Loading...
1985 03 18 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 18, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Jim Castleberry APPROVAL Qf AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of Mosquito Proclamation, Action on the Bill of the Legislative Bracket - Meeting Law, Sewer Hook-Ups, Board of Equilization, and the deletion of item No. 7. - Sketch Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, Schroeder Property, East Side of Kerber Boulevard., Larry Laukka. Motion was 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: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following Consent Agenda Items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1 . a . Construction Plans and Speci fications for Buckingwood Court in Chaparral Third Addition. 1 . b . Rescheduling Trunk Charge Assessment for Lot 2, Block 1, Zamor Addition, Prairie House Restaurant. RESOLUTION 1185-10. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: Jim Gregory from Boy Scout Troop 330, appeared before the Council concerning a downtown clean-up project. He is proposing as an Eagle Scout candidate. He stated that he had spoke with Bill Monk and the Father at St. Hubert's Church & Parish. Between the two of them they came up with a project of cleaning up the downtown Chanhassen area. The project area would run from Chanhassen Tire & Auto on West 78th Street, east to St. Hubert's Church and School; from there it goes behind the Bakery Thrift Shop and then south behind Pauly's. They will work on both sides of the road. As their first project, they will be picking up litter, and will be doing this after the snow has melted. For this project they only need a few pick up sticks and a few garbage bags. The next project will be painting fire hydrants. This will be done as soon as there is no more chance of snow. They will also be putting flags on the fire hydrants so they will be noticable, should they be covered with snow. For this project, they will need approximately one gallon of paint, a few paint brushes, and five flags. The next project will consist of pulling weeds. They will do this when there is a good weekend. (May 18 or/and May 25). They will be pulling the weeds in the cracks on sidewalks and in cracks on the blacktop. They will bag the weeds and dispose of them properly. The equipment needed for this pro- ject will be garbage bags. They will then spray the areas where the weeds were pulled to keep them from coming back. They will need a few sprayers and a limited amount of spray. They may have to spray twice, should it rain and the spray be Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -2- washed away. They will pick one weekend after all of this and go over everything. They will pull any weeds that they see coming up, and will paint any spots on the I fire hydrants that didn't get painted the first time. There were a few extras that they asked the City of Chanhassen to do to complete his project. He would like the City to paint the curbs and crosswalks. He would like the Carver County Herald to do a story on the group as they are doing the project. He will be taking pictures before, during and after the project and then give a presentation to the City Council on what they did at the end. Mayor Hamilton asked if the City was to supply the equipment needed for this project. Jim Gregory replied yes. Councilman Geving was wondering who would be working on this project. Jim Gregory said that he and his Scout Troop. In order to advance in Scouting, you have to give service hours. The Scout Troop needs the time just as Jim does. Councilman Geving also suggested that he would like to see the city sweeper run by the areas that the litter is picked up. He was also wondering if anything was to be done with the 2! to 3 feet posts. He felt that it is a great project. Jim Gregory stated that they will be pulling the weeds around the posts and spray around them also. Bill Monk stated that he did not know if the posts were private or if they were city property. He was to check into this. He felt that it was not worth it to paint I them, as they would then have to continually paint them. APPROVAL ~ MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Council Meeting Minutes dated February 25, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilmen Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission Minutes dated February 27, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #022309 through check #022392 in the amount of $253,850.67 and checks U024790 through #024883 in the amount of $72,488.34. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Item #5 - Side Yard Setback Variance Request, 720 West 96th Street, Ronald Landin. This item was approved unanimously by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at an earlier meeting this evening. It was therefore removed from the Agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING CONSTRACTOR'S YARD ACTIVITIES, DAVID STOCKDALE, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 ~ GALPIN BOULEVARD: I ~ ~ This certain parcel totals 18 acres in size. Earlier this winter, it was part of a subdivision that was passed by the Council creating four lots. A six acre parcel was to be tied in with Mr. Bentz's parcel, which is 14 acres. I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -3- Also this winter, Mr. Bentz applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the existing contractor's yard activities. As you recall, he had approximately 9 vehicles and all of them were to be stored on site in the existing buildings. This application is for a landscaping contractor's yard. What is being proposed is the applicant's single family home, 3,200 square feet, with a three-stall attached garage. As far as the contractor's yard, what is proposed is a 50 by 100 pole barn building which will be used as an office, and workshop and storage for 6 trucks. The parking area is surrounded by a 5 foot berm along Galpin Boulevard, complimented with a number of six foot Colorado Spruce, 14 feet apart. We are recommending that he continue the same type of evergreen vegetation along the south property line. The elevations that he is proposing to achieve with the grading in this area is that the parking area will be lower than the finished grade of the property around the site so the property owners to the northwest will see the roof of the building and the parking area will be screened from the north and west. This is the first new application for a new contractor's yard. All the previous applications have been for existing establish- ments. In between the Planning Commission meeting and this meeting it has been raised in the memo, that the Council may want to consider restrictions or additional conditions that new establishments have to achieve because the existing applications that we looked at are on a one to one basis. It has been suggested that a 150 foot setback from a public road to the contractor's yard be implemented. I contacted the applicant today and from what he has represented to me, he has agreed to remove the retaining wall that is supporting the berming area and let the berm taper out. So what will be removed is 30 feet of the parking area. You would then have a setback of 80 feet from the front property line to the edge of the parking area. The Planning Commission did recommend approval based on the following four conditions: 1. The recommendations of the City Engineer as stated in his memo of February 22, 1985. 2. Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four feet in height along the south property line to adequately screen the parking area. 3. Signage to the proposed site shall not exceed two square feet as required by the Sign Ordinance. 4. Vacation of 60 foot easement on the south side of the property. What we are proposing is vacating this easement and moving that down to the south between the two 5-acre parcels which can be accomplished with the cooperation of the property owners themselves. Councilman Horn: Do we have any other instances where we have adjoining contractor's yards? Barb Oacy: No. As I mentioned in the report, that was a concern because they are approximately 600 feet away from each other; but the activity that appears from Mr. Bentz's operation is minimal, all of his vehicles being stored inside and the county road is a 9 ton weight limit, most of the traffic would be directed onto the county road and then down to Highway 5. Councilman Horn: Is this going to be a retail operation? Barb Oacy: No. This is storage for landscaping materials, timber, gravel and for the trucks to come at night and be stored inside. Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -4- Councilman Horn: Will people come there to contract? Will he be using his facility as an office for his business? Barb Dacy: There is an office involved in the pole barn. David Stockdale appeared before the Council and showed them a colored sketch and explained his proposals. David Stockdale: My business would be pretty much a contract. I often Occasionally I would have people come to see plans that I have drawn up. and meet them on site. I employ eight people seasonally and four people They come to work between 6:30 and 8:30 and they go out to job sites. do the work. I would go full-time. Councilman Horn: Do you have large vehicles coming in dropping off gravel? David Stockdale: Once a week a semi load comes in with timbers and other than that - it would just be my trucks. Councilwoman Swenson: According to the zoning ordinance, there are not any provi- sions here for business operation. This is a business operation. Barb Dacy: The only other example that I can think of is R & W Sanitation. They use the house that they are living in now, which they are renting from Mr. Volk. They operate their office in their home to do contracting and so on. A contractor's yard owner usually operates from that yard to conduct their trade. Councilwoman Swenson: Why would they need a sign to advertise that they are there if they are not a business? I do not want to see a lot of signs of contractor's yards allover the city. Somewhere along the line we are going to have to make an amend- ment to this ordinance. Don Ashworth: really hasn't put this kind I don't know of any contractor's yard that has been approved that had the same elements that we have on this one. Where else would you of business? Councilwoman Watson: I think it is o.k., but I don't see a need to have a sign out there. Councilman Geving: I don't believe there needs to be a big sign out there. In this particular operation, the employees come to work, report to the work sites, they return. There should be no reason for people to be looking for this particular place. I like the idea of moving the yard setbacks. On this particular site, it seems to me that they are using a lot of land for a big parking area. I am also in favor of the new road between the two 5 acre plots. I was interested in the soil per- colation test that Paul Waldron commented on. He said that according to the per- colation test and on-site investigation, it is my considered opinion that a design plan be completed to insure the proper system for these sites. Would you explain that to me a little more Bill? Bill Monk: The on-site investigation is really the testing that goes on at the time of the building permit and is done in all cases. Councilman Geving: So then any conditions we place on this, I would like an inspec- tion report as part of our conditions. I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -5- Councilman Horn: In your recommendation of 150 feet, Don, is that based on any previous applications that we worked on? Don Ashworth: Not in this community. I have seen it done in other areas. Councilman Horn: How would our existing contractor's yards be improved to comply with this? Don Ashworth: They would not. Councilman Horn: I agree with the setback. I prefer 150 feet. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to have included in the recommendations that the septic system be checked out by the City Engineer so we don't have any problems with that. Mayor Hamilton replied that the driveway was acting as a terminal for the trucks to pick up material and so forth. Councilman Gevinq: What will we see when driving along the road? David Stockdale: The lumber should lift up above the berms, and you also will see part of the buildings. Councilman Horn moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Landscaping Contractor's Yard, David Stockdale, on Galpin Boulevard with the following conditions: 1. The recommendations of the City Engineer as stated in his memo of February 22, 1985, which are: Utilities: Municipal sanitary sewer and water facilities are not presently available in this area so the proposed use will be ser- viced by a septic system and private well. Percolation tests for a septic system were performed as a part of the recent lot split involving this site and were found to be within acceptable limits. Streets: All driving surfaces are proposed to be blacktopped and, as with the City's rural street section, drainage will be handled in ditches in place of concrete curb. The applicant will be required to secure an access permit from Carver County for the proposed entrance onto CR 117. Drainaqe: Proposed site grading is minimal and does not materially change the existing drainage patterns. The bituminous surfacing will increase the volume of runoff although the overall rate of runoff from the site will not change due to the creation of a small ponding area. The proposal as submitted does not pre- sent any negative drainage impact to this area of the Bluff Creek Drainage area although approval by the Carver County and the Watershed District will be required. Conditions of approval by these agencies should be a condition of any City approval. 2. Installation of additional evergreens measuring at least four feet in height along the south property line to adequately screen the parking area. Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -6- 3. No signage on the proposed site. 4. Vacation of a 60 foot easement on the south side of the property. 5. Subject to the City Engineer's inspection approval of the septic systems. 6. Based on the revised plan presented at the Council meeting showing the reduc- tion of the parking area by approximately 30 feet along Galpin Boulevard. 16 amended 4-15-85, Page 1. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FINAL PLAN AMENDMENT, WHITETAIL RIDGE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, PAUL PALMER: Barb Dacy: The parcel is located in the northeast corner of the Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard intersection. Waldrip's Addition was passed in 1981 and part of that plan was the creation of three lots for duplexes along Galpin Boulevard, five single family lots, and the lot to accommodate the 7-unit apartment building that exists there now. At that time in 1981 it was anticipated that five single family lots could be placed in the subject outlot. They changed the name of the Orchard Hills plat and came in with five single family lots. So this request is to amend the final development plan for Outlot B, which had previously been 5 single family lots, for eight townhomes. At the Planning Commission meeting there was some confusion as to what is the exact process the applicant is going to, and to reiterate again this final plan amendment is for townhomes. Single family homes, townhouses and multiple family structures are permitted uses in the P-I District. Also raised at the Planning Commission meeting, was the overall density of Waldrip's Addition. As ori- ginally planned it was 2 units per acre. That included the three duplexes, the five single family lots in Orchard Hills, the 7-unit apartment building and the five single family lots in the Outlot B. With this amendment, by creating eight townhomes it is increasing the overall units to 27 and the overall density of Waldrip's Addition is 2.2 units per acre. The density of the individual lot, however, is 2.9. The townhomes are clustered along the ridge and the low areas in the southeast and the southwest corners of the lots. The landscaping plans proposed is a combination of evergreens and maples along the south side of the property on Lake Lucy Road and along the east side of the property. Evergreens are also being proposed along the north. The Staff recommended that the primary function of the evergreens is to screen the parking area occurring on the north lot line. It was recommended that they be four feet high. Access was also a major issue at the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission met with Carver County Officials out on the site. The letter that I distributed this evening just came this afternoon. Basically, what that letter is saying is that the County would prefer that the access come off of Lake Lucy Road. Secondly, they are looking for 350 feet of stopping site distance. It is not known, and they are still working on it to see if this meets that criteria. However, it appears from this preliminary evaluation that the location of the existing access, at this point, does not meet that criteria. It appears that this access would have to be moved to the south and the County is saying no further south than across from 65th Street. They also say in the letter that if it is found that the existing access is to be maintained, vegetation would have to be cleared on either side 100 feet to the north and south of that existing access to create adequate site I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -7- distances. The staff's recommendation is that one of two things occur. The staff will certainly work on this with the applicant in that either the access be located across from 65th Street at the most, but certainly in this area so that the County's regulations of 350 feet can be met, or locating the access on Lake Lucy Road and construct it along the east side of the building and back up along the ridge. There is a drop in each of these locations so there is going to be some filling and installation of drainage culverts for the runoff. Also, at the Planning Commission meeting, there was a considerable amount of public com- ment. The public did send in letters of concern and also submitted petitions. Our recommendation is for approval of the final plan amendment request, subject to the installation of the evergreens along the north parking area, and in compliance with Carver County's recommendation as far as the access is con- cerned, whether it be on Lake Lucy or across from 65th Street, and a revision of the plat to conform with the new alignment. Councilwoman Watson: I would like to know what the net denisty of the property will be after the buildings will be on the land. Barb Oacy: We calculated the impervious lot coverage and it is approximately 28%, meaning the total area of the driveway, parking area and building is 28 % of the entire 2.97 acre tract. It being attached housing, the lot sizes are smaller and they have a larger area of common open space. Each of the units is going to be individually owned and therefore they have to create a lot around that and the remaining area will be under the management of the homeowners association. All I know is the gross density. The net density would mean that you would remove the area for streets and so on. Councilwoman Watson: That is the figure that means something to me in the end. The gross density doesn't really tell you anything about what you are going to end up with. Barb Oacy: I understand what you are saying, and I think the building coverage ratio gives you a good indication. If it was 50%, the net would mean that half the site would be covered with parking area and buildings and that would clearly be inappropriate. This is at a level of 28% to under 30% and that's adequate for the site to handle the runoff. Councilman Geving: My main concern is the main access to the road on Galpin Boulevard. Carver County kind of left this up in the air. I would recommend that the road be switched to Lake Lucy Road. I have not been very comfortable with the proposed road. This access would be strictly for this development, is that right? Barb Oacy: Yes. What the history is on this is that when Waldrip's was approved, the seven unit apartment building used the existing access. When Melody Hill Road is completed and approved that apartment building would use Melody Hill Road as the access. Councilman Geving: I, too, feel that this is fairly dense for the area. There is a big lowland to the east of the townhomes, there is a lowland to the west and it is packing 8 townhomes into a very small area. I would agree with a proposal that the access should be to 65th Street and that we would reduce the number of townhomes to six. Councilman Horn: I was curious about a comment saying that the developer has started the project and is only one-half finished. What is that in reference to? Council Meeting, March IB, 19B5 -B- Paul Palmer: It seems that certain people like to start rumors about the whole situation. I have owned Waldrip's project to begin with and in signing the letter of credit in the development agreement last summer as we were processing it, we were going to sign in conjunction with the Klinglehutz project. When that all started coming together, I was approached by people who built their home out there to buy off eight of the nine lots. They wanted to buy me out of the project. So that's what ended up happening. They then took on the bulk of the responsibility to sign the development agreement letter of contract. The agreement for which we ended up with was finalized in November. It was then felt by the city staff that we should wait until this spring to start development. With the neighbors not seeing anything happening in the development, they must have gotten this suspi- cion or feeling that we fell through on our side of the agreement. We really haven't. We have signed a letter of credit and we have signed an development agreement and as soon as the equipment can get in there the work should be done. Councilwoman Swenson: What about the assessments? Will there be assessments for the dwelling units? Bill Monk: Yes there will be. But when the north service area project went through, the Waldrip property as a whole, was assessed eight units. They are turning them into four duplexes that were approved further to the north. No assessments were put on this property as part of the north service area project, but what will happen is sewer and water will have to be run down to service this property as it is. It will be assessed for that benefit. I will assure the Council that the cost per lot whether it is 5 or B units will exceed it quite a bit, the per unit cost as it was paid by the people living in the service area. There is no question that this deve- lopment will take more than it's fair share. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we talking about what is already there? If we have six or eight units, how much will each unit be assessed? Will it be the equivalent to what other people were assessed? Bill Monk: The assessments in this area will be somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 per unit based on five units. So even if you took that and involved eight units instead, it might come down to $10,000 to $12,000 per unit. In the north ser- vice area the average assessment in 1973 was around $5,000 to $6,000. I see that as about equal. Councilman Horn: In a January meeting the applicant stated that he had shown the plan to some of the residents. I would like to know who these residents are. Paul Palmer: I have shown it to the Anders, but I do not recall the other names. I had planned to get the plan out to the rest of the residents in the neighborhood. When I started to do that I found out that a petition had been going around based on certain facts that were told to the neighbors. The facts were that the units were going to be $60,000 - $70,000 units, that there was to be many units, and that the developer hadn't gone through with previous development contracts. Naturally, when people stop at your door and tell you these things, you would sign a petition too. When I distributed the packet out to the majority of the people, they replied that it looked good, and appreciated hearing the other side of the story. At that time there were only 5 to 10 who actually had any major problem with what I was proposing. Don Kelly: I live at 20Bl West 65th Street and I would like to make a few comments. A few other people could not attend tonight, and also people were discouraged because of the results of the Public Hearing. It seemed that the comments people made didn't I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -9- seem to be regarded very carefully by the Planning Commission. When Waldrip proposed this development, none of the neighbors had ever been opposed to having the property developed. We would like to have it developed, but somewhat consistent with the neighborhood. One of my major concerns is additional entrances onto Galpin Boulevard. When Waldrip's planned unit development was planned, provision was made for a driveway for the apartments. The driveway for the apartments would go to the new road, so unfortunately until the development was done, that couldn't be done. One of the things that Mr. Palmer says in his plan is that these units would benefit from the solar exposure. There is no screening vegetation planned for the south. It kind of bothers me that if they are going to remove vegetation from either side of the driveway, it will make the neighborhood more visable. When you were talking about this being a separate development, the planned unit development theoretically takes an area and plans for use of that area and you would expect that the plan that is originally approved is going to have some continued effect. Now you are saying that this is being developed as a separate plan. I do not think that was the intent. Councilman Horn: ............... Does this meet the requirement of a PUD? Barb Dacy: It is a part of the overall plan of Waldrip's. Councilman Horn: There are two owners. A PUD is typically one development - one owner. Barb Dacy: But the plan that was approved is what you see and this is amending the plan. Councilman Horn: The ownerships have changed, we have five lots and it is a chunk of the PUD. I don't see it as a PUD anymore, I see it as a new development. Barb Dacy: The entire area is zoned P-I. A conventional subdivision would be having 5 single family lots and that would be permitted under the P-I District. It is zoned P-I and that is why it has to go through the development plan process. By attached housing, it is taking those five houses and he is attaching them together in exchange for preserving the low area in the southeast and the southwest corners. This would be under common ownership which is usual in a PUD. If this was a conventional sub- division, you would have a lot more grading and filling and so on. You would have a lot more effects. You wouldn't be working as well with land as you are with this plan by clustering units on that ridge and maintaining the low areas. It is zoned P-I and the staff feels that it is a part of the PUD and the zoning is in place for that. Bill Monk: The original Waldrip's came in many years ago, with approximately 150 units. That is where, I think, the first PUD came in to play. As this evolved, it got down scaled and down scaled until this was the final development plan. Because Mr. Waldrip was having some financial problems at that time, the 4 duplexes along the county road were the only things that were allowed to be platted. It was part of the first stage because improvements were available to those duplexes, but were not available to the inside lots. Then new owners got involved after this had been approved and these were outlots because they couldn't get improvements. They came and got improvements slated which is now being developed as Pleasant Hill. Now these five lots have been plotted in completely consistent with this, and that final plat has been recorded. The seven-plex is still there. There is an existing house that is not a part of the plat. So this is an overall PUD with 5 single family lots. We have not payed a lot of attention as to who owned them. A separate owner has come in on Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -10- the east lot and now another owner has come back on these. We are still viewing the property as an overall PUD, because this is the overriding plan that has been approved. There are five single family lots which is the amendment here tonight to change from that five to eight townhomes. That is what the Council has to discuss, whether the Council wants to consider this a separate parcel. Councilwoman Watson: It is hard for me to understand that we are suppose to still consider this a PUD when the ownership shifts. To me you are talking subdivision, not PUD. The PUD concept is that a developer comes in and he develops all of the property and the whole denisty with it. That is not happening here anymore. Mayor Hamilton: We have that issue to deal with and we also have another major issue and that is that there is an overwhelming number of people in that area who have asked that this project not be approved. Mr. Palmer did say that there were people who did approve, and I would like to see some proof before I would vote in favor for this. Ruth Olson: I live at 6441 Galpin Boulevard. I am one of the people who listened to Paul originally. I am a new resident and have been there for about 6 weeks. I was quite surprised to hear that the area was going to be developed, yet I was eager to listen. I have a number of concerns about how this affects me. Number 1 is with the seven units directly behind me and the proposed eight to the south that leaves that immediate area, including me with 16 units. That density seems to be very high. The other concern is not only the number of units, but the access. The bull-dozed temporary driveway is quite dangerous and I see that traffic from nine homes, prob- ably 14 trucks and cars going in and out. If the access were to be onto Galpin Boulevard for the eight units, it would then have that traffic from the south in the proposed seven units behind me picking up with the other circle. That's a concern to me, that much traffic on both sides of me. I talked to the Assistant City Planner, who came out to the site and she agreed with me that 4 foot pine trees on the north of the lot was not adequate, but yet I do not hear a change in the proposal. I also noticed that there was a lot of refuse on the other lot Mr. Palmer owned to the north of me. Not only wood refuse, but cans and garbage right on top of the well. That has not been cleaned up. I am concerned with the density and the access. If the access is to Galpin Boulevard and trees have to be cleared out 100 feet north, there goes my trees and my privacy hedge. I don't like that. Councilman Geving: I think what we are looking at here is the result of a lot of deliberate planning and meetings before the Council over a number of years. I do not believe that the plan would ever have gotten approved had it been proposed the way this amendment is asking for tonight. The plan evolved over many, many meetings, a lot of time and consideration has been spent on it and it was always the intent, in my opinion, of the Council to retain the flavor of the area, which is basically a single family homeowners area. I believe that is the only reason that we included the five units that are facing Lake Lucy Road. I think we also have the idea that the project would start out in the north with the cul-de-sac and eventually work to the south and to the five single family units because of the water and sewer exten- sion. I doubt seriously that this plan would have been approved for a PUD four years ago. What is being asked of us tonight is a major departure from the original plan that was approved. I see a lot of resistance from the plan from homeowners in the area. Mayor Hamilton: We have three alternatives: we can approve, we can deny it, or we can table it. Tabling based on Mr. Palmer going back to the neighbors and coming back to us and telling us which people had signed the petition who are now not interested in signing that petition. I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -11- Paul Palmer: One of the things that Mr. Monk brought up was the fact that this piece of ground is very expensive to develop and the cost to bring the sewer along the back side of there is an expensive proposition. The original proposal had proposed to push the homes up the hill. This would most likely eliminate some of the passive advantage that the hill does possess because the driveways would be to Lake Lucy Road meaning the garages would be a tuck under style, which would not benefit from passive solar. It is an expensive proposition and then on top of it all what does the City of Chanhassen have the most of right now? Single family lots. There is a lot of them that have accrued. My research has shown that the area needs a quality townhome. That is my whole intention behind this project; to offer something the next step above New Horizons or Orrin Thompson for the area residents, for the people who have lived in the area for quite some time, and want to stay in the area. As far as the access, I guess that is something I will have to work with Carver County on. Councilman Horn: When this project was up for sketch plan review, I made the motion to approve the development based on the fact that I felt that the area may not be totally consistent with the neighborhood and I was led to believe that the neigh- borhood was supporting this proposal. It certainly is a deviation from what we had approved initially, and based on that, until such time that the developer can prove to us that the majority of these people who signed the petition against the development, are actually in favor of it, I suggest that we table this item. Councilman Horn moved that this item be tabled to the Agenda of April 1, 1985, at such time the developer may prove to the Council that the majority of the people who did sign the petition against the development are now in favor of the development. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving: I would like to make the recommendation that this whole item with Carver County should be worked out before it comes back. 1985/1986 LIQUOR LICENCES: be renewed for 1985/1986: Councilwoman Swenson moved that the following licenses Bloomberg Companies On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Kallestad Enterprises On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sal es Pauly's, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Off-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Riviera Club, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Chanhassen Legion Club License Sunday Sales Kenny's Super Market Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Post 580 Superamerica Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Bluff Creek Golf Association --- On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Holiday StationStores Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating JGM Liquor Warehouse Off-Sale Intoxicating Chanhassen Fire Department On-Sale Non-Intoxicating St. Hubert's Church On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -12- Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilwoman Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES: Barb Dacy: The intent of this memorandum was to make everyone aware that we are com- municating together on the type of applications and procedures the staff is going through and what you will see. Attachment #1 is a representative of the packet that we give to developers or any applicant for a planning process. We give them the fees, the time schedule, a float chart, preliminary plat check list, example of the public hearing ownership list, and the application fee. We have a packet of materials that we can give to developers when they come in, so there is no misunder- standing as to the process. What the staff has intended to do is clarify the new procedures for administrative approvals that was passed as a part of our new sub- division ordinance. Attachment #2: Procedures and requirements for A. and B., that's dividing a portion of a platted or unplatted lot to add that onto an adjacent parcel. It comes with minor lot line adjustments, maybe five feet on a platted lot or they may want to change the alignment of the lot line. What we are asking for is a registered land survey of both parcels and the staff will double check that survey to make sure that each lot meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the lot width area and make sure that it exists in a public street, the paper work associated with that transfer, after review, the appropriate clerk will sign off on the deeds and a copy of that material will be in your administrative packet in the next meeting. You will then know all the time what the staff is approving. Item C. is a little bit different in that it's regarding rural subdivisions. We are asking for ten copies of the survey, because we will notify the utility companies, and any appropriate agency. Everything that has to be on that survey is what we usually require for plats only that it is in a metes and bounds description. We will have to get the percolation test data. The staff will then review that for all of the zoning ordinance regulations. We will sign off on that and will put it on the consent agenda so that if you want to discuss the items a little bit more, we thought the consent agenda would be the apprbpriate place for it. If anything in the rural ser- vice area needs a variance, lot area or it has to be platted, that will trigger a different process. We also wanted to set up a procedure for the dividing of a platted lot by a metes and bounds division. Again, it is a public hearing process. Councilwoman Swenson: I notice a discrepancy administrative packet immediately following the Council would have it on the consent agenda for consent agenda and one not? on A. & approval; approval. B. The Council will get the and for the rural area, the Why would one be on the Barb Dacy: The intent is that the ordinance says administrative approval, but our intent is to keep the Council informed of what we are doing. When we are referring the rural area to the consent agenda, I didn't mean to say for approval, but simply for your review. A & B are minor adjustments to the lot lines and I thought that the Council would like to take a closer look into the rural area. If it were to be on the consent agenda, you could always pull it off and look into it a bit more. GAMBLING ORDINANCE: Jim Castleberry: Effective June 1, 1985, the new legislation goes into effect for the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board and will now issue the licenses for gambling. There were a couple of points that I wanted to call your attention to. We still have discretion obviously on those that are submitted to the City. We may I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -13- disapprove any of those by resolution. We can certainly adopt more strict regula- tions that we have up to some extent. The other thing that I wanted to call your attention to was the situation that occurred here in Chanhassen and also in Chaska where the larger charitable organizations are going around soliciting space in bar type restaurants. The concern is that they are asking for a lot of money for that little space. It seems to tarnish the intent of the legislation in that it was intended for local bar owners to make $50 - $100 on these spaces. So what Chaska is currently going to do, and I only point this out for your information, is to limit their licensing to local charitable organizations so that space isn't taken up by some other out of town organization. Mayor Hamilton suggested that a City organization go into the restaurant and rent a space for $60 or so a month. The profits that were made from the gambling would then be kept in the city (for the organization that was in charge). With the out of town gambling organizations, the money will not filter back into the community very much. As for a city organization, the money would all filter back into the city. The above item was tabled for the April 1, 1985 Council Meeting Agenda for discussion on a moratorium. STUDIO AGREEMENT, DOW-SAT/CITY QI CHANHASSEN: Don Ashworth: Mary Smith and Jim Beletti are here tonight to answer any questions the Council may have. I appreciate both Mary and Jim's support trying to improve our audio/visual situation in the Council Chambers. Councilman Horn: I feel that it is a good proposal and I am in total agreement with it. What will the bottom line cost of the system be? Don Ashworth: The equipment is to be provided by Dow-Sat and they will be installing it. They have already helped extensively with the technical portion. Dow-Sat has already put in many hours into just checking out the feasibility and how to accomplish it. We are talking $2,000 to $3,000 or even more in terms of just the technical ability to put all of this together. Cost to the city is anticipated to be $1,000, $400 for a recorder and some minor costs such as cabinet work. Councilwoman Watson: Don recommended a $1,000 salary for someone to operate the machine for certain activies; how far is that going to go? Don Ashworth: What I would like is a little bit of money to pay someone to operate the machines, say $10 - $20 per event. Mary Smith: Dow-Sat would maintain ownership of the equipment. We would also main- tain the equipment to keep it useable and we also provide training for the use of the equipment. We do have a training program to make sure that people are certified when they make use of the equipment. It would consist of about 12 hours of training. The Council discussed with Mary and Jim how the cable, which is being placed throughout the city, was progressing. Mary Smith stated that it was coming along very nicely. She stated that right now there is 38% of Chanhassen subscribing, which is very good for the initial pass through. Councilwoman Watson moved to authorize the office to make a formal request to Dow-Sat to provide installation/equipment in accordance with the proposal presented in the Manager's report of March 18, 1985, including the two 1985 budget amendments Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -14- The motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, votes. Motion carried. The following voted in favor: Mayor Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative I CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C.: -- Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Group Homes for Seven to Sixteen Persons in an R-IA District, Final Reading. Councilwoman Swenson: I waS just curious as to why you made this amendment for seven to sixteen persons in an R-IA District. This is a single family district, according to the 600 category in our zoning ordinance. According to the staff's report, the State Statute provides for homes of seven to sixteen in a multi-family and six or fewer persons in a single family. I just want to go on record of saying that had I been here, I would have voted against it. I would have preferred to not have it at all. I don't feel that it is necessary. Mayor Hamilton moved for approval on Consent Item 1.C.: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Group Homes for Seven to Sixteen Persons in the R-IA District, Final Reading. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried. MOSQUITO ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Swenson: I am going to repeat a request that I made last year. I would like for the Council to issue an ordinance and a proclamation controlling mosquito nesting areas. I suggest that the public keep anything that would collect water and I debris cleaned up and disposed of properly, as these are the main areas for nesting. I suggest that people who neglect this ordinance be fined $100. Mosquitos may cause encephalitis in young children. My main concern is for the children. I would like to have this proclamation posted in as many public establishments as possible. I feel that warnings will not do any good, because it was tried last year and people forgot about it. The Council discussed this subject and felt that the public should be given a warning and not fined right away. They felt that most of the people do not realize they have something this harmful around their yard. It was felt that not many people would turn each other in for minor negligence. It was decided that the attorney look into the situation and see what would be the best solution. The item will then be put on the next agenda to be discussed further. SUMMARY OF MAJOR BILLS: -- Meeting Law: Councilwoman Swenson commented on the amendments to the state open meeting law. She stated that she would like to see the law protested as strong as possible. She also suggested that a letter be submitted to our Senator and Congressman opposing the passage of this law. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING: Don Ashworth stated that the Council had a choice of either May 13 or May 21 for the Board of Equilization Meeting. The Council decided to set the meeting for May 13, 1985. I SEWER HOOK-UPS: - Councilwoman Swenson inquired about the 19 people who have not yet been connected to the City sewer. I I I Council Meeting, March 18, 1985 -15- Bill Monk: The letters are being drafted and I am looking specifically at Siebenaler. Councilwoman Swenson: that place out again. I'm afraid he is going to enter into a new contract to rent I think he should know that this is not an inhabitable place. Bi 11 Monk: -- be enforced. We have interpreted the ordinance and there is no question in how it will He will be contacted within the next two weeks. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the Councilman Horn. The following voted in and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Don Ashworth City Manager meeting. The motion was seconded by favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson No negative votes. Motion carried.