platted. It's a relatively small cost in comparison to the cost that will occur to you and to the public in the future. I think it's something that the City Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -4- has not really looked at before and we do have a number of metes and bounds today from township days and to increase the number of metes and bounds descriptions, even though it would be for smaller parcels, you have a lot I of larger tracts out there and you could be talking about a lot of metes and bounds descriptions in the future. Ted Coey - One thing Al mentioned on the engineer thing, as far as having ro-have-an engineer or certified architect as far as the building. Those lots are not that steep. I have already got one lot sold contingent on it being approved and the guy is putting a $250,000 house in there. When someone is putting up an expensive house in that area they aren't going to have a piece of paper with someone drawing a house, it's going to be someone knowledgeable in that area. It would hurt me selling the other lot possibly if I had to have someone make sure he had a engineer approve the plans. I don't think that1s necessary. One of the recommendations to the Council was that the two lots have a joint driveway. I think with houses that size you are going to first have a problem with the bank. A bank will not look favorably on a joint driveway when you get a mortgage on your house. If you are putting houses of that size up on those five acre tracts there is no reason that we can't get an individual driveway for each lot. Councilwoman Swenson - This 33 feet, Bill, is that to accommodate the mutual driveway or is that to accommodate a widening of the street? Bill Monk - Descriptions on metes and bounds property routinely go to the center-oT a street and there is no provision in the descriptions for a roadway easement for Lake Lucy as it exists today. The half-section map I shows it as a 661 roadway so basically all I am asking is for the standard language to be put on the end for the easement for the road as it should exist. You are not asking for a widening at this point. It is just a clarification that the right-of-way does indeed exist. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance subdividing the property into three single family residential lots subject to a street easement over and across the north 33.00 feet to be shown in all three parcel descriptions as stated in the Engineer's memorandum of February 27, 1984. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1984 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES: RESOLUTION #83-10: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution establishing the liquor license fees at the same level as 1983 fees. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson left the meeting. BILLS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented: Check #015230 through #015302 in the amount of $86,202.98, checks #019738 I through #019826 in the amount of $129,136.89. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I ~ Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -5- SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUEST, 495 LAKOTA LANE, MAYNARD HAPPE: Mr. Happe requested this item be deleted-rrom this agenda. Mayor Hamilton moved to table this item until Mr. Happe requests it be placed on an agenda. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR VARIANCE TO SUBDIVIDE, NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROADS 17 AND-rB, BRIAN ANo-NEIL KLINGELHUTZ: -Srian, Neil, an~Al Klingelhutz and Herb~ldwin were present. Bob Waibel - They had asked that they be able to show a sketch plan to both the Council and Planning Commission before they proceeded with the prelimi- nary plat. They wanted to get an informal okay from the Council so that they had a good direction in which to go forth and invest in preparing a preliminary plat. Mayor Hamilton - As long as they can work out the pipeline problems. It appears as though the road is coming up right on top of the pipeline. Bob Waibel - The pipeline company has responded and they said there is no problems except they hope the developer does coordinate the access construction with them. Mayor Hamilton - It seems to me that would be the worst of all possible places to put a road access right over the pipeline because you have vibra- tions. Bill Monk - They have built quite a number of roads over pipelines and I guess you always worry about that. Since the terrain here is basically a little more fill and cut the pipe is going to be pretty much protected. I guess I don't see on this type of a road especially where there is going to be a huge amount of traffic or anything so that I am not expecting a major difficulty. Mayor Hamilton - How deep is the pipe? Bill Monk - Those pipes can go anywhere from two to eight feet deep. It depen~n soil type and what they think might go over it in the future. They average about three to four feet deep. ~ Klingelhutz - I can remember when they requested to have an easement through my farm and they guaranteed me that it would average at least three feet deep. So I am assuming the whole line is three feet or deeper. Right where County Road 17 goes over it I suppose it is probably ten feet under the road because of the new grades. Herb Baldwin - A comment about the access way in, I think it1s only the point of where the private road and County Road 17 are tangent or they intersect, we are proposing this road actually would divert to the south and west and it pulls immediately off of that line. ~ Klingelhutz - There are two lots sold. We close some time soon and we are going to try to push this along as fast as we can because it happens to be that they are sold to close some time after April 15th. Mayor Hamilton - I think the plan looks good. Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -6- ~ Klingelhutz - You don't mind that one lot or two of them are .1 acre smaller? One of the reasons is the pipeline. I wanted to keep the pipe- line on the lotline. Councilwoman Watson - The Planning Commission said that they should maybe redraw those so that variances are not needed. ~ Klingelhutz - Isn't your recommendation that in cases like this if a lot is longer than it should be or a little smaller that the variance should be given right with the plat approval? Bob Waibel - Yes, that would be the case. The only time we have variances that come up after the platting would be when it's relative to a structure itself and its location with respect to property lines and setbacks. Mayor Hamilton - It would probably make it a lot easier if they were all 2t acres. Herb Baldwin - The way Bob and I have talked about it, during the prelimi- nary plat we would try to bring that into a balance. I am not certain it will make the quality of the lot any different than what you see right now but for the sake of acreage I think that we will be able to move lines slightly to the point where we get a closer balance anyway. Councilman Horn - I don't think any of us think we would be improving the quality by doing that but what we are saying is we would be setting a pre- cendence. CARVER COUNTY LANDFILL SCOPING REPORT: ~ Klingelhutz - Herb Baldwin headed up a committee in Scott County near his property and he has been sort of advising me on some of the things we should be doing here and I was wondering if he could make a few comments to you on what they did as far as getting that site removed from the inventory. Herb Baldwin - One of the Waste Management members was commenting today on what has happened to at least the way in which the sites have been regarded and there is just a lot of fluffing of the water. We made our- selves a nuisance and I think the other objective that we had was to take the position that they did not know enough about our site and so we very thoroughly went through all aspects of their findings for the suitability of this site. We were able to create, I think, sufficient question in the minds of the PCA that there was some reasonable doubt that the site as appropriate. We had to use illustrations. We had to use similar sites that we found, for example, in our area there was a soil type which was common in another place just along the bluff in Scott County and although the well logs pointed at a certain phenomena, that was rather arbitrary in the judgment of the geologist that put it together and we could back it off against another geologists opinion that it could be something else. It was a matter of being very persistent. We were not unfair or impolite but we were very determined that we were to be heard. It does help, very honestly, and this was the point that was made in the broadcast that I heard this afternoon, it does help to be emotionally involved. I hate to say that but while there were a few of us dealing with fact you had to have those out there that were making something of a color to this whole issue, giving it the color. It was being persistent and certainly just I I I I I I Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -7- taking every opportunity to explore all aspects of their proposal. Even the fact that they didn't actually know where the site was, they did but they made mistakes with regard to how big and how small and it shifted, actually colored the hearing officers views when we were at that stage. This is hindsight, you need better vision, the idea is to hit it as soon as you can with as much force as you can. Timeliness is so important because the longer you stay on that list the longer you stay and it's important to rattle as fast as you can and as thoroughly and as hard as you can. I am not certain that's of any measurable help to you but I talked with Al several years ago over this and we shared with many of the farm families here in Carver County the possibility of landfill sites and we tried to generate a support. We have a list of people that were very helpful to us who shared similar concerns of landfill deposits. It1s kind of nice. Of course they are trying to get out of their backyard and you are trying to get it out of yours but there are common things that you can share and I would be happy to get that list to Al and maybe it can be of help to you. COUNTY ASSESSOR POSITION REVIEW, COUNTY BOARD: Mayor Hamilton - The County Assessor's position is being reviewed by the County Board several months in advance of normal review. There will be several people from Chanhassen at the meeting tomorrow to make themselves heard. Councilwoman Watson - It was not that he was trying to do an equalization or to solve an equalization problem, it just that you cannot call down there and you cannot get an answer to a question and you cannot find out what criteria was used for any given type of property any where in the County. That was my complaint, not the equalization but the fact that we cannot get a list of criteria. Councilman Horn - I think the equalization efforts are to be applauded. Councilwoman Watson - They may have moved a little too fast. Some of them there could have been a better timing and discussion with property owners that your property will be equalized over the next three years or five years or something. Mayor Hamilton - The state does not give any flexibility. The equaliza- tion is really not the issue, it's how it has been done. It should be conducted in a very diplomatic and in a very nice way. Councilman Horn - It the commissioner1s were responding to this kind of complaint t~I would support what they are doing but I don't believe they are. The one thing that he has done, I think, that is to our benefit is what he is getting hung for now by the commissioners. HIGHWAY 212/5 UPDATE: Mayor Hamilton reported that there has been a search conducted to find a lobby to help us try to get something done with the 212/5 corridor. The firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly were hired. An effort will be made to raise $20,000 initially to pay the lobbists for this session of the legislature. Council Meeting February 27, 1984 -8- RAILROAD SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS, BLUFF CREEK DRIVE: RESOLUTION #84-11: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution I approving Chanhassen's participation in Railroad Signalization Improvements on Bluff Creek Drive. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. NO PARKING ZONE, LAREDO DRIVE BETWEEN SARATOGA DRIVE AND WEST 78TH STREET: RESOLUTION #84-12: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption-of a-resolution establishing a no parking zone on the west side of Laredo Drive from Saratoga Drive to West 78th Street. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I I