Loading...
1985 10 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 7, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk APPROVAL QI AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the addition of discussion on the Pioneer Cemetery. 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. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. RESOLUTION #85-56: Set Public Hearing Date for Industrial Revenue Bond Application, M.A. Gedney. b. Accept Utility Improvements in Buckingwood Court, New Horizon Homes. c. Accept Jim Thompson's Resignation from the Planning Commission. d. Contract for Property Assessment, 1985 and 1986, Carver County/ City of Chanhassen. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative PUBLIC HEARING CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. There being no comment from the public, Councilwoman Watson moved to close the public hearing. 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. RESOLUTION # 85-57: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving the certification of delinquent utility accounts for 1985. Resolution 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. PUBLIC HEARING MOVING PERMIT REQUEST ~ MOVE ~ GARAGE ~ 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, CLIFFORD PEDERSEN: Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -2- Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. There being no comment from the public Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. 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. Mayor Hamilton: I believe the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting approved a variance for this. Councilman Gevinq: We approved a variance as requested. Councilwoman Swenson: The staff is satisfied with the conditions of the building and such. Councilwoman Watson: The building is about 12 years old. Barb Dacy: The Building Inspector did go out and inspect it and looked at it and felt that it was satisfactory. Councilwoman Watson: They are not going to be moving it very far. It is not that large. I suspect that the price was very right and it turned out to be a very econo- mical means of getting a garage. Councilman Geving moved to approve the moving permit request for Clifford Pedersen to move a garage to 3713 South Cedar Drive. 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1986 BUDGET INCLUDING PROPOSED USES OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: -- ~ Consider Fire Department Relief Association Benefits. ~ Consider Adoption ~ the 1986 Budqet. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. There being no comment from the public Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ Consider Fire Department Relief Association Benefits: Mayor Hamilton: I missed last week's meeting when this item was discussed, so I have a few comments to make. I have talked with the Fire Department after last week's meeting to see if we couldn't reach a position that would be acceptable to them and to the Council. For the last several years I have wrestled with the issue of dealing with the Fire Department and the Relief Association because I have always felt that we had a volunteer department. But I have realized and come to the understanding that it is not a volunteer fire department and one of the reasons that people do join is because there is some benefit available to them after their years of service with the fire department. This is certainly a difficult issue to deal with and make everybody happy. There were several questions that were discussed last week. I had reviewed these and I have talked with the Relief Association and with Don and I feel quite strongly that a good position for us to be right now would be to go with the $9.00 monthly contribution, to make the lump sum the recommended means of payment for the Relief Association. I am not sure, at this point, we can completely rule out the annuity plans because it has been in effect for quite some time. But I thought that what we might be able to do would be to go back to say 1970 and say anybody who joined the force after that time is no longer eligible to receive an annuity. They must take a lump sum payment. I believe the Fire Department would go along with that. I haven't asked them, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't. In regard to I I I I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -3- the 10-year certain, having reviewed that. It looks like it's kind of a double sided edge. If we go with the 10-year certain that means that some of those firemen may opt to pick the annuity when we really want them to take the lump sum, however, it also assures them that if they do take the annuity that they will receive some bene- fits even should they die the day after they retire. That is why I said we should go back to 1970 and not allow anybody to take the annuity who joined the Fire Department after that time. So the 10-year certain doesn't really cost much and it does give a widow's benefit to those who may want to choose it. When I talked with the Relief Association I told them that under no circumstances would I want to see this on an agenda for next year and probably the year after. The benefits that we are looking at, potentially being approved tonight, would be in effect for the next two to three years. That is where I stand and I feel quite strongly about that and I think it is a very fair settlement. I also feel that the Fire Department is a very needed and a very valuable asset to the community. Councilman Horn: Did you have a recommendation on the vesting period? Mayor Hamilton: 10-year. Councilman Horn: In Don's memorandum he says that the legal authority for the type of retirement plan rests with the R~lief Association. But he didn't answer the question whether we could give the Relief Association the option of choosing one or the other. Don Ashworth: You can suggest to them that they should adopt a plan that would encompass both the lump sum as well as the annuity. The department has stated that they would do that as a part of this package. Mayor Hamilton: I am not sure if you can say that the Association is going to vote on it and everybody changes. I do know that if they did vote on it today, they would vote for lump sums, which would mean everybody would change over to lump sum rather than having an annuity. I am not sure if, in fact, we can do that, to say you have to take a vote and that vote will be majority rules and everybody follows what the majority wants. Councilman Horn: That was a question we had when we talked about this last week. As far as I am concerned, we still don't have an answer to that question. Don Ashworth: And I don't have an answer for you yet this evening. The question was passed along to the Grannis & Grannis law firm and the response that they provided was that the Relief Association legally vote on the type of plan through the adoption of their bylaws. You are asking if they adopt bylaws, is that going to mandate for all the members within that department, is that correct? Councilman Horn: That is really the second part of the question. Do we have to tell them that they can adopt both or can we tell them that they can adopt one or the other? Mayor Hamilton: Their problem is that there are two people who are getting an annuity. I think they have the same question we do, can they go to that person now and say we are going to cash you out at this point. Councilwoman Swenson: No. all of the new members have determine whether they want after the first of January, We covered that last week and we also recommended that the option between now and the first of the year to to stay on the annuity and that the lump sum would begin 1986. Is that correct, Dale? Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -4- Councilman Gevinq: That is correct. The two members that have already retired would stay on the regular annuity plan. We couldn't change their annuity. Mayor Hamilton: You may want to give them the option also. They may want the lump I sum. Councilman Gevinq: If they would want to, fine. But there is no way that we can force them to go to the lump sum if that is the way this whole thing worked out. In other words, we would give them the option of going either way, but if they want to stay on the annuity they could. Mayor Hamilton: I guess Clark's question is the same as mine, I don't know if we can do that. I don't see this as a real hang-up because they are really open on this question. Most of the guys really didn't have a problem with it. Councilman Horn: I think our concern is we want to take care of this as soon as possible and not let it hang for two more years or three more years that the option is still open. We want to cut if off at the first of the year. Councilwoman Swenson: If we were to proceed with that, if they go to the lump sum that would eliminate the 10-year certain. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Except for those people who are on the annuity. Councilwoman Swenson: So what we are saying really is that we recommend the $9.00jmonth with the lump sum with the option of annuity for members to be decided by them individually prior to December 31, 1985? Mayor Hamilton: That, or you could throw another item in there saying that anyone that has joined the Fire Department after 1970 can not elect to have the annuity plan and have to take the lump sum distribution. The only reason that I am looking at that is because the people who have consistently had a problem with the lump sum are those people who have been there for 20 years. So I am saying let them have an option and if it is a big deal to them, let them have their choice. The other side of the coin is to say, take a vote. The majority rules. Councilman Geving: I think that was what Clark was getting at and I kind of like that idea because that is the democratic way. The Fire Department will vote for one particular one and they will live with it. Mayor Hamilton: I am certainly not opposed to that option either. Councilwoman Watson: Then it would be neat. They would all do one thing or the other and the whole operation will be getting one or the other. Councilman Geving: Long term has to be the fiscal responsibility of the entire Relief Association's long term effect on the City. If it means that we put in place this year some movement for settling that for setting up a long term plan and we solve it once and for all and they don't come back for three years to renegotiate any of their options, I am in favor of that. I would like to make sure that the date we set that everybody knows if they have an option and after that there is no con- sideration because there is either one plan or the other. Mayor Hamilton: I think that they feel comfortable knowing that they are not going to be taxed for one-half of their lump sum settlement. I suggest that we might just offer them the option and say we don't care which one of these you choose, if you I I I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -5- want to go back to 1970 and anybody who joined prior to that time can take their pick and everybody after is lump sum, or you can take a vote, majority rules. That is it, that's final. Councilman Geving: As long as we all understand now, and I think we are all saying the same thing here, that we are working for towards a lump sum plan. That is our goal. Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilwoman Swenson: As of the first of the year. Councilman Horn: In your option, do they need to make the choice right away or can they make the choice four years down the road? Mayor Hamilton: They need to make a choice right now. I think we need to put it into the bylaws stating that when a person joins the Fire Department they don't have a choice anymore. So when they join the force, they know that they will have a lump sum settlement. Don Ashworth: I ask that you consider instead of setting the date at December 31, look to July 1st. The reason for that is right now if we are going to force the option I would anticipate the two members would opt for the annuity. If, for wha- tever reason prior to their retirement in Mid 1986, something would happen to them under the current plan since they hadn't made an election they would fall under a lump sum. Forcing them to make the election on December 31 and you put lump sum into effect and something happens to them before that date when they retire, they would have the 10-year certain but they wouldn't have the full lump sum. Councilman Geving: I don't understand your choosing July 1st over December 31st. Don Ashworth: Once you put into affect a lump sum plan and something should happen to a member he would be paid the full amount whatever he accured. In this case it would be 19; years. Councilman Geving: We are only talking about the several members that could retire on July 1st? Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see what difference it makes. If something happens to them you cash them out. Don Ashworth: If on December 31st they have already signed a sheet that says "annuity" and then in February something happens to them, they would only get the ten years benefit. If they would of had the option of waiting until they retire, which would be July, and something happened to them in February, the department would auto- matically choose for them, in their absence, a lump sum. Councilman Horn: But the idea here is so people have their choice. They can't have it both ways. What you are telling us is that you want them to have it both ways between December and July so they have the best of whatever is the best for them. Mayor Hamilton: I think they should make a choice now. They can think about those options and they know what their options are. Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -6- Don Ashworth: Typically, you wouldn't be forced to make a choice until the time you retire, until you have had 20 years in and until you were 50 years of age. Councilman Geving: I don't know. I think I would rather stay with December 31st. I Mayor Hamilton: Are we in agreement on the rest of the items? Councilman Horn: I assume that your recommendation to go to the $9.00 instead of the $8.50 is based on the three year period. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Councilman Geving: And the other factor here then is that we would build into this a majority rule type of thing. Don Ashworth: As I understand it you would like to see those bylaws changed so that they would not only vote to change the bylaws but the new bylaws would state that anyone who joined the department after 1970 or 1975 would automatically go on a lump sum plan. Councilman Geving: That's right. Councilwoman Watson: Which one is it, 1970 or 1975? Mayor Hamilton: I would think 1970 would be appropriate. Coun9ilman Geving: But for the two people who are already retired will have no option. Don Ashworth: legally, I will check that out. I Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Fire Department Relief Association Benefits as follows: 1. $9.00 monthly contribution, 2. Ten-year certain for those who elect the annuity, 3. Ten-year vesting, 4. The lump sum is strongly recommended by the Council and will be the means of payment for anybody who joined the department after 1970, those who joined prior have the right to choose the annuity or the lump sum. 5. No renegotiations until the budget year of 1988. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, votes. Motion carried. The following voted in favor: Mayor Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative ~ Consider Adoption ~ the 1986 Budget: I Don Ashworth: You have already gone through the public hearing process on revenue sharing. It should be noted that we do anticipate receiving approximately $~2,000 in 1986. The current budget shows no uses of those funds. We anticipated that the Council would go through a priority process in 1986 and make a decision as to the use ,I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -7- of those funds sometime during 1986. A new hearing would be req ired at that time. Otherwise, the other action that should be taken this evening is the adoption of the resolution adopting the 1986 budget. We did have a work ses ion on this item a week ago, which was relatively short, but I would be ready to an wer any questions. The motion itself would be as shown in the resolution in back of the budget book. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to go through your memo of October 17th stating some of the points that were discussed last week starting with the South Shore Senior Center. I I Don Ashworth: They are looking for $2,100 to help fund the operation of the center. They previously had grant money to carry out that operation. Th~y are in the final year of funding for that center from Metro Council. They need altotal of $4,200 total funding. They anticipate that $4,200 to be a stable amount. It may increase 5 percent, otherwise, they would not be looking for continuous typ~ of increases. They need one-half of that funding for 1986. It is recommended that this be considered as a part of our Community Development Block Grant allocation. Mayor Hamilton: My only concern about that is do we have enough citizens who are really making use of the South Shore Center, but apparently they are. item is in the amount of $500 to Chanhassen r~sidents to come into would duplickte them right here I Mayor Hamilton: Five hundred dollars seemed to be a reasonable amount. Don Ashworth: On the park and recreation improvements, it was blou9ht up by - I Councilman Geving that we needed to look to a shelter building at lake Ann Park. I I think you are aware of the work that has been done with the American legion. It is before the Park and Recreation right now. The lighting project has just been approved and that grant had been approved and we are looking towkrds that. In regards to the biking trails, there are a number of special revenue captial project funds. We can look, not necessarily in 1986, but we can look tol allocating and setting priorities in 1986 to actually start that type of project in 1987. Councilwoman Swenson: In addition to the Park and Recreation im1provements, I would like for us to consider in putting up city limit signs. I notic~d the one on TH 101 has been put up south of Pleasant View. I do think that we need to do something to let people know that we are Chanhassen. I I Don Ashworth: The Carver County Historical Society carry out a photo album projec~. They would invite the city hall and bring in older photographs. They and it would be a project soley for Chanhassen. C 0 u n c i 1 man G e v i n q : You had 0 n e 1 a s t wee k, Pat, t hat I was sur e IY 0 u w 0 u 1 d hit 0 n and that was some type of a little league ball diamond. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't want to see the City become preponderant with baseball diamonds for adults and nothing for the people in between. We have tot lots and then we go directly to adult baseball diamonds. This is something that doesn't have to be done tomorrow, but I think it is something we should give consideration to. Mayor Hamilton: On the last item on Don's memo regarding the new personnel. I was rather surprised to see the words "no new personnel." Councilman Geving: It should be "no new permanent personnel," There is a difference. Mayor Hamilton: Either way I don't agree with it. work to get done, the only way to get it done is to is growing at a tremendous rate right now and there Simply because, if you have got hire people to do it. Chanhassen is a lot of Iwork to get done. Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -8- There has been many comments made by the Council and other Commissions that they don't respond fast enough and well enough and everything else. If we don't have the people to do the job we are not going to be able to respond and to give the citizens the assistance that they need. I feel that if two full-time positions are needed to get the job done that they ought to be hired and become a part of the budget. I Councilwoman Swenson: Two part-time employess would be less effective than one per- manent employee. I can certainly sympathize with this. You simply do not get the consistency of work output and I would thoroughly agree with what you are saying. Mayor Hamilton: Is one full-time person going to be adequate. Don Ashworth: What it will do is reduce the strain that is occurring in a number of positions. What has been occurring is we are not getting the work done in the finan- cial area that we should. The hiring of the recorder would also take away from Vicki's job. Councilman Geving: What did we resolve. I heard several things. I heard an indica- tion for a permanent full-time position, I think there is some credibility for that. The comment that I made at the last meeting was that I was not in favor of hiring several new permanent full-time employees, but that some other arrangements such as a permanent part-time or what you would call a 32 hour a week employee to avoid the payment of benefits. I think it is very important that we have somebody to take care of the minutes. That seems to be almost a full-time job. I see a need for floaters, some part-time people who can help on a day-to-day basis. Maybe there is a need for someone who is always there to relieve everybody else on a permanent basis. I would be in favor of a permanent employee and whatever part-time employees are needed. Mayor Hamilton: tion, then that I think that is the thing. If they need a permanent full-time posi- is what they should hire to get the job done. I Councilwoman Watson: I think the word permanent is important. Whenever you put the word temporary in front of their name, the dedication and attitude of what they are doing never peaks out because they always wonder what day it is that the job will not exist anymore. Mayor Hamilton: Permanent in this case is used only to define a full-time position of more than 32 hours. When we hire someone on a permanent basis doesn't necessarily mean that they will be here forever. Councilwoman Swenson: It seems quite evident to me that we can't run a city with this kind of a budget with the type of growth that we are having at this particular time with a half-staffed office. We have got to have help if we are going to give the citizens of this city the proper type of service. From what I see at least a minimum of one full-time employee should be hired and if that is not sufficient, then we have to discuss part-time help at a later date. Councilman Geving: So we are going to offer one permanent full-time employee. RESOLUTION H85-58: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the 1986 Budget including the Federal Revenue Sharing and establishing tax levies for 1986 as outlined in the 1986 budget and including one permanent full-time secretarial I position. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -9- CREEKWOOD DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: - Bill Monk: We have one more bid from Preferred Paving in the amount of $12,105.00 and I do recommend that the Council accept that bid. RESOLUTION H85-59: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the bid of $12,105.00 from Preferred Paving for the street improvements to Creekwood Drive. Resolution 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. MINUTES: Amend the September 9, 1985 Council minutes, bottom of page 14 as follows: Bill Monk: Yes, lighting could be provided. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council minutes dated September 9, 1985 as amended. 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. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated September 11, 1985. 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 moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated September 10, 1985. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. A. ACCEPT MODIFIED FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PHASE I OF THE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE IMPROVEMENT -------- PROJECT: The City Engineer presented a modified feasibility study for phase I of the South Lotus Lake plat. He indicated that the revised study was needed to fUlly address the modified final plat and related improvements. These improvements included additional extensions of sanitary sewer lines, street extensions and a major change with the storm sewer, which is being shifted from the boat access plan to the public improve- ment project. The estimated costs and potential assessments due to this change as presented in the modified study were reviewed as they affected the private and public properties. Councilman Geving: Would you identify for us the costs to the developer as a result of.these changes, Bill? Bill Monk: There is an increase in almost all the proposed assessments for the resi- dential lots and that is the reason that the revised report is being submitted. Mayor Hamilton: I think the most important thing that the Council should realize is that all of the additional costs are going to be assumed by the deve- loper, is that correct? Bill Monk: There is very little change in the City's portion. Mayor Hamilton: The City may have a slight incre~se, but the property owners in that area are going to have no affect. Bill Monk: Correct. Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -10- RESOLUTION #85-60: Councilwoman Watson moved to adoption of a resolution approving the modified feasibility study for phase I of the South Lotus Lake improvement project. Resolution 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. ~ FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, HERB BLOOMBERG: Mayor Hamilton: I believe there were no substantial changes to this other than the addition of two lots. Is there any other changes that we should be aware of? Barb Dacy: No. Wes Arseth: On the angle of the turn on Hill Street, it seems more abrupt now to where the changes are made. I am concerned about the snow plowing and things of that nature. I don't know if that is possible. Bill Monk: Mr. Bloomberg wants to attach a garage to that existing residence. By doing that and even getting a minimum setback, the offset that is shown has to be there, but we have been out and looked at it and feel quite confident that we can make that work. We will cut that corner as much as possible. It is workable and I think it will be a improvement over what is there right now. Mayor Hamilton: I think all they are asking for is to round that corner a little bit so it is not quite"as sharp. Bill Monk: That can be done. I Councilman Horn: Why does this plan show the extension of Hill Street still there? I I thought that was going to be vacated. Bill Monk: That exists on another piece of property as a right-of-way. The City will have to go through a separate process to vacate that. We cannot do that as a part of this plat because that property is not a part of the plat. So we will have to go through a vacation proceeding. We will do that after the Hill Street alignment is done. Councilman Horn: I have another question. Why is West 77th Street shown on this plat? Barb Dacy: I believe they are just reserving the right-of-way cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac extends into the property. We are just reserving the right-of-way. Councilman Horn: But this isn't shaped like the cul-de-sac. It doesn't show that it exists. Bill Monk: Because the outside of the edges of the bubble exist by easements. He is just buying the right-of-way out to the road that will be there in the future. The outside edges of the cul-de-sac will continue to exist and be the City's by easement. Councilman Horn: The one case because it hasn't been vacated yet it is shown as it is, but in this case because it is an easement, it is shown as a road. Bill Monk: The other way to do it is we could have asked them to p.~at the house, but in essence he would be platting part of the exception and the City would have had to become a part of the plat. It was decided that would not be the way to go. I I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -11- Councilman Horn moved to approve the final Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, votes. Motion carried. plat for South Lotus Lake, Phase I. The following voted in favor: Mayor Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, CLIFFORD PEDERSEN: This item was approved at ~n earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore, no Council action is required. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CREATING FOUR LOTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED ~ PINE CIRCLE, GARY KIRT: Barb Dacy: One recommendation that I would like to point out is that we recommended the lot line be as close to 2.5 acres as possible. Especially in the northwest corner. This lot is shown as 2.4 acres. The surveyor has contacted me and said that it may actually be 2.5 acres when they do the final plat. This represents the recom- mendation of staff and Council. Councilwoman Swenson: I have only one problem there. On the second recommendation there should be no increased density. In looking at the structure of the lot, it would appear that, from past experience, it is not inconceivable that someone would want to separate one of those in the future. I wonder if we could word this some way so that would encompass the future as to opposed to just now. There should be no increase density at any time. There is always somebody who is looking for some tech- nicality that puts us in a difficult position down the road. I would welcome any suggestions as far wording is concerned. Councilman Geving: The only concern would be the multiple family unit. They are so large and it seems to me that they could be split even further. Councilwoman Swenson: I wasn't so concered about the apartments as I was about the actual lots and the subdivision of the lots. Mayor Hamilton: If they want to subdivide it a couple of years down the road that is something we can't decide today that they can't do 20 years from now. Barb Dacy: If somebody does want to plat lot 3 onto lot 2, they do have the right to make that rotation and a future Council could simply base their decision on the fact that the increase in the structure is too intense for the intent of the district itself. The Planning Commission is just trying to say that what is there now is appropriate and that is it. Councilman Geving: I would like to refer to the City Engineer's memo of December 5, 1984 particularly in terms of the street recommendations. Do you feel strongly about that, Bill? Barb Dacy: That has been implemented on the plat. Councilman Geving: How about the private wells and septic systems? Bill Monk: There will be no change with that either because of the present zoning and the utility availability. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan request #84-2 for Ches-Mar Farms including rezoning to P-1, Planned Residential Development based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985." Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -12- SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ 15,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, SOUTHWEST CORNER Qf HIGHWAY 2 AND PARK DRIVE, lSR PROPERTIES: Barb Dacy: The applicants have received notice from the state regarding the industrial revenue bonds and the state has approved their application so we will be proceeding with our requirements for industrial revenue bonds. The site is located in the southwest corner of Park Drive and Highway 5. The applicant is lane Envelope Company and lSR Properties. What is being proposed is the construction of a 15,000 square foot building with Park Drive on the east and Park Court on the South. Access to the site will be provided by driveways from Park Drive and Park Court. You can see on the plan that this area is eventually intended to be elected as future parking for the proposed phase II addition. However, between now and when phase II occurs, this area will be used for drainage purposes. The loading dock area is along the west lot line. The applicant has submitted an adequate landscaping plan and should provide ample screen between the berming and the vegetation along the street rights- of-way. The building will also be built into the slope, so to speak. There was some confusion at the Planning Commission about the number of parking spaces and if that would be adequate. Staff has clarified that with the applicant. The first phase of parking shows 23 spaces. The Commission was concerned about shift changes and so on and if there would be adequate parking and the applicant has indicated that sometimes some of the shift members leave one-half hour earlier. Secondly, the Commission wanted some clarification and an update on the status of the Park Drive intersection onto Highway 5. We contacted MnDot and their response was that Powers Boulevard and Audobon Road will be full intersections and lighted at some point in the future. There may be a median stretching from Powers Boulevard west to Audobon Road which would prevent a whole turning movement at the Park Drive intersection. It would kind of be a right-in and right-out turn only. However, when and if that takes place, that particular access will continue to function as is. With that, we are recommending approval with the standard condition that all the parking areas be lined with concrete curb and that the future parking area in the southeast corner of the site be sodded instead of what was shown as seed. Mayor Hamilton: Will the mechanical equipment be screened or will that be a con- dition also? Barb Dacy: Yes, it is an ordinance requirement. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve site plan #85-7 for a 15,000 square foot manu- facturing/warehouse facility based on the site plan stamped "Received September 5, 1985" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded. 2. The future parking area shall be sodded Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. I I Councilman Horn: The discussion on closing that entrance completely didn't come from MnDot. It came from this group as a concern with that type of access onto Highway 5, and the concerns that we have with too many accesses onto Highway 5. I would hope that we wouldn't wait for MnDot to tell us that is dangerous intersection. That is a dangerous intersection today with people making turns in and out of that today. I I think everyone should be aware that the road may stay that way in the future until MnDot decides that it should change. It was built as a temporary access and was to be closed as soon as County Road 17 was completed. I would make it a right-in/ right-out immediately rather than having both ways. I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -13- The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST ~ ~ ADDITIONAL FREE-STANDING ~ 581 WEST 78TH STREET, JOEN DOREK/BILL BADEN: Barb Dacy: When we looked at the original site planning process of the whole deve- lopment a recommendation was made that we should have an overall sign plan, that we limit signage to an area identification sign, a directory sign and the appropriate traffic directional signage on site. The way now that the property has been sub- divided, the Kirt property does have street frontage, our property techincally does not and the Chanhassen Bowl does not as well until we build the north/south roadway along the western boundary. Mr. Kirt intends to construct his own identification sign listing the tenants in his portion of the building. In the meantime, the bowling center has indicated to staff that there is some difficulty with people and traffic trying to find their place. They walk into the animal fair portion first before they come all the way down back into the bowling center portion. What staff would like to propose through a sign variance request is until the street is built along the western boundary that the Chanhassen Bowl be allowed to run a temporary, not a make shift portable sign, but a temporary/permanent sign that can be placed on the City property and the appropriate distance back from the street until such time that the road gets built. When the road is constructed, they will be able to move that sign to the proposed entrance at this location and simultaneously, the City should construct its own sign so that it can advertise whatever use is occurring in our portion of the building as well as advertising the bowling center, or saying the Chanhassen Mall, maybe a community type of identification purpose. That is the pro- posal as to allow the Chanhassen Bowl to erect a temporary sign until the north/south street is constructed. When it is constructed they can move that and the city, at the same time, construct a sign along West 78th Street to advertise, not only bowling but our portion as well. They will be the only two free standing signs along that stretch of the road frontage. Councilman Horn: The one that is there now? Barb Dacy: No. That will taken down by Mr. Kirt. Councilman Horn: Then there will be one sign for front area, the bowling and the city area. Barb Dacy: There will be one sign for Kirt and then after the road is built there will be one sign for us and the bowling center. Councilman Horn: When is the Kirt sign going to be built? Barb Dacy: He said within the next month or so. Councilman Horn: Could they temporarily have the bowling sign in with that sign until we do this whole thing? Barb Dacy: I suggested that option and the bowling center would perfer to have their own sign and Mr. Kirt would prefer to have his own sign on his own property and not share with the bowling center. His purpose is just advertise the tenants up front. Councilwoman Swenson: How far apart would they be? Barb Dacy: About 150-200 feet. Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -14- Councilwoman Swenson: What I want to avoid, at all costs, are two signs up there that are going to be screaming at each other. A metal sign is out. We have always required wood signs with wood posts and I see no reason to change that at this point. I have no objection with the sign and I can see that it is needed. My only request would be that it has the shielded light source as per ordinance and that it be of wood construction and that the two signs, if possible, be compatible with each other. Mayor Hamilton: I believe we still have the opportunity to review the design of the signs. Barb Dacy: If you want to review the design of the sign, I think you should make it a condition of the sign variance, because now the sign permits are handled admi- nistratively. I know that they want to construct this sign as early as tomorrow morning. I told them that a permit has to be processed first. Mayor Hamilton: I think Pat's comments are very appropriate that it be a sign that is conducive with the rest of the signs. In the rest of the community the signs have primarily been wood and have had indirect lighting. Councilman Horn: I think we really need to encourage community signs. I look at what we did on a temporary basis in the industrial park. I think that is starting to look a little tacky with a sign here and a sign there, and I think it looks real tacky like that. I think we should have a community sign where we have a multiple listing. I think that looks more appropriate. I think we could do the same thing here. Councilman Geving: I think after a period of time when where the bowling alley is. right now though, the bowling center is new and I think people get accustomed to it being there, people will know I think there is a need for a sign. Councilman Horn: being new and on along Highway 5. My concern is how we justify the difference here and something this basis when we didn't allow it for some of the establishments Councilman Gevinq: Don't you think this is a little different. We encouraged this whole process from the very beginning. Now all they are asking is to give them a little start so people can find it. Mayor Hamilton: I think once that road is constructed and they can move the bowling sign down to their entrance, then we should take a real hard look at combining the City sign with Kirt's sign. Councilman Horn: It sounds like there is going to be two. Kirt will always have his sign and then the City and bowling sign. Mayor Hamilton: What I am saying is the temporary/permanent sign could be moved down to the entrance, then why can't we get along with one sign. Councilwoman Swenson: As long as it is understood and make that a part of the con- dition. Councilman Geving: let me make this condition, that this signage will be reviewed again at the time it would be moved to the permanent site. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the sign variance request #85-11 for a free- standing sign, Chanhassen Bowl, subject to the following conditions: I I I I I I Council Meeting, October 7, 19B5 -15- 1. That it be a 4' by B' non-flashing sign. 2. That the sign be made of wood, not metal. 3. That the sign conform to the policy of signs that have been established in the City. 4. That it be a temporary sign and it will be relocated to the new entrance on the western boundary when the new city road is completed. 5. The sign shall have a shielded light source. 6 The sign will be reviewed at the time that it will be moved to the permanent site. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to suggest that if we are going to keep on having all these sign requests, maybe we should reinstitute the sign committee. The signs have certainly gotten out of hand since we closed the sign committee down. SUBDIVISION REQUEST fOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, ~ ACRES INTO ~ i ACRE AND 12 ACRE PARCEL, SOUTH QI AND ADJACENT lQ PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CITY QI CHANHASSEN: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the subdivision request #B5-14 for the North Lotus Lake addition based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 19B5." Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. AUTHORIZATION lQ PROCEED WITH PREPARATION Of MASTER PARK ~ fOR NORTH LOTUS LAKE AND LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION: ---- Councilman Horn moved to authorize staff to proceed with master plans for the lake Ann Park expansion and for North Lotus Lake Park and approved the quote from VanDoren Hazard Stallings. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't agree that these other parks will suffer the loss because of this increased quotation. We are going to have to find the monies some place else. According the Lori's recommendation here, she says, "as you may recall, there were a number of 19B5 capital improvement projects that were not completed: Carver Beach landscaping, Bandimere Heights totlot, park improvements at Lake Ann Park, goose clean up. Therefore, there are funds available to cover this expense." I assume that what you are referring to is that the monies for those uncompleted pro- jects will be used to make up the difference here. Lori Sietsema: In regards to the Carver Beach Landscaping, the City Council said that they didn't want that parking lot taken out in the upper area. So, therefore, that won't be spent. At Bandimere Heights they were going to either hold over or wait until they find out what kind of needs were down there. They were not going to complete that one this year. for the park improvements at Lake Ann, there wasn't a specific project on that money. There was about $10,000 that they have put in there and that was for either park shelters that were going to be built this year, and the goose clean-up was $500 and we won't be using that this year. Councilwoman Swenson: for the Bandimere Heights totlot, is that on for next year then? Council Meeting, October 7, 1985 -16- Lori Sietsema: They didn't identify it as a totlot because they weren't sure how many kids are down there. They don't know what the age group is down there so they were going to see what the needs were first. Councilwoman Swenson: The staff explained that the topography had changed along the eastern property at the North Lotus Lake Park due to the construction of the drainage way. This was one of the explanations for the necessity for another feasibility study. Who is responsible for that drainage way and why was it needed? Was that Fox Hollow? I Bill Monk: Yes, Fox Hollow put in a swale along that side for their use in the backyard areas of their abutting lots and for future City use for the park. Councilwoman Swenson: That was done for that purpose and now as a result of addition to the cost of putting it in there, we have got another $2,000 bill another feasibility study. Things like this I get a little concerned about. we are going to have to start seeing how things interact with things. We do and it ends up costing us more than we had thought. that, in for I think things 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. LAKE ANN/LAKE VIRGINIA, METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS COMMITTEE UPDATE: Don Ashworth gave an update on Lake Ann/Lake Virgina. The Metropolitan Systems Committee met and decided that the Lake Ann alternative would be the best alter- native. The Committee did meet again today and passed a resolution that set out the criteria that they expect from the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen if the pro- I ject were to move forward. PIONEER CEMETERY: Councilman Geving stated more time should be spent on this issue. He reported that a committee was set up to discuss the possibility of meeting with Mr. Volk and Mr. otto. Councilman Geving stated that he recieved a phone call from Al Klingelhutz indicating that they wanted to meet and they were very anxious to give a donation, something in the neighborhood of five acres. Geving stated that he would like to move on that with the idea that if the donation is received a master plan of that area could be drawn up and make that an objective for 1986. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn the meeting. 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. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist I