Loading...
1985 01 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 7, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened the meeting with the Pledge to the Flag. OATH OF OFFICE: The City Attorney administered the Oath of Office to the newly elected Mayor Tom Hamilton, Councilman Dale Geving, and Councilman Clark Horn. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of an update on West 79th Street crossing and Planning Commission \ members. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RULES OF PROCEDURE: Councilwoman Swenson moved to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the conduct of City Council Business. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER: Councilman as the official city newspaper. voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, and Geving. No negative votes. Geving moved to designate the Carver County Herald Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn Motion carried. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY: Mayor Hamilton noted that the City Treasurer's husband is a Director and part owner of the State Bank of Chanhassen. He further noted that there has been an offer to purchase the bank and it is expected to be sold in the next month or so. Councilwoman Watson moved to designate the State Bank of Chanhassen as the official depository of the City and authorize the Mayor and Treasurer or Manager as authorized signatures for all City checks and the following persons be authorized to enter the safe deposit box: Mayor or Treasurer or Manager. The Mayor's facsimile signature be used on all City checks. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY: Councilman Horn moved to appoint the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell, and Knutson as the City Attorney. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BOND CONSULTANT: Councilwoman Watson moved to appoint the firm of Juran and Moody as the financial consultant for the City. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -2- ACTING MAYOR: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Dale Geving as Acting Mayor to serve in the absence of the elected Mayor. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. I WEED INSPECTOR: Councilwoman Watson moved to appoint Mayor Hamilton as Weed Inspector and Bill Monk, Public Works Director, as Deputy Weed Inspector. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FIRE CHIEF: In January 1984 the Council appointed Jack Kreger as Fire Chief for a two year term. HEALTH OFFICER: Councilwoman Watson moved to appoint Dr. David McCollum as the City's Health Officer at a fee of $1.00. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY AUDITOR: Councilwoman Swenson moved to contract with Voto, Tautges, Reardon as auditors for the City. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. HRA BUILDING, BOWLING CENTER: Mayor Hamilton - We talked about this briefly at our last Council meeting. I have asked John Dorek and Bill Baden to be present this evening to answer any questions that Council members might have. The purpose for my asking that this item be on the I agenda was for general discussion to give John and Bill an idea of what the Councils' feeling is about their proposal and to discuss some of the issues that they have brought up so they can get a general feeling of what the Councils' direc- tion might be prior to their moving ahead with this. It's my understanding that they are, in fact, ready to move ahead with this project. I am not saying we are committing anything tonight. They just want to get a general understanding or feeling of what the Councils' position is. There are several issues that they have raised. I have met with each of them several times and discussed this over and over but there are several issues that they have brought up that they would like to discuss. They would like to hear from us what our feelings are. One of them being the parking. As you know the parking on the west side of the Instant Web building is a part of that building and was a part of that purchase. One of the requests that they made of me was that perhaps the City consider making that a City parking area and maintain that so that they wouldn't have to purchase it. I think it is a reasonable request. It is done in other communities where you would have a center such as that where the City maintains the parking and they have use of it. Anybody else in the City can make use of it also. It's a fairly large parking facility and it would be very expensive for them to purchase it. It would probably be expensive enough so that they would not want to go ahead with the project if they had to purchase it. Councilman Gevinq - I think it would be best, at least, for me to hear what John and Bill have to present to us this evening. Mayor Hamilton - They do not have a formal presentation. I have asked them to come I here to answer questions more than anything. Their presentation would be just a rough sketch of where they want to be in the building, the number of square feet that they want, approximately 25,000 on the west side of the building which could vary some. It depends on how we may want to proceed with the rest of the develop- ment of the building. I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -3- Councilman GevinQ - We would have a whole new entrance that would be created. Mayor Hamilton - Their idea is, and they have done a lot of research in putting num- bers together to try to find out if it would work better using the existing building or tearing down a portion of the existing building and building another structure within and I think at this time they have decided and their numbers tell them it's less expensive if they could tear down part of what's there and replace that with another building. Councilwoman Watson - I don't see any reason why we wouldn't want to own that lot anyway in case some day we are able to put in a community center. Councilman GevinQ - I am very much in favor of having the City maintain that parking if it is in any way an incentive for Bill and John. My motive is the extension of West 79th Street, if it ever happens, will come up and abut the west edge of that parking lot. It would fall in line with our thinking eventually anyway and my feeling is I would be very much in favor of the City maintaining it. Councilwoman Swenson - I don't have a problem with it. Councilman Horn - I don't think it would be much of a job for us with our equipment to maintain that. What is the approximate value of just the parking lot portion? Don Ashworth - It depends on how you quarter out the building. In other words, what portion of the overall parking would be assigned to the bowling because you could stop just with the south half. Councilman Horn - Let's assume a minimum amount. Mayor Hamilton - If you have the whole parking area you are not going to say, now, listen Bill you can only park in this part. I don't think you would assign a par- ticular area. It's a public lot. Councilman Horn - A certain size facility requires a certain size parking area for operation. Mayor Hamilton - What do you estimate, Bill, if you have got 24 lanes going of league, a five person team on each of your 24 lanes, is there is rough number that you use for the number of vehicles that you need to have space for? Bill Baden - I think we would need approximately 200 to 250 stalls. Councilwoman Swenson - Do we have any idea how big would an area for 200 to 250 cars take up? I don't think that lot is big enough for 250 cars. Bill Monk - I think it would hold 250 but I really don't know. I have never looked at it how it might be striped to maximize parking. Don Ashworth - I would say somewhere between one and two acres. Councilwoman Swenson - Are we legally in a position to advise that we would be ame- nable to this? Doesn't this property come under the category of the HRA. Mayor Hamilton - I don't think we are trying to circumvent the HRA. Don Ashworth - The sale disposal of the building is back to the HRA. The City Council holds the purse strings and allows for bonding and as such they really need approval of both groups. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -4- Mayor Hamilton - Let me get on to the next item on my list, the size of the building. There is said to be approximately 25,000 square feet and we would need to see a plan then to show you how that would fit within the building. Part of that building would need to be torn down because they have decided that that would be the I most feasible and economical for them to do, tear down a part of the building and reconstruct their building. The reason for that, I think, was that we looked at the numbers of building a free-atanding building out on the highway, for instance, or anyplace where you would establish a bowling center and they could do the same thing here for a little bit less or approximately the same that you could build on the highway rather than renovating what's already there. The next item which is of perhaps a major concern is the value of the property. John and Bill would like to own the piece of ground that the center would be on and we would need to establish a value for that piece of property. That's something that I am not sure what they are willing to pay and I am not sure how we are going to arrive at a price for that. I think it needs to be a reasonable price and one of the things we need to take into consideration is even if we doze that whole building down we really aren't losing anything and even if we gave all the ground away we are not losing anything as a City even though we have paid a significant amount for that property. We are reco- vering our funds from the tax increment district. Whatever we can make off the sale of it is certainly a plus. Councilman Geving - What about tax advantage to the City and to the County if it was sold to John as opposed to keeping it in City ownership and leasing it out? Mayor Hamilton - That's one thing that I haven't investigated. We would want to sit down with the tax assessor and see what kind of numbers would be generated. Councilman Geving - I guess I feel this way, I would be very much in favor of doing I something with that property. I look at it now as costing us something like $75,000 a year just to maintain it and very little of it do we get back in terms of rental of various spaces over there. Councilwoman Watson - Who would be responsible for the removal of the building? Would that be a joint issue or would they remove the part of the building where they want to put that new building? Mayor Hamilton - I think the City would remove it. Councilwoman Watson - Do we have any idea how much it would cost to remove that sec- tion of the building? Mayor Hamilton - There is another individual who is interested in purchasing the building or parts of it and that's Gary Kirt of Bell Investment Company. He has expressed an interest in buying all of it or a portion of it and he has talked to both Bill and John about even buying the portion that they would want and then leasing it back to them. That would not work for their needs plus Bell Investment Company, their estimate was that they would put in 14 lanes. Bill and John would put in 24. Gary Kirt is interested in the front part primarily. He has some people who are interested in moving in there. We need to consider what his needs are going to be before we do anything to that front part. We don't want to tear anything down that he is going to be able to use in its existing state. Councilwoman Watson - I just had a hard time envisioning taking a piece in the middle. I Councilman Horn - I think my perspective on this whole thing is that I am certainly open to any kind of an offer. It's hard to speculate. I I I Council Meeting January 7, 19B5 -5- Councilwoman Watson - They will be wanting a liquor license? Mayor Hamilton - Yes. Along with the liquor license we discussed the fee a little bit because what you typically do with a bowling establishment is to have a bar, not a real big bar, and then serve drinks on the lanes or have then taken on the lanes and if we based our liquor license fee the same as we do now, for this establishment it would be a chunk of money. Their idea was that if you want to charge us a fee based on the size of the bar is one thing but if you take into account the whole establishment then it's going to be a prohibitive type of fee. Councilman GevinQ - I think what happens in a case like that would be you would sur- vey some other communities and what their fee is and we would be fair about a fee. A few years ago when Bill was considering moving into the area around Chanhassen Estates and this liquor license deal came up and they backed off immediately and never came back. I am very much in favor of the liquor license and I think the fee would be reasonable. Mayor Hamilton - The only other thing I have on my list would be any type of tax deferments or tax incentive type of thing we could give to them. Don and I just talked about it briefly this afternoon and I am not even sure if there is anything we can do. Councilman GevinQ - What we did on the one proposal across from the bank when they considered building an office building, we were going to swing a loan for them for a short term. I think we had a tax deferment for a year and a half or something like that. We could do some innovative type things for these people I think. Don Ashworth - I don't think there is any allowance for a direct tax reduction but I think there are other mechanisms which might accomplish the same thing. Councilman GevinQ - Isn't it similar to what we are doing in the industrial park where we are reducing the assessment over a period of years. Don Ashworth - That is specifically allowed, taking over a portion of the assessments. John Dorek 24 hours. We do plan on, with your permission, we feel it is necessary to go for Councilman Horn - Would you serve lunches? Bill Baden - Yes, but not directly catering as such. Our food will be geared to our bowlers. When there is league bowling there will always be a food operation. We are not going to try to be a lunch place. Mayor Hamilton - I certainly hope that the response you heard this evening gives you the affirmative replies that you wanted to have and that you can move ahead. You are hearing that we are all in favor of it and we all would like to be a part of it and if there is anything we can do to help we are willing to do it. MINUTES: Amend the December 17, 19B4, Council minutes, page 6, POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN, 19B5 BUDGETARY MODIFICATIONS by adding the following: Council members requested a copy of the grid comparing the ten comparable cities. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the December 17, 19B4, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton abstained. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -6- Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the December 20, 1984, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. I RECONSIDERATION QI PIPER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, RANDY HERMAN: Mayor Hamilton - I would like to move for reconsideration of this item. Councilman Horn - Second. Mayor Hamilton - Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Gevinq - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. It is my understanding that if we moved for reconsideration this evening that ,we can discuss it. Can action can be taken this evening? Roqer Knutson - You can discuss it or you can table it or you can act on it if you would like to. Don Ashworth - The Rules of Procedure do state that an item is to be brought up and I discussed and acted on at the next regular meeting. However, there is a provision there that says that if the Council determines that the people likely to have been affected by this decision have been notified they can waive the requirement and act on it that night. We have notified the property owners likely to be affected so you could act on it this evening if you would like. Mayor Hamilton - Randy submitted a new drawing of the new re-alignment of the road and the lots and I had asked each of you to come in and take a look at that. All of us have had an opportunity to see where Randy has proposed the new entrance into the property and how the lots would be re-aligned and the possibility of where the homes would sit on each of those lots. Probably the best thing to do would be to ask the Council if you have any questions of Randy about this re-alignment. Councilman Horn - From an engineering standpoint, Bill, do you think this plan is superior to the former plan with the expanded wetlands that would be reconstructed? Bill Monk - In this plan the road is moved to the west and would disturb the wetlands as little as possible. Also, the creation of a ponding area that would take most of the run-off from the newly plotted subdivision directly into it instead of routing it through that wetlands. It does adhere more closely, I believe, to the existing Wetlands Ordinance in that it will be disturbing it as little as possible. It achieves at least the same drainage results as the other plan did. In all, I would say the plan is at least as good, if not, slightly better even though it does increase City maintenance but, I think, to a minor extent. Councilman Horn - What would be the extent of that maintenance? My feeling is that we might be taking a bigger risk the other way in the reconstruction process but we could end up with an overall better project. It wouldn't be requiring maintenance I I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -7- to the City and that's the thing I am trying to get a handle on here. I am willing to take somewhat of a risk in a reconstruction project if it will get us a better overall project. I thought the advantage to this plan was that it would not reconstruct as much but I guess I really do believe that you can reconstruct and if we can reconstruct and come out with something better I am asking if this really is a better plan since there will be more maintenance involved in the long run and I am also wondering if there won't be a higher water level here and more potential for water in some of the existing homes there is there right today. Bill Monk - This plan is at least as good from a drainage perspective. It does allow the existing wetlands to stay and will handle the water, not only existing water but the increase in the run-off. As far as City maintenance goes, in choosing any plan it is a series of trade-offs. The reason I mentioned that it would increase the maintenance is just to remind everybody that just because you filter water through a wetlands doesn't mean that it is maintenance free. You still have to go in and do things to that particular wetlands. The City will, with the existing wetlands and this proposed pond, have to go in and it might not be for four or five years, to go in and remove sediment, haul it away so that growth can come back up and can flow through on an unrestricted basis. One of the reasons that you have got such a high water table up there right now is that very reason. The existing wetlands up there is beginning to fill up and as it does it is trapping the water in there. One of the side affects of the first plan was my hope that we could lower that water table to a greater extent than this second plan would allow and that any problem that is being caused by this wetlands and the trapping of water could be gotten around. With the revised plan, what we would do to start with would be to probably just do very minimal work in the existing wetlands but to keep a close eye on it and may in the future take a look at lowering it one or two feet. That might help to remedy a water problem in that area. The whole area up there is clay all around so it was a possible side affect with the lowering of that wetlands whether it would have had a major affect on even the house across the street, it's hard to say, but I thought that it wouldn't hurt. With the revised plan, I think, we could achieve some of them but it may require somewhat of a lowering at some point in the future. It's a series of trade-offs. I believe one plan is as good as another at least from a drainage perspective because either one will handle the run- off. Mayor Hamilton - I think part of his question was the maintenance, whether main- tenance in the future would be more costly to the City with this revised plan than with the original one. Bill Monk - To a very minor extent to only that you would have to go in and remove the sediment from two ponds instead of one, but, again, you are talking about a function that might be done every four to six years. It does increase the main- tenance but not to anything that is monumental. Councilman Horn - And may require us at some point going in and lowering it to the level that the previous plan would have been. Bill Monk - I doubt we would go that low, but that plan as was pointed out at the last meeting did lower it approximately five feet or more. We might look at lowering it one to two feet but I doubt we would lower it that much. Mayor Hamilton - That was pretty much what the crux of our discussion was the last time we talked about this. Councilwoman Swenson - I just wanted to make sure, has Mrs. Neumann been notified? Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -8- ~ Dacy - We notified everyone on the property owners list. ~ Weimerskirch - Yes, she has. I am her son-in-law. Councilwoman Watson - I guess I don't have any real questions at this point. Only with the lot that requires a variance. I have a real problem with built in varian- ces. Mayor Hamilton - I don't think it's a built in variance. There would need to be a request for it. Councilwoman Watson - Would that request have to come to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals? Bill Monk - You can do it that way or you can do it the other way. If this plan were approved you could approve it with those variances as a part of that approval because otherwise it is going to be very difficult to sell the lot. Don Ashworth - I would suggest that approach, either approve it this evening or not so that they know if they have a building lot or if they don't. Councilman Gevinq - I think this plan is far superior to any plan that I have seen so far. It falls fairly well in line with some of the thoughts that I had as far as the road is concerned. I believe that the water run-off, if that piping from the north to the south works and it's built to work the way it's described on that plan it should function. I was a little concerned about the Lot 12 and its variance and I agree with what the Manager said that if we do approve this plan, that built in variance is a part of the overall plan otherwise it puts the sale of the lot in jeopardy and then they have to come before the board and get approval. It should be done all at one time. I was a little bit concerned about Lot 1 and I would like to ask Bill one more time what he for sees as potential water problems that Lot 1 be generated to the existing homeowner to the north and to the east of that lot. Bill Monk - There is a potential problem on Lots 1 and 2 and as the engineering was done to set the outflow elevation of the pipe at the far side, it's going to have to be looked at pretty close and that lot may have to be built up so it's a little bit above the road. It may seem somewhat unnatural but they are going to have to be sensitive to that type of a problem but I think it can be handled. Councilman Gevinq - Will we be creating a problem for the existing homeowner at some future date with water in their basement with this development? Bill ~ - I don't believe so. Councilman Geving - As far as the rest of the plan is concerned, I think these homes will be very nice homes. They will, in fact I think, not degrade the neighborhood in any way and I think that they for the most part will be screened very well from the existing homeowners that live in that area now. I do believe this will be a very nice development. Peter Throdahl - I don't quite follow why there would be more maintenance under this plan than the original proposal. Bill Monk - In this proposal you have got not only the existing wetlands but there is going to be a small ponding area, sedimentation area, that's going to be created just to the south edge of the plat, just to the north of Lake Minnewashta, and so the City will have two ponding areas, one, the existing wetlands and the other that secondary sedimentation pond that will need periodic dredging. I I I I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -9- Randy Herman - We have drawn in roughly where a house may sit on this lot. This is actually going to be Lot 1. The final analysis on this as to whether this is going to work or not really hasn't been done. We need to do some borings to know exactly if there is going to be a problem there or not but the initial analysis is that we have got enough of a grade there. We are going to be elevated enough from the wetland so it won't be a problem. Bill Monk - Unless a decision is made that the existing wetlands should be lowered for sedimentation reasons so that it will function beter, there would be no reason under this plan to go into that existing wetlands. Did I understand you correctly that you might have to put in some fill in this area? Bill Monk - Not in that area. I was talking about where the house pad would go on Lot 1. The grade on the road has not been set in any final detail at this point and those are some things that still need to be done with the preliminary plat to see how high that house can be made to set in relation to the wetlands so that there is no basement problem. My only thought was that if you ever intended to put some fill in here you would then create a problem with the Schmidt's lot. Mayor Hamilton - That part, there does not intend to be any fill in there. Councilman Horn - Who owns the property immediately to the west? Councilwoman Swenson - Neumann's. Councilman Horn - Aren't we going to be limiting some of their development by having the driveway right next to it? Arnie Weimerskirch - There is a culvert under the road which is not open. It has been closed for many years. There is a wetland further to the west of this property but in between there, there is a little bit of a rise so the drainage would not come from this property into that. Councilman Horn - Do you see any problem with having that street running immediately adjacent to her property rather than being buffered by a row of houses? Arnie Weimerskirch - No. Not off hand. Eventually, I suppose, if Mrs. Neumann developed that property she could just tap into that road I would guess. Councilman Gevinq - What is your feeling of this development? Arnie Weimerskirch - I have been out of town for all of your meetings and I have never looked at this. We have been aware of this for quite a while but I have not been able to make any of the meetings so I have never looked at the plan other than a very early preliminary sketch. I should study it more. I wouldn't see any objec- tions to a road being right here from our standpoint. Mrs. Neumann has no plans at all to develop her property. Councilwoman Swenson - Is it possible, in the future, that the road could be extended? Bill Monk - There is always a possibility the road could be extended at some point in the future. It depends on what kind of alignment. I am not that familiar with the lay of the land back there. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -10- Mayor Hamilton - Our action tonight could be to approve the preliminary plat and have it come back as a consent agenda item once they have resubmitted a more speci- fic plan. Councilwoman Watson - I would like to discuss approval of the plat without that first lot. It's low where that housing pad is shown. I guess I would just like the plat with 11 lots instead of 12 and get rid of that first lot. Mayor Hamilton - Why don't you give Randy an opportunity to see how much that may need to be built up and what can be done with that lot before you eliminate it. Randy Herman - That would be my request. We haven't been able to really take a hard look at whether a house on that lot is going to be fully feasible. If the amount of fill is so great that it's going to any incentive to even want to sell or build on that lot, well, we really don't know yet for sure. We are still trying to get 12 lots out of here to make things fly but I can't say for sure that we can even build on it at this point. Mayor Hamilton - It seems to be reasonable to allow him the opportunity to at least investigate it and work with Bill and see what the problems are going to be and we are going to nave another review of it anyway. Councilman Geving - The elevation of that particular lot is 556 and right in front of Schmidt's house across the street and the next one to the east that's 557 and there is water standing there nearly all the time. I kind of agree with what Carol is talking about. I would like to really look hard at that Lot 1. Mayor Hamilton - I am not disagreeing with you. opportunity to see what he can do with that lot. there isn't anything I can do with it. I am just saying let Randy have an He may come back and say, fine, Councilman Gevinq - The only problem is though, we could lock into a plat that we might approve here with 12 lots and some we get pretty far out in the grove. Bill Monk - The only reasons that I came down with the conclusion that I did is the street grades hadn't been set on this proposed plan and we weren't even sure of the square footage on different lots and how they all would work out with moving the rows. I think what the Council may want to do at this point is consider giving some indication on which plan they like better if the second one was liked better, then maybe Mr. Herman can leave here with some idea that if he proceeds that at least he is headed in the right direction, but I think there are a couple of points that need to be answered and we need a final document, a little more detailed than the one we have got here that we can put the stamp on and say approved and until we get that I recommend that the Council stop short of an actual approval of the preliminary plat. At that point we will have those questions answered and the developer will know whether Lot 1 will work or not. I don't think we are wasting any time because these documents have to be done anyway. Mayor Hamilton - Any further discussion? We would act to table this item pending Randy's coming back with a final document and answering the questions pertaining to Lot 1 and any other engineering problems that you may have. Bill Monk - I will assume from the conversation that's gone on that this alternative second plan is the preferred plan. Don Ashworth - I think it should be in a motion that the Council is selecting that as the preferred plan. I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -11- Mayor Hamilton - The preferred plan is the one that was presented tonight with the western most road alignment. I Randy Herman - We still need to go through those steps anyway, like Bill said. That's what I am really looking for tonight anyway is some direction, some idea of what's preferable. It's fine. Mayor Hamilton - I'll make that motion. Councilwoman Watson - I'll second. Mayor Hamilton - Any further discussion. All in favor say aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Gevinq - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT lQ ALLOW BREAD AND BREAKFAST INNS AS PERMITTED USES ~ THE R-lA AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND AS CONDITIONAL USES ~ THE R-l SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: Marjorie Bush was present to explain her proposal to establish a Bed and Breakfast establishment at 1161 Bluff Creek Drive. I Councilwoman Swenson - I have a question, in this particular instance I think we have something that's unique but we do have areas where these things are applicable so we are not saying no, we are not going to have them in Chanhassen but I have tre- mendous reservations about this. If there is some way we can say yes, this is fine and not establish a precendent but this is a unique situation, I don't have any problem with this one. I have a problem with amending the ordinances to permit these things either in the R-lA or the R-l because I think that we don't know how we are going to be able to regulate the less than seven days, in any case five rooms with two adults, we could walk into a beautiful potential boarding room situation and boarding houses and we have no way to regulate it. Barbara Dacy - If you desire that you would like individualized attention on each bed and breakfast situation we could amend the ordinance to allow bed and breakfasts as conditional uses instead of permitted uses. As far as the enforcement question that you are having, the reason why we picked five rooms is because that matched the occupancy threshold in the Uniform Building Code. If it's over five then they have to meet those extra requirements for a boarding house and rooming house and, there- fore, there is more fire wall requirements and right on down the line. Councilwoman Swenson - I would say one to three would be all right. Councilman Horn - I think most of my concerns were covered under the recommended sections of the conditional use permit. I did have one other concern and that is, do the neighbors in the area know about this? I Barbara Dacy - No. Councilman Gevinq - It's the only dwelling between the railroad tracks and Highway 212. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -12- Councilman Geving - I kind of like the first part of some of these conditions on page 3, like for instance, must be owner occupied. I kind of like that idea. This is a unique situation that Mrs. Bush has here. It's an old home. It has historic value to it. There aren't many like it in Chanhassen and it's not a residential area. I think we should treat it as a condition to the R-lA District. I don't understand why there can be no more than one employee. I Barbara Dacy - We have addressed the owner occupied issue in the definition at the bottom of page 3. I believe the employee issue, we got regulations from Tucson, Arizona, to St. Paul to Savannah, Georgia, and that seemed to be a common require- ment and I think the intent of that is to allow an operation at least one employee but not if they are generating more than one employee then it may be construed to be getting a little too commercial. Councilman Geving - I like the idea of making this a conditional use under the R-lA and I would like to drop the R-l issue entirely at this time. Councilwoman Watson - I agree. Councilman Horn - That also puts a cap on the use. Councilman Geving - How about that six square feet, could we make that four square feet? Marjorie Bush - You have to have something for people to find it. Councilman Horn - A lot of people have signs right out front of their house indi- cating their name. I Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to allow bed and break- fast establishments as a conditional use in R-lA Agricultural Residence District with the conditions: 1. The structure meets all Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements. 2. The structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. 3. Two (2) offstreet parking spaces plus one (1) additional space per rental room must be provided. 4. One non-illuminated sign may be erected on the property, not to exceed six (6) sguare feet in size. 5. There shall be no more than one employee in addition to the residents. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT lQ ALLOW COMMERCIAL NURSERIES AS CONDITIONAL USES ~ THE R-lA DISTRICT: Barbara Dacy - What is before you is another zoning ordinance amendment. The recom- mendation of the Planning Commission was to only allow wholesale commercial nur- series. The commission desired that a clear des tinction be made between a wholesale commercial nursery and a retail commercial nursery which would deal directly with the public. I tried to, upon their recommendation, do a little more research on this topic and staff has come up with the definition that you have before which strictly mandates that the plants grown on-site be sold in a wholesale manner. I also pointed out that greenhouses were not recommended by the commission to be included in their approval and further discussion with various nursery growers in a wholesale operation greenhouses are normal accessory structure to begin the seedings, etc. for trees, etc. and start them inside and then you move the plants outside on the growing range. What you have before you are a couple of options. The original application was for commercial nurseries and greenhouses including who- lesale and retail. The Planning Commission recommended only commercial wholesale nurseries. I I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -13- Councilwoman Watson - What they want is strictly a wholesale? Barbara Dacy - Yes. The applicant, his particular intention was a wholesale, however, in researching this type of use in zoning ordinances usually commercial nurseries can include wholesale and retail. Councilwoman Watson - There is retail mentioned on this application. Barbara Dacy - Mr. VanHoff is here and he can address you. Mark VanHoff - I would like to only say this, that when we visited with the Planning Commission they were having a real hard time conceptualizing how we could wholesale and not retail. As I visited with Barb there is a real easy way to get around that in the nursery industry and it's very common and that is you require your client to have a nurseryman's license. That's very standard in the industry. It would be a requirement of ours since both Jim and I are currently selling nursery stock to retailers and landscapers. To protect our selling image and reputation we can't very well compete with the people we are selling. Our operation would not be a Halla type nursery. It would not be a Natural Green type landscape yard. It would be like a Hartmann Tree Farm if you are familiar with that where the product is grown in the ground. As alluded to by Barb's comment, it's an agricultural program. I would think it would behoove the area to have a crop that instead of being har- vested on an annual basis is harvested on every four or five year cycle. You have less equipment around. You have less fertilizer application. You have less noise. You have more aesthetic product in the ground. Councilwoman Watson - How much truck traffic would you project that would be generated by your business? Mark VanHoff - Currently, on just a rough estimate, there is probably 30 garden cen- ters in the Twin City area. There are probably another at the most 100 licensed landscapers of which as they are currently doing business with rewholesalers, maybe come in on a once every two week basis. They come in and pick up their products for a landscape job, the go out and do their job. I can't really answer that question other than you are looking at maybe seven or eight customers dropping in a day. Councilwoman Watson - You don't do any storage of black dirt or any of those kind of things? Mark Van Hoff - There would probably be black dirt only from the standpoint of when you dig the trees. The customer that would come to us has already got a plan sold. He needs the product to put in the ground. Councilman Gevinq - I need to know more about the storage of vehicles and what kind of building you might put up. I understood from what I have read that there would be a sales building. Could you describe some of the buildings that will go on this particular piece of property? Mark VanHoff - Currently, the property that we are looking at has adequate buildings for the entire operation. That sales building came out of a question regarding how are you going to sell your product. What we are going to have to have a sale building. What it is currently is the home. It would be an office where people would check in and solicit the order, go out, fill the or~er and then leave. Currently there is a house. There is a brick, I believe it was an old milk shed used as a garage now that can be adequately used as a building for a sales office. There is a barn and there is three storage garages which could very easily take care of all of the equipment. Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -14- Councilman Horn - I don't see much operation that goes on. They have take your crop off quite as often. for that area. difference in the same type I think it's this operation and any of machinery. In fact a perfectly acceptable other farm you may not type of use Councilwoman Swenson - I think Dale covered pretty well covered me concerns which is I certainly wouldn't want to see a lot of equipment sitting around out in the yard or having it look like a contractor's yard. I am also very much concerned and you all know that Highway 101 leaves something to be desired as far as the pavement is concerned. The State has given us no indication that they will do anything to main- tain that road. I am concerned with heavy equipment going over that road. Councilman Horn moved to approve the zoning ordinance amendment to allow wholesale commercial nurseries as a conditional use in the R-IA District. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REVIEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT PROGRAM, MTC: Barbara Dacy - Before you is the proposed draft that the MTC Opt-Out Advisory Committee is proposing to send out to a list of transit consultants to generate some response on local transit system in Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, and Shakopee area. I am bringing this to your attention just as the other members of the commit- tee are, so that you are aware of this committee's activities and that you act to accept and approve the draft as proposed. Mayor Hamilton moved to accept and approve the draft as proposed. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. DOWNTOWN SIGN REQUEST: Barbara Oacy - Mr. Weidner and Mr. Anderson made a request to redesign the downtown sign that the City has at the corner of Highways 5 and 101. City staff went ahead and asked for proposals from six sign companies and we have three responses. The Nordquist Sign Company, I still haven't received their proposal yet. However, what staff is recommending is that a special committee of any number of Council members and members of the Chamber and these proposals reviewed and a recommendation made to Council as to go ahead and try to redesign the sign or leave it alone or explore the various options. Their main concern is as Mr. Anderson said, a lot of dinner theatre customers are getting lost. They feel there could be better signage to the downtown area and the existing sign only has one side of copy so a redesign may appear feasible. Mayor Hamilton - I had thought that the Chamber would get a little more active in this seeing as how the function of that sign is really for Chamber members. Barbara Dacy - The have indicated they will do cost sharing. Mayor Hamilton - I had talked with them and said you ought to run this through the Chamber and get some ideas from the Chamber people. After all this sign is to repre- sent the businesses and they should be more involved than us really. I don't think anybody from the Council needs to be on that committee but it would certainly seem to me that there should be a little more imagination shown. Councilman Gevinq - Personally, I would be just as pleased with a nice sign with a Chanhassen logo and it says "welcome to Chanhassen" as anything else. Let's get the Chamber involved in this one. I I I I I I Council Meeting January 7, 1985 -15- PUBLIC HEARING FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: RESOLUTION 885-01: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution sup- porting the Solid Waste Management Development Guide dated December 1984, Publication 12-84-160. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1985 LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE: The Legislative Action Conference will be held at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 29 and 30. WEST 79TH STREET CROSSING: Councilman Gevinq - I would like to know what the status is. It is something that new businessmen asked me about today and I thought I would bring it up and report back. Don Ashworth - You had appointed BRW through the HRA because you were ready to proceed to the State to seek the ability to cross there. BRW's position did not support our case. We employed a new firm to relook at the downtown area. I am anticipating that part of their assignment is that you want them to incorporate West 79th Street as a part of that overall downtown project. They are going to be getting input this coming Thursday night and we are anticipating that part of that will be hook up West 79th Street with the downtown area. EXPIRATION QI PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Mayor Hamilton - Are there some terms that expire? Barbara Dacy - Yes, there will be three commission members whose terms at the end of 1984 and the commission will be conducting interviews on night and their recommendation will be to the Council on January 21st. members have re-applied. We have also received seven other applicants are expiring Wednesday All existing as well. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager