Loading...
1984 11 07 I I I REX;UIAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUOCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1984 Mayor Hamil ton called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened the meeting with the Pledge to the Flag. Meml:ers Present Councilman Horn, Councilwanan Watson Councilwanan SWenson Meml:ers Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill funk, Barbara Dacy, JoAnn Olson APPROVAL OF lIGENDA: Councilwanan Swenson m::>ved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen SWenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CANVASS OOVEMBER ~ 1984, EI..OCTION RESULTS: RESOLurION #84-58: Councilwoman Watson m::>ved the adoption of a resolution acknowledging Tan Hamilton as Mayor and councilpersons Dale Geving and Clark Horn for their reSPeCtive council positions in the Election held November 6, 1984. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hami+ton, Councilwomen SWenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamil ton m::>ved to approve the following consent agenda i terns pursuant to the City Manager's recomnendations: a. Arrend Conditional Use Permit, Minnetonka West, to allow placerrent of 2' x 6' sign, Fannhand, Inc. b. Public Safety Cannission AI;:pointments. c. Carver County Prosecution Agreerrent, AI;:proval. d. Purchases, Public Safety/Administration. RESOLUl'ION #84-59. e. Accept Irrproverrents in Pleasant Hill, Ostrom Addition. REsoLurION #84-60. f. Chanhassen Inn Expansion, Request to Defer Trunk Charges. RESOLUl'ION #84-61. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. fution carried. MINUTES: Councilwanan Swenson m::>ved to note the October 10, 1984, Planning- Cannission minutes. fution seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwaren Swenson and Watson. No nega- tive votes. fution carried. AU'IHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PAVING, CREEKWOOD !:RIVE: Dave Halla - We have our attorney here to represent us. We feel very strongly about this and I will let him take it from there. This is Robert Schwartz. Robert Schwartz - The Halla's contacted us recently with this proposal. I have also spoken with Mr. Anderson, one of the petitioners who originally brought the request to your attention for having the road paved. He has advised me tonight that he council Meeting November 7, 1984 -2- would ask to withdraw the petition fran consideration before the Council. I am not familiar with your procedures but I think that is permissible. Mayor Hamilton - He would have to tell us that. Robert Schwartz - This is Mr. Gary Anderson and he is one of the affected property owners and one of the nanbers that drew the petition to have the matter considered for paving and he advised me earlier this evening that he would like to have the Council withdraw the petition. Is that correct Mr. Anderson? I ~ Anderson - Correct, yes. Mayor Hamilton - You are not in favor of having the road paved? ~ Anderson - I am in favor of having the road paved if the golf course would pay 90% or else if they would cane off pioneer Trail with another drive into the golf course. I feel that the problem would not exist if the golf course would maintain the road in a proper way that we wou1dn I t have the dust problem and wou1dn I t have the noise or wou1dn It have the pollution. Mayor Hamilton - Are the Sabinske's here? ~ Anderson - No, they are not. Mayor Hamilton - Have you talked with them? Do you know if they feel the same as you do? Robert Schwartz - I would suggest based on Mr. Anderson I s request that it would be I appropriate to consider a rrotion to drop the matter or in the alternative it appears in Mr. Anderson writing the letter originally he was under the irrpression, I assurre after talking with staff, that the charges would be allocated in a certain manner. I realize there was a merrorandum prepared directed to the City Manager indicating that there may be sane question as to allocation of charges for the cost of the road. Under alternative procedures and alternatives available to you, if you should ultimately decide to go ahead, 1) authorize the feasibility study, and, 2) when the feasibility study corres back showing that the project is in fact feasible, 3) after having the residents affected and the owners affected still decide to go ahead and proceed with the road even then there is a method that has been authorized and approved in various instances for an area wide assessment based on benefits and that has been outlines briefly in the rrerrorandum. '!he memorandum you received did not cover as broad a scope as it might have been. I am sure that it was not the intent of staff in preparing that rrerrorandum to give all you all the laws that cane across in the State of Minnesota since 1857. There is precedent for an area wide assessment. I am sure you have used it yourself, for example in a trunk sewer si tuation where you have a main trunk and you assess the cost of a portion of the cost against a large area that would benefit fran that trunk sewer as opposed to an individual feeder. I apPears that County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) running on the northerly side of the golf course provides very good access. '!hat may cure the problem and there wouldn It be need for any consideration be taken. It appears that primarily the golf course or golf members of the public who use the golf course would be the primary beneficiaries. It IS alrrost in the nature of a nuisance what has been caused by the utilization of the road, the rrore intense use. In any event, I Mr. Anderson as I say he has expressed to me earlier and as I understand the general feeling of the i.rrrrediate benefitted property owners is that they do not want the road to go in based on the preliminary rrerrorandum. I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -3- Mayor Hamilton - Are there other people here fran Creekwood who have ccmnents? Jim Sabinske - I feel the same way. If the golf course can't foot the bill on it we should ban that property and let them see if they can care up with a different alternative road. We wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't for them. Dave Halla - I might just attest to the fact of the public nuisance, we do receive a trerrendous amount of dust. In fact if you were to go back and photograph the trees within the first 200 feet to the north of that you would find that between rain falls the leaves turn literally brown from the amount of dust that is kicked up. I am sure that for the property owners to the south that the public nuisance is trerren- dous as far as the dust problem. As far as any benefit to us, the rain washes off the trees, they grow fine but the problem has progressed through the years that the golf course is being rrore and rrore used and it has increased. I think all the adjacent property owners would solicit a recoomendation fran the Council that they found their own access such as carver County Road 14 and eliminate the public use of Creekwood for the golf course or in lieu of that that the City detennine that it is a public used street and allocate any improverrents that are needed to the public or to the golf course that is deriving a direct benefit. Don Halla - During all of the time that the golf course has been in there, not once and these two gent1erren who live on the road can l::ack me up, not once has the golf course made any token gesture to supress the dust on the road by oiling the road. They could go in there. '!hey receive public rroney, they could go in there once, twice, thrice, in a year and oil that road to keep the dust down but as long as the Council allows them to continue operation without any restrictions they are going to take advantage of it. '!hese people are getting the brunt of the abuse fran the road. I am sure they don't enjoy it. We do not use that road nor will we ever use that road. We have our own roads inside of our fence and we never go on that road nor do any of our custorrers ever go on that road. We have absolutely no use for that road. Mrs. Sabinske - When we first rroved on Creekwood it wasn't used quite as heavily as it has been. I am the one that contacted the pollution control when we first rroved in and found out how much dust that it caused, not only do they cause dust but litter, they are wearing away the edge of our lawn also. Other than that, I did contact Berg1und-0"ohnson, CMner of the golf course, I imagine this was aoout eight years ago, and I told them of the problem of the dust and the people driving on our lawns and the litter, etc. and I asked them at that time if they wouldn't agree to at least pay part of the cost or all of the cost of oiling the road and they explained to me at that time that they had taken over the proPerty, that they were OPerating in the red, that they could not afford to help us oil the road but he assured me that as soon as they were operating in the black, which I am sure they are, they haven't put a cent into that property, that they are operating in the black and yet as one of these gentlemen attested to, they have never approached the property owners to say, could we possibly help you in oiling the road. I also called the City a few years ago and told them our problem and they said if you would let us know a year in advance we could put oiling in the budget because we do have a budget for oil but you have to let us know prior to the time so that we can put it in the budget. We have called and told the City nurrerous times that we would like them to oil the road and then this past year they have put Sate kind of dust retar- dant on the road but when I called l::ack to say, the dust retardant needs to be put l::ack on they tell us that we only have it in our budget to do it twice a year. We can't do it anyrrore until next year. It isn't that we haven't tried to cooperate. We have contacted Berg1und-{Johnson and they have not cooperated with us at all. council Meeting November 7, 1984 -4- Robert Schwartz - Both Mr. Sabinske and Mr. Anderson, the two petitioners, have requ=sted, I wonder if the Council would consider a rrotion to withdraw the matter in its entirety. Mayor Hamilton - I am not ready to do that recause it's a problem that needs a solu- tion to it and just withdrawing it isn't going to be a benefit to anylx>dy. I Robert Schwartz - Mr. Halla asked Ire to point out that Creekwood was recently upgraded to a better classification road, a new ba.se had been put in and as far as usabili ty for the residents in the area, apparently it services them very very well as far as he understands and what he has been lead to believe by those neighoors. Councilwanan SWenson - I notice in your letter here, it says, "rrany years ago it was proposed that when a golf course started, in order to control the dust for the neighoors to the south, that the roadway either be oil or blacktopped to alleviate the problem. At that time the discussion was for a 90-10 split." Do you remenll:Er when that hapPened and was it brought before the City or was this sc::trething that was done just between neighoors and the course or how is that handled? Dave Halla - '!here was a proposal, as I understand it, before the Council and the engineering staff, etc. and I did look into it. It did cc::tre up, as I recall, with the Council here and they were not able to get the golf course to agree to pay 90% and so the neighoors, again, at that time, withdrew the petition because they don't feel that it's fair that they have to carry the burden of the improverrent when the people living in the area proba.bly make a total of, in and out trips, 30 a day and the golf course makes 600 a day. Don Halla - I think this started ba.ck when the golf course just oPened or just got I oPened to the public and at that time it was kind of a gentlemen's agreerrent which of course the golf course has not seen fit to honor. Mayor Hamilton - You have got a different group of PeOple. Don Halla - '!he golf course never oPened up except under Bergland-Johnson. '!hey took over and forclosed on the liens and operated the golf course from the beginning. Dan Schai tberger - Our children are grown but we went through a period of time and each year it gets rrore traffic and rrore traffic and there is other PeOple there with young kids and you don't want your kids going up and down Creekwood because it would be alrrost like having them go up and down main street here. 'll1at should be taken into consideration. If saneone sold their house to sanebody with young kids, sold it in the wintertime, those PeOple rroving there would not have any idea of the traf- fic and that's not fair to those PeOple. Rayann Brown - We feel the saIre position that Mr. Schaitberger and Mr. Sabinske have voiced. I feel this is a definite detriment to raising children and having them subjected to that. Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyOOdy here representing the golf course? Bill Monk - '!he discussion that has taken place tonight is really the reason I I wanted to proceed this way because everyone had been talking and I had been thinking at the very beginning that a 90-10 split or Sc::tre type of heavier participation by the golf course may be in order on this particular i tern but as I started to talk to an appraiser and the City Attorney on this thing I found out quickly that would be extranely difficult to do. In going ba.ck in the records to 1970 and 1972 when the I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -5- golf course first got going the records are very sketchy. There is nothing in the records that anybody pranised anything. The Council allowed at that point Creekwood to be used as the access for the golf course. With that, we now have a situation where we have a serious dust problem. What I wanted to do was to put out on the table exactly how benefit would be derived for this as well as any other project. The gentleman who spoke tonight alluded to this being done on an area basis as simi- lar to a sewer trunk. Basically, that is the approach we would take but what hap- pens the same as with a sewer trunk, what you find is the people who live along it also end up getting a lateral benefit. Whereas people who are off and not abutting get a smaller trunk benefit. That's basically what would happen here. If you took appraisals on the property before and after that's what you would find is that the people along the road would have greater benefit than people who don't live along it. I think the City would be in a difficult position to require the golf course to move their access to Pioneer Trail given the circumstances that the golf course was allowed to open and oPerate and now to go in and dictate such a major change, that could be looked into as a part of their conditional use permit but at this point I would feel very uncanfortable dictating that type of costly and major type of change at this point. Mrs. Sabinske - Do we have to pay for your mistake then by allowing the golf course to use that road as a public access and you don't want to go to the golf course and say, hay, you have got to build a different road. The residents in that neigh- borhood have to pay for your mistake, is that what you are trying to tell us? Bill Monk - It's difficult for me to say that the City in 1970 did or did not make a mistake sitting here in 1984. One option that hasn't been talked about at all is whether the City wishes to becare involved at this point with any portion of the street cost. It's difficult to sit here 14 years later and say the City did or did not make a mistake. If the City Council in any way felt that they did, one way to offset that might be City participation. It is not being proposed at this point or is not being reccmnended at this point. Councilman Horn - Assuming that the golf course would care in today and wanted an access pennit off of Creekwood, would the City be in a legal position to deny them access? Bill Monk - I think we would be in a mu::h stronger position to dictate that they pay some portion for upgrading the road but as far as, you could put conditions on the approval but to dictate that they couldn't use the road for access might be dif- ficult. You are hard pressed to restrict access to any public road. Councilman Horn - If you allow them access, what type of restrictions can you put on as to upgrading a road. Bill Monk - The City, I think, would very much try to place a condition on there that the golf course be heavily involved with upgrading the road if it occurred at this point but given the existing conditions I don't see that as being the same cir- cumstances right TYYN. Councilman Horn - Are there other alternatives to paving? Could there be a type of oiling system? I have seen it in serre areas of the country where they put down oil year after year to where it becares almost like a tarred road. Bill Monk - The City moved away fran oiling of roads because of problems encountered in sane towns with the oiling material itself and has gone to calcium chloride. I hesitate to put that down more than twice per year because of what that does to the sub-ba.se when it goes down into the base and that's one of the main reasons for the Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -6- twice a year program. It does not seem to be doing the trick down on this road and several other heavily used gravel roads that we have but that's the reason that we have gone to it. A lot of carmunities are getting away from oiling because of addi- ti ves and other things that have been found in the oil. I think if you were going I to do a permanent solution here that using as much of the esisting street as possible and paving it is the answer. Dave Halla - I would like to refresh the Councils Irem:)ry and go tack in a little history here and I think Mr. Klingelhutz can reinforce this. Originally before this was a Council and a City, it was a township and the township kind of ran things, I thought pretty good, during the time and to give you a little tackground if you are not familiar with carver County Road 14, there is an old school house down there and that was the original entrance to that proPerty. They came up through that natural draw and went tack up there to where Lynch's house is right now. That was the ori- ginal entrance. That was before Lynch lived there. Then sorrewhere' s down the road there was sare horse trading that took place and they traded three rods four feet on the west side of our property for 1,000 feet and gave that portion now to the south end of our property for an access to that house tack there but the original road came in down there by the old school house. Also, County Road 14, the old road, and that old road bed is still there. It runs on the north side of our property and runs down through that draw and goes out on to carver County Road 14. That road did exist in there long before the road on the south end (Creekwood) that goes tack in to the golf course. That was there in the beginning and there is no reason why it can't be used now. I don't think the Council should look at this and cater to the golf course that should be a body of the goverrnrent representing the people, by the people, for the people like old Abe Lincoln said and that's what I would like to see is you people look at this from the standpoint of the neighbors here and what they have been subjected to over the years and cane up with an alternative rather than socking it to the homeowners here and have them pay the burden of the thing because the golf course I has a track record of not trying to cooperate. You do have alternatives of having them go down to this exit. NON, they don't have a deeded road tack there. They have an easerrent that abuts to the road, Creekwood. The Council gave them pennission to do this when they cane in and originally got their petition and all that stuff together and they sold a bunch of bonds and everything and then the people that had it absconded with the funds and got into the lien business and Berglund-Johnson who was the major lien holder took over the proPerty. '!he whole thing has been kind of a ness and it's been a problem for the hareCMners. It doesn't bother us quite as much because fortunately the rain washes it off our trees. Mayor Hamilton - The purpose of reviewing this tonight is not to find an alternative route, it's to discuss whether or not there should be a feasibility study done to assess the paving of that road. If there is an alternative route found it's going to have to l::e done through another process. What I am hearing you folks say is that they are not in favor of having the feasibility study done. That isn't going to solve the problem. '!he problem is still going to exist and we are going to have to try to find an answer to that. I guess we are going to have to give Bill another project, perhaps have sarebody take a look at it and see if there isn't sare alter- native nethod or way or sarething we can care up with to find an entrance to the golf course or start subdividing the golf course and build houses on it or sarething. Councilwanan ~son - Is there any possibility in the interim, let's say we were to table this for awhile, of putting a counter on the road and taking a count now while there isn't anything going on at the golf course and then let's say six rronths from I now when the golf course is in full swing, do it again and I guess from what I hear you are saying, Bill, is that there is according to the infonnation that you have gleaned since this report, that actually the golf course is not an assessable body, is that correct? I I I Council Meeting Novemrer 7, 1984 -7- Bill ~nk - The golf course would be assessable as everyone in that area would be assessable but basically what I am saying is that ~ interpretation in talking with the City Attorney and a certified appraiser on this is that there is a good chance that the properties abutting the road would be responsible for a larger share but there is no question that it would be assessed to the people who use it and as wide an area as possible would be used to assess it. Counci1wanan SWenson - Would this not seem to be a reasonable argurrent in favor of their paying their fair share if we were to have it cJocurrented count like this indi- cating that there is indeed this increased usage. It would seem to Ire this would certainly be a very strong argurrent in favor of having then pay a portionate share. It sounds like a logical reason. Bill ~nk - It sounds like one to Ire, too. Al Klingelhutz - I recall when we sea1coated Riley rake Road, lakeview Hills was the generator of all the traffic at that tine. Lakeview Hills paid for the largest share of that project and I am wondering if we did sorrething illegal at that time or if it was proper. I think the same thing would work here on the golf course being they generate all the traffic that they should be paying the larger portion of fixing that road up. I think a precedent has been set in Chanhassen that has been done before on the lake Riley Road. Mayor Hamilton - can you research that and see what was done? Bill Monk - The Council when it does as assessrrent hearing can set any setup for the assessrrent that they like. I may propose if the people along this road pay 60% and everybody else pays 40% and the golf course pays 15% of the total, the Council can turn that around at the tine of the assessrrent hearing. All I can do is point out what I think is legal and quasi-legal type of thing as far as what the City can do. If we do get that far along, the Council can dictate at the assessrrent hearing how they wish to assess. Counci1wanan SWenson - I guess that is what I was thinking that rather than wait until it's too late to do this, that we get a count now. Councilman Horn - I think what Bill is telling us is that is not a legal criteria. Counci1wanan SWenson - It may not be legal but he is also telling us that when the time canes the Council can do what they choose to do. I am just saying that this would be nice to have this as a backup explanation as to why the action was taken. Councilman Horn - Whether we have that or not though as to whether it would stand up in court under legal challenge. Mayor Hamilton - Based on Minnesota State Statute 429.051, Awortioning Costs, it states clearly that we can assess benefitting property based on their benefit. If we feel the golf course benefits to 90%, we can assess then 90%. Councilman Horn - There is a difference between benefit and usage. Bill Monk - That's where I got into a little difference with the attorney and the appraiser because the definition of benefit in their opinion, pretty well set what you can do and what you can't do and it is their opinion that usage would not, by itself, hold up but, again, the Council has a little bit of latitude in how they would interpret it. I am just trying to let everyOOdy know how this thing may fall out before it's allover and that a 90-10 split, at this point, does not look as if it would be recarrrended. council Meeting November 7, 1984 -8- Councilwanan Watson - It seems impossible that there isn't sane way to do this fairly and when I read this I thought well it seems to ree that we can make sane deter- mination of benefit and if they are using it, the major portion of the use cares fran them then they are indeed benefitting. Don Halla - Going to Pat's recarmendation, you could get an accurate trip count per day, per resident use versus golf course use. '!he last driveway before the cul-de- sac would be the last residential use. If you put a traff ic counter there and put one back down near Highway 101 you could becane very accurate as to how many cars go to what area and if you even want to get rrore accurate than that you can put the third one on the "T" street. You have got it all divided accurately and you can figure out percentages, number of trips over a period of a rronth and see who is deriving a benefit. If the golf course isn't deriving a benefit, what would happen if you closed off that access at that point. If having an access isn't a benefit to them, then I don't know what is. They could put in their own road if that wasn't a benefit. I think really all the numbers and all the research you would do on use would show that the golf course is the prirre beneficiary through use of that and through generation of profit. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to see us table this until we have rrore information. Councilman Horn - I would like to see Bill contact Berglund-Johnson to find out what their feeling is on this whole thing. Mayor Hamilton - Rather than doing a feasibility study maybe we should do a alter- native study. I Councilwanan Watson rroved to table this item until the City Engineer can bring it I" back to the Council and that people be notified at that time that we will be discussing this. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, CouncilwOIrel1 Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Robert Schwartz - When you send out notices to the property owners, they do live in Chanhassen but they have a Chaska mailing address. Mayor Hamilton - Bill Monk is going to do sane research. He is going to talk with the people who own the golf course. He is going to look at alternative reethods of assessing and of access to the golf course property and cane back to us with serre al ternati ves. REQUEST FOR SIX M:>NTH EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PIAT APPROVAL, S'roDDART ADDITION: Barb Dacy - Mr. Stoddart had hispreliminary plat approved on October 18, 1982, and for reasons explained in his attorney's letter, was not able to finalize the arrange- ments for the final plat, therefore, he is requesting a six rronth period to extend that plat approval so that he can finalize the plat. Mayor Hamilton - He is about a year and a half late requesting the extension. Russell Stoddart - It seems to ree, the last time I talked to Waibel, he told ree it was two years. Bill funk - Basically what the applicant is looking for since it was a non- I controversial tyPe of approval, he seems to be getting everything geared to have it approved and what he is looking for is to see whether the Council would allow him to run the item before the Council and have it approved or whether he would have to go back through the process. At this point he is just trying to get things lined up so that he could proceed. Since it was non-controversial and there are no changes being I I I Council Meeting Noveml:er 7, 1984 -9- planned at all and the Council had gone through this two or three times when it first cane up, staff thought that processing this request might be the easiest way to take care of the item. Councilman Horn - Is there a way to differentiate this fran setting any other prece- dent. - Bill M::>nk - The non-controversial may not be the best point, the best point at all, the one that staff looked at is they did have extensive Council and Planning Ccmni.ssion review through the entire process and there are absolutely no changes. The Council would, I think, in granting the extension, would be basing it upon no change. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the request by Russ Stoddart for a six month exten- sion on a preliminary plat. M::>tion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilworcen ~nson and Watson. No negative votes. M::>tion carried. Councilman Horn - I think the issue is not so much whether to change but are we going to in the future let any proposal that would cane forward that hasn't changed, that hasn't requested an extension and has exceeded the one year period to get an exten- sion. I am really torn on this one because I see absolutely no need to make the developer go through the extra expense of going back through the Planning Carmission but what I would rather do is give sorce re-affirmation or re-consideration on the whole project than allow an extension and have a short cut I1'ethod that we docrnrent that says that we, if we choose to, can extend them but not set a precedent based on whether it changes or not. Bill M::>nk - Each and every one, let's say Chaparral West caIre back, a very canpli- cated PUD, the Council's thinking has changed as far as that land use and everything like that. In the time it expired the Council could dictate that it go back through the process and we are thinking this would be a case by case detennination made by the Council based on their findings when they look at it, when it does cane back up, if it does cane back up. We are not thinking that then every one that canes back with no lot line changes would necessarily have to be approved. There is a lot of other things that the Council would be taking a look at to make its decision as to whether it would approve it or run it back through the process. I don't think the Council is giving up its future review. Councilman Horn - If there is sane new evidence or reason that the Council can base a decision on to send it back, that's great, but just because we change our mind or we may disagree with a previous Council, I don't think is a good reason because nc:M we are putting a person at the whim of who happens to sit up here as to whether he gets extended or not. Councilwoman SWenson - I would like to have it docrnrented that the reason it was granted is because there is absolutely no change and in the future if the Planning Ccmni.ssion will make an effort to remind people at preliminary approval time that they only have one year to institute this or request an extension. Councilman Horn - Could I add to that saying that, not based on no change but feel that the Council still finds it consistent with the current planning philosophy and in canpliance with our ordinances. METES AND roUNDS SUBDIVISION RE):JUEST, 9170 GREAT PIAINS BLVD, IAWRENCE KLEIN: Barbara Dacy - The property in question is located in the southwest corner of Lyman Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd. Mr. Klein aNnes approximately 49.78 acres and is pro- posing to split off ten acres where his house now exists and to sell the remaining 39 Council Meeting Novemrer 7, 1984 -10- acre parcel. '!he proposed split meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Staff's only concern was in regards to the traff ic situation as it relates to this property. '!he proposed and possible reali<JI1IreIlt of Trunk Highway 101, the State may turn that over for City responsibility. If that is to be done and if the Lake Susan I South developrrent takes place, 101 could take on a straight north/south alignrrent and therefore Mr. Klein's property is not affected, or if that development is not pursued . further then an alignm;mt shown could also take place. Another traffic issue has been brought to our attention is the proposed alignm;mt of 212, however, all of these traffic concerns are so tentative and premature at this point we did not want to bur- den the applicant with requiring a reservation of an easement because of the prema- ture nature of the traffic situations because the split itself is so minor. Staff is recet'l'lrending approval the request as presented. Councilman Horn rroved to approve the netes and bounds subdivision req\Est, Planning Case 84-19. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwcmen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwanan Swenson - I would like to make a corrment here having to do what we just went through. This proposed road, the proposal that included that has long since been dead and by no way can we possibly exPeCt to take that proposal that we went through four years ago so as far as I am concerned that development is dead and that includes the road. MErES AND roUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST '10 rnEATE 'lliREE PARCELS, 7300 GAIPIN BLVD. TED BENTZ: Barbara ~ - The request is a 35 acre Parcel about a half mile north of Highway 5. I apologize for sane confusion if you saw in the agenda it said three parcels and in the staff report is said four parcels but I will attempt to explain it. What the applicant is intending to do is subdivide an 18 acre parcel, a six acre tract to five acre tracts, four lots but the applicant owns the property to the south and is intending to record, as a part of his property, the six acre piece in tack so in' effect you are creating three parcels. Also proposed is a 60 foot road easement now shown between Tracts A and B. We are recet'l'lrending that this 60 foot easerrent be shifted to the north between Tracts Band D and in this way it will consolidate accesses and then allow for a better resubi vision aligrurent for Tract D. We are reccmnending approval of the subdivision request subject to the applicant recording Tract C as part of his lot to the south and rroving the 60 foot easerrent to the north between Tracts B and D. AI Klingelhutz - I am handling this property for Mr. Lyman and he did have 34.8 acres up in the north portion of the fann north of the buildings yet. Mr. Bentz has approached Mr. Lyman and asked him if he could buy, originally it was six acres that he was going to add on to his 14 acres because he needs a little rrore land. He has got sare livestock, sorre cattle, sare hogs and two horses on his property and in the meantime Mr. Bentz' son and daughter who is planning on getting married next spring would like to have building sites in that area and they felt it would be a good time to purchase an additional ten acres and have two five acre lots to build their hares on. Originally, it was felt the road should cane in where it is because it would give access to both of the lots where the hares would be and at Sate future time it would give access to the tack six acre lot. My idea at the time was bring that road in where it is and have one access there and protably swing it around in a horseshoe if the other 18 acres got developed and have a second access on to County Road 117. Actually if you put the easement where it is the lower lot would have to have a separate onto Galpin Blvd. and you aren't allowing for as much access if you leave the road where it is and Sate time in the future have another road caning onto Galpin up further. '!he Bentz's have agreed to this but I still think the other plan would be a little better. Councilwcxnan SWenson - Is there any reason why we can't have an ccmron driveway along 117 with a single exit like a frontage road type of thing. I I I I I -ll- Council Meeting Novemter 7, 1984 AI Klingelhutz - It gets pretty expensive for two lots. Councilwaran Swenson - As I understand it Mr. Bentz is buying the section below that also? AI Klingelhutz - No. The section below that belongs to John Przymus. Barbara ~ - The reason why we are recannending that the six acre parcel be con- solidated with Mr. Bentz' property is that we were recoomending against the creation of a landlocked parcel without frontage on a public right-of-way and we want to avoid that if possible. Maybe an al ternati ve for the applicant is to plat the prOPerty and create a cul-de-sac situation and he could serve rrore parcels that what is proposed there. I can understand your point about you want to minimize the number of accesses but we were concerned about the future resubdi vision of that 18 acre tract and we felt that ~ putting that easement along that lot line you could allow for access into that parcel without creating another access at the tiIre of future resubdi vision onto Galpin. Councilroan Horn - What you are saying is here you get two accesses but you would have a potential for even rrore than that on the 18 acres. Barbara ~ - Yes. Mayor Hamilton - '!he hares that you are proposing to build, are your children going to build their hares there? Ted Bentz - Yes. Barbara ~ - The property that he is OPerating the contractor's yard is not part of this request for the subdivision of land and it is my understanding that these are for single family hane sites. If they are to operate contractor's yard activities on those lots then they would have to care through the conditional use process. Mayor Hamilton - Does Mr. Bentz have a permit currently? Barbara ~ - No. The operator that we sent the letter to was Tonka Insulation and Kurimchak Builders and they sent a letter back saying that they were no longer operating fran that premises. I took it to m=an that that operation did not continue at that site any longer. AI Klingelhutz - Mr. Bentz works for the telephone canpany. He keeps his truck and excavator there which he takes to work every rrorning and brings hare at night. That's the extent of his business on the place. Mayor Hamilton - My concern is that if you have a non-conforming contractor's yard there now and if the people who are buying and purchasing the adjoining property are going to continue that use ~ building close ~, we are already in the process of trying to eliminate non-conforming use contractor's yards, I don't want to see sane- body receive the false impression that we are allowing you to build next door to where your business is going on currently and you are going to be able to continue that. I am not going to say whether I will or whether I won't because I don't know what I am going to do in the future. As far as my plans are, I won't be selling any equipment out there. It will be a single family hare. Barbara ~ - Now that contractor's yards are a conditional use in the R-lA District if you were to establish a business at one of these newly created parcels then you would have to care through the conditional use process. Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -12- Councilman Horn - Can we hold up on their lot sub:1i vision until the lot is in confor- mance? Barbara ~ - Are you referring to Mr. Bentz' to the south? Councilman Horn - We have not received a request for a conditional use penni t. Councilwanan SWenson - I think we should go in there and say this is the end of that but as I understand the proposition tonight, that is not part of the property that we are working with. I understand what you are saying Tan, you don't want to mislead anyOOdy and say, if we let you have this this is condoning what is already going on there. The understanding is that we just want you to knC1N that if we do this, this doesn't ITean that yes, you can continue with that operation. Councilman Horn - This property is part of this what we are talking about tonight because that lot would be changed to have an increased six acres. Barbara ~ - It's a separate request really. I am uncanfortable with the notion of prohibiting the sub:1ivision of land just because there is a non-confonning use adja- cent to the property that's to be sub:1i vided. I don't believe that could be upheld. Just by case law I have seen, I think it's an entirely separate request that would be dealt with under a separate process which is the conditional use process. Councilwoman SWenson - Perhaps what we ought to do is eliminate that recCXIIrendation of adjoining those two pieces of property. AI Klingelhutz - I think it would be better because Mr. Bentz has a contract for deed on the original parcel and it would be pretty hard to canbine the two parcels because he will be getting a contract for deed on the siz acres. We wrote one up once before on the property that Rime's bought saying, attached to the recorded docurrent that there is no building pennit eligible on this property until such tirre as he canes back before the Council. Barbara ~ - We are recoomending that the six acre piece be tied into his property to the south because we are reCCXIIrending against creation of a landlocked parcel. If he is still operating the contractor's yard activity maybe you could make a separate rrotion to have him make an application for the next Planning Carmission meeting. The letter I sent out to the contractor's yard was based fran the survey that I had and as I said before it was addressed to Tonka Insulation. When I got that letter back saying they no longer stored vehicles I assurred that activity had ceased at that pro- perty. If I am wrong maybe we should tell him to make an application but I would recommend against separating that six acre piece off. Councilwanan SWenson - Mayl::e we should find out what actually is transpiring down there. Mayor Hamilton rroved to approve the metes and bounds sub:1ivision dividing a 35 acre parcel into four tracts, Planning Case 84-20, based on the City Planner's carrnents regarding getting a conditional use penni t for a contractor's yard. The easement be rroved to the north between Tracts Band D and the six acre parcel be made part of his property to the south. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The follC1Ning voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson. No nega- tive votes. M:>tion carried. I I I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -13- LAND USE PIAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE '!HE !AND USE DESIGNATION OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION FRa.1 RESIDENTIAL IDT DENSITY '10 AGRICUL'lURAL: ~bara ~ - 'Ibis request is-the land use plan arrendrrent request to exclude the Hillside Oaks Subdivision that's part of the land swap proposal to include the Electro-Craft Corporation's site in the SW corner of Highway 5 and Audubon Road. '!he Council recently approved the southerly 20 acres re included as industrial and as the Met. Council requires that a land swap of equal acreage take place and the Hillside Oaks Subdivision can not re served by gravity flow sewer service and, therefore, is recarmended to re excluded and re designated as Agricultural and re located outside of the Urban Service Area ooundary. I Councilman Horn - Does that change anything with respect to the durrp site? AI Klingelhutz - '!he public hearing was held and four of those lots are sold and actually the first thing that's asked on these large tracts when you care to sell them is when is sewer caning in. Really, when they are buying a large tract like that and know they have to put in a septic tank and their own well, they hope it don't ccme in for the next 30 years so there was no objection fran these people that purchased the lots and Brian and Neil who own those lots felt it would be okay to do it. '!hey asked me for my advice and since that time I have had sane thoughts aoout this and we know it's in the MUSA Line now and we are giving it to somebody else to make his property rrore valuable and sometimes I think mayl:e there should re sare can- pensation for doing that. Councilman Horn - We have some impact here with having a housing development across the road fran the proposed durrp site, would it make any difference on that or would it degrade that argument at all if that were out of the MUSA Line? AI Klingelhutz - I don't think it could recause in the original plan that was pro- posed for that area, this area was to re put into estate lots at that time. Your density wouldn't have reen any greater on the original plan than what it is now. Councilman Horn - '!he MUSA Line proximity would have no affect to a durrp site. Al Klingelhutz - '!hat's possible, it might have some affect on the durrp site recause of the MUSA Line proximity to it. Mayor Hamilton - Just having hanes there has got to re sare deterrent. You have got another two wells closer to the durrp site. Councilman Horn - '!hat's what I was wondering, is the MUSA Line even relivent. Mayor Hamilton - I don't think it's relivent. Actually it could be beneficial not having the MUSA Line. Councilwanan Watson - I don't have any trouble with taking this out of the MUSA Line. I have a problem with what we have decided to put in the MUSA Line. Under no cir- cumstances by saying this is out of the MUSA Line am I saying anything aoout those other properties being in the MUSA Line. I am not in favor of the swap. I am reaso- nably sure I don't want Randy Herman's property in the MUSA Line. I would like the opportunity to look at the possibilities of swap besides the ones mentioned in this proposal. AI Klingelhutz - 'Ibe additional 12 or 13 acres there you could use on my own property and the Eide property. Barbara ~ - If you look at a pure land use standpoint and as far as the location of the MUSA ooundary, it is my understanding that line was drawn based on the Council Meeting Novemrer 7, 1984 -14- existing information at the time, what could re served by sewer, what could re served by water, etc. Upon the application of Electro~raft we would that the 20 acres could re served by a lateral extension of the sewer service and the Hillside Oaks application can not. As far as the disposition on this case or not, if this was I denied the acreage here and the amount that is being exclooed, etc. is such that amendrrents can re made and the procedure progress for the Electro~raft site. I don't feel you should have to hold up on a decision tonight regarding this proposal. Mayor Hamilton - We know how many acres we have in the MUSA Line so if we want to exclude sane tonight and not include sorce of that right at this point, can we kind of just keep that floating there so we are not going to lose it. Bill fwk>nk - What we have reen experiencing with Randy Herman and with Pheasant Hill, with Electro~raft, with Eide and several locations that haven't corce to the Council, is that with the fine tuning of the MUSA Line we are finding that there are sane developable pieces that were pushed outside. What we are trying to do at this time is look around and find pieces the other way that can't re served by sewer so that we can do adjustments. We don't have to pledge these two right away. There is sane latitude there that will allow us to do the Electro~raft and then six nbnths fran now probably get sorrething else in for seven acres. Councilwoman SWenson rroved to approve the Land Use Plan Arrendrrent 84-4, changing the land use designation of the Hillside Oaks Subdivision fran Residential IJ::M Density to Agricultural, and the revision of the MUSA l::x::lundary to exclude the Hillside Oaks Subdivision. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Ruso\v,-hOt.} Sll.-lnl F\ SKE'lCH PIAN, 23 roT SUBDIVISION IDRTH OF FRONTIER 'lRAIL, wrus LAKE, HIr.u:MAY I CORPORATION: Barbara ~ - '!he applicant is proposing a 23 lot subdivision on what is known as the old fwk>ulton property located south of Carver Beach Road. '!his is a sketch plan review and as you all know this is an opportunity for the City and the applicant to discuss important issues regarding the subdivision and to make input as to how the subdivision and plat procedure should look like. On your staff report you have the seven items that the Planning Canmission considered at the Planning Cannission rceeting and as the update noted all of these were recannended to re incorporated into the plan except for a couple of issues and I will concentrate on those issues and then the applicant and Council can discuss it further. The first exception was in regards to numl:er 3. What is reing proposed is a unique concept of a ring road maxi- mizing the distance retween the two tiers of lots for an amenity in the center to re intended for open space, etc. What the applicant is proposing is a 26 foot wide paved surface and as you see on your plans, the way he has it now is that this whole area is reing proposed as the right-of-way and what we are recannending is that the right-of-way re limited only to the area for the road and that the construction of the street follow the construction standards of a 28 foot wide paved surface with curb and gutter on l::x::lth sides. The applicant is stating that recause the unique nature of the road he wants a curb on the outside but a rural section (no curb) on the inside of the ring. The Planning Cannission did recarIrend two-way traffic. The final input they made as far as the ring road is concerned is that its alignrcent as you enter the subdivision re such that it re elongated and have a straighter align- rcent so that the depth of the lots abutting the subdivision to the south can re maxi- I mized so that the location of the building pads could re put further to the north. Those are the major items at hand. It's the construction of the street. The width of the right-of-way, we are recarmending that the center area re dedicated as an outlot and maintained by the homeoWners association and as recomrended by the Planning canmi.ssion, some sort of redesign take place in this area. I I I Council Meeitng Noventbar 7, 1984 -15- Councilwanan SWenson - I am concerned with two things. What kind of drainage are we going to get going down into that area that will 00 going down into the lake? Barb ~ - 'lbere is an existing creek located along the northern side of the lots. Bill M:mk - What is ooing talked about at this time is requiring sane type of on-site ponding for detention/retention purposes. It is consistent with what we have pro- posed on other subdivisions. This was rrore difficult oocause it does not have a natural low area and in any ponding arrangerrent that we do we basically are in wooded areas or slope areas. Councilwonan SWenson - Do you foresee that this counld conceivably becare a drainage problem or muck into the water, into the lake, any contamination into the lake. Bill MonK. - There are no options as far as this property goes. There is no lowland on this proPerty. It is impossible to use adjacent proPerty. We are looking at all measures that can 00 done on-site to make developm:nt have as few, if any, adverse affects, especially on water quality. It's difficult to say it won't have sane affect b=cause developrrent always has sane affects on surrounding OOdies of water. Councilwoman SWenson - I assume that there will 00 preparations to safeguard construction drainage into the water. Bill Monk - Yes. -- Councilwonan SWenson - It would appear fran the level that I see here that this doesn't like there is any swamp land along the lake shore . Bill Monk - ~. Councilwoman SWenson - The two lots that are adjacent to the lake, are those both to 00 building lots? I assume there are no lots ooing left here for outlots or com- munity property. Barb ~ - There are no OOachlots proposed. Don Ashworth - Does that ordinance not require that any newly created lots have to have 75 foot of frontage if you are to have a dock, is that not right? You may want to check on that to make sure that we don't create lots that are not in conformance with that. Mayor Hamilton - One of the recarnendations that the Planning Carmission made is revision of wts 10 and 14 which are the two on the ends. That must have 00en done for a reason. Barb ~ - That was done for the Shoreland Managerrent Regulations. There is no reference made to the docking policies that we have in the City. Councilwonan Watson - We don I t have any precedent by having curb on one side and no curb on the other, do we? Councilman Horn - Is there a storm sewer or something that goes in there? is there going to 00 proper erosion control without that curb? Bill Monk - At this point it is difficult for me to say. This is a sketch plan. We haven 't gone into the preliminary plat. At this point I am not ready to recornnend either the inside curb 00 dropped or that we reduce our street standard which I think council Meeting Nov~r 7, 1984 -16- is minimal to start with. When we get into the preliminary plat data if it can be shown that we can do certain things without adverse affect, at that point I might be ready to reconmend. I Councilworran Watson - I would like to know exactly how big each individual lot is. Councilman Horn - I think they require 20,000 square feet for the way we classified the lake. - . Barb ~ - Yes and they all meet that. Councilwcman Swenson - The 75 throws Ire, I thought we had a 90 foot requirement. Barb ~ - '!be 90 feet, that I s the width of the lot at the building setback line and this is the DNR regulations at the shoreline. Jim Penning - What attracted Ire to this property. obviously, is the lake shore and heavily wooded with oaks and maples. When I went to my planner, he knows what I have done in the past and what I would like to achieve and so he carre up with two dif- ferent concepts. One concept was this and the other concept was a straight cul~e- sac. The reason we decided on this is because we thought that having this center island would create a lot of privacy for every}:x)dy on either side and would pennit us to get rrore rroney for the lots. The draw back is that when you do this you are adding a lot of cost and so that was one of the reasons for the curb and gutter only on one side and to me that I s very crucial. I guess I would like to hear from you if you will go along with that if we can handle the water and drainage problems to your satisfaction because otherwise I won It pursue it. Your average lot size is in excess of a half acre and I do apologize for not having the square footage for each of the I lots involved but I will guarantee I will meet or exceed your ordinance. Before I went before the Planning Ccmnission I did go around the neighborhood and gave out notices and at the tirre of the Planning Ccmni.ssion meeting a couple of neighbors showed up and their concern was the depth of this lot. I can understand what they want to achieve by doing this, I guess that if the idea is to make this longer before it widens out it would be better really to give it the square footage on this side to give those houses rrore room fran the creek. In my recollection fran the Planning Ccmnission meeting it was my impression that they were onboard for 26 foot wide road. Barb ~ - Yes, I am sorry if I didn It say that. Jim Penning - Also in the course of the meeting with the Planning Carmission they did not even see the requirerrent for concrete curb and gutter. '!bey were saying asphalt curb would be satisfactory. It would confonn sarewhat to what I s available in Carver Beach. The one issue that hasn I t been addressed is that right now we are looking at rrore than 500 foot cul ~e-sac. I don I t know how you want to define it. It could be anywhere up to 1,500 feet I suppose if you look to the next street that cares in up there and it is my contention, right now there is 20 feet of easement and the request is that I grant 20 here so that we have 40 feet of right-of-way. We are not sure when this person is caning in. He has talked to the City. He is thinking about sanething in the near future. The City Engineer has asked that I give the City an easerrent for drainage purposes along the creek bed and I guess I would like to limit that to above ground drainage because I think a creek is quite an amenity along the north proPerty line there. I would like to limit that to above ground drainage if at I all possible. Regarding handling our water, I will meet with the watershed district and we will be able to show them that we are not having any rrore water going into the creek. '!bose are the way I see it and I would like any cannents you may have which I can take into consideration. I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -17- Councilman Horn - You are suggesting a 26 foot wide street because it would save m:>re trees, what would be the relative aroount of trees taken in a cul-de-sac approach ver- sus this ring road? Jim Fenning - It really canes down to cost. It's not a matter of trees because obviously if you put in twice the aroount of road you do twice the aroount of grading of land. Councilman Horn - You said the Planning Carmission recarmended that that was the reason for recarm:mding a narrower street because it would take m:>re trees. Jim Fenning - It does save m:>re trees in a ring road as opposed, but not significant canpared to a cul-de-sac. You would take m:>re trees with a ring road. Barb ~ - I think they were saying they would take m:>re trees if you had a 28 foot wide pavement versus a 26 foot wide. Councilman Horn - That's the only reason the Planning Carmission went along, as I read the minutes, with the 26 foot recorrmendation. If you carry that to an extreme I would say we should really go with the cul-de-sac instead of a ring road because that would save even m:>re trees. Jim Fenning - I don't care, it's up to you. I think this is better for the City. Councilwanan SWenson - The Planning Carmission was proposing a one-way street. Barb ~ - They recamended for a two-way. Councilwoman SWenson - As I understood it, it was one way the 20 foot was all right but two way it had to be 50. Barb ~ - At the writing of this report there was an option out there, was it going to be one-way or two-way and it was discussed and they felt that two-way would be best. Mayor Hamil ton - Let me ask for cooments on the curb on the inside portion of the ring road, Clark had no problem with not having a curb there? Councilman Horn - Obviously a cul-de-sac would solve the whole thing. If the water could be controlled properly and the City could maintain the street properly without chewing up the edge which is what we currently do when we have asphalt or no curbs, then I don't have a problem with it. Councilwanan SWenson - I have no problem. I am opposed to asphalt curbing but I have no problem and Mr. Fenning said he would work in order to take care of the drainage thing. That's all I am concerned about. I just want to make sure we have proper drainage control and if you can arrange for that, that's fine. Councilwanan Watson - Just proper drainage control and I would rather see no curb rather than asphalt. Mayor Hamilton - I would be in favor of no curb on the inside. Jim Fenning - What are your thoughts on 26 feet? Councilman Horn - Where do we have a 26 foot street down there? Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -18- Bill l-bnk - All the streets are narrow down in Carver Beach. '!he street sections we ~ right now are 26 foot bituminous with curb and gutter. '!he only place we have allowed a substandard section is in the entrance to Pleasant Hill with two rows of pine trees down either side. I don't know whether we are talking about that much difference as far as blacktop goes, in width. Councilman Horn - I can't believe that that extra two feet is going to be a make or break situation. I Councilwcrnan SWenson - I like 28 feet myself but it's not a major problem. Councilwanan Watson - If 26 feet will work well for emergency vehicles, I think it's okay. I would just as soon see residential streets as small as they can be because there is no reason for anybody outside the people who live here to drive on that street. You are not going to get through traffic. Mayor Hamilton - '!hen I didn't understand what you were trying to explain about IDt 23. Jim Fenning - What I would like to do is shift the road c:bwn this way. I would like to at least split the land equally because this lot is a bit tight. Barb ~ - The general consensus was to maximize the depth as much as possible and a solution to that was to straightening the road out before it broke into the ring road. The property owners to the south, there were two or three of them there, they were concerned that the rear setback is 30 feet so they could, in order to preserve even rrore trees, locate the house further to the rear of the lot and they were con- cerned that there very possibly could be a house placed toward the rear of the lot. Councilwcxnan SWenson - Mr. Fenning is going to put this in so that it is going to show off his property to the best of his ability and I am sure he is not going to do anything to louse it up and lose rroney. Councilman Horn - We will have to hear from Bill on all this. I Mayor Hamilton - Mr. Fenning is just looking for sane general carments from us so he would know where to go. Bill t-bnk - All I am looking for as far as the easement is the easement over the ditch-:-We will have to rreet with the watershed district but that's all that the City would require at this point. '!he second item, on the curb on the inside, the City has gone a long way with curb and trying to get away fran this constant ripping up and problems with front lawns, that's my first position as far as knocking the curb off on the inside, my bigger concern even between asphalt and concrete is that I have to look closely at the street grades versus the elevations of the ground in that center area because what I am very afraid of is, the center area is to be left natural and what I am going to be worried about is water ponding right off the road. There is a very good possibility that will occur. We are not going to be grading in ditches. We are going to be leaving it natural. If the road isn's put in at such an elevation that we can get drainage to that pond I will oppose no curb because curb is your best defense on directing water and we have too many examples in this City of being lax as things are approved and then finding out ten years or even five years down the road that the edge of the road is breaking up. I will at least look at it I but I want to bring that out at this point. As far as the street width goes, again, we do require right now a 26 foot bituminous with a two foot curb on either side. Most of the subdivisions, we have adhered to that with the thought that 28 basically is about as much of a minimum you can go with. I will be hard to convince that the I I I Council Meeting Novernrer 7, 1984 -19- two feet one way or another is going to make or break anything. I hear what the Council is saying and I will not just disregard the cc::mrents that have been made tonight. Councilwoman Swenson roved to accept the sketch plan review for a proposed 23 lot sub- division, Planning Case 84-21 Subdivision for Jim Fenning, subject to the recc::mren- dations of staff and the Planning Comnission, watershed district and the Engineer's recc::mrendations concentrated basically on drainage. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. Toe following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, REPIAT IDTS 3 AND 4, FANDIMERE HEIGHI'S SECOND ADDITION: Barb ~ - Mr. Eickholt is proposing tC>subdivide the existing Lot 3 and Lot 4 into four single family lots. 'Ihree of the lots total over 16,000 square feet and the remaining lot which Mr. Eickholt's house remains on will total 18,000 square feet. We are recc::mrending approval of the plat. It meets the Subdivision Ordinance. It neets the lot size requirements within 1,000 feet of the lake. There is a minor non- conforming matter that will. re created by the creation of the new lot line, Mr. Eickholt's house will be .15 inches into the 10 foot side yard setmck, however, because of its minute nature staff is not too concerned about the encroachm=nt. All the lot sizes meet theminimtm width of 90 feet. Councilwoman Swenson - Mr. Eickholt, are you going to be building these houses or are you going to be selling the lots? Mr. Eickholt - I have three sons and they have expressed interest in several of the lots. I won't say all three but that is the reason and also I have been rowing this grass and I am tired of it. Councilwanan Swenson - I would assurre that you are planning on building residences that will confonn to those that are already in the neighborhood. Mr. Eickholt - I indicated in the Planning Commission meeting that the existing houses were built in the early 1960' s and scxneone wrote a letter concerned about the quality or the deterioration of property values and I am quite certain that any house that would be built on these lots would exceed not every house in the neighborhood but it would be equivalent to existing houses. Councilman Horn roved to approve the replatting request for Lots 3 and 4, BandiIrere Heights Second Addition, Planning Case 84-22. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONNEl:TION CHARGE POLICY: Bill M:>nk - The City does have a connection charge policy for any newly created lots and basically, I think the policy came into play with the north service area and Carver Beach with the concentrating and creation of lots in those areas but it does cane into play any time a new lot is created in the City and I put in three examples here of how the fonnula works and the existing ordinances for an original assessment versus a current connection charge and I had many argurrents with people in the north service area and Carver Beach about the aIrount of the current connection charge. The numbers are getting a little high for those two areas and is the main reason for II'!Y recc::mrendation that depreciation of the street and pipes be taken into account to give a little fairer indication of the actual current value of the connection charge. Secondly, Bandimere Heights, I had forgotten how much that project cost to put in in the first place, it's a full street width with curb and gutter on I:x>th sides and sewer available with no water. The average assessrrent in Bandimere Heights was council Meeting Noveml:er 7, 1984 -20- $8,875. using the depreciation formula that only takes Band:irrere Heights down to about the $10,000 range so as a second thought the Council may wish to give SPecial consideration to a subdivision of Band:irrere Heights in terms of bringing it in line I wi th other projects and averages for projects done at approximately the same ti.rre. That could be done on a special case basis for the Bandi.mere Heights Subdivision but at this point IT!Y first request is that we do add depreciation in here and start to get the current connection charge vallES closer to their actual current value and secondly, whether the Council wishes to give any SPecial consideration to Bandimere Heights. Councilman Horn - You said you lunped together street and utility facilities and used a life of 25 years. It is hard for Ire to oolieve that a street would last the sane period of t:irre as a sewer connection. Bill funk - Between streets and utili ties you get numl:ers any where fran 15 years to 50 years that the facilities are good for. An average for a depreciation schedule is sanewhere ootween 20 and 30. Councilman Horn - You can redo a street without replacing a sewer system can't you. Bill funk - Correct. You don't want a formula that would basically two or three phase giving a different depreciation schedule to each of the different irrprovements that go in so you reach for an average. 'lWenty-five years is an accepted average. Councilman Horn - '!hey are assessed separately. Bill funk - This City usually assessed on a unit basis and there is a separate value for each one but basically the assessrrent is a total. If you went back into the I assessrrents for Carver Beach or the north service area you can pick out different values for the different phases of the irrprovement, sewer versus watermain and that type of thing. Councilman Horn - If this were a road, I could understand but to me 4% seems a little bi t excessive for a permanent sewer. Bill funk - With this schedule you have got to realize that basically at no point are you going down. If the interest rate on bonds is 8%, 4% depreciation rreans each year it still does go up 4%. Councilman Horn - What you are really saying though is if a person lives in their house for 50 years they can expect to get assessed twice for a sewer system. Bill funk - There is a good chance they will. Don Ashworth - One of the problems we have is there are those projects where they are at the 12% level. You take a six or eight year period of time and you are doubling the cost of that facility according to the existing formula. It does OOcare dif- ficult to justify that to the guy caning in who wants to subdivide an existing parcel and he has a high assessrrent. Bill and I went through the sane statement areas that you are bringing up Clark, and I guess I was taking an similar position with Bill. We ended up saying, how do we reasonably split serre of these things out. '!he street was in oofore we went in and tore it up. We put in the sanitary sewer and we put a I street back in, how do you divide up what part was what part? In Greenwood Shores we had the sane tyPe of thing. In your area I know we showed the curb and gutter separately. Yours was a straight assessment for street and curb and gutter. Councilwoman Watson - We could see so much for sewer and so much for water, so much for street and it was alm:>st divided in thirds. The street was a little less. I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -21- Don Ashworth - My point is that what if you had made a decision that you didn't want the street, you can't. Counci1wanan Watson - They told us that this was what it was going to cost. Councilman Horn - That's my point, you can tear up the street and put a new street in without tearing up the sewer but you can't tear up the sewer without putting in a new street so I can see you would have a shorter life on a street than you would on a sewer. That's why I have trouble 1mping them together. Don Ashworth - I don't know of any instance though where we have a connection charge for streets. Councilman Horn - It's assessed at the time it's put in for that lot. That's why I have trouble with this 25 year period. Don Ashworth - I hear what you are saying. Recognizing that the existing one is anywhere from 8 to 12%, Py knocking off 4% it still is increasing 4 to 8%. Counci1wanan Watson - 'lbere has to be a ceiling on it at sc::rre point. Counci1wanan Swenson - '!hey have to pick up the interest charges. People have been paying the interest charges all this time. You are going to throw the bond structure if you don't because these properties were there and they figured it on the basis of 15,000 square feet and you have a subdivision and if that one unit doesn't pick up its fair share it's going to throw the whole bonding thing out. Mr. Eickholt - As I was discussing this with the Engineer, this charge $12,138 will continue to escalate until it is paid off in a 1urp srnn when a building pennit is issued. If a building permit isn't issued for another four years, that charge will be $16,000 or rrore which is prohibitive in my view. I do understand the interest I pay on the $8,875 accrues on top of the new lot that is created and I understand that but if I don't build on those lots for four years, $16,000 for a building permit is a pretty touch thing to swallow. I do understand the bonding issue, the interest that everybody else pays and I am paying it. Counci1wanan Swenson - I suppose the only alternative to that, I am sure this isn't very reasonable either, when you divided it and you want to assurre the assessrrent on the property you start paying it, there is no law against that, is there? This would eliminate the escalation. Don Ashworth - All of our current projects, including Bandimere Heights, was assessed not really on the 15,000 square foot but the n\lIl1lEr of lots that were actually there. The project is being totally paid up. The City is actually in a better position in tenns of our total debt structure to assure that new building units cane in and any rronies that we receive will help our overall debt service program. There has got to be equity in the whole process but if we allow it to continue like in the Bandimere area this assessrrent will be up to $18,000 in four rrore years, for sanitary sewer only. Councilman Horn - What would it cost to put in in four years? Don Ashworth - I don't know. Councilwoman Swenson - This is what it would cost to put it in now according to Bill's figures. Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -22- Bill Monk - One of the major concerns here is sare day there is a good chance the City may get a legal challenge on the connection charge and how it arrives at the connection charge and that type of thing. What I am trying to do is foresee rrost of the arguments that can be foreseen in that type of argurrent so that we are not I charging an exorbitant fee above and beyond present day vallE. That is what we are trying to do is to care to that present day value and instead of setting a set fee and saying that every lot in the City that's created pays $10,000 we are trying to take into account the initial cost and wear and tear on the pipes and on the streets that have occurred since the project went in, care up with a reasonable present day value. There is a couple of ways you can go at this, you could set a city-wide con- nection fee but I don't know as to whether that is actually reasonable and fully defensible in all cases and that's where the depreciation idea basically came into play. Councilwanan SWenson - I am not saying this is not without rrerit, certainly. I think on the other hand you have to look at people who have already made the contribution to the project and make sure we oon't, we have to be equitable to them also. Bill Monk - You don't have to make a decision on this tonight. The reason that it's brought up tonight is because of this particular subdivision basically pranpted it when I saw that the connection charge for this property would be above $12,000. If the Council wants different alternatives or options looked at or has sare different ideas this would be the tirre to at least discuss them so I can bring sorrething back in the future. Whether the Council wants to give special consideration in this instance, again, you could table action because I assurre he won't be in buildinga house next week, but he might and if he is I want the Council to know what that con- nection charge would dictate. I am aware of the uniqueness of this project and in the extreme problems that were encountered down here and you do have to take them I into account to a certain extent. It's for that reason that it was so high. It's alrrost impossible to try and guess what it would cost to put that sarre facility in today. All you would normally 00 would be to update it with a percent per year. Councilman Horn - You can define that based on an hourly rate for this type of acti- vity. - Bill Monk - Are we going to 00 that for each connection charge. Councilman Horn - '!hat's the figure I think we are missing. We are tying this thing to a bond interest rate formula which to rre does not represent at all present value. It's only present value of the funds that we sPent on it but it's not present value for that type of activity being oone and I think those figures can be arrived at. Bill Monk - You can use the construction index and many cities 00 use the construc- tion index. The City has always taken the policy that they are not looking to make rroney on this but to protect the city's position so to use anything in excess of the bond issue rate would be a mistake. The construction index has bounced over the past couple of years anywhere from 4 to 14 Percent. Councilman Horn - Are you saying that the construction index would make this even higher? Bill Monk - Probably true. Councilman Horn - 'lhen I don't think there is anything wrong with the way we are ooing it. I oon't think the sewer wears out. I I I I Council Meeting November 7, 1984 -23- Mr. Eickholt - I might be cutting my nose off to spite my face but at the time this sewer project was initiated, it came up all of a sudden unbeknownst to Ire and I built my house and I was about to put in a septic tank and sewer system which would have cost Ire four, five, maybe $1,000 and then I knew that sewer might be available. The people in this neighborhood were pretty much evenly split and I was very vocal and very much in favor of this sewer project because I knew it was an asset to the can- munity and with the lake being adjacent to and sewage running into the lake, I said, sooner or later sarebody might care out and say you have got to do this. We did it, and the $9,000 round number was excessively high but I realize that the terrain and everything contributes to the cost of the sewer and I was fully in favor and I think it was a good thing to do but I do and I understand the interest on bonds and all this and that, but if it becares excalating to the point where the sewer is worth rrore than the lot, you are kind of in a bind. If there should be relief or a point of return, if the sewer pipe eats up the land the land is worthless and without the land the sewer pipe wouldn't be needed. I realize the financial aspects of running the City and putting in a pipe and it's wonderful to have it and somebody has got to pay for it and I understand all that but there is a point where it could be detrimen- tal to develoPIrent. Councilwanan swenson - I would like to table this to the next meeting, can we do that? Bill fwbnk - I would suggest we table it to the first rreeting in December. Would the Council like additional information? Councilwanan swenson - I think what I would like to see is have some ccrrparative figures. Councilwanan Watson rroved to table this item to the first rreeting in December when , the City Engineer will present additional information. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. '!be following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson - When we bring this back I would also like to discuss Section 1.05. I think there is a discrepancy there that we ought to look at. Councilman Horn - I would like to have that construction cost index figured into the value on this. SANTA VERA APAR'lMENTS: Bill fwbnk - I wrote a letter to the owner of the Santa Vera Aparbnents telling him I was none too pleased about a driveway that he put in onto Laredo Drive. The owner, Doug Hansen's response is attached. I do not myself put much merit to either one because the drainage could have been handled in something less than a dri veNay and ( 2) I am against anyway because I don't like them plowing their snow out into Laredo Drive and giving us problems. The only reason I put this here was that if I proceed on my own I am basically going to have him take it out. If he doesn't, the City will rerrove the portion of the driveway that's in the boulevard. The only thing I wanted to get was if the Council would rather see this in rrore detail I would schedule it for December 5th and bring it back. Councilwanan Watson - If he doesn't, you do. Councilwoman SWenson rroved to adjourn. l-btion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!be following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, CouncilWClIn:Il S~nson and Watson. No negative votes. fwbtion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager