1985 12 16
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 16, 1985
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order.
to the Flag.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson,
Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman
Geving
Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Daey,
and Bill Monk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda as presented with
the addition of discussion regarding Filly's. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Wat~on and Swenson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
discussion:
1. d.
,
The following consent agenda item was removed for further
I
I
1986 Budget Amendment, Computer Purchase.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the
City Manager's recommendations: I
l.a. RESOLUTION #85-73: Approve Resolution Accepting 201 Program Construction
for Individual Septic System Upgrades.
b. RESOLTUION 085-74: Accept Fox Hollow Improvements for C ty Maintenance.
c. RESOLUTION #85-75: Approval of 1986 Budget Resolution.
I
in favor:
Geving.
Mayor
No negative
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
votes. Motion carried.
MINUTES:
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the City Council ~inutes dated November 18,
1985 with the following change: Page 7, paragraph 4, first sentence: Mayor
Hamilton: I think metes and bounds is a rather inadequate way of reducing your par-
cel of property or outlining it. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson ~nd Swenson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
i
Mayor Hamilton moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated October
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor:
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
votes. Motion carried.
9, 1985.
Mayor
negative
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-2-
Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated November 20,
1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
BILLS:
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the bills as presented: Check #023131 through
#023226 in the amount of $1,985,561.29; and Check #025894 through #026005 in the
amount of $289,103.63; and 12 miscellaneous inhouse checks in the amount of
$3,346.31. 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.
APPROVAL QI FINAL RESOLUTION, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND REQUEST, ~~ GEDNEY COMPANY:
Barb Dacy: As you recall at the second meeting in November, you approved the preli-
minary resolution and we scurried out a pool application to the state and the letter
that is attached is their approval. The bonds have to be issued this year. We are
recommending approval of the final resolution. As far as the financing, the applicant
indicated that it will be done by private placement. Mr. Tuttle is here this evening
to answer any questions that you may have.
RESOLUTION #85-76: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the
final resolution for the issuance of $1,300,000 in industrial revenue bonds to M.A.
Gedney Company subject to final review by the City Atttorney. 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.
WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUEST, RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, DELORES! PETER ROMAN:
Barb Dacy: The applicants are acting on behalf of the owner of the property, Mrs.
Draus, who owns 14 lots. They are Lots 1 through 5 and Lots 9 through 17. They want
to split those lots into three lots and alter the lot line by adding 20 feet to Lots
13 through 17, to Lots 1 through 5 and then split Lot 3 again. They are creating
three lots. Our subdivision ordinance now requires that any subdivisions in the
Urban Service Area must be platted. These particular lots are already a part of an
approved plat. The applicant's have submitted a request that you waive the platting
requirement because of the costs involved and because of their particular financial
situation with the applicant's mother. If you should waive the platting requirement,
the legal descriptions would be done by metes and bounds. Unlike other metes and
bounds descriptions, they would read the easterly 20 feet of Lots 9 through 13 plus
the southerly 20 feet of Lot 3 and Lots 1 through 5; not as difficult as a 10 or 12
line description of the metes and bounds description. However, by creating two
14,000 square foot lots, they still need a variance to that effect and overall sub-
division approval. So your 'action tonight, if you do waive the platting requirement,
would be soley that to waive the platting requirement. They would still need to get
any other variance approvals necessary and they would have to have a survey drawn
depicting the parcel and the metes and bounds description. The applicant's are here
tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything to add to that?
Mrs. Roman: We have been trying to sell this property for a long time. It has a
spot in it that is really wet and it has created a lot of problems. We have had the
property up for sell for a long time and have been unable to sell it and now we do
have a potential buyer. My mother's situation in the nursing home is really critical
right now and if I don't sell the property to this buyer, we are going to be in a
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
1_3-
!
little bit of difficulty. She might have to go on welfare very shortly. I did get
two estimates; one was $4,300.00 just for the survey and the ot~er one was for
$3,000.00. This would really create a hardship on her estate. '
Councilwoman Swenson: In reading this, I don't see any problem at all because we can
I
obviously claim that this is a exception due to the hardship and to the best of my
knowledge, every ordinance that we have that requires this kind of an unusual treat-
ment has provisions for hardship cases. It would certainly be my opinion that we
should help them any way that we possibly can. I
Councilman Gevinq: I have an opinion that is directly opposed to Councilwoman
Swenson's. The reason I say that is I feel that one of the thi~gs that I have
learned being a Councilman is that you have to be consistent. Several weeks ago we
turned down Mr. [ide's property for a subdivision and a waiver on his platting
requirements because we wanted to stay with the ordinance. I felt that was a good
decision. I can't see how we can now make a decision that would countermand that
I
without Mr. [ide having some legal recourse coming back to us saying, "Why not me?"
or "Why did I get treated the way I did?" It has been my feeling that whenever we
are consistent as a Council we stay out of litigation and we stay out of trouble. I
would recommend that we stay with the staff's recommendation th~t this property
should be replatted and that we should follow the subdivision ordinance.
I
I
Councilman Horn: I feel that Mr. [ide's property was a better dandidate for the type
of thing that we suggested; the metes and bounds, because it wa~ not going to be a
final plat of that property. It would be replatted into different subdivisions.
This one, on the other hand, will be a final plat for that propJrty and will, in all
likelihood, stay in that subdivision and is a much better candidate for a final
platting situation.
Mr. Roman: With all due respect, I highly suggest that Mr. [ide's situation be
reconsidered, if in fact it will reflect on this decision. This woman is really in a
hardship position and my wife feels that within a month or so her mother will have to
go on welfare and she doesn't want to. This will benefit, eventually, the City of
Chanhassen because there will be a house built there and the pe6ple will be paying
taxes. Hopefully there will be some more houses at a later date there. This would
also be a benefit to Chanhassen. I hear what Mr. Dale Geving says about consistentcy
and there is no argument with that. I also say that there is n6 reason why maybe
I
this other man's case could be reconsidered if, in fact, there is a legal reason.
Mayor Hamilton: The real benefit to the City comes by having t~e property platted.
Metes and bounds is not a good way of recording the property. We have a very dif-
ficult time keeping track of parcels of property within the community and how they
have changed over a period of time when you keep making metes and bounds descrip-
I
tions. If you plat it, it is recorded and there is no problem with anybody coming in
and purchasing the property or looking at or doing anything you1want with it from
that point on. The boundaries are where they should be and it is marked. The best
thing to do is to have it platted.
Councilman Swenson: What is the difference between these
here that staff has changed the decision that we had of the
I would like to know just exactly why this is different.
letter
propety.
two. There is a
other mentioned
1
Don Ashworth: Pat did bring that question to me earlier this afternoon. The
question presented on Eide's was whether the City Council WOUld'l waive the platting
requirements for Mr. [ide and the new lot that he was creating., You denied that
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-4-
application and you required him to plat that parcel. The question of whether or not
he would have to plat both the parent parcel as well as platting the individual par-
cel that he was purchasing had not been presented as a part of that original request. I
The Council made the assumption that in requiring platting, that he would have to
plat both parcels. That is not legally required. You required him to plat, we
followed through under the legal basis, which is that any new parcel that is created
must be in a form of a plat. Mr. Eide was informed that he would have to plat that
new parcel, but he does not have to plat the parent, larger parcel as a part of that.
That was based on a legal opinion from Roger Knutson. He did not change any decision
of the Council.
Barb Dacy: I would like to follow up a little bit on the difference. In the Eide
situation, creating that five acre piece by metes and bounds would create some type
of a description the size of one page long. The metes and bounds description by Mr.
& Mrs. Roman's requisition would probably be a line or two long. At least it is a
platted situation already and we can refer to Lots 1 through 5 and it's pretty easy
to figure out the 20 feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: So actually, there is a difference.
Barb Dacy: In the size of the descriptions, yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: But it's different in that it is already platted. So we are
not working with the same type of a situation at all. If we are talking about the
metes and bounds, that's the bottom line.
Barb Dacy: Right.
Councilwoman Swenson: If we are talking about the fact that there is a difference
and the ordinance could refer to that as it being a previously platted piece of pro-
perty, does this or does this not make any different piece?
I
Barb Dacy: The only exemption in the ordinance now for a platted piece of property
for a metes and bounds description is when you want to split one lot in half. If
you remember the Koehnen split. That was easy. It would be the east half of Lot 1
and the west half of Lot 1. The ordinance specifically states that if you want to
split one Lot and describe it by metes and bounds, we did provide that under exemp-
tion platting. We did not foresee this particular request where we have 14 real
small lots. But, it still requires a waiver of the platting requirement. If you
looked at the Eide case and this case, which is the lesser of two equals, you would
have to say this case because it is a previously platted situation. At least we can
look at Lots 1 through 5, but it still requires a waiving action.
Councilman Horn: On the other hand, I looked at the Eide case
situation until the whole piece would be coming in for a plat.
decision on that property.
as a temporary
It was not a final
Councilman Watson: I feel that we are taking a step backwards. We have had
something platted and now we are going to go back to metes and bounds. Usually we
take a metes and bounds and we try and bring it to a plat. I understand their
problem and I certainly empathize with them.
Councilman Horn:
property is sold
platted?
Could we make the metes and bounds a temporary situation until the
and then at the time of sale make it a requirement that it be
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-5-
Councilman Gevinq: Are you talking specifically about this case?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Councilman Gevinq: I get the impression that this is based upon an eminent sale.
They are talking about months here or even days.
Councilman Horn: It seems to me that the hardship is hard to justify if a sale is
eminent because the sale should cover any costs of doing this.
!!.!:...:.. Roman: We wouldn't be able to pay the cost of replatting anld pay the assessments.
She is that close to being broke. We could probably sell half Jf the thing. In 1979
we had a potential buyer and we came to the City to ask for a v~riance to split Lot 3
and to build a house on there. One of the reasons we were even !talking about moving
an extra 20 feet on there was so that if, at some future time, they would ask for a
variance they would be closer to the 15,000 sqaure feet requirement. Unfortunately,
that deal fell through.
Councilman Horn: Are you saying that the cost of platting this ,is greater than the
profit you will make from selling the lot?
Mr. Roman: I guess I was making two points. Part of the reason for moving the line
was that the remaining property, if it were split by metes and bounds and had 14,000
I
sq. ft. on each of the lots. If this were not done, the remainfng properties, if
split, would only have 12,000 square feet for every building si~e. As far as the
hardship is concerned, before we can sell it to these people it ihas to go through a
probate, a judge has to approve it, the judge cannot approve this sale if the
appraised price of the land is greater than the offer. We felt that the price of the
land would be somewhat less. We felt that this would be the best way to sell this
property right now.
Councilman Horn: If we could require it upon the sale of the property, it seems like
we are getting in a chicken and egg situation. If the property would sell, it would
generate enough profit to pay for this.
Councilman Gevinq:
And let the buyer pick up the platting.
Mr.
the
the
Roman: The buyer is actually the person that is going to bJild
who Ie de al hi nge s on the b uye r bei ng ab Ie to ge t an FHA 10 ani to
property. It is rather involved. !
the property, but
buy the house and
Councilman Gevinq: In that sale that you are talking about, if they just bought the
platted lots as they now exist, Lots 9 through 17, and forget about taking that other
20 feet chunk off Lots 1 through 5, they could do that. They could build a house on
that.
Mr. Roman: That's been appraised at about $17,000. We have already talked to the
judge and he said that he cannot approve the sale of that property for $13,500 if it
were appraised at $17,000. We have to go back in for another apbraisal the judge
told us because the other one was one year old. We felt that by diminishing the
size of that building site, that the appraisal would become less,.
I
Councilman Gevinq: It seems to me if you just left these platte~ lots alone, Lots 9
through 17, you could sell those and a buyer could build a housel on them. They would
I
meet all the requirements of the City.
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-6-
Mr. Roman: You can't believe how long we have been trying to sell these lots.
Merrill Lynch has been trying to sell them all summer long and there has not been a
single offer and this is the first ligitimate offer that we have had.
Councilman Gevinq: What is the hang-up with this buyer?
Mrs. Roman: That would make the other five lots pratically worthless........
Councilman Gevinq: Not really. I don't agree with you. You would still have a
12,000 square foot lot on Lots 1, 2, and 3. You might have a little bit of a problem
with the City Council having to come back and getting a waiver on the lot size, but I
think you might have a pretty good chance of that. I am not speaking for the rest of
the Council.
Mr. Roman: We actually thought that the Council would be pleased that we are trying
to make those lots bigger to meet the ordinance requirement.
Councilman Gevinq: I understand that, but I think you might be better off leaving
them alone and let them stand as they are. They are now 12,000 square feet. In my
view after looking at what is out there at Red Cedar Point, that is a lot bigger than
some of the lots that I have seen out there. That is just my opinion.
Mr. Roman: We still have the problem of whether or not this buyer is going to be
able to handle that lot.
Councilwoman Watson: If they sold Lots 9 through 17 and left Lots 1 through 8 and
split it right down the middle like that, would that be the same as dividing
something in half?
Barb Dacy: Yes. They could convey Lots 9 through 17 and/or Lots 1 through 5. Each
lot would exceed 15,000 square feet and have a lot frontage requirement.
Councilwoman Watson: But I mean the platting. Would there be any simplification?
Barb Dacy: They would not have to plat anything if they conveyed Lots 9 through 17.
As soon as they move lot lines, etc. and start dividing...............
Councilwoman Watson: There is kind of a wash with that $4,000. If they are worth
$17,000 and if you sell it for 13,500 and it costs $4,000 to plat it, either way you
have got $17,000 worth of property, but then you could avoid the platting require-
ments by simply splitting it. That would eliminate the platting requirement. I
realize it causes a problem because then the property is worth $17,000. I don't know
if we can really deal with that.
Councilman Gevinq: Don't you agree, Mr. Mayor, that they are making a complicated
situation out of this by requesting for the platting. I think these are platted lots
and they ought to leave them alone. Let the buyer accept them as they are and I
think you would still end up with three nice lots.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Gevinq: In my view, and I have been on the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals for a long time and I have seen a lot less desireable lots come in under
12,000 square feet. You could make it.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with what you are saying, Dale. I think it certainly should
be something that th~y should consider.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-7-
Mr. Roman: We certainly would consider it, but I am sure we are not going to be able
to sell this property at that price. Sooner or later it will s~ll, but by then this
lady will absolutely not be able to pay her I bills at the nursin~ home.
Councilman Geving moved to deny the waiver of platting request at Red Cedar Point
Road, Delores and Peter Roman. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 2,527 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING, OUTLOT ~ PARK ~
FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES:
Barb Dacy: The parcel is located behind The Press, north of Highway 5. It is zoned
P-4, industrial. The Press is located just north of West 78th Street and Highway 5
and south of West 77th Street. The proposed structure is on Outlot A, which is to be
,
intended for future industrial development. The applicant is proposing a warehouse
I
for the primary purpose of storing cars. There will be accessories of gas storage of
race test fuel, as well as wash bay facilities. The location of the proposed ware-
house on your site plan meets setback requirements and should be adequately screened
by the existing vegetation. The applicant intended to put the ~anitary facilities to
,
a septic tank and has submitted a perc test. However, the perc test results are
rather high and in some cases, did fail. Since the Planning Commission review there
maybe an opportunity to hook into the existing sewer line. We are now researching
that possibility. When taken to the Planning Commission originally, they tabled the
request so that more information could be determined about the requirements for sep-
tic tanks and waste of oils, etc. draining into the septic system. Staff came back
with our research on December 11, and met condition #4 (All drains from the site be
connected to an approved septic system with an in-line oil sepa~ator and flammable
waste trap. Additionally, the owner provide for a waste storage' system for disposing
of oils and other automotive fluids.) The Commission accepted this amendment and
,
also passed staff's recommended conditions. It is also my understanding that the
applicant has amended the size of the fuel storage down from a 5,000 gallon tank to
3,000. He is also proposing to locate the storage tank further north, away from the
proposed building. The applicant is here to answer any of your questions. The
Planning Commission did recommend approval subject to conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 and
our amended condition 84.
Bill Monk: The Planning Commission did add a phrase that did not get in the report
in condition 84. It should read as follows: All drains from the site be connected
to an approved septic system or municipal sanitary sewer system 'with an in-line oil
separator and flammable waste trap. As Barbara said, we are sti!ll re'viewing the
possibility of connecting to the sanitary sewer. I
I
Councilwoman Watson: With 84 I would be far more concerned about their oil traps,
etc. if they connect up with our sanitary sewer system, because floor drains and
areas such as this and dumping all that oil and junk, I don't see that as a terrific
idea.
Bill Monk: They would still be required to provide for a waste storage system for
disposing of oils and other automotive fluids. Basically, it will be handled as any
commercial service station.
Mayor Hamilton:
This says it is a warehouse.
I
is for storing the cars. It is
accessory to get at the primary
use.
true
Barb Dacy: The primary use of the warehouse
that they will have fuel storage there as an
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-8-
Councilwoman Watson: Why do they need so much fuel storage and why is there concerns
about drains and oil, etc. What is going to occur here that creates all of this
concern?
Barb Dacy: It was a concern at the Commission level because the cars will be washed
on site, oil changes, etc. If you change your oil at home, the oil drains out onto
the driveway and runs out into the street, likewise, there may be some oil spillage,
etc. getting into the septic system.
Darryl Fortier: These cars are primarily for the Beddor family. They are the same
cars that you see on the street every day. This original request was to put a four-
car garage up on Christmas Acres as a residential garage and not have a house
attached to it. Since Mr. Beddor owns the Press and if we were to make it into a
warehouse, Mr. Beddor could store the cars there. He will be doing routine main-
tenance on them, therefore we decided to put in a flammable waste trap and put in a
floor drain. He also increased it into a six-car garage. It has always been viewed
as just generally warehousing over the winter and occasional use in the summer. It
is not a commercial venture. It is strictly private, but if neccesary, the Press can
have ownership of it. The use of the fuel tank is mostly, I think, for convenience
for Mr. Beddor. These cars are fairly high in performance. He does use a higher
test fuel. I don't think this is a commercial venture in any way, but we are cer-
tainly willing to live up to the requirements of a warehouse. Therefore, when we
started looking at changing oils, etc. we were concerned about the environment and we
do want to connect to the sanitary sewer as soon as possible. For that reason, we
had to look at what this is closest to. This is not intended to serve the public in
any way.
Mayor Hamilton: The thing that kind of throws a person, you say that the retaining
tank will be for "race test fuel." Does he burn race test fuel in his street car?
Darryl Fortier: Race test fuel is a way of saying high octane.
Councilwoman Watson: Being somewhat familiar with that sort of thing, some of these
fuels used are much more flammable than your standard gasoline products and probably
would be more of a hazzard of just the storage of high test unleaded gasoline.
Councilman Horn: Do you think they are talking about alcohol fuel?
Councilwoman Watson: I don't know. I think that is what we almost have to know what
he means by that because some of these things would be extremely flammable.
Darryl Fortier: I am the one that brought up the words "race test fuel." I guess
Mr. Beddor has never been asked by what he means by "race test fuel." All of his
cars can burn the very same fuel that you go down to the service station and load up
with fuel for. He drives everyone of them on the street. The only reason I refer to
"race test fuel" is because if and when Mr. Beddor may want to run his cars privately
somewhere a little above the speed limit, on closed tracks, etc., then he might go
for the highest octane fuel that he can find.
Councilwoman Watson: But then he would probably be going for something that he
wouldn't bother to store.
Darryl Fortier: The other problem is that if you burn any of these fuels that are
mixed with extremely flammable materials, your engine has to be modified to burn
them. You literally can't burn them in a street car if you are thinking that explo-
sive of a fuel.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-9-
It is he same type of
I
I
I
Councilwoman Watson: I think he should be limited to a simple high test version of
unleaded gasoline on this property. I think if he wants to rac~ his car, I think he
can get that fuel separately. I don't think he needs to store that kind of fuel on
site.
Councilman Horn:
thing.
I see this just like the City garage.
Councilman Horn: I think as long as we specify that it's not t e high flammability,
high performance racing fuel it's all right.
Councilman Gevinq: I get the impression that this is going to be a wood frame
warehouse facility. Is that a true statement? If that is true, I would view this as
a temporary nature used for only a short period of time until sometime in the future
it be replaced. Is that correct?
Darryl Fortier: We originally asked for this facility to be constructed of a wood
frame for just that reason. We did view it as a temporary facility and we antici-
pated that it would be removed within about two or three years. ! Since that time, the
Planning Commission responded that they would like to see a permanent structure
constructed of mansonry. We, therefore, issued the documents tri allow for masonry
construction. If the cost is not prohibitive, Mr. Beddor will build out of masonry.
I
Councilman Gevinq: I guess that is the point that I am getting lat. I, too, would
like to see a more permanent structure; one that would be made of masonry products
and that would contain a water system such as we have here for fire suppression. I
would have to assume that this is a part of our building codes on all warehouse faci-
lities and you would have to adhere to that. Is that your intention?
Darryl Fortier:
our attention.
We will comply to every single building code that will be brought to
I
Councilman Gevinq: The other thing that has been brought up se~eral
storage of that tank, will this be an outside, above ground tank?
I
I
times on the
Darryl Fortier:
This will be a below grade tank.
Mayor Hamilton: Presumably, that tank will have to meet whatever requirements there
are for underground tanks.
Barb Dacy: Also, condition #3 states no outdoor storage is allowed.
I
Councilman Gevinq: One other point that I would like to make and that is the hook up
to our sanitary sewer system. Sewer is not available to this site at this time. I
would like to make a condition as a part of this approval that within one year that
the sewer is available to the property that this site must be hooked up. I would
like to have that considered because I think that would tend to imake this a more per-
manent structure.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve site plan #85-10 stamped "Received November
13, 1985" for a 2,527 square foot warehouse building on Outlot A, Park One, Fortier
and Associates with the following conditions:
1. A detailed location and acceptable percolation test for the septic
system must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-10-
2. Details of the gas storage must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
3. No outdoor storage is allowed.
I
4. All drains from the site be connected to an approved septic system
or sanitary sewer system with an in-line oil separator and flammable
waste trap. Additionally, the owner provide for a waste storage
system for disposing of oils and other automotive fluids.
5. Final site plan for the building permit denote the septic system
location, water service location and driveway layout along with
septic system design details.
6. When sewer is available, the applicant has one year to connect
to the sewer system.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson.
Councilwoman Swenson:
Planning Commission.
I noticed there was a question about washing the cars at the
There was some comment that the cars would be washed elsewhere.
Darryl Fortier: There is an allowance for a car wash. A person can drive inside one
of the stalls and wash his car inside the building. There was a comment at the
Planning Commission that they were concerned about the quality of water that would
dissipate from a car wash and how much there would be. I think Bill Monk explored
some of this through the DNR.
Councilwoman Swenson: As long as there is no hazardous waste, you figure that will I
take care of it, is that correct?
Bill Monk: Yes.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR:
Bill Monk: Don, Barbara and myself did go over the report. We did have some major
points that we wanted to cover and we convinced ourselves that they wouldn't make
changes that we were going to recommend to the Council that they approved the version
in front of them. They were somewhat accommodating on almost all of the changes and
are now in the final draft of the agreement, which they want to take to their systems
committee January 6, 1986. The changes from the agreement that you have got in your
packet are relatively minor. I think that we have basically come back around on
almost all of the points. There was a lot of give and take on both sides. With the
Council members having read the agreement in the packet, I would ask your comments of
the overall or about specific sections and we would work on the sections as possible
before the final draft is there. Staff's position is still that we are so close to
having an interceptor that the agreement still represents something that we can live
with. With that, I would ask the Council for any comments on the agreement.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was confused about this when we looked at this the last
time. I think we talked about making some changes, additions or deletions at that
time and we were told what we say is what we got. I had all kinds of comments on that
one. I am sure I was told, that's tough, you just don't get a chance and now we are
back renegotiating.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
11-
Bill Monk: When we talked about this earlier, what had been approved was a resolut-
ion by the Met Council on what they said it would take to formulate a final
agreement. So we weren't in any position to comment on that resolution. What they
were directing their staff to do was to work with the cities on ian agreement that
would cover the points in that resolution. What we have tried to do is make sure
that as each of those points were addressed was to make sure that they were addressed
in a way that did not put the city at a tremendous disadvantage. That is what we
tried to do. Some of the major things are still in here. Some of the sewer flow,
the ten acre lot size and on down the line. Again, the City didn't have the option
to change their resolution. We tried to incorporate the comments that the Council
had made at that point into this document. We didn't intend to confuse anybody.
Councilwoman Watson: Under land Use Planning and Control; under (01) where we are
going to redesignate the boundary line. I don't mean to be facetious, but have they
told us where they want it?
Bill Monk: Right where it is now.
Councilwoman Watson: Where they have it now, their version?
Barb Dacy: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: They are just pushing it back ten years. From 1990 to 2000 is what
they are saying.
Councilwoman Watson: Under (02) Adopt a policy to the effect that the City will not
exceed the Council's preliminary year 2000 sewer flow allocatiori of 1.5 MGD.
I
Bill Monk: We did talk about that one quite a bit. They will draft that up and we
will take a look at it. The way that it will be written up is: Adopt a policy to the
effect that the City will not exceed the preliminary flow allocation or the number as
it is cited on or the development frame work. We are kind of tying everything back
to the development frame work process, so what changes in the development frame work
process will dictate. We are trying, and I think we are succee~ing, in making sure
that we are not tied into some magical numbers just out there floating around, but we
will work through the process to make sure that the numbers that we end up with will
not restrict our growth, which is the City's overall concern. Some of these sections
have been rewritten so that even though numbers are mentioned, they are mentioned in
such a way that we are not reversing the process. We are not tying ourselves into a
number now that will become concrete as we go into the process. We are writing it in
such a way that the process will stay the way it should be. But we will go through
the review process and that will dictate the number; not that we will be happy with
that number, because I don't know how that will end up. We hav~. to go through that
process irregardless of this. Every city does. What we are trying to do is to make
sure nothing is being twisted to our detriment as we go through that process. That
was a major point of the discussion today and will be written in that way.
Councilwoman Watson: under (03), The zoning ordinance rural service area density
standards of one unit per ten acres in general rural areas and one unit per 40 in
agricultural. These decisions haven't really been made yet by Js.
Don Ashworth: You are going to have to by August 1st of 1986.
Councilwoman Watson: Right, and we will be doing it within the next two or three
months. When I see this like this.........................
Bill Monk: There is no question, you are committing to this.
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-12-
Councilwoman Watson: That's what I wanted to know, is right now before we even see
it we are committed to this.
I
Bill Monk: Basically, they are pushing every city to adopt this as part of the deve-
lopment frame work. What they are looking for is a concession at this point on this
item. That is what we discussed at the last meeting. This is one big area that they
pushed in terms of what the City can do. Whether they can force us to do it, just do
the development frame work process, I don't know. This definitely is a committment.
Councilwoman Watson:
This is written in stone?
Bill Monk: To them it is. They want to see this change and they are trying to force
every community in the metro area to do it. They are using it to get us and Eden
Priarie to agree.
Councilwoman Watson: under (05) Transmit a description and analysis of the dif-
ferences between the City's Land Use Plan and its Zoning Ordinance, and adopt a
method for reconciling the two. That has presented some difficulties for us in the
past and I would like to see (05) done by yesterday.
Barb Dacy: That item had to be done first before we went through our comp plan pro-
cess.
Councilwoman Watson:
would have been nice
It has already threatened to trip us up in
if it was done yesterday.
the past and it
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to go back to 6.1 where it says "to take no actions I
which would result in premature urbanization of areas outside the metropolitan urban
service area." That is such a wide open statement. Anything that we would do they
could point to that and say you are taking action ,to develop outside the MUSA line.
Bill Monk: The only thing that we could develop outside would be one unit per ten
acres or a contractor's yard on a forty acre piece or whatever. What we are really
committing to is that we would not approve a "Hidden Valley" outside the MUSA line
and then try and extend the sewer to it on our own. That is what we are really com-
mitting to and we have never tried to do that to this day. All we are really saying
is that we will not extend utilities outside that line and we will not allow develop-
ment on rural plats of increments of less than 1 and 10.
Mayor Hamilton: So if we agreed to (03) then, a parcel like Merrill Steller's could
not be approved?
Bill Monk: Correct.
Councilwoman Watson: Even though there is no intention to extend services to it, you
would not be able to do it even though you never said I want to let them have sewer.
Councilman Gevinq: The problem is that we have got a lot of Merrill Steller
situations in Chanhassen. They are allover the place.
Councilman Horn: I would like to see this reworded to the point where we say we
will not extend urban services to these areas rather than saying we will not allow
premature urbanization.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-13-
I
Councilwoman Watson: If we commit to (03) does it make any difference whether we say
we are going to extend the services or not. We are not going to be able to do
anything with less than 10 acres anyway.
Councilman Horn: I don't think I agree to (03).
Councilman Gevinq: (03) is deadly as far as I am concerned.
Don Ashworth: You are going to be forced to agree to (03) whet~er it comes through
this agreement or by August of 1986 when the development frame work process is
completed or through court action. They have the power through .the requirement of
comprehensive plans and that city must bring that comprehensive Iplan into agreement
with the overall comprehensive plan set by Metropolitan Council. They are in the
process of dictating the development frame work process. That will cause each of the
cities to re-evaluate their development patterns. They have already stated, with
that in hand, they will redefine the Metropolitan Council's comprehensive plan and
then they will require each of the cities to conform to that. This is an area that I
know the City Council does not wish .to see placed in here, but it is the same portion
that Dick Nowlin spoke to the Council about before. The Mayor is absolutely correct;
when they presented that issue two or three months ago, it is in their resolution.
You are going to get this requirement one way or another. I
Councilman Horn: Why did we go through a comprehensive planning process to have it
repeated two years later? I
Don Ashworth: They are looking at a time period of five years.
it was the early 1980's for most cities and it was 1982 for our
Councilwoman Swenson:
How else can they self-perpetuate the
They
city.
I
I
agency?
are saying that
Don Ashworth: I agree with that type of comment. But, they have done it before in
terms of designation of any type of major issue; they have that lauthority and they
did that to us in the last comp plan issue in terms of the desiJnation of State High-
way 5, where the urban service line was to be located previously. We saw issue after
issue and they have stated that this time around they will require that 1 in 10 as a
part of every comprehensive plan. I
I
Councilman Gevinq: But don't you think it affects us, a city like
any of the other close in suburbs.
Councilman Horn: What you are really telling us, Don, is this
the lake Ann Interceptor agreement. This is something that is
is it in this document?
I
I
really
coming
ours, more than
isn't part of
anyway. So why
Don Ashworth: They want to accelerate that as a part of that process. They don't
care to take and see us go through the court process. Whereby putting it as a part
of this agreement, they eliminate one more community in terms ofl potentially going to
court to force that issue. I
Councilman Horn: My point is whether we have to live with this or not; I don't want
it in this document.
Coucilwoman Swenson: If we agree to this, we give them a blank check and they can do
anything they want to with us. If they don't have to take us to court, they tell us
what we can do and when we can do it.
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-14-
Mayor Hamilton: When would this
it, then this is effective now.
many developments in as possible
we will be forced to do it.
be effective? If we agree to this document and sign
So we'll just hang on as long as we can and get as
because we have got until August of next year before
I
Councilman Gevinq:
I would rather do that.
Councilwoman Swenson: I am not ready to agree to anything until I see the final ter-
minology. I want to see what the changes are before I make a decision.
Don Ashworth: I would very much like to have Dick Nowlin present at the next meeting
to discuss the implications of either changing some of these sections in light of
their earlier resolution or just an out and out denial.
Councilwoman Swenson: What do they mean under (03) "with minimum lot sizes greater
than 21 acres".
Barb Dacy: What they are saying is that you may have a situation where you would
have two parcels and maybe have one five acre, but you would have to look at the
entire 40 acres around it and only allow one unit for that forty-acre block.
Councilwoman Swenson: What if they happen to belong to different people? The first
one that comes in is the one that gets it.
Barb Dacy: That is correct.
Mayor Hamilton: Under (07) where it says, "Further, the City's sewer plan shall con- I
tain a policy, ordinance, and administrative program to reduce storm water in-flow
into its sewer system." I think that should be excluded. Didn't we agree that we
are not going the reduce the storm water in-flow anyway. What is the sense of us
spending money to come up with a program that is going to reduce the water in-flow
into a system that we can't reduce it into.
Councilman Horn: I think the percentage was wrong, as I understood it.
Bill Monk: As a part of the whole thing one of our major arguments was that they
were using a rediculous 50 percent reduction of I and I. We hoped to acheive 20 per-
cent. They are requesting that the we redo our comprehensive sewer plan. I think it
is in the City's best interest to do it anyway because I have been looking at it and
thinking it needed a revision anyway. Having a section in there that would deal with
I and I and how the City would hope to reduce it and what steps we would take. Maybe
it would be something that we would routinely put in anyway. We would want to
acheive the 20 percent if we could acheive it. That has always been one of our goals.
What we argued with them is that they not write in here, no way would we accept that
the city write its ordinance to include provisions to handle 50 percent I and I
reduction. No way, we just can't do it.
Councilman Gevinq: The way I see this whole agreement, is this probably started out
as a very simple agreement talking about construction, who is going to pay for it,
how it was going to be managed, certain things like breach of contract in the fact I
that the City could use it for trunk lines, etc. I think what messed this whole
agreement up was section #6. If they would have left section #6 out of their, this
whole agreement probably wouldn't be too bad. I think section #6 is totally irrele-
vant to this entire agreement. It is what they want and I think it is totally nego-
tiable.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
~15-
,
Bill Monk: One last point. From their perspective, and withini 3; years I guess I
have come to understand it, if not agree with it; but from their point of view they
see extension of this line to be premature, that it goes to an area that is outside
the existing MUSA and what they claim to be outside the 2000 MUSA because we have
enough land within our MUSA to go to some date beyond 2000. Th~y feel that these
land use controls are necessary to tighten against the possibility that the City will
I
try and come back and develop using this new pipe that goes outside the MUSA line.
We have agrued that there is already all kinds of things that r~strict us from
connecting, etc. That brings in the whole thought of this tightening of th& land use
control. They have a very powerful section of the Met Council ~taff who over sees
this whole land use issue and they have hammered away at this point until the
Metropolitan Council has basically agreed with them that if we ~re going to put this
pipe in before its time, which is really what they are saying, we are going to make
sure that there are no premature hook-ups. Section 86 is their way of doing it.
Mayor Hamilton: We are not the ones that want to put the pipe in. We want to put the
pipe in someday, but don't put the forcemain through our town t60.
Bill Monk: I am just trying to point out how they are viewing this thing and how it
is different from the way we view it.
Councilman GevinQ:
them put their pipe
Well just say that we didn't want to use it all as a trunk.
in and forget about the 4.2 city use of it.
Let
Councilwoman Swenson: But that's the one that encapsulates the .whole thing. If you
use the 4.2 you could eliminate 6 because it says, "the City shall be authorized to
make use of the facility as a trunk at such time and at such Iodations as may be
authorized by the Commission, consistent with the provisions of Ithe City's
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the design plans for the
Facility when areas tributary to the Facility are brought within the City's urban
service area." That covers everything that you have got in 86.
Councilman GevinQ: Let's say we don't use the pipe and we take off 4.2 and 6. We
don't care. They are just going to run a pipe through Chanhassen, which is the Lake
Ann Interceptor and we won't link into it with our trunk.
Bill Monk: That is always a possibility.
Councilman GevinQ: I can't believe that we couldn't build a cheaper one and assess
it back to the contractors and developers anyway, rather than sticking our citizens
with $500,000.
Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest that we
agreement and then we can decide whether
it. How would that be?
table this item until Je see a final
or not we want to agree to it or to reject
,
Bill Monk: We will have the agreement within a few days, but if we approve it
without 86, we would have to modify the agreement a~d send over la modified agreement,
which is your decision.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see their final draft first and then we can make
whatever modifications we want and then send it back.
Councilwoman Swenson: It says the City agrees that its current
a "substantial departure from the Council system plans pursuant
That's their view. They accepted our comprehensive plan in the
difference of the MUSA line.
I
I h.
compre ens~ve
plan is
to ................"
beginning with the
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-16-
Councilman Horn: I would like to have some examples of what they are talking about.
Barb Dacy: They are saying that the rural policies, the Z! acre, is inconsistent. I
They are trying to determine the sewer flow inconsistency. That's what they are
saying is inconsistent with their overall system plans. That is how they are basing
their requirements.
Councilwoman Swenson: But they don't say that their plan has changed since ours was
put into effect. If this had been inconsistent with what they wanted, they would
have not approved it. They are continually amending theirs which throws ours into a
substantial departure. I think, in that case, substantial departure is a misused
term.
Councilman Horn: The only thing that we have changed is we have allowed Z! acre
developments in the unsewered area, which has absolutely no impact on their sewer
plans. It doesn't affect their sewer plan, it doesn't tie into their sewer plan.
How that can be argued as being a sewer issue, I don't understand.
Mayor Hamilton moved to table this item until the Council has a chance to look at
Metropolitan Council's final draft of the agreement. 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 Swenson: There is one more thing that bothers me a little bit about
this and that is I hope we are not perpetuating the approved, but pending undeveloped
areas for Lake Susan West and Lake Susan South. I don't want this to become a point
where somebody can come back and say, "Oh, this has already been approved per the
memorandum." This was for a developer several years ago. I am not entirely sure
that this is what we would want anymore. What I am saying is I don't want to see
this perpetuating as saying, yes, this particular Council at this particular time
agreed that these were the right figures.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I agree.
Don Ashworth: This report, in no way, will impact and will never be used by staff to
justify any particular development. At the Planning Commission/Council group meeting
you did ask Mr. Hoisington to show a population figure on the high end. To do that,
he needed to take and look at all housing developments approve a higher population
figure. But it will never be used by City staff to say a particular development
should or should not go in.
Councilwoman Watson: I thought it was interesting that Lake Susan South and Lake I
Susan West were on here and Chaparral West was not. They were proposed at the same
time. The zoning on that property would still dictate that would be as much a possi-
bility as it would be on Lake Susan West or Lake Susan South and yet it is not
included.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
L17-
Barb Dacy: I did not give him the old information on that because it was designated
on the comp plan now. Most of it was business, which pretty much wiped out the old
plan. We wanted to base the list here on things that we, for s~re, knew would come
in as single family or mixed use.
Don Ashworth: We will let Mr. Hoisington know about that statistic and that he
should make that change, Carol.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS/RESIGNATIONS:
Mayor Hamilton: We have Planning Commission vacancies. Jim Thompson resigned, as
I
you know. Chairman Ryan's and Vice-Chairman Conrad's appointments are up and I would
recommend to the Council that they be reappointed.
i
Mayor Hamilton moved to reappoint Chairman William Ryan and Vice-Chairman Ladd Conrad
to the Planning Commission. 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. I
Mayor Hamilton moved to accept Tom Schoenecker's resignation from the Park and
Recreation Commission and advised staff to prepare a letter of appreciation and to
begin advertising for this vacancy. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson Jnd Swenson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carriedl
HOLIDAY/MEETING SCHEDULE:
Martin Luther Kinq Holiday, Discussion:
Mayor Hamilton moved to designate one of the two existing floating holidays as Martin
Luther King Day. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. ThJ following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
1986 Meetinq Schedule:
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the 1986 meeting schedule
was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor:
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
Motion carried.
as presented. Motion
Mayor Hamilton,
No negative votes.
FILLY'S:
Councilwoman Watson commented that she had been hearing some things that were not
too pleasing regarding Filly's. She stated that she is concern~d somewhat how it is
reflecting on Chanhassen and how it will affect the potential development in and
around it. She also stated that we have to do everything in oUi power to make sure
that the things people hear outside the community are possitivethings.
Jim Castleberry commented that there have been some problems out there, but many
I
measures have been taken to take care of these problems. He felt that some forward
steps have been made.
Mayor Hamilton stated that Jim and himself have been working very closely with John
Dorek and Bill Baden and that Bill and John honestly do want to have a clean opera-
tion, as does everyone else. I
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1.D.: .
Councilwoman Sw;;;-;;;n~ am a little confused with these figure1s, Don. You recom-
mend that the $8,000.00 budgeted in 1985 be allocated in 1986. .The original budge-
tary amount assumed that other costs, i.e. modem, printer, etc. ;could bring the cost
up from the $5,000 to $6,000 cost figure for the computer itself. What is the $8,000
for?
Council Meeting, December 16, 1985
-18-
Don Ashworth: The $5,000 to $6,000 was the anticipated cost of the hardware. The
$2,000 represented the other costs that would go along with a small computer, i.e.
modem, printer, and associated costs associated with a piece of hardware like that.
Councilwoman Swenson: What you are planning on getting, is this going to be com-
patible with any of the other computers that we have in the office?
Don Ashworth: It is really totally compatible with all of them, but, remember we
are soley asking that the monies be reallocated in 1986 with it then being our
responsibility to bring back this specific recommendation at that point in time. The
Sheriff's office has made a number of twists and turns in terms of what it is they
are doing including the Carver County Board and certain departments from the state.
Right now I am not certain what we will bring back to you, whether or not we will
bring anything back, but I would like to make sure we have that option.
Councilwoman Swenson: You just want to shift the funds from 1985 to 1986.
problem with that.
I have no
RESOLUTION 085-77: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving
the 1986 Budget Amendment, Computer Purchase. (Consent Agenda item l.d.). Resolution
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.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS:
Barb Dacy stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission has directed staff
to contact Bob Dols and William Swearingen. She stated that Mr. Wildermuth is still I.
pursuing his application and he has not served before.
Mayor Hamilton stated that previous Commission members should not be contacted. He
felt that previous applicants that have not served before could be contacted, but
not previous members.
Councilman Horn moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman
Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Kathy Sundquist
,I