Loading...
1985 02 04 REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened the meeting with I Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, Roger Knutson APPROVAL Q[ AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on the court decision regarding assessing, South Shore Senior Citizen Center, and the old Instant Web Building. 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. CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda: b. Request to Extend Preliminary Plat Approval, Sunnybrook Development Group, and c. Final Plat Approval, Pioneer Hills, JCB Partnership. I Councilman Geving moved to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. Revised Survey, Subdivision Request, 9201 Great Plains Blvd. d. Approval of Revision to Final Plat, 1140 Pleasant View Road, Arda Barnett Property. e. Approve Resolution on TH 169/212 Bridge and Culvert Replacement as Proposed by MnDOT. RESOLUTION #85-03. f. Park Dedication Fees, Electro-Craft Corporation. 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. EXTEND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT GROUP: Councilman Horn moved to grant a six month extension for the preliminary plat. 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. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, PIONEER HILLS: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the final plat for Pioneer Hills with the following conditions: 1. Finalization of the Development Contract. 2. When the final plat is recorded, the applicant must also record the easement document which creates a 75 foot wide easement along the western boundary of the plat. 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. I MINUTES: Councilwoman Swenson moved Commission minutes. Motion seconded favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen No negative votes. Motion carried. to note the January by Councilman Horn. Watson and Swenson, 9, 1985, Planning The following voted in Councilmen Horn and Geving. Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -2- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 7300 GALPIN BLVD, Councilwoman Watson moved to approve a conditional use permit , #84-20, for a contractor's yard at 7300 Galpin Blvd. subject to conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 2. All equipment must be stored within a building or the outside vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with adequate fencing of at least six feet in height. 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. TED BENTZ: Planning Case the following I PIPER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT, RANDY HERMAN: Barbara Dacy - Based on the Council recommendation, the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to locate the proposed road right-of-way to the west of the wetland area. All the lot sizes meet the riparian and non-riparian lot area requirements as established by Ordinance 65. However, involved in this approval, the Council has to consider variances to the 75 foot structure setback for the building pads on Lots 1, 2, and 3. As it appears the proposed building pads for Lots 2 and 3 are within 20 to 30 feet of the edge of the wetland area. However, the building pad for Lot 1 is much closer, within 5 to 10 feet of the edge of the marsh. As I pointed out in the report, several criteria to base your decision on a wetland or not if variances should be granted, as you recall from the first proposal much of the work was disturbing at least 50% of the wetland. Councilwoman Swenson - On page 3 of the staff report, I think there is a typographi- cal error here, 13, first paragraph, "That the granting of the application will not be 'immaterially', I believe that should be materially or substantially or signifi- cantly. I Barbara Dacy - It should be materially. Councilman Geving - The last time that we met we had some discussion on Lot 1 and the fact that there would have to be substantial amount of fill placed in that lot area on the pad to make that a buildable lot. As I look at the map, I would like to have someone verify this for me, where it says proposed rambler walkout, there is a nine and a five and then there is a blur there. I can't tell whether that's a seven or a one. Randy Herman - That's a seven. Councilman Geving - It's 957. The last time we met I discussed this and I suggested that we look at the lot on the north side of the road which is also 957 and I have driven by there many times and I have noticed that water has always stood in that area just north of the bituminous section of the road and if we are going to build, the back of this house will sit at 957. I really have some reservations about that and Randy when we left here that night you were going to ask your engineer and you were going to do some more indepth soul searching whether or not you could actually build on that lot. How do you feel now? Randy Herman - The place where you get your feet wet down in the actual marsh area is about 953. That's where it's wet. If it gets any higher than that it flows out. There is a natural ditch that flows through there. There are trapped pockets of water in there at 953. The standard that we use and the one set up by the Federal Housing Administration that says that the lowest floor in any dwelling should be at least four feet above the nearby water table. It's not actually a water table but. I I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -3- there is some water perched there, it's clay soil and it percolates through it very slowly so we picked 957. The basement floor is 957i which would mean about 4i feet above the wet area. Councilman Geving - Let's assume that this house is built now and I walk out the back side of this house, how far will I have to go before I reach that wetland area? Someone said 10 feet. That's on a good day when it's not raining and when the pond is doing what it was intended to do. You mean I will have only 10 feet to the back of that house to the edge of that wetland area. Is that correct? Randy Herman - You will have 10 feet to where you come to aquatic vegetation. It's not wet there. It's actually a sloping area. Councilman Geving - I am just trying to think for a minute what the back side of that house is going to look like most of the time and whether or not it's really wise for us to think in terms of building a house in that location. Randy Herman - There will never be any water standing there. in the middle of the marsh. That's where it ponds. In there drains. It's not a wetland, it's a different vegetation, yes. The water is way back it's a ditch and it Councilman Geving - I really have some reservations about building on that particular lot. Mayor Hamilton - Randy, when you designed that house, why wouldn't you make the walkout going south, for instance, so then you have got the south/southwest area where the lot becomes the yard. Randy Herman - If you would do that you would have to raise the grade up real high. The reason I put the walkout in there is so we wouldn't disturb the grass here. The grade on the rambler would stay about road level here and along the side of the house it would drop down seven feet to the walkout level. Councilman Geving - Based on what I see, I am not an experienced engineer but I am a homeowner and I have had lots of water in my own home and I have a very high lot and here we are dealing with disaster from the very beginning. I am very leery of this particular lot. I think we are going to have problems with that lot. If we let a building like that go in there, we are not putting ourselves on the line by being liable but there is going to be sewer and water lines extended to this property and I think we are asking for problems. Councilman Horn - Bill, in your opinion, it appears to me that, sure they are close to water but they are open to an open drainage area behind, in some cases depending on the rate of flow of water you are actually better off that way than you are in an area that's all level and you can collect ground water from below. If you have got an adequate drainage downstream you really don't have to worry so much about the water level because it's all down hill from there to the lake as I understand it. Bill Monk _ It is a double protection as far as least water coming into that wetlands and one is the pipe and if the pipe gets plugged the street is set at 956 so that there is an overland spillway. In this particular case it would have to be proven to the Building Inspector and myself that whatever house was going to get built on there was engineered properly. That would have to be done regardless. Councilman Horn - In reference to equating it to a level across the street as being anagolous to the same water plain, wouldn't the street going through between those Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -4- two act as a dam to the area on the other side so that if in fact you had a water problem at that level on the other side of the street it doesn't necessarily mean it would occur on the low end side of the street? Bill Monk _ I think if the drainage problem on the far side of the street is the result of an old culvert that was filled in when sewer and water was put in origi- nally and the area really has never drained quite right. The City has done what it can to try and get the water across the street. I think a lot of that has to do with a series of ditches and now it's been urbanized and it had an effect on how the water gets away and I guess as I don't see that necessarily as a water table problem as much as just an overall street drainage problem that, hopefully, would be helped somewhat by catch basins that would go as a part of this project. Mayor Hamilton - In a 100 year storm, what is going to happen there? Bill Monk - The water will go right through the wetlands basically but the wetlands is not going to act as a major pond. There is a sedimentation pond being put down on the southern portion of Lot 10 just upstream from a Class A wetlands but the Class B wetlands up above is not really designed as a storage, basically it's a flow through. Howard Schmidt - We already have a sewer problem. They have called the village and they have called the people that they have bought from and nobody can find nothing. You talk about drainage. I don't understand what these guys are talking about. Our storm sewers are this far underneath the road which are never taken care of. I have called the village about three times. They came out and filled them up with stones. Right now come out there. There is no way that water would ever get into them. It's all going to drain down to Herman's Field. They don't take care of nothing. Why is the storm sewer that far below the blacktop? Mayor Hamilton - How does that affect the development here? Howard Schmidt _ The drainage. Isn't the storm sewer supposed to take care of the water? It all goes down to the place where you are talking about, the wetland. It don't go through the storm sewer. Mayor Hamilton - That's going to take care of it and there shouldn't be any problem I guess. Howard Schmidt _ Every spring we have water. When I drive out of my driveway in the morning I drive through six inches of water. Councilman Horn - That's the damming effect that Bill was talking about with the street. It doesn't drain across the street like it should in your area. Howard Schmidt - There is nothing there. There is no dam there. Mayor Hamilton - The road acts as a dam for it to get across into the wetland area. Bill Monk - One thing we would be doing with this is making sure that any vegetation growth that has come up around that wetlands that does trap the water on the street would be cleaned out and taken care of as a part of this project and we probably should get to it whether this project goes in or not to make sure the water gets off, gets away and that the culverts may be a short distance under the road and actually do form humps because they are so close to the surface, are no lringer functioning but to make sure that as much of the water in that area as possible gets into that wetlands. I think what's happening now is the vegetation is up so high that it's not allowing it to get away as quickly as it should. I I I I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -5- Councilwoman Swenson - I have to agree with Dale. I am apprehensive about this one lot also as a walkout because I can remember at least two years now in the eight or nine that I have lived out here that we have had three 100 year floods. Councilman Geving - Maybe it's the building style we are talking about here. it could be built on, for example, if we start with a slab and go from there. think we are going to have problems here. I guess that's where we ought to be looking is putting a condition on the style of home that's put in there and restricting it possibly to a slab then I wouldn't have any problem. I think I Councilwoman Swenson - Are you going to build them yourself for resale? Randy Herman - I will be working with a builder as well as allowing people to choose their own builders. Basically, I am interested in the subdivision of the land. Councilwoman Swenson - You might want to think of a single level home for all of those lots and see how they go in just so there aren't any repercussions for you or the City. Councilman Horn - Could I ask the City Engineer if we have other developments that have the same type of elevation requirements above a wetland area as what we are pro- posing here and have we given them the same restrictions? Bill Monk - There is a restriction in an ordinance and I believe it is two feet and -- for FHA financing it's two or three feet. Councilman Horn - It appears to me we are asking this particular building pad to be more restrictive than what we have required in the past. Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to respond as to why I feel that it would apply here where it might not some place else and that would be because of the proximity. If it were back 50 feet it wouldn't make any difference. Councilman Horn - Water goes up. Mayor Hamilton - If you are back 50 feet and you are still four feet from the water level. Councilwoman Swenson - You are saying that if it goes up it will go up all the way around. Councilman Horn - He could build on the road and if you were at that elevation he would still get flooded. I believe we have allowed them for less than 4; feet. Bill Monk - Yes. The ordinance says three feet. In this particular thing, I don't know how much stock you are putting in that housing style that is shown on here. It's a best guess. The housing style that may go in there is very much up in the air at this point. Councilwoman Swenson - What is the City's liability in the issuing of a building per- mit where there is a situation like this where water goes into the basement. Roger Knutson - It is an area that is somewhat changing every time the Court looks at it. Right now the position of our Supreme Court is, generally speaking, when a City issues a building permit it is not issued a certificate of insurance. We are not guaranteeing that the person who gets it gets anything. We are looking at it from Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -6- the public's perspective and if we make a mistake generally they are not going to successfully sue us. Councilwoman Watson - But there is the possibility. Roger Knutson - Sure. Councilman Geving - Based on our conversations over the last two or three Council meetings on this subject, if I had built that house and I had water problems I would come immediately to the City and I would ask for the tapes for all of these meetings and I would prove that there was a water problem there from the very beginning and I think I could substantiate that in Court and I would win the case against the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Horn - Based on engineering data? Councilman Geving we have seen of the lies. Based on engineering data. Based on this plat. Photographs that area. We have walked the area. We have seen where the water Councilman Horn - How would we justify to this particular developer that we require him to build farther out from a wetland than we do other developers? Councilman Geving - You are building exactly at the same level as depicted by this schematic here at 953. You are going to place that slab right at that level where you already know there is a water table. Councilman Horn - But the slab was going to be at 957. Councilman Geving - 957, that's what I said. That's only four feet and you have already got your four foot footings into the 953 area. Councilman Horn - We have allowed some areas for two feet. Where do you think the footings were in those? Councilman Geving - I don't know. I suspect we will probably have some problems. I think if Randy puts any substantial amount of fill in there and then tries to build a walkout type basement he is going to be walking out onto that marsh. Mayor Hamilton - You don't have to put a walkout going out the back. to buy the lot and put a house there I wouldn't even want a walkout. leave that wild just like the rest of the marsh. If I was going You would just Councilman Horn - For construction, where you place the door is irrelevant, it's the level. Just because you have the door on this side and the water is over here it doesn't keep it out. Mayor Hamilton - The water is going to flow through there. The Engineer has stated here that probably will never be any standing water there. Randy Herman - I am wondering if the check isn't better handled when the permit is applied for. If the Building Inspector doesn't feel at that time that it can handle a walkout and says, a slab, a split or whatever, instead of imposing the restriction here. Isn't that normally something that's looked at, at the permit stage. Councilwoman Swenson - Not when there is a potential problem like this because that can slip through the cracks. I I I I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -7- Councilman Horn - I thought the suggestion was that we eliminate this lot as a building lot. Is it that or is it to raise the level of the floor? Councilwoman Swenson - It's to make it a slab instead of a basement. Councilman Geving - My earlier suggestion was to eliminate the lot. Pat came through with a fairly good idea, maybe the building style would alleviate that particular problem and as far as I am concerned I thought it was a good idea. Mayor Hamilton - Then one of the conditions of the approval of this subdivision could be to have a review of Lot 1 so we can see at the time someone comes to you and says I want to buy that lot then perhaps you had better tell them to come and see us or when they figure out what kind of house they might want to build there then we still reserve the right to review prior to their finalizing the deal with you. Councilman Horn - I would like clarification from the attorney, are we in a position to do that on this property? Roger Knutson - Under the circumstances I think that would be a workable solution. Randy Herman - I think that's agreeable as long as you are not going to unduly restrict any type of a structure on the property as long as it's understood that what we are really looking at is what type. Councilwoman Swenson - Maybe what we should do to follow up on what your suggestion is, Mayor, since Lots 1, 2, and 3 are the ones that are going to require the varian- ces, let's take a look at those when they come up and grant these variances as they come instead of giving a blanket variance for all three right now. Don Ashworth - From a staff standpoint if you wanted to look at the one lot when the plat was completed you have got a specific time frame out there. Going through a conditional use permit process is very difficult and may hamper sales. I guess I would just as soon take a look at the plat once it is completed and if there is a problem do it at that point in time. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit for twelve single family residential lots known as Piper Ridge with the condition that the Council maintains the option of reviewing a structure to be built on Lot 1 and that compliance with drainage and street improvement recommendations as noted in the City Engineer's memorandum of February 1, 1985, City Council minutes dated December 17, 1984, and building setback variances for Lots 2 and 3. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Watson voted no. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHOLESALE NURSERY, GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Mayor Hamilton - We reviewed this just a couple weeks ago and we rezoned. Has anything changed since that time? Barbara Dacy - No, everything that you see on the site plan represents what the applicant plans. Councilman Horn moved to approve Planning Case 85-1, Conditional Use Permit, to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. as depicted on site plan #3. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -8- FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT QI THE CHESTNUT RIDGE/NEAR MOUNTAIN PUD: Peter Pflaum _ You may wonder why the specific number and the approach was, if you remember when we started the project, we started on 101 and these are some rather small lots up here, we went down to 7600 is the smallest. I think the average size in the first phase is 11,000. As we moved away from 101 towards the better land, the lots got bigger and bigger. One of the reasons in addressing the area in here, what we tried to do is figure what the natural transition would be from a medium size lot to the more expensive ones and we focused in on the tree line and we throught that would be an obvious transition. It's really important in our business that you have a logical transition from one type of housing to the next rather than jump from very small lots to more substantial ones. Councilwoman Swenson - How many of those Type B lots will be at the minimum 10,000 square feet. Peter Pflaum - Very few. I think there is only one or two. Councilwoman Swenson - I don't understand your requirement of the five and ten foot side yard. I just don't like this at all. Peter Pflaum - No matter how you do that you have 15 feet between houses. Councilwoman Swenson - I know but I don't like it. I think that ruins your develop- ment. I am opposed to anything less than the 10 foot side yard. Peter Pflaum - Five and ten gives us more flexibility. Councilwoman Watson - I agree. The lots are getting bigger and I don't see any reason why. Councilman Geving - There was some recommendations made on the width of the street. Bill Monk - There was a recommendation on the original plan that what was considered the major street was Near Mountain Blvd. as it came up through here and from there on over into the condominium area, those be 36 feet wide. After looking at the section that has been built already, how wide it is, I think a down sizing to a 32 foot street with a standard 50 foot right-of-way is more than adequate. The neighborhood as it goes towards the west is not going to go on and feed other large areas. Councilman Geving - The other major recommendation was the 2500 foot cul-de-sac which was to be created. Bill Monk - It seems that whenever Mr. Pflaum and I sit down and go over phasing plans, he approaches them from a marketability standpoint which is smart for him to do and I look as more of just an access issue. I guess the one thing that we did agree on was that a phasing plan is nothing more than a best guess and what we have to do is review the phasing plan as it comes in. He did point out that under his phasing plan more Type A lots get developed early on which is good but it does give you the cul-de-sac arrangement so I think it is something we have to take a look at when phases come in. Councilman Geving - I am not in favor of the five and ten foot setbacks for side yards. Councilman Horn - Unless I missed something it appeared to me that that was already approved as the condition for the Type A, B, and C styles. It appears to me that if I I I I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -9- we back up on that at this point we are renigging on a past commitment that we had made and really all we are doing in this case is we are not changing any of the guidelines of what Type A, Band C mean, all we are doing is changing the mix. Councilman Geving - Type C with the five and ten foot side yard setback was approved for Type C only and we allowed that smaller lot size with the variation of the five and ten so that the builder could have that capability of adjusting his house on the lot. There was never any intention on my part of approving that for Type A and Type B and I think if you look at the minutes of those meetings you will find that we granted that for only Type C. Councilman Horn - I was asking a question. Bill Monk - I believe that Councilman Geving is correct. It is my understanding from the minutes that five and ten were definitely approved for Type C. That is how they are going in. Councilman Horn - The way the report is written it would indicate that those setbacks are all indicated under the background information. Nothing is mentioned about those under the section marked proposed changes in the Staff report. Barbara Oacy - I would apologize for the confusing staff research on the background of it our records alternating setbacks were approved for the Type C. intending was to explain that the developer wanted situation there but during our show that the five and ten foot I think what that paragraph was to use the same setbacks. Mayor Hamilton - My memory seems to be the same as Clark's. Peter Pflaum - We had a copy just like this that had the setbacks on it that was approved. Mayor Hamilton - We were going to review each phase but the approval was for five and ten foot setbacks. Bill Monk - I think Peter is right. Some of the earlier plans did say Phase A and C and B would have the five and ten foot setbacks on either side but what we look at when we go back to the minutes was actually approved by the Council not necessarily what's on the plan. I know it's been discussed before. We could find no mention in the Council minutes where the Council actually approved five and ten foot side yard setbacks for anything but C. That maybe what people are remembering. Mayor Hamilton - I am afraid I did not understand that to be a issue this evening. We were talking about the swap of A's, B's, and CIS. Councilman Horn - Could I ask the developer, would this be a big issue for you in the proper platting of Type B housing? Peter Pflaum - The only reason we wanted it was for flexibility in locating the houses on some particular situation. What I would suggest as maybe a way of getting around this is that let us look, hopefully, you will approve the plat with the ten and ten, let us look at it and see if we can live with that then there is no issue at all. If we can't live with that then I guess we have to come back and talk to you. It is very critical in the Type Clots. Mayor Hamilton - Are the homes selling well now? Peter Pflaum - Yes. Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -10- Mayor Hamilton - Are people complaining that they are too close to each other? Peter Pflaum _ The first phase, the models opened in March so in 11 months we have sold 45. I think it has been fairly well received. Councilman Horn _ I think they were a little close in that area but I don't know what other option we had. If I compared that to what the alternate was which was quads or something like that, I think this much more acceptable. Councilwoman Swenson - You are loosing six condominium units and you are loosing 13 of the Type A which is even better. Councilman Horn - I was comparing the Type C to what was proposed initially. Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the final development plan amendment for the Near Mountain PRO, Planning Case 79-2, PUD, with the City Engineer's proposed amend- ment to the plan dated January 15, 1985, with the ten and ten side yard setbacks, 25 foot front yard setback, and Planning Commission recommendations 1-3. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Councilman Horn _ This does not cover the Type A, this is Type B at this time? Barbara Dacy _ There may be a certain number of A units as the plans progress that are developed and on the plan the Type A lots are to be constructed at setbacks of 30 in the front and 10 on each side as it is now in the R-IA. The Type B units are 25 in the front and as your motion, ten and ten. Mayor Hamilton - They are asking for an amendment to final development approval which was given some time ago. This is just an amendment and really the amendment is for the swap of the A's and B's and condo's. Councilman Horn - We are approving both the areas indicated in A and B? Bill Monk - Yes, you are. Mayor Hamilton - Is there more discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST, TWO TEMPORARY SIGNS, TED KORZENOWSKI: Barbara Dacy - As you approach the 101 and Highway 5 intersection from the east, the City sign is blocking the applicant's sign which is the reason why he is applying for a variance. What he is requesting is two variances, one for an additional free standing sign and a free standing sign to be located off the premises. Each sign is proposed to measure 32 square feet. The additional free standing sign on the appli- cants property is proposed to be located near the existing City sign. The other sign is proposed to be located where the Chanhassen Center Building is on the north side of Highway 5. In my report I noted that usually there is one free standing sign per I I I I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -11- building per street frontage. Additionally, the off premise free standing sign is specifically prohibited by the Sign Ordinance. As far as the City sign is concerned, I talked with Gary Brown this morning, he has been appointed by the Chamber of Commerce as the committee chairperson to do something about that sign and he suggested to me that they are looking at alternative sites to relocate that sign further east pending getting easements from property owners. The Planning Commission recommended that the sign variances be denied and, hopefully, through the work of the Chamber that existing City sign will be redesigned, relocated and, therefore, passing people will be able to see the applicant's sign. Mayor Hamilton - Have you talked with the Chamber? Ted Korzenowski - No. Mayor Hamilton - Did you know they were working on a sign and trying to do something with the sign. Ted Korzenowski - Yes I have heard but knowing how political bodies work it might take them a year before they get something accomplished. Mayor Hamilton - It might go faster if you were to help them. Ted Korzenowski - I would be very willing to sit down and work with them but in the meantime that's why I want a variance so that I can put the sign up while we are working. Councilman Geving - I guess I can sympathize with Ted in the sense, he did buy a lot and if you look at the configuration of that lot, the City sign is exactly where he would want to be able to put his sign. The Mayor really has the best suggestion. In my view I think the City sign should be moved and should be replaced by a sign that you would put up and remove the one that you already have there. For the time being I don't know any other solution unless you put a sign out on West 79th Street which doesn't do you any good. I don't know what could be gained by putting that sign up in front of the City sign. Mayor Hamilton - I think the best thing is to work with the Chamber. Mayor Hamilton moved to deny Sign Variance Request 85-1 for the reasons setforth in the staff report dated January 17, 1985. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, FINAL READING: Councilwoman Swenson - Do I understand that in the alternate language for Section 4.2 simple lot splits you are going to have to go through the whole bit, for instance, when a division of an unplatted or platted lot is designed to add a portion of a lot to an abutting lot, people are going to have to go through a survey just to transfer three or four feet. Don Ashworth - They do that right now. Bill Monk - This makes it quite a bit simpler than it is right now. to go through the platting procedure and the City Clerk would be able directly on the survey if it were just a couple feet or a triangle. You don't have to sign off Roger Knutson - As a practical matter I can't imagine anyone buying 30 or 40 feet from someone elses lot without a survey. Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -12- Councilwoman Swenson - Number 2 at the bottom of the page, does this eliminate the 180 foot requirement that's now in the ordinance? Bill Monk _ In Section B2, again, that's in the rural service area and it's supposed to be the same as Al and 82 are basically the same. Again, just to take a small piece of land and allow shifting, what has to occur is say somebody buys one parcel from another, both of the parcels as they would then be created would have to meet all ordinance requirements for that section. In the rural section each one would still have to have 180 foot frontage. I Councilwoman Swenson _ Do we actually have it cover by the ordinance that we have now and the creation of the 2! acre lots. Roger Knutson _ It's not in the 2! acre requirement. All that says is in unsewered areas you have to have 2! acres. Don Ashworth _ I am sure it's in the old Subdivision Ordinance which this now repla- ces. It should go in the Zoning Ordinance but we haven't adopted the revision. We have one or two choices, work with the thing in the interim period just knowing what you are shooting for or add a sentence in here which would say, or at a minimum 180 feet of frontage which would then cover you. Bill Monk _ There is another option and that would be to hold off publishing this until the Zoning Ordinance is published. Don Ashworth - You do streamline a lot of things here. Mayor Hamilton - This would be a better tool for staff. Councilman Horn _ I think this is really a good compromise. It still allows for the father and son lot splits by metes and bounds up to three lots. I Don Ashworth _ This is in my language, not the attorney's. I would suggest either approving it subject to Roger putting it in final form or simply instructing me to include it in a future consent agenda. Roger Knutson _ You have got to see the final language when you pass it as an ordi- nance. Councilwoman Swenson - On 5.3, page 7, Proposed Design Features, these items are requirements that are shown, is that correct? Barbara Dacy - Yes. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adopt an Ordinance Establishing Subdivision Regulations in the City of Chanhassen with the alternate language for Section 4.2. Said ordi- nance will be presented to the Council on the Consent Agenda with final language. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: The second Council meeting in February will be held February 25th. September meetings will be held on the 9th and 16th. I HIGHWAY 212 PROGRESS REPORT: Councilman Horn _ I guess the only significant thing is they are regrouping this old Highway 212/169 Taskforce. I think you all read the minutes. They elected a Chairman. I I I Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -13- ~ KlinQelhutz - It's not for sure yet. It will be taken up at the Commissioner's meeting tomorrow. Councilman Horn - I thought we as a City had adopted a preferred routing. That is one of the action items that will be happening by the Committee. The Cities along the route will have to adopt an official route which apparently we have not done yet. Mayor Hamilton - I thought we had. We did that several years ago. Councilman Horn - What they are telling us and this is the question that I raised at the meeting, what happened is they moved the siting process so that it misses where the proposed landfill is. They just took a dip down there. That issue came up early in the meeting and they didn't want to talk about that at that point. They said all the cities along the route will have to adopt their official plan. Councilman Geving - We did this. I was the designated member to the 212 Committee and on a given night I made a presentation and the Council accepted the proposed alignment as shown on this map south of Rice Marsh Lake and north of Lake Riley. This was the proposed route that was accepted by this City Council. Councilman Horn - That is the preferred outline. They told us what the alignment would be and it was the north Lake Riley alignment but what they did on the official mapping was to move this area. Bill Monk - There is a big difference between what's referred to as just a general alignment and an official map. We are getting into the official map process. If you approve just a general alignment on a piece of paper, that is not an official map. That's probably what they are saying is that the City has never approved a plan. You have got to define the line by writing a legal description for it, showing it on a large scale map, that's what they are talking about. By saying that the City has not adopted an official plan is correct. You have never done that. NSP TRANSMISSION LINE REPORT: Mayor Hamilton - Chaska is in great need of additional power as will Chanhassen be if we continue developing. NSP has been looking at putting a substation either in Chaska or Chanhassen and have been talking about it for quite some time. Initially, the selected site was going to be in Chaska and after a lot of discussions and looking at sites and trying to figure out where the best place would be it looks like it may be in Chanhassen and along with the Highway 212 right-of-way we talked to NSP and said maybe the best route to run your transmission lines out here would be down that 212 right-of-way and they have agreed to investigate that and see if they can't use that which might speed up our process of selecting our designated alignment of that 212 corridor plus if we selected it and they ran lines out there it would be a clear indication that that's exactly where we intend it to be. PROPOSAL FOR RE-USE OF OLD INSTANT WEB BUILDING: - tremendous amount last Friday night do. -- - We have put a we were meeting which we didn't - Mayor Hamilton worked out and wi th everybody of time trying to get something late trying to reach an agreement Don Ashworth - After the Council had met we did take and go back to Kirt. The fireplace room area important to his plans is already leased. Very difficult to con- sider giving up this space to the City. He would offer some additional concessions and that would be he would do all of the remodeling. Previous proposal included lowering the ceiling, providing electrical, plumbing, heating, perimeter walls, he will now insulate if it's an outside wall, plasterboard, do all interior walls and carpet. In other words he will totally finish that 7,000 square foot area. He can Council Meeting February 4, 1985 -14- not live with that 7,000 square feet being the fireplace room part of the building. Secondly, he will move his offer up from the 382 to 400,000. This would be proposed in the high bay section with the bowling center being to the rear portion. We met with Dorek/Baden on Friday and Kirt. We do have some serious problems. Dorek/Baden cost estimates show 480 to 550,000 for renovation required for their area. The budget that was set on this was 382,000 so we are 150 to 200,000 potentially over. That would increase the square foot rental. The entire proposal would be jeopardized because it would increase our costs significantly. We did come up to agreement that the City and Kirt would split the cost to determine the actual costs to Dorek/Baden for the renovation of that area which is $2,000. Without doing that we don't really know what we are talking about. Dorek/Baden now consider that their parking needs are 250 stalls. We don't have enough space on-site to accommodate that many cars. The question is, how do we reasonably move forward? Kirt would ask your con- sideration of a proposal that would allow him to buy the wood frame section of the building now. Actually he will guarantee to buy the entire building for 960,000 minus the 7,000 square feet that would be provided to the City. It would be a net cash transaction back to the City of 400,000. That's the proposal that was presented a week ago. He now would exactly the same cost figures, exactly the same position, he would ask to be able to purchase the 30,000 square feet in the woodframe section which has a value of 323,000. He would totally renovate for the City 2,800 square feet at a total cost, principle and interest for the next 20 year period of time, of right at 200,000. The cash position given to the City would be roughly 100,000. In other words everything is exactly as it was only it's scaled down. He will agree that in a three year period of time he will consummate the purchase of the entire building at the 960,000 level, the furnishing of the 7,000 square feet at that point in time. We would have to agree to relocate from the 2,800 square feet to the 7,100 at that point in time. If he fails, he agrees to literally forfeit his entire equity position in the project up to that point in time. He has 60% to 70% of the wood frame section leased out. He wants to see Dorek/Baden in there. He will work to the best of his ability to get them in there. He will even guarantee a bowling center opera- tor but he would then ask for the same type of deal, in other words, a pass through loan. Councilman Horn - Is he looking for us to solve the parking problem or does he have some plan for that. Mayor Hamilton - We told him we would meet with Herb (Bloomberg) and just look at the property around there. Councilwoman Swenson - What do we have to do about the HRA. Don Ashworth - It needs their approval as well. What I would like to do is to deve- lop the contract and, hopefully, be able to call for a special meeting of the HRA to review that document. Maybe we could have a combined meeting again. I think it's important to nail this development down. PHEASANT HILL/WALDRIP'S SECOND ADDITION PROJECT: The City Engineer gave a report concerning the acquisition of the Benz easement. COUNTY ASSESSING LAW SUIT: -- City, do nothing or appeal. The City Attorney presented the options available to the He recommended the City file an appeal. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. 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. Don Ashworth City Manager I I I