Loading...
1985 07 01 I I I (~ ....~ ..,1 REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 1, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Hazeltine-Bavaria Watershed District Joint Powers Agreement. b. Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for 4th of July Celebration, Chanhassen American Legion. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. Motion carried. in favor: Mayor No negative votes. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Rebecca Gorman appeared before the Council to represent a number of people in the Carver Beach area regarding the June 17th Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. They felt that there was some inconsistency in the decisions made by the Board in issuing variances. The Mayor commented that every item is considered on its own merit. that this was not the time for this to be discussed and if there was cel that somebody wanted to ask a question about, that person should and if staff cannot answer that question the person can then come to discuss that parcel of property. He also stated a specific par- contact staff the Council and MINUTES: Amend June 3, 1985 Council minutes: under Minnewashta Gate, Southwest corner ~ Highways ~ and ~ Tomac Development, last sentence, page 10, Councilwoman Watson: I was not looking at service stations and dairy queens where people would be staying only 5 minutes and then leaving. Amend June 3, 1985 Council minutes: under Minnewashta Gate, Southwest corner ~ Highways ~ and ~ Tomac Development, Motion for: a. Land Use Plan Amendment Request ~ Change Low Density Residential Land Use ~ Commercial, page 16: Add the following comment: Councilwoman Watson: The reason that I was opposed is that I would like to see a combination of low density residential and commercial, C-l. t~":~ ~~.~ I "Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -2- Amend June 3, 1985 Council minutes, paragraph 4, page 12, last sentence under Minnewashta Gate, Southwest Corner Qf Hiqhways ~ and LL Tomac Development, Councilman Horn: If you wouldn't allow any left turns except at controlled intersec- tions, that is the way you control traffic and that is the way you get safe intersec- tions. I Amend June 3, 1985 Council minutes, paragraph 10, page 12, last sentence under Minnewashta Gate, Southwest Corner Qf Highways ~ and LL Tomac Development, Councilman Horn: I am proposing closing Oriole Lane off. Councilman Horn moved to approve the June 3, 1985 City Council minutes as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the June 17, 1985 City Council minutes. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton abstained. Motion carried. Amend May 20, 1985 Council minutes, conditions 2, 6, and 13 under Hidden Valley Subdivision, ~ Corner Qf Highways 2 and ~ New American Homes: motion approving the Preliminary Plan Including Rezoning to P-l, Planned Residential Development: 2. A 25 foot front yard setback on non-cul-de-sac lots, a 30 foot front yard set- back on cul-de-sac lots and a minimum separation between buildings of 20 feet with side yard setbacks of 10 feet on the sides. 6. Installation of a five foot berm on Lot 35, Block 4 and Lots 1 - 13, Block 1. 13. Acceptance of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the above amendments to the May 20, 1985 City Council minutes. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT ~ GARAGE, 8000 and 8002 ERIE AVENUE, LESTER DEGENSTEIN: The above item was passed unanimously at a previous Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore, no action is required by the Council. VARIANCE REQUEST lQ ENLARGE ~ NON-CONFORMING USE ~ PROPERTY ZONED R-1A, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE, ~ HAZELTINE BOULEVARD, BMT CORPORATION, WILLIAM TURNER: Mayor Hamilton: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals acted to deny this item and Mr. Turner is here to try and persuade us to approve it. William Turner: Basically, I am aware of the rules about a non-conforming use in the fact that we shouldn't be expanding and I am only pushing this because I kind of feel that this is not only good for BMT, but I think it would be good for the City. If you have ever seen the plant, we don't have the best looking plant. The addition that we have proposed, I think, would enhance the appearance of this plant. We have been running at a crew of 10 people, including my wife and myself for some years, which is a smaller crew than what we have originally had. We don't propose to hire any people or increase the activity, we would just like to have a decent office space in front of the building where the customers come in and see the office and don't have to walk through the entire manufacturing facility. Like I said, I think it would I be as good to the City and to the neighbors as it would be for BMT. The nature of our business has changed to a point where we are doing more and more office work. I am a designer and I have customers coming in, and I don't even have a conference room for them to sit down in. We have purchased a computer in which we have to keep in my daughter's house because we don't have room for it in the office. That would be good for us. My closest neighbor is here who sit contiguous to our plant a few feet away. I I I (:-:~ T' ,,," (->-: /' : .- Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -3- ~ Swearengin: We are probably 40 feet from the manufacturing part. They have been our neighbors for a long, long time. They keep it very clean. The addition that Mr. Turner is talking about wouldn't offend us at all. As a matter of fact, it would make us very happy. It would tend to clean up the front of the building even a little more than it is now. The addition is strictly utilitarial. I think it would be something that would be beneficial to the entire neighborhood. I would strongly support it. Dwayne Johnson: lawn the former Donlin farm and have 58 acres more or less surrounding Mr. Turner and the Swearengin property. We went through a lengthy and expensive court trial to try to determine whether or not this industrial business could be in this location. As you have all read this transcipt from the trial, the judge said that he could be there as long as he did not enlarge his non-conforming use. We would expect that this would be adhered to. We spend a lot of money to find this out. This is the law and we are asking that it be obeyed. Mayor Hamilton: In the Non-conforming Use of the City's ordinance, section 20.02: Enlargement or Alteration - "No non-conforming use shall be enlarged, altered or increased, or occupy a greater area than that occupied by such use on the effective date of this ordinance or any amendment thereto." That was primarily the reason why the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied this. They really felt that they didn't have any choice, plus based on the court decision. I understand what Mr. Turner is trying to do. This is a difficult situation because he is trying to improve his business and putting an office on it without intensifying the use of it. Councilman Horn: I am just wondering how this case compares with the case we looked at recently where the person increased his garage for some type of business he had. He came back twice. The first time he came in with one size garage and came back later with another size. Barb Dacy: I believe that was Larry Kerber. His use is a contractor's yard and that is a conditional use and did not have the non-conforming status. Councilman Horn: And why would this be a contractor's yard? Barb Dacy: This is a manufacturing business in the agricultural zone. Whereas the contractor's yard is a listed conditional use, but this type of use is not a listed use in the R-lA District. Councilman Horn: So if he just operated a business on there and if it was not a manufacturing business, it could be acceptable. Barb Dacy: If he had a contractor's yard, he could make application. Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the law, but the law is the law. Councilwoman Swenson: I agree with Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton moved to deny the request to expand office space of a non-conforming use, BMT, Inc. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ttL..: Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -4- VARIANCE REQUEST lQ THE REQUIREMENTS QI THE BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY ZONED ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 3900 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLOCHER/GESKE: I Mayor Hamilton: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals acted to pass this onto the Council because they felt that the applicants requests of 2.b.: To allow member vehicles ingress and egress to launch and remove their watercraft from the lake; and the Homeowners Association to set and remove docks; and 2.e.: To allow for member boat trailers on the recreational beachlot and to launch boats or other watercraft by use of motor vehicles, trailers, and/or wheeled dolly; would be allowed and that items 2.d.: To allow for overnight storage, overnight mooring, and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boat slips and moorings; and 2.g.: To allow for a maxi- mum of a 100 foot dock length; needed to have the full Council's discussion. Barb Dacy: For clarification, items b. and e. were approved. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Are these two items open for discussion? Mayor Hamilton: here and I think of them being an I think they should be there are other things amendment to the water discussed. I think we have a major issue that need to be discussed along with it. surface usage ordinance. One Councilman Horn: I read in this notice from JoAnn that the DNR states that since this is a PUD, and therefore, it can increase the number of slips by 50 percent. Barb Dacy: So they would be allowed 12. I Councilman Horn: I understand that, but I don't understand the DNR's reasoning why it's a PUD and, therefore, it can be increased. What has that got to do with the effect on the lake? Barb Dacy: I can't justify their intent of all their regulations, but I can attempt to explain it. With a PUD development, like in some other provisions, it calls for a clustered site design or an alternative type development that is not normally done under straight subdivision standards. All I can say is that this is their policy at this time, that they will allow a 50 percent increase if it is a PUD. CQuncilman Horn: Regardless of what the PUD is? Barb Dacy: Yes. JoAnn Olson: They look at each case, but they will provide up to 50 percent. Councilman Horn: If there was a very dense type of PUD, would they allow less. Barb Dacy: They would probably take that into consideration. Councilwoman Swenson: Do our ordinances, which remain more restrictive prevail? Above Sentence Amended 7-15-85, page 7. Barb Dacy: Yes, our ordinance requires the most restrictive regulation prevail. Councilwoman Swenson: If we were going to accept the DNR's okay of 12 boats or slips, I thought it was interesting to note that on page 18 of the minutes of the May 20th Council meeting, Barb mentioned the possibility of four sail boat moornings and three I I I I ~ (:.-~ F-; ... - ........ '-...... Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -5- boat slips. If, in fact, we want to move in that direction, perhaps we could work it that way. If DNR says 12, we are stuck with 12 in any case. Mayor Hamilton: I think what the developers want is a combination of 18. They not saying 18 motorized boats. Councilwoman Swenson: Would they then understand that 12 would be the maximum that would be allowed for motorized capacity. Fred Plocher: Our intention would be to request a variance from DNR also. We have reason to believe that it would be granted because of the open space of the lake. Area Resident: I was on the Carver County Park Commission and we just put in a 400 acre park and the DNR allowed one boat per so many acres. They are at their maximum at this time. Now, either the rules have changed or something is wrong. Councilman Horn: That is a public access requirement. This would be an individual development type of thing. Fred Plocher: Councilwoman Swenson had a concern about 2.b. and 2.e. Those were the ones that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to clarify too, after some discussion, you had said that there would be a fence across the drive-in and we had expressed some concern that this access not be used by anyone other than those people living in the development. It appeared to us that by having a fence across or a gate that could be closed and locked that this would prevent outsiders from using it. Fred Plocher: If there is a critical concern, Mr. Geske and I don't have a problem with Councilwoman Swenson's viewpoint. 2.b. could be amended to allow vehicles to ingress and egress to the Homeowners Association to set and remove docks. The only real critical thing would be that they get their equipment in and out of there to remove the docks, which should be a twice a year deal. We would still have a gate to control the public accesses. Both Mr. Geske and I live on a lake and we have to go around to another access. I don't think that is an unreasonable concern. In fact, it may help the residents living there and not having to tell their brother-in-law that he can't launch a boat there, provided we can have the overnight storage with the dock. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I have a problem with our existing ordinance with that. I can't understand how we are going to reduce the intensity of use between 2 a .m. and 6 a.m. Mayor Hamilton: The last time we dicussed the water surface usage ordinance in rela- tionship to the Lotus Lake Estates, I was curious or surprised that we decided that they should not be able to have a boat on the lake from 2 a.m. until 6 a.m. and what that was going to accomplish. I still haven't received an answer for that. Councilman Horn: It was allowed for fishing, but not allowed for problem use where you could store the thing there permanently, which would discourage the amount of permanent uses on the lake. The philosophy was that if it is allowed to be stored there permanently, it is going to get more use than someone who comes and brings their boat in for a day of fishing. Councilwoman Swenson: What about the 100 foot dock? We said 50 feet before as a safety factor. You have a water surface usage ordiance, which has a 100 foot J~~ Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -6- restriction on boats coming in and if you got a boat coming a 100 feet out from the water and he is legal and all of a sudden your dock is there, obviously he should be able to miss the dock, but it is a mute point that I think that we should discuss. Councilman Horn: I think from that perspective a 50 foot was given not as a safety factor for the boat owner or given as a safety factor to the swimmer. Mayor Hamilton: I think we felt that 50 feet was adequate to accommodate in all cases and if you couldn't hit four feet of water within 50 feet you could keep going until you hit four feet of water. Bert Haglund: What has been proposed in the variance request is two docks that would accommodate up to 18 slips. The request is really for a combination of 18 slips and/or moorings for sailboats. This would be the maximum in terms of 18 slips. In having that one variance request for 100 foot dock length, it was our opinion that having two docks with a total of 18 slips was preferable than having more docks to get that total number of slips and to concentrate the dockage up at this end of the beachlot instead of stringing it out on the beachlot area. That is where that came from. The actual configuration on the docks is something that there is some flexibi- lity in. This was something that was our opinion and would be preferable. We do not know how far out you have to go to reach four or five feet of water. The way this is illustrated, the longest dock is 85 feet. It is possible that this may be adequate. Getting back to the docks as I described in the ordinance as acceptable, the initial sketch plan review for the project, we had illustrated docks that were configured as described in the ordinance. Councilman Horn: I think, too, in this case the major issue of dock length in any lake ordinance is really to protect neighbors so that they don't have the neighbors dock infringing into their property. In this case, the way you have that placed, the property to the right is your property. The property to the left is not some- thing that looks over somebody's front yard anyway. So, I really think the purpose of the length was really not that important in this case. Bert Haglund: tely 115 to 120 his finger as a I might also mention that there is an existing dock that is approxima- feet long. (Mr. Haglund was referring to the plan at this point using reference.) Councilwoman Swenson: How would you propose to put 18 slips on those two docks. Bert Haglund: There would be two for every finger. There is enough space between each finger to handle two boats. Councilwoman Swenson: You don't normally moor a sailboat at a dock. If you have access for 18 slips there, and some of your people are going to want more sailboats, you aren't going to come back to us next year or the year after and say, "We have got two or three docks here with 18 slips and we want to fill them up." Bert Haglund: No. Fred Plocher: The association would contract with the dock company to take the docks out in the fall and put them in, in the spring. The Board of Directors would know when they put the docks in, in the spring, how many boat slips and how many moorings would be required and that is how many dock slips would be put in. Councilwoman Swenson: In your association paper, there will be no misunderstanding for the people that buy these homes that this is a maximum. I I I r:'" 'C'I - .. >..~; , "I Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -7- Fred Plocher: Yes. III Council.o.an s.enson, Do you have an objection in having 3 docks .1th 6 slIps each. Fred Plocher: The critical thing for us is the total of 18. If it helps in having 3 docks, we don't have a problem with that at all. Councilwoman Swenson: The closer we can get to the existing ordinance, the less difficulty we have in establishing a precedent. I want to work with you, because I like your plan, and we can say this is fine because we have an empty space on this side and we are not interfering with anything. But somebody is going to come down the road and this is going to show that we did allow an 85 foot dock, likewise, why can't they have it? I have great problems deviating from ordinances. I think if we could do that, this gives us one less potential problem. Mayor Hamilton: The point was made that if there were only 12 people who might have a motorized boat, the docks are constructed so that they would then make them smaller so that there would not be more space available. They will be situated so they will accommodate twelve. It's not going to be an 18 situation out there all the time. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I am following up with what was said at the beginning of the season. The association will know how many docks are going to be applied for. If they only need two, then they don't have to put the third one in. This way we are still eliminating that 100 foot or 85 foot dock. I Area Resident: How many slips would be permitted under the existing zoning? I assume that the variance is to permit more slips. Was it normally going to be twelve and now we are going to 18? Mayor Hamilton: The information that has been told to us is that the DNR would allow us to have 12 under the existing law. Councilwoman Swenson: Twelve motorized. Barb Dacy: The existing beachlot ordinance does not allow overnight storing of watercraft. Mayor Hamilton: There wouldn't be any really allowed under our existing water sur- face usage ordinance at the present time. There would be no overnight storage of boats at all or moorings allowed, right now. Area Resident: What about the Minnewashta Creek Association, would they be able to come back now and have overnight storage for their boats alSO? I Mayor Hamilton: That is why I am not sure that we can decide this issue tonight because as an out-cropping of this particular proposal and my own and some of the other Council members feeling about the present surface water usage ordinance being restrictive, we had asked our City Attorney to review the ordinance and perhaps make some suggestions that we could look at as to how we could apply the surface water usage ordinance to be more fair to everyone. He has made some suggestions to us and we can't really deal with that tonight because we do need to have a public hearing on that and have further discussion on it. l25 Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -8- Bert Hagland: I might also comment. Our being here tonight is not to ask for"the ordinance to be amended or rewritten. We are here tonight to ask for a variance, that given this particular site, based on the merits of this one proposal that we be I allowed to have a variance for this one development. Jim Lacey: You have got to realize that you are not the first to ask for a variance in the beachlot ordinance. I would highly suggest that we wait until the City gets their act together and gets the ordinance in line with what the Council is thinking right now before they pass any kind of variance. I sympathize with you and I am all for you and I hope you get it. I am not against you. If the City does grant you a variance they, in a sense, are endorsing the ordinance as it is right now. That is unfair. Fred Plocher: Obviously, we were hoping for a decision tonight. I know every deve- loper thinks that their case is unique or whatever, and we do. From our standpoint it would be unfair to penalize us to wait for the entire process of changing the ordinance. I think the bundle of logic that goes with this property and what we are asking for is a bit overwhelming and that to not grant a variance because there may be an ordinance change, obviously, will be problems for us. I do think it is overwhelming in this case and we were hoping to get a favorable decision tonight. Barb Dacy: I would just like to clarify something. You have decided on number 2b. and 2e. and the remaining two, the applicants are requesting a variance to more than one dock and to allow overnight storage. They will have to come back for a con- ditional use permit. The hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission on July 10, and would go to the Council on August 5. If you are looking for a direction, if you so desire, that you want to come to some type recommendation as to the number of docks, but making the decision to allow a variance to more than one dock and for I overnight storage. Maybe through discussion with the Planning Commission, that would generate a compromise of 13, 12 or 5 or 6, etc. Councilwoman Swenson: They need a conditional use permit for the docks. Barb Dacy: Yes, they need a conditional use to make the actual improvements. Councilman Horn: I am not sure we all agree with changing the ordinance. I would agree to look at it, but I wouldn't agree at this point that we are willing to change it. You talk about how unique this case is, I am not sure that the people in Lotus Lakes Estates would agree that this piece is so terribly unique. Fred Plocher: If you want to amend that 100 foot back to more docks and less length, that is fine. Mayor Hamilton: The 100 feet, Barb, will that be reviewed by the Planning Commission also? Is that a conditional use? Barb Dacy: Technically, the way the ordinance is reading it says 50 feet or the mini- mum straight lake line distance necessary to reach the water depth of 4 feet. We don't know that depth. If you just assume that it's 50 feet, you would be granting a variance to exceed 50 feet. Councilwoman Swenson: Let's give it to the Planning Commission and see if they would agree to the conditional use permit. I Fred Plocher: If we would get the 18 overnight variance and then worry about the details and by then we would have the depth and so forth. I I I Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -9- Councilwoman Swenson: We can't give them the 18 boat variance until we find whether the Planning Commission is going to agree to a conditional use permit. Barb Dacy: If you don't feel that one dock is appropriate, if you don't feel if overnight storage is approporiate, the issue is then moot. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance, ordinance 47-AB, Section 14.04, Recreational Beachlot: 2.b. To allow member vehicles ingress and egress to the Homeowners Association to set and remove docks; and 2.d. To allow for overnight storage, overnight mooring, and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boat slips and moorings; and allow three docks instead of two; and the dock length will be based on the depth of the water; and also subject to DNR's approval of more than 12 boat slips. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson for discussion. Last sentence amended July 15, 1985, page 7. Mayor Hamilton: Is there any further discussion? Councilman Horn: What the motion is, is to allow the variance for the ordinance before we have heard the ordinance changes, in effect, anyone could come in and request similar types of variances to the ordinance, we would then have to use the same type of criteria. Councilwoman Swenson: As long as it isn't used as a precedent setting. Councilman Horn: We can not be arbitrary. Councilwoman Swenson: That is the only thing that is concerning me. Councilman Horn: We have been very consistent until this one. Councilwoman Swenson: The basic reason for that is because I do think that this is a unique situation. I think we have a totally unique situation here, I don't think this is like anything we have had before. I don't think it is like Lotus Lake, I don't think it is like Riley. We are actually lessening the use of this area. This has been a public launching area. I am sure 18 boats is going to be a lot better than what it was. Sentence 4 amended July 15, 1985, page 7. Mayor Hamilton: The whole piece of property has been used as a park and a launching for boats. Councilman Horn: The launching takes place to the left of it. It isn't even a part of this. Mayor Hamilton: It certainly is. The property isn't going to be used for that anymore. Councilman Horn: It isn't now. That's all fenced off right now. Councilwoman Swenson: The DNR will be closing the launching area, am I correct? Bill Monk: It closed yesterday. Councilwoman Swenson: This proposal is less than there was before, which I think is a point to be considered. Councilman Horn: My point is that there is two separate issues. The old launch area in there is not related to this proposal. Council Meeting, July I, 1985 -10- Councilwoman Swenson: I am not talking about the old public launch, I am talking about the launch area of Leachs'. Councilman Horn: That wasn't Leachs' launch area, that was a launch area that every- I body used. Fred Plocher: There was a launch area on Leachs' also. Councilman Horn: The one that causes the most intensity is on the other side. Mayor Hamilton: If Leach would have a park full of people on the weekends in the summer, what difference does it make what side of the little pavilion you put the boat in on. You are still using his picnic grounds and you are still launching a boat, so it is a very intense use there. Any further discussion? If not, we have a motion. All of those in favor of the motion, say Aye. Councilwoman Swenson: Aye Mayor Hamilton: Aye. Opposed? Councilman Horn: Aye Councilwoman Watson: Aye Mayor Hamilton: Okay, we have a 2 to 2 vote, which leaves us right where we started. Councilman Geving will have the right to bring this item back if he wants to so that he can vote on it or make a comment on it, which would be at the July 15th meeting. Councilwoman Watson: I would like to see this application after consideration of I the revision to the ordinance, because at that point in time then anyone who has any kind of proposal will be dealt with on the same basis at the same time. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW QL 1 LOTS ~ PROPERTY ZONED ~ PLANNED INDISUTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, ~ CORNER QL HIGHWAY 2 AND AUDOBON ROAD, OPUS CORPORATION: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary plat request to replat Lots 2-10, Block I, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park into 7 Lots on property zoned P-4, Planned Industrial Development, SW corner of Highway 5 and Audobon Road, Opus Corporation. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CREEKWOOD DRIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY: Bill Monk: In taking a look at improving Creekwood between HWY 101 and its cul-de- sac at the west side of the Halla Nursery, the improvements that are included in the feasibility study are grading, drainage, and bituminous surfacing. It is proposed in the report that grading and drainage be done by the City as a part of its normal maintenance. We would grade the road and get it ready for it to drain properly, dig out the soft spots and place the culvert along HWY 101 to clear up a turning problem that has existed there for a long time and work with MNDot on that correction. No costs are included in the report for that particular work. The work that the City would have to contract for, and is included in the feasibility study, includes a sur- facing of the 20 foot wide section of street as it exists from HWY 101 to the cul-de- I sac. It is proposed to put down a 3 inch mat based on the heavy traffic load that this road does take. As I note, the road as it is situated right now, is totally on I I I -~.~~~ Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -11- the Nursery property, but since the road has been maintained and used as a public roadway for 80 many years, I am proposing to claim it as a public right of way and improve it only in its existing sections so that no further right of way to the north or to the south would be needed, as that represents, by far, the least expensive alternative for upgrading this existing road. The paving of the road is estimated to cost $15,000. As a project cost, I have added in a figure of $1,500 to get an esti- mated project cost of $16,500, should the Council opt to seek consultant help in terms of final document preparation or inspections so the total costs listed for this project are $16,500. I have got some very preliminary quotes, so I feel very comfort- able with the numbers as they are presented in the report. The assessment analysis is, of course, the most important and hardest part of this particular report. What I tried to do in this instance was to break everything into on-line and off-line units in terms of residential equivalence. The two existing residences on Creekwood speak for themselves as being two on-line units. There are, right now, 11 off-line units, 6 being on Mandan Circle and 5 being on the private easement to the west. From that point on it was a matter of trying to determine how many units to put against the nursery property and the golf course. For the nursery property it was a more straight forward approach in using just frontage and coming up with four equivalent units that could be placed on the nursery property and using four on-line units for the nursery. For the golf course it was more difficult in trying to determine the equivalent units because the frontage is kind of a nebulous factor in that because it is a non-abutting property. In that case, we used actual traffic counts. We had 228 average daily trips into the golf course and determined an average of 7 trips per unit for the residential units in that area, which came into 32 off-line units. Using a ratio, which is not uncommon in storm sewer and other street improvements of two to one on off-line to on-line improvements, I have proposed an assessment roll, which is included in the report. It includes $300 per off-line unit, $600 per on- line unit and it goes through each of the properties involved and lists those indivi- dually. I think the project can be done. I believe it needs to be done to correct the dust problem out in that area and to move towards the City's desire to see all gravel roads paved within a reasonable amount of time. I do believe the assessment figures shown in the report are in conformity with the preliminary comments of an appraiser that I did talk to before this study was initiated. There are people here who may have questions or comments to make and I will answer questions from the public or from the Council. Councilwoman Swenson: You were talking about all of the easements being on the Halla property for the entire road easements. So his property is on both the north and the south of the road. Bill Monk: As close as I can tell, the road is right up to his property line on the south line to his straight away until it makes the bend to the north. Councilwoman Swenson: As he said, what are we going to do with all of the snow? Bill Monk: That is a good question. I did talk with him very briefly today and there is a question as to whether the City might have to look at working with Mr. Halla on the status of his fence because normally, if a fence was that close to the road, it is within the right of way and it is the owners responsibility to take care of it. In this particular case, his fence is on his own property and we are throwing snow on that side. That is something the City may opt to work out; some type of an agreement where we would work with him from time to time on repairing that. That is something that might have to be done, but it is not unmanageable. Councilwoman Swenson: We are going to give him more assessments and that is an unsewered area. We require 21 acres for a lot. If we were to make him take 21 ..~ ~} c'j) J!, (L.,' /\ Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -12- acres, we would be taking his whole nursery business away from him. I think we have a problem here. If we are going to charge him four assessments, this would establish that he has, in fact, four buildable lots. I Bill Monk: Mr. Halla has just over a 1,000 foot frontage. The ordinance says that you can go down to a minimum of 180 feet. I used a minimum of 250 feet per unit. Councilwoman Swenson: We also have an ordinance that says the lot isn't suppose to be twice as long as it is wide. The man said that if we are going to charge him an assessment we have to guarantee that we will give him a buildable lot. Bill Monk: It is like the north service area or other assessments that we place on. If somebody owns five acres, and they own so much frontage, the City is always put in a position of how many lots can you reasonable get out of that situation, and how much should you be assessed. Again, I didn't take the 180 and go as tight as possible to back that off and it came down to 4 units as a reasonable use of that property. If the Council thinks that after looking at that frontage, that two or three is more reasonable, it is only within your power to ask that it be revised. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we have to be prepared to give him four permits then. Area Resident: If you are looking at the assessments on two of the on-line proper- ties, I guess that what you are saying then is that if Mr. Sabinske and Mr. Anderson wanted to come to you if you are going to assess them for two units, then they can come to you and tell you that since you made them pay the $600 that they wanted another lot taken out of there when they don't............ Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I Area Resident: That is a similar contention to what Mr. Halla is saying. Why should they pay two and Mr. Halla pay four? Councilman Horn: His are on-line assessments too. Area Resident: I realize that, but the point that I am trying to make is their pro- perty isn't exactly breaking down to two lots. Mr. Sabinske doesn't have no two-five hundred feet. Bill Monk: We are talking of on-line units of being worth twice as much as off-line units as far as monitary goes, but the Sabinske property would be one on-line unit and the Anderson property is one on-line unit. This was not proposed because we have already looked at a possible building permit here. This is a lowlands, an extremely deep peak and I don't think there is any way that this is buildable as it is. We are looking at the equivalent up here of 4 units being placed across here. You can see that three makes sense, just right here from a standpoint. This is 300 feet right here. if you start to look at the 250 foot chunks in here, there is room for four. Again, if you think that two or three is more reasonable, that can be stepped down and the assessment can be reworked. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think that Mr. Halla is getting the equivalent of four benefits. Mayor Hamilton: I think the property is benefited to a certain extent. He has the possibility of using it. I I I I ~ ,"(: c-~. )~ (-:r ~.-; Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -13- Councilman Horn: It is like everyone else just on a normal street assessment. If they have a lot that doesn't have a house on it, they are not getting any benefit from it either. When it comes time to have the use when you put a house on it, then they do benefit. Councilwoman Swenson: My point is that he has to go 450 feet deep in order to get that and go into a productive piece of property that I don't think you have four realistic lots. I think there is three, because I think they should be wider and not too deep. Councilman Horn: But you are making the assumption that this will always be a pro- ductive piece of property as the nursery. Councilwoman Swenson: If there are more, the assessments can always be added. We have done that before too. Area Resident: I see no reason why he doesn't have four buildable lots there when he's got 1,010 feet from his property line down to the road. Area Resident: What about the golf course? Bill Monk: I used different criteria on that because when I started to look at the golf course, there were so many ways that they can access the property from other roadways. It becomes very difficult to say that their acreage could develop into 500 units. It throws it all completely out of proportion. There is no question, that if it ever developed, it would develop into more than 32 lots and then they would be going out onto County Road 14 and they would be putting in their own improvements at that point. Area Resident: Maybe we should have a stipulation in there if this project goes through, the golf course can continue to use that road while it is there, but no housing projects back in there if they decide to sell that property for a housing development. Bill Monk: I really can't see the City Council approving a 100 unit subdivision given the existing conditions, even if that road is paved for a single access situation. RESOLUTION D85-32: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the feasibility study for street improvements to Creekwood Drive as prepared by Bill Monk and to call for a Public Hearing on August 5, 1985, consistent with requirements for municipal improvement installation. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: I am opposed because I feel that there should only be three assessments for Mr. Halla. Area Resident: What is the soonest that we may expect this to be done, Bill? Bill Monk: Right now we are into September. It will be done this year. Area Resident: How about the people that are off line. Why should we be assessed the same amount as everbody else, because we will still be getting the dust. We are being assessed for two pieces of property and we will still be taking the dust. :(j, ~_1: Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -14- Bill Monk: This project addresses only the public portion of the road. The Council has talked recently on whether to look at acquiring a condemnation of the private easement, as it would go all the way to the golf course. I believe a commitment had been made to the people along Creekwood that we would turn this study around. I have not enlarged the study to include the private easement. Those people have built on a private easement on certain private arrangements and this does not include the acquisition or doing. I believe the way that it has been presented on the off-line and on-line will be fair because they need to use this road to get in and out. Whether they would want to pursue and have the City look at acquiring that private easement, we would then have to deal with the golf course, whether that would involve condemnation and so on. I did not include that because I thought we made it clear to at least look at this portion of the road within a reasonable amount of time. Area Resident: Then we would be assessed a second time? Bill Monk: Yes, you would be if the road is extended. That is the difference between the rates for on-line and off-line. You try and take that into account that the other section of road will still have to be addressed in the future. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO NEW HORIZON'S ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: -- Mayor Hamilton: We are asked that the date for final payment of assessments for New Horizon Homes be extended one year until July 1, 1986 upon the condition that the existing letter of credit in the amount of $350,000 be extended to August 1, 1986 as a guarantee of compliance. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the extension of the date for final payment of assessments for New Horizon Homes for one year until July 1, 1986 upon the condition that the existing letter of credit in the amount of $350,000 be extended to August 1, 1986 as a guarantee of compliance. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN BOWL: ~ Approval E! Liquor License ~ Connection Charges APPROVAL QI LIQUOR LICENSE: Councilman Horn moved to approve the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales liquor license for the Chanhassen Bowl. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONNECTION CHARGES: Mayor Hamilton: I am not sure that the trunk units are fair or equitable, but I can understand why we do it because we need those funds to keep the system running. But at the same time we are asking the developer to layout a big chunk of money. I I Councilman Horn: Under the building permit valuation; it says "This process was wrong in that a major portion of the structure exists and the actual construction value is significantly less than would typically occur with new contruction." Now I was under the impression when we negotiated to sell this building that part of the I reason that we negotiated down on this is that we said it would be cheaper for them to build a totally new construction rather than to renovate this. I find these two conflicting. I I I ~ C':".. r.' ~,- ~ ~~> Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -15- Don Ashworth: That portion of the structure that has been torn down has no value, but we have always said that the southern most portion of the building does have value in there, and for building permit purposes they were going on basis of $15 a square foot or whatever they were using. Councilman Horn: But we have ture when we were negotiating build a stand-alone structure it would take to build this. always said that they could build a stand-alone struc- the purchase price on this thing and that they could along the highway or anywhere else for less money than I am finding these two agruments incongruous. Don Ashworth: If you went out on the highway and built a metal building and built it just as a bowling alley, you could do it cheaper than doing a concrete structure with the masonary portions that we are looking at for this structure. I still feel that the statements are correct. Councilman Horn: So we used an exchange price then for the price of the building. Now they are coming in here and saying that the actual construction, because of the significant portion that existed is worth more than that. To me, it's contrary to what our negotiating position was, unless I am missing something. Bill Monk: The building department, I think, used a new value for concrete/masonary buildings. When they did that, the value was greatly inflated. What D~n was saying, is if you take a metal building, that is one thing and one value. But the building inspector took a new concrete/masonary building, used the square footage priced for that and applied that to the whole building. The value that he put on that building was greatly inflated and it was indeed in excess of what it is really costing. Councilman Horn: But that should have been taken out on the other side and the change in the negotiated selling price of the building, because that was based on a metal structure. Don Ashworth: There is no question in my mind that Dorek and Badden came out with this building because there is value associated with it. from their standpoint, in making a decision as to where we should locate it, they had to look at, "what is the cheapest cost that we can get by with, why should we go to your downtown area, why shouldn't we just go out and build a metal building." They literally could do better out on the highway where at least if we would drop the cost down to what we actually sold it for, and that is what we did. Councilwoman Swenson: I understand. I think what our problem is, is that we are working with HRA figures that were given to us by the then existant community deve- lopment director and not from the building inspector. I think we were dealing with figures per footage, for us, is entirely different. Mayor Hamilton: We are talking about the building permit. Councilman Horn: Right, based on the .value of a piece of property. Our point is that the difference in that which was taken into account already in lowering the purchase price to the developer. In other words, he got that once because we lowered our price. He still has the value of property of this value on the assessment books. Mayor Hamilton: there. We issue be. The cost should be what the construction is, not what is already a building permit based on what the construction costs are going to Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -16- Don Ashworth: I wish I could come up with a recommendation to lower the charges. I honestly thought of this thing for a two week period trying to come up with a way that we could reasonably do it, and I just couldn't. I John Dorek: We had talked about this previously and no decisions have been made and we had asked about SAC charges. We determined in all good faith, all of us, that the present number of 16 would probably cover the building. We got our financing done on that basis and suddenly we were hit with a 35 figure. What we thought would cost "X" dollars, it suddenly cost "X" dollars more and we understand in finding out about this that the state figure is firm, but we thought, and again coming to the City, maybe because we, also meaning the City, thought that the figure would be lower, and we thought there would be something unique. That is the only reason that we brought it up. Councilwoman Swenson: On page three of your letter, Don, I was sort of dismayed. I see that the costs associated with the sale are approaching $30,000 and the $200,000 loan will not be covered by resale of the remaining portion of building requiring an internal loan/bond sale. I took a double take and was very dismayed at this. We have lent this money out at 3 percent and you are telling us that we are going to have to go out and float a general obligation bond for 9 or 10 percent or whatever it happens to be. I understood that this money was going to be covered by other income that we were going to get from this building and I am totally in shock when somebody tells me that we are lending $200,000 at 3 percent, and we are going to bond the people of this City for more to make up for it? Last sentence amended 7-15-85. Councilwoman Watson: What will the actual bond sale end up being? Don Ashworth: The HRA report going out will show two options, either taking the I amount out of cash, in which case the 1985 cash position for the HRA is basically at o position. It is going to be difficult for me to recommend that standard. I would look to a loan from, literally, City funds to the HRA for anywhere from a one to four year period of time. The City can set the loan amount at whatever you would wish to set it at, but typically it would be at bond market, nine or ten percent. One of the options being presented back to the HRA is to borrow the $200,000. Another option would be to borrow none. Councilwoman Swenson is correct, at one point during the negotiations we felt that the remaining portion of the building would be sold and that the amount coming in off of that was $270,000 or something like that. If you remember there were a number of proposals that were brought back on the remaining por- tion of this sale. At the end of that process we had made a commitment to Dorek and Badden regarding the $200,000. We continue to live by that obligation, even though we ended up then selling a smaller portion of the building to Gary Kirk for $120,000 so that meant a net difference of $80,000. RESOLUTION U85-33: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving the City Manager's recommendations dated July 1, 1985, to defer the trunk sewer and water charges and SAC charges (number of SAC Charges and credits to be determined by MWCC) over a maximum of an eight year period at eight percent. . The deferment shall com- mence with certifications made in 1985; collection in 1986. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. TAX CODE CHANGES, APPROVE RESOLUTION REGARDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: RESOLUTION U85-34: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution establishing I rules for automobile fringe benefits for City vehicles. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I 'I " _r _ r--J Council Meeting, July 1, 1985 -17- RESOLUTION D85-35: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution modifying the current vehicle reimbursement rate from 23~ to 20!~ subject to the Manager verifying that a majority of employees favor such. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1985 SEAL COATING PROGRAM: RESOLUTION D 85-36: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the 1985 Sealcoating Program as submitted. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LETTER TO DORIS LARSON: -- Council members directed the City Manager to prepare a letter of condolence to the Russell Larson family, which will be signed by the Mayor and all of the Council members. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager kjs