Loading...
1984 10 15 I I I REGUIAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUOCIL MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1984 Mayor Hamil ton called the neeting to order. The neeting was opened the neeting with the Pledge to the Flag. Memrers Present Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson Councilwanan SWenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill funk, Barbara Dacy, Mary Vujovich, Scott Martin APPROVAL OF l\GENDA: The following item was deleted fran the Agenda as it was pre- sented to the Board of Adjustments and AJ;;peals prior to the Council neeting and approved. 1. Front Yard Setback Variance Request, 3707 South Cedar Drive, Dave Hemple. Councilman Horn noved to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Southwest Corridor Coalition, Status of Bluff Creek Railroad Crossing, November 5th neeting, and Cable TV. M:>tion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton noved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recarmendations: a. Ordinance Rezoning Electro-Craft Site fran R-lA to P-4, Final Reading. b. Accept Hillside Oaks project Irrprovements. RESOLtJrION #84-56. c. Ag;>rove Grievance Procedure for HandicapPed Individuals as Required by Federal Statute. RESOLtJrION #84-57. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Counci1men Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR MOVING PERMIT TO M:>VE HOUSE TO CHES-MAR FARMS Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. The following interested persons were present: Gary Kirt, 22410 Murray Street, Excelsior Paul Prenevost, 2739 Pine Circle, Excelsior Don Ashworth - We have a request to nove the Hennan heme. The Building Inspector has reviewed the hare and finds it to be solid, neeting code and there are sane items that he has noted that need to be taken care of. The primary question is one of really a clarification of the ordinance as the City Council previously approved it, you have a copy of that ordinance and you have a copy of state code and that code does provide discretion to the building official especially in noving hares such as this. I refer to Section 1.06 under M:>difications of the state Code. The question presented to the Council is one of insuring that staff is correctly interpreting the City Council's desires in terms of substantive requirements under State Building Code and the second issue is the approval or denial of the house noving permit itself. Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyone here fran the public who has any carments to make on this item? Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -2- ~ Kirt - We did give quite a bit of infonnation on the house several nonths ago. The permit pretty much speaks for itself. Councilman Geving - What will the house be used for? ~ Kirt - It will be single family residential. Councilman Geving noved to close the public hearing. MJtion seconded by Councilwanan Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, CounciJ..rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. MJtion carried. HOUSE MJVING PERMIT: Councilman Horn - I was wondering if there would be any possibility of a resident using the 106 rrodification section in referring to the section under historic buildings. I suspect they accanplish the sane thing. Section 104 (f) . Also I noticed that in section (e) aoove it's very explicit that noved buildings shall comply to the sarre provisions as new buildings and structures which would tend to go along with what our intention was when we passed the ordinance. I also ooticed on 101.3.2.1 that additions to existing buildings would comply but you wouldn't have to necessarily bring up the remainder of the building to conformity. Councilwanan Swenson - I am a little confused here, how are we relating to the ordi- nance if it's only passed it's first hearing. We are not working with this ordi- nance that's included in our packet? Don Ashworth - It has not been published but it was passed through the second reading. You have finally acted on this ordinance. Councilwanan Swenson - '!here were changes that were supposed to have been rrade. For one thing in Section 2, which isn't even referred to which has to do with the changing or altering of existing buildings. Secondly, I was very specific aoout saying in my notion on the first reading, that the question was not with buildings that are already existing within the City, it's the buildings that are being brought into the City and this ordinance does not reflect that. This ordinance says into or within the City. I would not have agreed to this because this was contrary to what my initial notion was. Councilman Horn - I thought there could be a difference between buildings that were already here and buildings that would be noved in. Councilman Geving - I don't believe so. Councilwanan Swenson - You will notice on page 15 of the August 6th Council minutes, aoout 3/4 of the way down, "Councilwcman Swenson rroved to place on first reading an ordinance amending ordinance 47 with the following additions: adding 2e requiring the Building Inspector's ccmrents, 4d adding the verbage of 47A. The City Attorney will clarify in item 1 whether it would be reasonable to leave out the 'within'." I know absolutely nothing aoout any continuation of it. If there has been sanething I certainly haven't seen it. Don Ashworth - This was sent back to the Attorney. He did draft a redraft of the ordinance. I cannot recall him addressing that particular issue. It did go back on the Council agenda and was approved for second reading August 20th. Councilwanan Swenson - Why wasn't that included in the packet? Scott Martin - I am sure it was a clerical oversight. I I I I I I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -3- Councilwoman Swenson - There are a lot of clerical oversights. I am just not happy with this at all because I don't think the problem is the buildings that are within because buildings that are already wi thin the City have had to at one tine or another received a building penni t. Bill Monk - The City Attorney did specifically respond to the question. His answer as I remember to that precise question was that he did not see a major distinction between houses within and without and this was left so that houses rroved within the City or into the City would be handled the same way. That was his interpretation. The major question at the staff level was an interpretation of 4a, the word IIsubstantivell and whether the Council wanted to regulate the nomal houses rroved had to rreet code or not. There is a big difference between whether they have to rreet code exactly or whether the building inspector is allowed sare latitude. This is an example of that. This house will not rreet codes in every way. Councilman Horn - I think there are exceptions though. Bill M:>nk - The code allows for them but the ordinance does not have to. Councilman Horn - The ordinance as I interpret it is that we are requiring the uni- form building code to be enforced. We, of course, did not have the benefit of the Uniform Building Code when we looked at this but there are certain things here that do give you those options. Councilwoman Swenson - If as you say this was done, we passed this ordinance on the 21st of August and this is raN the middle of October, why don't we have the ordinance? Don Ashworth - That is the rrodified ordinance. That is the one that was presented by Roger Knutson. Councilwoman Swenson - I was of the opinion that the application for the permit was going to be filed with the City and not the Director of Cam1unity Developrrent. We don't know how long we are going to have that position in the City. I think it should have been made to the City which is what we have been doing for a con- siderable period of tine. Councilman Geving - I think what happened there is that this was done before the budget rreetings were held. Councilman Geving rroved to grant the house rroving request. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Ma.yor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilrren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Ma.yor Hamilton rroved to approve the October 1, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Ma.yor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and Swenson, Council.rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FEASIBILI'IY S'IUDY, CREEKWOOD DRIVE: Bill Monk - I wrote a letter to all the people who live on that private easerrent going back into the golf course and also to Halla Nursery. I found out just today that when the notices went out they were typed under Chanhassen instead of Chaska. People were just getting the letter Saturday or today. I would be reccmrending that this item be tabled and we can renotify the People and let them know that the item would be caning up at the next rreeting. I apologize to the Council and to anyone Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -4- present for that mix-up. One major item that did care up is that I did work with the City Attorney and a certified appraiser on this particular item. We took a pretty close look at the assessm:mts and even though we had thought it logical to I assess on usage, any detennination of benefit would have to be oosed on the dif- ference in appraisal of the property before and after the improvement and there is no way the appraisal for the golf course is going to show an increase of 90% of the project costs so that oosically that method of assessment will fallout and we will have to take a closer look at who actually benefits fran the improvements but there is no question that the abutting property will have to cover the bulk of the project because they do benefit the rrost whether they are generating the traffic or not. Councilwanan ~son - Is there any way that we could put a 20 mph or 15 mph speed signs up on that road to slow that traffic down so that we can eliminate the danger. Bill M:mk - We could. The problem will be enforcerrent. We could put up signs in an attenpt to slow traffic down but the Council would have to note that we really wouldn't be able to enforce them because State Law says that in residential areas the speed limit is 30. Councilman Geving rroved to table this item to the next meeting. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwcxnen Watson and SWenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETERY, ORDINAN::E ESTABLISHING Cl'mERSHIP, OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES, FIRST READING: Mayor Hamilton roved to place on first reading an ordi- nance establishing ownership, operations and procedures. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwcxnen I Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilman Geving roved to approve the bills as presented, checks #021875 through #021953 in the arrount of $420,419.41, checks #020581 through #020703 in the arrount of $115,597.04, check #021988 for $612.15 and check #021991 for $76,887.47. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamil ton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamil ton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED LAND USE PIAN AMENDMENT FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 'IO RESIDENTIAL, PIPER RIOOE: Barb ~ - '!he request is for a land use plan amendrrent fran Parks and Open Space to Residential IJ::M Density. Provided for you before the meeting is additional docu- ments which was requested by the Council rrembers that attended the Park and Recreation meeting last night out at the site of the proposed subdivision. Included in that packet is first of all the memo fran Lori Sietsema regarding the action taken last night. The Park and Recreation Coomission voted to reccmnend to the Council that the land use plan amendrrent be approved. The additional docurrents are fran 1978 and cover the history of the park donation fran Mr. Herman to the City. As part of that donation to the City, Mr. Herman intended to keep the seven acre tract for his own use and the City did grant an easement on Lot 1, Block 2, Minnewashta Woods Subdivision to gain access to that parcel. Included in your packet is a map which was distributed to Council in 1978 which delineates the acreage that was to be retained by Mr. Hennan and donated to the City of Chanhassen. I The applicant has made a preliminary plat application for 12 single single family residential lots. When the cooprehensive plan was adopted in 1982, despite all this inforrcation, unfortunately the plan did not show the exclusion of this parcel fran parks and open space. That's why we have the request tonight. The Herman's are intending to improve their property by subdividing it into 12 lots and they have to go through the land use plan amendrrent. The acreage can be served by a logical extension of the water and sewer facilities to the north of the subdivision. I I I Council Meeting Octorer 15, 1984 -5- Randy Herman - I would like to start the improvement work really next spring and re building in sumner. Mayor Hamilton - I would like a little IIDre time to look at scm= of the information we received tonight and if we tabled this for a period of one IIDnth, would that cause you any great problems? Randy Herman - Yes, I guess so. What I would like to do is to re able to grade in a road this fall refore the snow falls, re able to pre-sell lots during the winter- time, have an access in and a way to show those lots and then re able to start the improverrent work first thing next spring. I really can't do any road grading or anything like that until I have gotten through all the steps and so I am hoping to kind of do that in a timely fashion. Councilman Geving - I relieve what we have in front of us here tonight involves two major issues. One is the amendrrent of a land use plan from parks and open space to residential developnent. Secondly, to amend the MUSA Line which is an entirely separate issue as far as I am concerned. The goostion I would raise after viewing the property and walking it yesterday is, if the wetlands ordinance and the map that was created in 1977 were taken into consideration today would this land re con- sidered part of the wetland and shown on that map and I am going to ask that the City Engineer review that for me and give us an affirmative answer to that question refore we proceed. I would also think that after all the problems that we had with the drainage of Pope Pond, in 1981 the City had to go in and build a drainage outlet for Pope's Pond down to this very area to run the water into Lake Minnewashta. The land is such that the water all drains for many, many acres into this particular lot and I see this as a continuing problem. One of the IIDSt serious problems that we have in the City of Chanhassen is the control of water. It costs us a lot of IIDney each year. If this piece of property is ever built upon, this Council in its wisdom should make sure that there is a permanent drainage with a pipe laid all the way from Sandpiper Trail to Lake Minnewashta. I will insist upon that and not just the clearing of old clay tiles that were put in there 50 years ago but an actual draina- geway and a holding pond to pond that water as it cares off the land so that it will seep into the lake slowly and drain off any sediment, any fertilizers that PeOple have had on their lawns, etc. I will absolutely insist upon that recause it's the only way that we can clear Lake Minnewashta up. We have had so many problems and if Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District were involved in this particular develop- ment I assure you gentlerren they would force you to do just what I am telling you. Riley-Purgatory is much more difficult to deal with than what you are going to find in the Lake Minnetonka area. I really think this application is premature. That until we know that this is not a wetlands and until we realize what it is going to take to get across that ponding area to build a road in there, I don't want to see this as an amendrrent to the MUSA Line. As far as the referral agency review, I would like to insist upon the watershed district that covers this particular area provide its input into this Piper Ridge developrent. We should not proceed with this developrent until we get a referral from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Soil Conservation Service as well so that we have those pieces of paper in our hands refore we rreet on this issue again. I request that in the recom- mendation package tonight that we delete the references to the MUSA Line because that, as far as I am concerned, is contingent upon the entire approval of this pro- cess. Why do one without the other? I relieve that we need much IIDre detail on the drainage into this developrrent, particularly the land that drains from Pope Pond to the drainage outlet that I walked on last evening and the detail on where that water is going to go once this development, if it goes, is actually a reality. Several weeks ago we received a very good developnent plan from the Pheasant Hill PeOple and we asked for a drainage plan there and we received an excellent one. I would like to have a similar response for this developrrent. Other ccxrments that I have, We Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -6- have probably rrore opposition to this particular project than any other project that I am familiar within the last two years. Sixty-seven hareowners have objected to this particular piece of property being developed as it is platted for us today. Be I that as it may, people have a right to develop their property and gain beneficially from it. I think Mr. Herman has a right to do sarething with his property. If it's developed I want it to be done right and I don't want the City to have to go in after the fact and pick up the pieces. When we have dealt with people who are not developers who are the first time developers trying to do a project there is an extrerrely high rrortali ty rate and the project fails. The project goes back on the people here sitting at the Council and we have to clean up the pieces time after time. If this project succeeds against my objections, it will be done right. I did not get page 21, it had to do with sare of the presentations by horreowners made on the night of July 23rd. I would like to have that page if I could. I think the project is premature and until we receive sare of the answers that have been re~sted tonight I don't think we should proceed to consider this any further. Mayor Hamilton - I would also like to see a sketch of how you are going to put roads in there and how you are going to handle the drainage with the roads. Randy Herman - It is on the preliminary plat that you have got before you as a matter of fact what Dale (Geving) is requesting is actually on there and that was a retention pond to a standard that will accamodate the Minnehaha Watershed District for eight hour retention as well as an outflow using not the existing tile but a new drainage pipe. The way we have laid out the hares on this site, taking into con- sideration very well what is low land and what is wetland there and making accan- rrodations for that. councilwanan Swenson - Is there any possibility of entering this property from sane I other area. Bill z.bnk - After looking at the layout, no, I don't see another access to this par- ticular site. All the detail ~stions that are corning up at this point, staff may reCC1l'lrend that the land use amendrrent be considered at the time as the preliminary plat when all the data would be placed before the Council. We had separated them with several purposes in mind but if that arrount of detail is desired that would be my recomrendation. Councilman Horn - It seerred like what we were talking about was changing the zoning from parks and open space to residential-low density and I see on our agenda it says we are changing it from agricultural to residential-low density, one of my concerns is if we have that zoned parks and open space and we have no intent to make that parks and open space it seems to me we shouldn't leave it zoned as that regardless of what goes on in that area. Mayor Hamilton - That's part of the ~stion that has been asked. Councilman Horn - Are we considering the whole proposal tonight or are we con- sidering a "mistake" in zoning calling it a parks and open space. When I look at our packet and I get two different answers. Scott M:lrtin - The agenda is incorrect. It should read parks and open space. I Councilman Horn - If that's all we are voting on this evening, then I have no problem wi th proceeding. If we are proceeding on this developnent as such then I do have a problem. As far as I am concerned it should not be zoned parks and open space. I I I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -7- Don Ashworth - One of the reasons we separated them was just for that reason. At the present time if I am hearing the Council correctly before they want to hear whether or not it should be rezoned you would like to see answers to S<:Ire questions. Randy Heman - What is the alternative? If it is to be parks and open space as the zoning designation, I guess, we don't plan as a family to be in the business of pro- viding parks and open space for the residents. Is the City going to buy this if the zoning change won't be penni tted? Don Ashworth - At this point I don't see the Council saying that they are going to do either one. '!hey are saying that they want certain questions answered and if those answers are provided they will consider both issues at the ~ time. Randy Heman - I was under the understanding that those questions would be answered at the time the preliminary plat was actually reviewed by the Council. Councilwanan SWenson - On our Wetlands Ordinance, if you establish that this is in fact a wetlands and he is prohibited fran disturbing that wetland, what is the City's position then if we change the zoning today? I would like to know where we stand from that standpoint because if we are prohibited fran letting him put a road in there because it is a designated wetland. Councilman Geving - I would like to add to the referral agencies another comni ttee to view this. property and give us input and that's the Wetland Protection Canni ttee. Bill M:>nk - Councilwanan Swenson is correct that you may be prohibited fran filling in a wetlands but there are provisions which allow for that developnent, placing it, roving it, and that type of thing which would have to be looked at and instead of perhaps asking the corrmi ttee to look at it what we would do in the meantime would be to ask DNR to take a look at it and see whether they would define that area as a wetland. If they do that means certain things as far as the ordinance goes. If they do not that means certain things but even if it is a wetlands the City would have the right to review alteration of that wetlands as a part of the preliminary process. Councilman Horn - My question is though, whether it I S a wetland or not a wetland how is that relevant to whether the City is going to zone that park and open space. That's not even a function of the Wetland Ordinance. I would have trouble with requesting for a change in the MUSA Line based on this because I don I t think you have to request a change in the MUSA Line just to rezone it fran parks and open space. Councilwanan SWenson - Would you rezone it then to an R-lA because it's not in the MUSA Line. Councilman Horn - I don't think we should mislead people to think it's going to be designated parks and open space. Councilman Geving - '!here has got to be a better access to the utilization of those seven acres. If you could strike a deal with the Neurrann's or any of the other homeowners and get into there sane other way, I would be less opposed to this pro- ject but I can't see you building a road across that marshland. Councilman Geving roved to table action on this item. M:>tion seconded by Councilworran Watson. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and SWenson, Council.Iren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. council Meeting October 15, 1984 -8- PRELIMINARY PIAT, ROGER'S ADDITION, lAKE RILEY BLVD: Barb ~ - The area is located on rake Riley Blvd. approximately 300 feet south of Lyman Blvd.. As you will recall, the plat was sul:mi.tted to the Council in 1981 and it was approved for a preliminary plat, however, because of the time necessary to I carplete the torrens proceedings by the applicant the required period to file for a final plat expired and the applicant petitioned the Council for a final plat, however, Council chose to take the preliminary plat back through the process. The applicant is proposing three single family lots. Staff's concern is that none of the lots meet the required 20,000 square feet abutting a recreational developnent lake. We would prefer the applicant suJ:xli vide the property into two lots. '!he lot area would be 19,435 square feet just shy of the 20,000 square foot requirement, however, that square footage In::ets the spirit and intent of the Shoreland M:magement Regulations. Also, I would like to note that the corrments made in the staff report regarding the utilities, the electric and gas facilities, have been resolved. '!be applicant has also sul:mi. tted to staff a chronology of the torrens proceedings and I believe that was included in your packets as well. Mayor Hamilton - '!be Planning Co:rmi.ssion dealt with this item on September 26th and they voted unanim:>usly to not approve it. Harlan Cavert - Could I ask what the Council's packets included as to the pro- posed declaration of covenants and restrictions. Councilwanan Watson - We have it. Harlan Cavert - We have a revised declaration. let Ire furnish them if I could. I am the attorney who is presently representing Mr. Rogers on this proceeding. As you know from the packets, Mr. Rogers ownes three lots, each 50 feet wide in the present Shore Acres Subdivision and an outlot which is approximately 130+ feet wide and he wishes to replat these four lots into three lots, each approximately a little nore than 90 feet wide. Since the Council approved the preliminary plat application in 1981 there have not been any significant changes in the neighborhood. '!he Council did determine that the application provided for a subdivision that was in keeping with the existing developrcent in the area and a variance was justified. What followed was a lengthy torrens proceeding that ran into a lot of legal problems. '!here were some concerns alx>ut overlapping legal descriptions. '!bere is a wandering easerrent and there is sane uncertainty alx>ut the land that was vacated when Lake Riley Blvd. was relocated and straightened. '!be overlapping legal descriptions were on the lx>undary with the property to the north. That's the pro- perty that was formerly owned by Skranka and is now owned by Norman Grant. That was resolved when Mr. and Mrs. Rogers voluntarily gave a quit claim deed to the adjoining property owner to the north. When the proposal carre back here for final approval the Council decided that Mr. Rogers had missed the one year deadline for final approval under Minnesota Statutes so sent it back to the Planning Carmission. In my view that was based on a misunderstanding of the State Statute. My reading the State Statute that the one year deadline is not invoked by the law, that the statutory section that the Council was applying in that case applies to sOIrething else. It seems to Ire that the way I read the statute it says that the I Mayor Hamilton - I think that's irrelevant. Harlan Cavert - What had occurred during the two years of the torrens proceeding was I that an ownership did change, that Mr. Grant had taken over the property to the north and he has sane concerns and those were legitimate concerns. Sanething had been rrentioned along the line alx>ut whether Mr. Rogers would ever develop one of these lots as a beach parcel and allow public access to the lake and that was not Mr. Rogers intention but in order to resolve that concern he did propose the I I I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -9- declaration of covenants and restrictions. We sent copies of that to the neighbors including Mr. Grant and his attorney and his attorney responded with sane legitimate objections. His concern was that the declaration as originally drafted didn I t pro- vide enforcement authority for the neighboring lot owners. What it said was that these three lots are going to be restricted perpetually to the single family resi- dential usage and that nobody can ever make beach lots out of them. If the property across Lake Riley Blvd. which Mr. and Mrs. Rogers also own that a person who resided on that property could not also own one of these three subdivided lots and thereby use it as beach access. '!hat was the intent of the declaration but what it said was that the three lot owners, they would be the only ones that would have the right to enforce the restrictions. Mr. Grant I s attorney, very sensibly pointed out that the enforcement authority should be extended to the neighboring lot owners too, so we changed the declaration and what you have in front of you is the revised declaration that gives that enforcement authority to the owners of the properties on the north, Mr. Grant I s property, Mrs. Swenson I s property and also the neighboring property in the south which is owned by Mr. Rogers I son. 'Itlat declaration has now been signed and it is ready to file. Mr. Rogers is not a land developer. He has been paying multiple sewer assessments on the property. He has no intention of developing the property in a manner which is not in keeping with the existing lots in the area. The other lots up and down the lake are similar sizes. We certainly concede that his proposal is not in confonnity with the Shoreland Management Regulations but that regulation hasn I t changed since 1981. At that time it was the Council I s deter- mination that this variance was justified and we don It think that anything has changed at this point. What we are offering is a proposal that would permit the Council to lock in restrictive use on these three lots. It would require for all time single family residential usage on the lots which are comparable sizes to the other lots up and down the lake shore and would prohibit for all time anybody even considering using any of those lots as a beachlot or public access lot. We would ask that the Council give us final approval. Mayor Hamilton - Your request is for preliminary plat approval. Councilman Geving - You mentioned multiple sewer assessrrents, what did you mean by that? Harlan Cavert - There are two sewer assessrrents on the subject property. Councilman Geving - I just wanted to make you aware that there were two. '!be request is for three lots. You have been paying sewer assessrrents on two. Harlan Cavert - Mr. Rogers understands that if the proposal is approved that another sewer assessment would be required and that additional hookup would be installed at his own expense. Councilman Geving - The DNR recornrended in their letter that they do not support this subdivision request because of the request for a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Also, the Planning Carmission recarmends that the plat be revised to create two lots and a variance to the 20,000 square foot lot area requirement be granted and I believe I would go along with that, and the declaration of covenants and restrictions, as far as I am concerned, is a personal matter between the homeowners that buy those lots and they are not of any matter of consequence to the City Council. Councilwanan Watson - I was on the Planning Ccmnission in 1981 and I guess at that time I felt there shouldn I t be any rrore than two lots and I haven I t changed my mind. I never thought it should be three lots. I also would like to see in whatever deci- sion we make, we can It bind another Council but I certainly think we should put wha- council M=eting October 15, 1984 -10- tever language necessary to assure that neither one of these lots will ever becare a beach lot for the property across lake Riley Blvd. Councilman Horn - I agree with Carol (Watson). I haven It changed my mind on this proposal either. I disagreed with it in 1981 and I still disagree with it. I Mayor Hamilton Iroved to deny the request for the preliminary plat approval Planning Case #84-17. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Geving. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, CounciJ.rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 4,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL FACILITY AND GASOLINE SERVICE CENTER, 420 FLYING CIDUD IRIVE: - - Barb ~ - '!he parcel is located on the north side of Flying Cloud Drive. On the si te now is an existing M:>bil Gas Station. '!he applicant I s intent is to reIOOve that structure and reIOOve the present gas storage tanks and construct a 4,000 square foot retail facility and a gasoline service center which measures about 836 square feet plus six gas purrp facilities each having six hoses. '!his area is located outside the urban service area and we have discussed with the applicant the on-site sewage dispo- sal system and the applicant has subnitted perk test data which was reviewed by staff and it appears that an adequate system can be installed on site as well as the well. In regards to the site plan, what is being proposed as far as traffic is concerned, the existing access points are being separated further and what is going to be created is a deceleration lane going into the property, which will becare a one-way in and then caning out it is two lanes to go out. and one lane to cane in to provide access to the property owners which reside on the top of the hill. Also, the appli- cant will construct a bypass lane along the south side of Highway 212 right-of-way. This has been discussed with MnOOT and they approved. Another item that was discussed and the applicant has indicated that they would agree is as far as signage is concerned. They are proposing two pylon signs which ~ts the requirements of the Sign Ordinance and we are proposing that there be no signage on the gas canopy. The applicant is proposing an extensive landscaping plan in the grassed area between Highway 212 and the site. The vegetation that is proposed is adequate, however staff is reccmnending that they add four additional evergreen trees for year round screening. At the Boa.rd of Adjustments ~ting there was concern about sane site distance problems that the landscaping may create. What I was going to propose as a rule of thumb there usually a site distance which you keep fran the intersection of ten to 15 feet and you just ree<mnend that the applicant incorporate that into the site plan. I Mayor Hamilton Iroved to approve the conditional use permit for the construction of a 4,000 square foot retail facility and gasoline service center at 420 Flying Cloud Drive, Planning Case 84-12. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and SWenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. SIGN VARIAN:E REQUEST, FLYING CIDUD IRIVE, KSMM RADIO: Councilman Horn Iroved to approve Planning Case #84-8, Sign permit for an 8 I X 4 I sign, for KSMM Radio. M:>tion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, CounciJ.rren Geving and Horn. Councilworran SWenson voted no. M:>tion carried. WATER STUDY PROPOSALS: Councilwanan Watson IroVed to accept the proposal fran Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates in the arrount of $8,000 - $10,000. M:>tion seconded by Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and SWenson, CounciJ.rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. . I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -11- NEAR MJUNTAIN EXTENSION RBJUEST: Bill M:>nk - We are approached, fran tirre to tirre, with develoFfileI1ts in Shorewood abutting our line. We have never proceeded to this point, perhaps because I am not I overly optimistic to them or whatever for whatever reason they have not proceeded and Lundgren Bros. is the first one to take it to this level. They have gone through the proper channels in contacting Shorewood and everything would be set up now for the Council to proceed. It's a major concept. Mayor Hamilton - Why don't we annex that part of Shorewood. Councilwanan SWenson - How mu:::h is it going to cost the City? Bill M:>nk - There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out on that arrangerrent. Who would extend the lines, I am sure it would be the developer. Maintenance on the line, those type of things which would need to be worked out but I can assure you that even if the City was responsible for the maintenance of the line that the revenues would rrore than cover it. Water revenues would cover the main- tenance of it. Those are the things that we would have to care to agreement on with the City of Shorewood. Councilman Horn - Does that mean we would have to send unpaid water bills to Hennepin County? Bill M:>nk - Yes, you would send them to Hennepin County but they would have to be certified by the City of Shorewood. We run into a yearly problem with the City of Victoria but we would have to have a cooperative agreement with the City of Shorewood. I Councilman Horn - It probably would end up costing us rrore administratively to get those certified. Bill M:>nk - Than normal. -- Councilman Geving - We don't even know if we have got capacity to service this area until we do the feasibility study. Bill M:>nk - What I am looking for is whether the Council even goes along with the concept. If the Council just does not want to go beyond its borders at this point this developer should be told that. Councilman Geving - I am against the proposal. Mayor Hamilton - I am in favor of it. Councilwanan SWenson - can't these houses be built in Chanhassen instead of Shorewood? If they have got the space instead of going to Shorewood side of their Near Mountain project, why don't they fill up Chanhassen? Bill M:>nk - As I understand it the next phase in Chanhassen will be before you 30 to 45 aays. They are planning to expand and continue their developnents in Chanhassen and they are looking for the same type of phase developnent in their holdings in I Shore wood and they are just looking at their options for water at this point because a coomuni ty well system is extrerrely expensive. Councilwoman Watson - I think it's a good idea. I don't see anything wrong with doing it if we can work out the details so that it is a self-supporting project and doesn't cost any of the residents of Chanhassen any m:mey. Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -12- councilman Horn - If it's a self-supporting project why is Shorewood so against it? Bill M:>nk - They have just started their water system and the problem they are having is extending it to different places when they have to cross properties that don't I want water at this point and they have told Lundgren Bros. that they just are not ready to extend to this particular part of town. It is their number one issue in that city and is probably the major contributing factor to their, I think, severe financial problems. Mayor Hamil ton - We would like to see the phasing plan for the developnent of the Chanhassen portion and the Shorewood portion and then, if you assurre that we rove ahead and we would approve it and Shorewood approved it, what down the road ten or 15 years when Shorewood is developing their water system, what then happens when they want to take the revenue fran this? can they in fact take over the pipe? Bill M:>nk - Normally what you would do is when they do get to that point where they can service it the agreerrent would be 1) yes, they would take over the pipes and a valve would be placed between the systems and they would be closed at that point and what it does it provide a emergency link between the two cities but the agreement would be for an indefinite period of time until water is available in their city and then they would take over the lines. The other route can be taken, the city could push that if we are going to extend it, it's going to be permanent. Usually they are not written that way. Mayor Hamilton - If you put a valve in there and somebody shut that off and Shorewood takes over their portion, it seems to rre you are creating a dead end there. Bill M:>nk - You would put a hydrant right by the valve. It would be just like water- I main in a lot of parts of the city. It might create a dead end but I would have to take a look at the street layout. I think what you would end up with is aoout a 400 to 500 foot dead end which is basically just aoout a cul-de-sac. We would make sure we don't get burned on that type of an arrangement. Councilman Geving - It's hard to divorce, in my mind, the water issue fran the sewer issue. You durrp water into your sewer system and the first thing you know your rretro rates go up, how do you control that? Bill M:>nk - Shorewood would be responsible for the sewer arrangements and whatever. There are rreters on rost of these outflows. It would go towards their flow. Mike Pflaum - So far as the Shorewood water system is concerned, in a nut shell, I think rost of you are pretty familiar with the problem, it's become a major political issue in the City of Shorewood largely because of the way the City is laid out and the early policy that was adopted of requiring developers to put in wells to even- tually be joined by mains to serve the people in between developnents and for a number of reasons that policy has not worked. What has happened apparently is that the citizens of Shorewood who have not received any benefit fran any of these systems have been taxed to pay for the operating deficits of the water system and they are outraged by that and they have, in reaction, told their city council in no uncertain tenns that they don't want any kind of municipal water system and it was fairly recently, probably in the last ronth, that the city formally adopted a policy of no municipal water. This formal adoption of the policy carre after Trivesco and Lundgren I Bros., I am trying to think who the other developer was, three developers were involved in one sector of Shorewood. It was a logical area to start a municipal system that could be funded entirely by those developnents and serve those develop- rrents and even that was too unpalatable for the constituency and the city council, on a close vote, voted it down. It is their intention that there will not be municipal water at least for the present city council. We . are seeking fran the City of I I I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -13- Chanhassen an indication that there is a willingness on your part, obviously there are a lot of things that would have to be worked out if there were to be Chanhassen water in Shorewood in the Near Mountain project. We feel there is a certain logic to viewing this project as sanething a little bit different and sPeCial fran other deve- lor:ments within the City of Shorewood if for no other reason because it really is one developrrent. We haven't been able to get underway in Shorewood yet, alm::>st entirely because of the problem with water but when we first brought our project before you it was 313 acre piece of property that was half in Carver County and half in Hennepin County and it was kind of a canprehensi ve developrrent plan. The use of Chanhassen water for the Shore wood portion of the property would enable develoI;lIleIlt to occur there which in turn helps to accelerate developrrent of the site in Chanhassen as well. We are dealing with a very large site and the lIDre activity that we are able to generate on that site, the lIDre marketing interest we get on that site, the easier it is for us to build it out. Councilman Geving - Why don't you build it out in Chanhassen first? Mike pflaum - That's a problem we have politically as well. Shorewood would like to see developrrent of the property in Shorewood. Councilman Geving - They want developrrent but they don't want to go through with the water. They want to durrp it on Chanhassen. Mike Pflaum - They don't want to dump it on Chanhassen. It was our suggestion. It was not the City of Shorewood's suggestion. We have been trying to find sare way to get water to the Shorewood site in a fashion that's econanically feasible for deve- loprrent and the problem that you run into with private systems basically is that if you wish to phase develor:ment as lIDSt prudent developers do, you have to front end the cost of the well system regardless. This kind of front end loading tends to create an intolerable burden on developrrent and is sooething that we haven't seen a way around to successfully develop that property. The only reason I am standing here tonight is that we can't get municipal water fran Shorewood and we are looking for alternatives as a way to get water onto that site and it seems to Ire that it con- ceivably benefits the City of Chanhassen from a revenue standpoint and at the sarre tirre benefits us as developers of that site and we are not asking for really anything tonight except an indication that you would entertain the notion because it is a complex sort of thing with lots of questions that need to be answered. We realize that. Nobody is asking for approval of sorrething that will take lIDre study. councilwanan SWenson - What is your objection to putting in a well until such time as Shorewood cares through to service those houses. Mike Pflaum - Basically what you are talking about with a well is about a quarter of a million dollars plus facility before you run any trunk or any of your laterals. That's just for the drilling of the well, for the pump house or the treat:.ment facili- ties, etc. which is all front end. Councilwoman SWenson - Are we going to have to go through new bonding to do this? IX>n Ashworth - That's the reason you need the study to determine whether or not we have capacity, whether or not there is enough storage capacity, well capacity, those are all questions that will care out in the study. Mayor Hamilton - About why not put in your own water system which I know that Mason Hares has done in sane of their developrrents prior to the city having city water there. They built a tower. They put in their own water system. They took the reve- nue off of it and it must have worked okay for them. I understand it's going to be council Meeting October 15, 1984 -14- expensive but it must also pay itself back to you as a privately owned water system and then when the city does someday decide to have their own system, all they do is walk up and pay you for it. Mike pflaum - I can't speak for Bob Mason's developrrent. I do know that in Minnetonka at one time he did establish his own private well system and if I recall correctly what he said was that at the time that he was directed to do this he asked if he could retain ownership of that well and run it as his own private utility and he was told he could. He was not allowed to do so. When the developrent was canplete, when the water system was fully developed, the City of Minnetonka asked for the water system for $1.00. '!hat was one instance that Bob M3.son did sPeak of. I don't think his situation and Shorewood is analogous. I don't think it is a desirable situation. I believe that he has no choice what he does in Shorewood because I believe he has l::xmght all that land. '!here is another point that is impor- tant and that is, the M3.son product is al.m:>st exclusively, and I don't really feel comfortable standing here talking to you folks aJ:xmt Bob M3.son' s product because I am not qualified to do so, we have done sare business together in subdivisions so I have passing knowledge and that's all. He is largely in the range of $300,000 to $400,000 homes. We tend today to be in the $100,000 to rraybe $250,000 range and we have dif- ferent product lines. The country hare product is very dependent upon FHA/VA buyers. We have got to be able to qualify a subdivision for FHA and it's al.m:>st impossible to qualify a subdivision for FHA if you have got a private system. Councilwoman Swenson - Is there any possibility or any need for a document indicating that Shorewood would hold Chanhassen blameless for any darrage that might cane fran a water system breakage or anything like that? I Bill r-t:>nk - '!his is just the first step and if the Council is amenable to this I approach, once it gets incorporated into the study there is no way that I can see that we can handle this size proposal with our existing system. This would be dePen- dent on whatever the Council would do with this report and when and where the extra storage facility would be put in so that this probably is not going to happen until about 1986 that this would even becane workable. In between that time there would be a lot of work that would be necessary between the two cities and with the developer on exactly how this agreement would be structured, who is going to put them in, who is going to rraintain them, how you are going to bill them, the whole structure would have to be set out in a lot of detail. There is a lot of work that would be involved in doing it. That is not meant negative to reflect against it but those are the type of questions that would have to be detailed and we are looking, at this point, for an overall concept but we are not talking about a connection tom::>rrow. Councilwanan Swenson - It seems to Ire that we are not going to need a well up there and when these people are finished with it or when Shorewood decides that they want to go, what are we going to do with a well sitting up there. M3.yor Hamilton - We don't know that. Bill r-t:>nk - What the study would have to show is where the storage would go and how that storage would service this area. Mayor Hamilton - I think it's an exciting new area that hasn't been looked at pre- viously. If Lundgren Bros. want to go ahead with this they are the ones that are going to have to foot the bill for it and not the City. Councilrran Geving - I think Shorewood saw a bad deal here and they walked away fran it. I Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -15- Councilwanan SWenson - 'Ibe applicant does understand that upon receipt of the analy- sis of this, by no rreans are we making any carmi t::mant to go ahead with it. I Councilman Horn - I have no problem with exploring new revenue sources. I just wanted to make sure that we do find out all the answers when we go into this and we don't forget sorrething and we turn out that we get into a losing proposition. That's really my big concern. I haven't really heard anytody give Ire a good gut feel as to whether this is a IOClney making situation for the City. Don Ashworth - I don't know if we really know. We are going to look at the coomunity in what we potentially need for water. One of the things that we do know is that we do have a problem with storage. We think that's what the study might show. If that's true and if it is located in an area that would serve both the City as well as those additional 300 horres, potentially they could help pay for that additional storage device. On the other side they may force us to build a size larger than we would want to and therefore it would not be feasible. We really don't know what that answer is tonight. Councilman Horn - If we had not had this request would we still had this water propo- sal study go ahead. I Bill M:>nk - The water study is very necessary. 'Ibis is just a supplenentary item attached to that and I still feel that if we weren't doing the study and going to be looking at increasing our storage, I guess I would even entertain the request. Historically our water system has been our generator. The sewer system has been a big sore point. In the past, as far as the City goes, water has been nothing but a revenue. This type of a proposal whether it would be as big a revenue maker I am not sure. If you look at the budget what you will find is that basically each (sewer and water) does pay its way. That's one of the reasons the sewer rates are as high as they are because we are trying to maintain equity between the two systems. What excess revenue we do have seems to be generated faster in the water than it does in the sewer. Mayor Hamilton moved to include the Near M:>untain water system expansion request in the water study proposal. M:>tion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. 'Ibe following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilworren Watson and SWenson, Council..rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. I Mike Pflaum - Councilman Geving has indicated sorrewhat of a fear that Lundgren Bros. might sorrehow abandon Chanhassen. '!bat is not our intention at all. In fact one of the things that Peter (Pflaum) wanted Ire to do was to pull out our plan and show you where we are and kind of seek Council direction as to where we want to go in Chanhassen without going through any kind of a fonnal process. I will show you what his thoughts are and ask if there is any violent opposition to what he would like to do and if there is that gives us sorre direction. As you are probably aware, in our business we develop land a year ahead of its need and right now we are in a situation in Chanhassen where we probably have got enough inventory between Chanhassen and Plyrrouth of lots in the country horre size for 1985. We are looking to 1986 and we will be close to out of country horre size lots in 1986. What we would like to know and won't know, what we would like to get sorre sort of feel for is whether the City Council would enter- tain a notion of developing this green area over to this street in country horres. It would add approximately 30 country horre lots to the present number that we have. We are not asking you to give us IOClre density than was originally intended for the site. What we are really trying to do is to continue this neighborhood of what is pretty much a hot product in a difficult market. The reason that I am asking you this qlEstion a) we are not trying to circumvent the Council Meeting October 15, 1984 -16- POD process, we are not trying to circumvent the staff or anyOOdy else. We realize that we would have to amend the plan and go before the Planning Ccmnission, public hearings, etc. The only reason we are bringing it up now is if there is clear direc- tion from the Council that they would not like to see this extended any farther. We would like that input because that would rrean we should search out another place to put that product line so we will be on-line for marketing in 1986. Councilwanan Swenson - I personally will not vote for any rrore 7,500 square foot lots. I Councilman Horn - I feel the lots are awfully small. I am happy with what is going on over there. I tell people, now, there is an exarrple of what you can do if you allow a certain number of small lot situations in but I really have a concern of prop- agating that further and further and where does it stop. councilwanan Watson - I think the product is beautiful. I would like to see the lots be 10,000 square feet. Councilman Geving - I think we tried to concentrate on what we considered affordable housing at the ti.rre and we gave you an opportunity to develop that in smaller lots. I would like to rrove away fran that concept at this ti.rre. I like the houses. I would like to see some bigger lots. Mayor Hamilton - I think you have a natural barrier there if you go over to the road but I think enough is enough, also. NOVEMBER 5'lH MEETING: Councilwanan Swenson rroved to change the November 5th meeting to November 12th. M:>tion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. '!he following voted in favor: I Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. SOUTHWEST CORRIOOR COALITION: Councilman Horn - The advice fran the council was that if we would show sarething that would make this program unique they would start the feasibility study on Highway 212. They suggested that maybe the thing that would tip the scale would be if all the cities would get together and put up sare up-front rroney to fund the EIS state- ment tnat if it didn't go through would be totally put back to the cities. What they carne right out and told us was the highway priorities are not judged anyrrore by the data and the needs but highway priorities are judged by the political process. BLUFF CREEK RAILROAD CROSSING: Bill r-bnk - We sul::mitted a petition, I will have to check up on that, as far as I know it was going to be slated for either this year or early next year and I will have to make sure it got slated for approval. UPDATE ON ASSESSING CON'I'RACT: Mary Vujovich gave a report on the status of the assessing contract dispute with Carver County. CABLE TJ: The City Engineer gave an update on the progress of Cable TJ in the City. A rrotion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman Horn to adjourn. I The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwaren Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager