Loading...
1986 01 27 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 27, 1986 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Geving Members Absent Councilwoman Swenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, 8arbara Dacy and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on the Federal/State Fiscal problems. Motion was seconded by Coouncilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: la. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County Concerning 201 Project Operations. b. Accept Resignation of Joe Warneke from the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS !Q LAKE DRIVE EAST BETWEEN HIGHWAY 101 AND DAKOTA AVENUE: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order with the following interested per- sons present: Frank Kraemer Tom Borman Tim Erhart Mike Higgins Robert Frigaard Bill Yates, Representing The Chanhassen Legion Mayor Hamilton: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment? Thomas Borman: I represent the developer, the Kerr Companies. Frank Kraemer was out here and testified in December on our feeling at that time of the assessment policy and there have been some discussions since then. Basically, where we come from on Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -2- this is that we are willing to pay our fair share of the assessments for development in a community and we feel in this case that we are being assessed unevenly or une- qually. It is clear that we are being assessed at a higher rate than Outlot 1, than the American Legion and Chanhassen Estates. It is hard, in my view, to see how it is that we are being benefited so substantially more than the Legion or the Estates or Outlot 1. Our parcel 5 is, in fact, going to get access, but we could probably get access from the state. Parcel 6, again our parcel, which will get access from that. We could probably get access off of Highway 5 for a right hand turn. The minutes of your meetin9 in December really suggest that the Legion's being assessed less is simply because their parcel would be more difficult to develop. While that may be a valid point, it really should not be our problem that they have some ground that is difficult to develop. It shouldn't be at our expense. It seems to me, when you look at it, all the parcels do get some benefit from Lake Drive East. It seems also, from a policy standpoint, what the city should be interested in is getting development out there. This we want to do. The effect of so unevenly assessing the parcels out there will be either to have us down scale our development, which I really don't think is what the city has in mind, or to not develop the property at all. We are not a politically potent force in this community. Having not been here before, I can't say for sure but it would seem that the Legion has a potency that we don't have. That still doesn't make for the wisest development policy. We want to do something in this area; a strip center on Hwy 5, an office building on six, which will be very attractive and something the city ought to be interested in. But, these kind of indications where we are treated so unevenly or so differently make us rethink whether we can either afford to do it or whether we are going to have a cooperative relationship with the city. There is one other thing that I would like to point out and it is unfortunate that it occurred, but back in July there was a misunderstanding between the staff and our developer over how this property would be assessed. We were told, we believe, that the property would be assessed on an area basis and certain decisions as such as the price of which adjoining property was sold to a developer was based on a judgement as to what that assessment cost would be. The purchased price was reduced in consideration of what we thought the assessment would be and the basis on which it would be assessed. We learned in December that the assessment was going to be different, somewhere on the order of $40,000 higher than we thought and that is money right out of our pocket. We would have charged more for the property that we have already sold had we known the basis on which it was going to be assessed. There is some disagreement in correspondence between Mr. Monk and Mr. Kraemer over what went on at the meeting. But as a matter of fairness, that again is money directly out of our pocket. We certainly believed that we were told that all the property in that area would be assessed on an area basis rather than on a frontage basis. The assessment that has been proposed most recently was to assess the Kerr Companies on a basis of approximately 85 percent for the Kerr Companies and 15 percent for the Legion. We think that is a far too high price for us to pay to do development in this city. We don't see, frankly, the benefit to us as against the Legion or the Outlots as being that much different. Bill Yates: I am the first Vice-Commander of the American Legion. I don't know what the assessments are. I would like to make one comment pertaining to a comment that has already been made. As far as the Legion is concerned, we are not going to bene- fit from that. We are a service club, and it makes no difference. We don't have any outside interests as far as people coming in, etc. We know we are going to be assessed on this and what we would like is if we could set aside this assessment as far as paying principal on it for at least five years. The reason for that request is because of the financial position we are in right now. That is the main thing. We know we are going to get assessed and we are willing to pay this assessment, but it is merely a fact of having it set aside for the time being. I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -3- There being no further 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, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I would like to hear Bill Monk's response to the assessment matter. Bill Monk: As the Council is aware when this project first came in, we looked at Lake Drive East as it went through the Hidden Valley proposal very carefully because Lake Drive East is a part of the City's state aid system. The road travels from TH 101 over to Dakota Avenue and is one of the more important links on the southern frontage road the city has designated as a state aid road. What is called on this map as Edge Drive A was very important, again, when the bulk of Hidden Valley was looked at, not only as it would tie into Chanhassen Estates, but if the traffic would flow between Dakota and TH 101. Hidden Valley is being done as a private improvement project and Lake Drive East from TH 101 over to Dakota is being handled as a munici- pal state aid street as a municipal project. This project consists entirely of grading, street and drainage work as utilities are being totally put in under the Hidden Valley project. The project consists of a 36 foot street gutter to gutter all the way between the two roads. In looking at the assessment, we did look at several methods as was alluded to earlier. At one point we did take a look at using some type of an area approach to this project. It was complicated somewhat by the large area of residential as versus the different uses that were proposed on lots 5, 6 and 7. One being the church site and the other high density residential and another being commercial. Instead, we did revert back to a per foot assessment as is pro- posed in the study. The American Legion becomes a little more difficult because as a part of Hidden Valley's project, a small right of way was stubbed in for use by the Legion in the future. It is known at this point that they would not use it, but to try and plan their future useage. We did require that this right of way be platted for future extention. We tried to figure out the benefit to the Legion. We did go back 100 feet, draw the line to proximate equivalent frontage and come up with 300 feet as the benefit, at least in the study that would be used. I still think that is reasonable for use of this thing. Another item that was of concern and was raised when the study was considered, that I am recommending be changed, is how the section of roadway outside the limits of Hidden Valley from this point over to Dakota be charged. Originally, it was proposed that two-thirds of that cost go back into the development. After reviewing that and how we have handled off site improvements in the past, it is being recommended at this point that the City, through its MSA fund, pick up the entire cost of that section while assessing back to the frontage only the improvements plus the improvements ~hat they do directly abut to. I don't believe that promises were made earlier. There were discussions that were held on how this would be assessed. There were discussions that an area assessment might well be the way to go and again, the final decision was to revert back to more historical front foot assessment. In the final analysis, it is before the Council right now, we do have a per foot assessment cost proposed of $43.68. That will fluc- tuate slightly because a part of this project is being done as a part of the Hidden Valley private development. We don't have a real good handle on the full extent that the improvements on this portion will be done as a part of the private improvement, so we may have overlapped some of the costs just to be conservative on our approach. I truely believe that $43.68 per foot is realistic and does compare well with other sections of Lake Drive East for which we have a feasibility study where the per foot assessment comes out between $50.00 and $55.00. I am tonight recommending that the Council proceed with the preparation of plans and specs and adopt a concept. In this memo it does correspond to the assessment of $43.68 per foot. This street remains very important length from the Hidden Valley project. Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -4- Councilman Horn: Was there ever an estimate made as to what the ratios would have been on an area wide assessment versus the front footage assessment? Bill Monk: We never did. You can playa little bit of a numbers game, but the one variable in here is "do you include the entire area of the residential area." If you do, I don't know how much of a difference it would make in terms of the Legion assessment, but it would make the assessment back to the residential area much greater. That was not proposed because of the different uses. I Councilman Horn: I guess I don't really see a problem with the recommendation. I know in my mind what I had preceived what we were doing with the Legion property was removing an access from TH 101 and we are going to put this road in here anyway. It made sense to do that. I don't see that they get a benefit from it. If anything, there access is somewhat less accessible than it was before, so I don't understand the statement that we are giving them preferencial treatment and I don't see anything wrong with the recommendation. Councilman Gevinq: This is the first time that we have seen any recommendation for an assessment on either a front footage basis or an area basis, officially. I think it goes that historically, whatever staff has indicated to someone, it is an unof- ficial comment and the assessment is based upon the Council's determination after the project is actually completed. So until this project is completed, we're not really sure just which method we are going to use, although we may indicate that tonight as to which of those two methods we may decide to choose. I am a little bit confused about some of the comments that were made about the possibility of a right turn onto Lot 6 (for example) of Highway 5. I don't think that would be pratical nor would it get approval either at our level or at the state level. As far a the Legion is con- cerned, personally, I even indicated at our first meeting that I didn't see any great I benefit to the American Legion. We are proposing an assessment here better than $16,000 at the 300 foot mark. Some day that may happen; some day we may open up that ball diamond area and they could make a development in there. I have a hard time seeing even that benefited at this time. As far as the area benefit is concerned, it would be extremely difficult to bring into this whole picture the 100 homes in the Chanhassen Estates area. Those people already have a street in front of their home; they have paid assessments on those streets; they have an access and an egress to Highway 5. The fact that we are putting in a frontage road that they could use to get to TH 101, I think would benefit very few people. I think their primary access egress will be out of Dakota Avenue. I think it would be almost impossible to bring the Chanhassen Estates people into any kind of area assessment. I can't see that that would be fair and I wouldn't propose that in any sense. I believe that what has been presented to us tonight by the City Engineer and his letter of January 23 is reasonable. I do feel that the front footage on this particular project is the best way to go. I think the estimated costs are very close to what was estimated in all the feasibility studies and preliminary feasibility studies that I am aware of. I think the costs are fair. I am a little concerned about the cost to Lot 7. The assessments there, of course, if that is on a front footage basis would be approxi- mately $40,000.00. That is really heavy, but at the same time, they have a big piece of acreage and it is all traversed by this frontage road. I can't see any relief for them, unfortunately. It is just that they are in an unfavorable position. I believe that what we have been presented with tonight is fair and equitable and I like the way it has been presented by the City Engineer. Councilwoman Watson: I thought we had discussed this road extensively when the deve- I lopment was discussed. I guess I am dismayed that we ended up misunderstanding each other about the assessment hearing, but, unfortunately there isn't much benefiting property except the new development property. The other properties had access and didn't really need this and the property that did was the developing property. I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -5- I do understand about that section that has no abutting property, and funds would pick up that 100 percent. I am sorry to see that happen. possessive about the MSA funds because we have so many places we want I understand that that is probably the only way to do it, correct? that the MSA I am kind of them to go, but Bill Monk: I believe that it is the only reasonable way to do it. Mayor Hamilton: Those MSA funds, Bill, including this years $220,000, we will have about $812,000 to use, and you are proposing we use $377,000 of that on this project? Bill Monk: Right. Mayor Hamilton: The reason I am curious about that is because weren't we going to use some of those funds down on Hesse Farm? ~ Monk: Yes. We have been looking at three projects for the use for them in 1986 and/or 1987. This was one, lake lucy Road was another, and Bluff Creek Drive was another. With about an $800,000 balance, three projects is reasonable and at a $200,000 level that does leave a fair amount for designation on the other road, should the Council wish to proceed with those two. Mayor Hamilton: I think we had prioritized lake lucy Road as being our number 1 priorty for next year, if I remember correctly. Bill Monk: This one and lake lucy Road will be the next one. Mayor Hamilton: I just want to make sure that we don't drian this down so much that we are not going to be able to accomplish our other projects. Bill Monk: I don't believe we will and I think we are in pretty good shape. Mayor Hamilton: I, too, feel that the front footage assessment is the right way to go. I seem to recall when we discussed the development there and when we talked about putting this road in, there was discussion about assessing Chanhassen Estates and we all said that there is no way that they are going to benefit and we would not go along with it. Also, on the legion, I think the assessment they are paying is fair and the assessment on that property should be set aside until such time that that property develops. They are really not benefiting. I agree with OSM's report and Bill's comments. I think it is a good report. Bill Monk: You should remember that this is an improvement hearing, not an assessment hearing. The Council is, perhaps stating their intent for an assessment hearing. But at this point we will be doing nothing more than authorizing proceeding with the construction project. Comments from the representative of the legion are well taken, but the Council can take no action on that. RESOLUTION #86-6: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the improvement project for lake Drive East in concurrence with the City Engineer's recommendation for increased MSA participation from $168,170 to $208,841. Further, that preparation of plans and specs be authorized. Resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Mr. Hendrickson, A member ~ the Advisory Board ~ the South Shore Senior Center: I was asked by the Adviorsy Board to give a progress report for the year 1985 to the Chanhassen Council. Their attendance has grown from an average of 16 in July of 1984 to 58 in December of 1985. Their congregate dining has grown from an average of 35 Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -6- meals in November of 1984 to 55 in November of 1985. That doesn't cover the various holidays they have. For example, at Christmas of this year, they had 133 dinners with their program. Two days a week they have an exercise program in the gym for over 35 men and women. A number of those are from Chanhassen. They have got a transportation program for the van that is furnished by Mount Cali vary Lutheran Church. That takes the seniors to the center and to their shopping. They have a variety of programs available for educational help and social needs for the seniors. I will leave a summary of this report that has additional details. The Senior Center wishes to thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council for your support in the past. Mayor Hamilton: About how many of those people are Chanhassen residents? Mr. Hendrickson: gate dining. So out. It varies. It is growing considerably, especially in the congre- many of the people that live alone, eat alone and they are coming PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION QI lQ ACRES INTO TWO 1 ACRE PARCELS ~ WHICH PARCEL "A" REQUIRES ~ LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCE, i MILES SOUTH OF CR ~ ~ HIGHWAY ~ ROBERT PETERSON: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order with the following interested per- son present: Robert J. Peterson, Route 2, Amery WI Barb Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to TH 101, south of Lyman Boulevard. What is being done is the 10 acre parcel is being split off from a larger 53 acre parcel and then that 10 is being split into two 5 acres. Parcel A requires a lot variance to the 180 foot requirement. As you recall, when we amended our sub- division ordinance in February, metes and bounds divisions in rural areas were per- mitted to be processed by staff administratively if certain conditions were met. One of those conditions was that adequate lot frontage on the public street existed. So the proposal here is to create a 30 foot strip along the north lot line of Parcel A. There is 465 feet of frontage along TH 101, so there is enough area to get 180 feet for each parcel. However, when we draw the line for 180 feet it restricts the buildable area for Parcel B to the spot just north of the wetland area. Staff is recommending approval of the variance to allow the 30 foot wide lot frontage for Parcel A. It will also allow, in the case of a future resubdivision, another path of a 60 foot road right of way in case the parcel to the north should develop. The perc tests that were submitted by the applicant did meet City standards. The buildable portions of the site are located to the north of the property, obviously to avoid the wetlands. As a condition of approval we are recommending that at time of the building permit, which is normally required anyway, that detailed locations of the building pad and two spetic system sites are located to insure that the 150 foot set- back is maintained between the septic system and the ordinary high water mark of the wetland area. Staff believes that the four findings are present under the sub- division oridinance and we would recommend approval subject to that the driveways be consolidated, that the applicant receive an access permit from MNDot, that the septic systems are located 150 feet from the 875 foot elevation, and that detailed locations of the drainfields and alternative sites be submitted for city approval before issuance of a building permit. Councilwoman Watson: I can understand why it is being split the way it is. They certainly do meet the area requirements. Most of these pieces of property are dif- ficult to divide to begin with at any rate because the one whole end of them is going I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -7- to be a swamp. You are never going to change that. The thought that maybe there should be some way for them to resubdivide or something at some point I don't really think holds particularly true. Councilman Gevinq: The only problem I have is the septic systems. I know that is a very low area and it is not too far from problems we had on 96th Street. Staff is recommending that the septic systems be located 150 feet from the 875 foot elevation. I would like to ask staff what would happen to the placement of the home on Parcel B if we move that elevation to 890. I guess what I am saying is I would rather have a further distance than 150 feet from the 875 foot elevation, which ever is greater, 890 or 200 feet from that 875. Could you tell which that is? Barb Dacy: From the 890, the 150 feet would be approximately in this area here. Councilman Gevinq: by far. So obviously, the 150 is further away from that hole than the 890 Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Gevinq: That is the only point I wanted to make. that we get ourselves quite far removed from that marsh area. I wanted to make sure Barb Dacy: The 875 we checked with the surveyor to see exactly where the edge of the water was before running to his fields. Councilman Gevinq: So you think then, Barb, that a good firm foundation could be built where that "T" is there, approximately 150 feet from the 875 elevation, is that what you are telling me? Barb Dacy: All that staff is asking is that through the detail submission of the plans at the time of permit we will be able to better tell where the septic system is going to be located in relation to the proposal. Councilman Gevinq: But that whole area in the middle portion there is quite flat, and that might be the most buildable area. That is the only comment that I had. I just wanted to make sure we were far enough away from that. Otherwise, it is just a technicality that they are here asking for this variance. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a clarification on the page under your analysis. You noted that the five acre parcels are proposed to be subdivided by a north/south split. I just want to be sure that we are not talking about subdividing the five acre parcels. Barb Dacy: The north/south split is referred to as the lot line. Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to make sure that I understood that right so that we are not subdividing the five acre parcels. Other than that I didn't have any problems with it. I have no problems with the variances. Councilman Geving moved to approve the subdivision request with a lot width variance for a five acre parcel to be created in a three parcel metes and bounds subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That the driveways be consolidated. 2. That the applicant receive an access permit from MnDot Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -8- 3. That the septic systems are located 150 feet from the 875 foot elevation. 4. That detailed locations of the drain fields and alternative sites are submitted for city approval before the issuance of a building permit. I Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to note the Public Safety 1986. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn Motion carried. Commission minutes dated January 9, The following voted in favor: Mayor and Geving. No negative votes. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning 1986. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn Motion carried. Commission minutes dated January 8, The following voted in favor: Mayor and Geving. No negative votes. REVIEW STATUS QI LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AGREEMENT: Dick Nowlin: I will briefly summarize what has transpired since the last time I was before you. I get to talk about the small picture. I think the big picture on this issue has been eloquently summarized by Bill and Don in those two memos. I really have nothing more to add. I think they have laid it out complete. The small picture is what changes were we able to negotiate over the last two weeks. We have met four I or five times and now Roger has the final version of the document as it sits. Following your meeting, we went in for five changes to the agreement. We had asked for the two changes that Roger had recommended: l)being able to hold the public improvement hearing before the execution of the document and 2) holding a hearing on the comprehensive plan zoning amendment issue also prior to the execution of the document. We asked for a number of minor changes to protect the city with specific language in a number of different areas. Some of those changes had been supported in advance by Eden Prairie, others Roger spotted as we went through the document with a fine toothed comb. All of those changes, I think, enhanced and improved the city's rights to a fair disposition of proceeding on any item in contest. In other words, two, three or four years down the line there is a problem, I think what we were able to insert will provide a great deal more security and was a benefit to the city. There were a number of changes to section 7.1, which allowed for a 90-day notice period before they modify your right to use the sewer. Give us the right to contest in court, their final determination on modification under 7.1. Require that modifi- cations can only come on the basis of substantial or major alterations or major changes in the arrangement between the city and the Council. The fourth item we went in on was, what I call the more flexibility requirement on the large lot, low density area. The fifth item was the item relating to the 1 in 10 acre lot size, 1 in 5 acre, the overall density. We were able to succeed on 4 out of 5. On the fifth I think we came to a standstill standoff. In summary, the document does not have to be signed until after March 4, at which time a hearing will be held on public improve- ment and zoning comp plan change, as I understand it. We were able to insert in the famous 6.1 a.3., 1, 2, and 3, a number of, what I think are enhancements of protec- I tion to this whole process. It was interesting to see this application for the lot split. That was the foremost in our mind based on your comments and suggestions. What we went in to do was to acheive more flexibility and more specifically to try to achieve what we called a transitional comp plan and/or zoning treatment for the area that is going to be changed from 1990 to the year 2000. What we have achieved is as I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -9- follows: On 6.1. a. 3. we included this sentence: "The parties recognize that this provision may include elements to address unconstitutional takings, hardships and unique circumstances." Now that gives us quite a bit of flexibility. It might even give you enough flexibility, for example, in a setting where you have a lot that is 90 or 80 percent wetland and water to go ahead and do what you just did now. I think you would have an argument that that is a taking if you don't allow something to hap- pen. Also that depends on what the acquisition and history of the use of that parcel was. But I view that as a pretty broad expression of our ability to come in with something other than a pure 1 in 10. They said, well that is understood. We said we want to see that in writing. So now it is in writing. Second on (3.) we were able to achieve what Eden Prairie also achieved, which is that this whole section of den- sity only applies to future subdivisions. The existing platted metes and bounds divided lots are not covered. It only applies to that which gets caught in the web after March 4, August 1, or whatever. I think that is also helpful because you are prospective, not retroactive. The third thing that was done is in 6. 1. a. 1. Before we had had provision simply saying that we will change the 1990 line to the year 2000 line on the urban service area. We wrestled and wrestled and wrestled and the principle debate was over whether or not we could do transitional zoning in a portion of the area east of Highway 41 and up in the area which had been in the, what we viewed as the transitional area, an area that is definitely going to become resi- dential, develop urban density development in some point in time, but which they were pulling out and putting back to the year 2000. What we were able to do was not to achieve a blanket acception, a blanket density change for that area. What we were able to achieve, I think may help. 1) We went from a marginal line on our plan, to a number. The number is 2,440 acres. More importantly, we reached agreement on what developable land is and what land has to be included within that 2,440 number. Barb has not checked it out completely and is working on determining whether or not that provides a little bit more leg room than you had with the line. The thinking is that it may well do that. We also tried to expand that number to get the Council to go above; in other words allow more of the territory into the urban service area. We were not successful. That issue, as we understand it, is in debate between Pat and Paul of Met Council because Barb is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the urban service area as designated through the year 2000 and checking to see if that acreage will fit. If she finds that it absolutely will not and we make a good case, we are told that the Met Council staff will advocate to the Council that that area be expanded. We also tried to do the five acre density directly. We were not success- ful. Our presentation came at the last minute on that issue, but we got a resounding "No-Way." For that reason we have asked Dirk to come out and talk to you about that. It is an issue that goes well beyond Chanhassen. What we did is to propose that area east of Highway 41 the allowed 1 to 5 rather than the 1 to 10. We did that because we were seeing we were not going to get too much expansion to that number in the urban service area, which would have also solved that problem. Basically, the resounding "No" was solid indication that it is now up to you. If you want to try to fight the battle over that issue, go to it. But, I have really done as much as I can on that particular topic. The Met Council staff has asked for concept of approval. I think it should be phrased as a concept disapproval. If after you have read what they have given now, you have violent disagreement with some of the provisions, I think you should tell them that now. They plan to bring it to their systems commit- tee in the form you see in front of you on the fourth of Februarj and approve or disapprove and then go to the full Met Council on the 13th of February to either go up or down. Their position is, once they have done that, they will not change the draft document. You can either accept or reject on the 4th. In other words have the hearing, you are in no obligation to sign up. If things go as expected, you go for- ward. If they don't you have got to tell them right on that day. They want to know if there are really any major changes that have to be made between now and the fourth of February. I, for one, think the document now is about as good as I can negotiate for you and is well drafted. Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -10- Dirk deVries: I live in the City of Minnetonka. I have been a resident since 1964. I was appointed to the Metropolitan Council in 1978 and have represented a lot of the western municipalities ever since then. I have been involved in this sewer issue since 1982. I think from the very day that the Waste Control Commission suggested putting a forcemain rather than the gravity line, which had been in the Council's policy plans for 6 or 7 years. It came as a great shock that all of a sudden the Waste Control Commission was trying to suggest something different. When I read Mr. Monk's letter of January 8, I thought it was an excellent summary of the entire issue and the realities that we face. He drew the conclusion that I had drawn some time ago and I will quote him, "If it requires entering into a humbling agreement to get the pipe in the ground, I believe it is worth it." I sincerely believe that. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie are not alone in their fight with the Metropolitan Council. You just happen to be the first city out of the box to give into this dialog. A couple of years ago the City of Plymouth was convinced that they were being denied sewer capacity and their adjoining municipalities were getting all the capacity they wanted. They felt that was going to be a competitive edge to other municipalites. They actually got very paranoid about it. We had a number of meetings with the same folks that we are battling with now and they call them the development framework croud and these are the ones that do all of the population and employment projections. The matter was finally mutually resolved by Plymouth agreeing to a change in their comprehensive plan, which indicated a staged type of development. Prior to that moment in time, they had a lot of land that they antici- pated developing. Councilmen insisted that they stage this that this area would have to be substantially developed before this next area would be developed. Plymouth agreed to that. It was their intention all the time and they finally resolved the deal rather amicably. Now I have got 19 other examples for you, not including your- self. These derived starting last November. The Metropolitan Council issued their new Metropolitan Development Framework document, this is the thing that has the MUSA line in it and contains all these projections about employment, households, etc. and all the municipalites around the seven county area. This was sent out last November and to date we have got 19 complaints from 19 different cities. The Osseo School District and the County of Carver; that makes 21 governmental units who have sub- mitted formal complaints about the document and 19 municipalities. Sixteen of the cities complained about the population and employment projections, like you did, and nine of the cities combined that with the sewer issue, maintaining that they were going to need sewers over and above the Council's projections and four of the cities got in the MUSA line a ument, which is all the same debate, but they were specifi- cally critical where the MUSA line had been drawn. The fight is just starting for those 19 cities. You people have already been through the fight. You have won on all of the issues that the other people are now starting to complain about and you have the opportunity to get the pipe into the ground. That is my recommendation to you, go for it. If this document is humbling, well close your eyes and sign it and lets worry about the details later on. ~ Joachim: I came here to say what I could to convince you to sign that agreement. This afternoon I started writing out some reasons why I thought you should and after I got through I read a letter from Bill Monk that says it a whole lot better than I did. He says the forcemain travels through environmentally sensitive areas. I do agree with Mr. de Vries that it would be, in my opnion, best to get that pipe in the ground and let us fight again if we want some further improvements. I would say that your staff, Mr. Monk, Mr. Nowlin and Mr. Ashworth have worked very hard on this pro- ject, also with Mr. deVries helping us and also the Chair of the Metropolitan Council has done a great deal to help on this project. Councilman GevinQ: I am very pleased that there has been a major improvement document since we have met last. There have been negotiations on both sides. have won more than a few and we lost some. I think the contract is agreeable at this time. in this We to me I I I I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -11- Councilman Horn: I guess the only concern that a lot of us have had all along is that we feel that the contract pulls away from what we are trying do with getting the pipe in the ground and reaches into a lot of other areas, at least in our opinion, that don't quite seem relevant to the issue at hand and that is one of the things that disturbs us. Its like we'll carry this in and while we are at it we will throw in a lot of these other things. That is probably one of the things that has been most disturbing to us. I think part of the background too, is the fact that cities have to struggle to try to get development just to pay for the things that we have. We feel that we were forced into a north sewer service area situation some years ago, for good reasons. We need to clean up our lakes, there is no question about that. But we have to try and figure out how to pay for these things and how we pay for them is to have further development so we can pay for those things. Those are our con- cerns. We don't want to have significant constraints on us that we can't proceed to be able to pay for those improvements in an orderly manner. I think we are all looking ahead to what's going to happen and Councilman Geving brought it up for later on in the meeting, a discussion on what we are going to do because we are not going to be getting some of the revenues from the state. The Federal Government is cutting back on their allocations. There is going to be more and more of a burden on the city and the way we pay for those things is through developments. That is why we are very careful not to want to lose any of the options that we have for development. That is why you are seeing the reaction that you are seeing. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Roger about your opinion on the legality of the contract as far as having hearings prior to holding the signing of the contract. Where do we stand on that issue? Roqer Knutson: to hold all the that will steer From my understanding from talking to Bill and Barb, it is possible necessary public hearings on March 3. After those hearings are held those hurdles and you can sign this if you want. Mayor Hamilton: So you are comfortable with the way it is set up at the present time? It should not be signed prior to having the public hearing? Roqer Knutson: That is correct. Mayor Hamilton: I think the contract has improved also. I don't know that it's such a humbling thing that is being laid upon us as much as we are trying to tell the Metropolitan Council that when the contract is written there shouldn't be any need to humble anybody, but to be fair in the process of writing it, to us, as well as to themselves. I don't think that we are so thin skinned that we can't accept something that may humble us a little bit, but we just wanted to get fair treatment in the pro- cess and that was our primary concern. We do want to put the pipe in the ground and we have felt that the Lake Ann Interceptor is the right way to go, and obviously, since we have been fighting so hard to get it. I like the language that has been included in the agreement and I certainly appreciate the effort of Dirk and Ray and their consideration that they have given us and fighting for us for this and Dick for all his efforts in accomplishing everything that has been done. I guess I can live with the contract and I think we should move ahead with and start putting the pipe in the ground. Councilwoman Watson moved acceptance of the January 24, 1986 draft of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -12- BILLS Don Ashworth stated that check #023336 and #023340 should be removed from the accounts payable list as they are HRA expenditures. Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills dated January 27, 1986, checks #023227 through #023335, checks #023337 through #023339, and checks #023341 through #023347 in the amount of $594,058.37; and checks #026010 through #026127 in the amount of $109,312.53; and check #026129 through #026181 in the amount of $1,350,712.66. Also approve bills from Consulting Engineers Div. in the amount of $2,027.80, Nodland Associates, Inc. in the amount of $62,633.51, Carver County Treasurer in the amount of $10,925.83 and Minnesota PCA in the amount of $150.00. Check #023336 and #023340 were removed from the accounts payable list per the City Manager and the City Council to be placed on the HRA accounts payable listing. Council requested further infor- mation on check #026142 regarding a camera lens. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN, NEAR MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, MARK MCDONALD: Peter Pflaum: We already have a sign at the corner of Pleasant View Road and TH 101. We are requesting to put up another temporary sign at the southwest corner of Townline Road and Vine Hill. The reason I want the sign is real simple. We are trying to let people know in Shorewood and in Minnetonka, especially people that are coming out to see Waterford, that we have an option in your community of Chanhassen. Site signs are the most important method we have of directing people to our project. Specifically, that is why I want it. The reason this location is important; it gives us exposure on the northern area and on Townline Road and Vine Hill Road we have none. The reason this sign is a little bigger is that a lot of snow is piled right in this area. Unless the sign is up in the air you are not going to see it. Mayor Hamilton: We had a couple of rough drawn signs in our information packet, I am just curious which one are you going to be using? Peter Pflaum: lots. The one that says "Trappers Pass." These are more expensive wooded Councilman Gevinq: You asked for a temporary sign. A lot of times we have a hard time determining whether that is the complete building of the whole development, which could be some years down the road. Sometimes we put on a condition that it is 70 percent built, 80 percent built, one year, and even two years sometimes. What would you recommend as being temporary in this case knowing how this development is going to grow? I am looking at this from a Council standpoint that in some point in the future we will want to review this and say, "that's pretty well built, we can take that sign down." Peter Pflaum: We would like two years. It won't be sold out in one year. I would love to tell you that it will be, but it won't. This is a two year project. Mayor Hamilton: I think the motion that was made by the Planning Commission, by Mike Thompson was a good one, to allow the sign and to review it in two years. I I Councilman Horn: I think that our ordinance needs some looking at. I see absolutely I nothing wrong with this concept. My concern is to preempting the ordinance, as we have gotten ourselves in trouble in the past. I would like to see an ordinance amendment put into this as quickly as possible that would allow something like this. Obviously, there is a discrepancy when we have something this large with only one sign. I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -13- Mayor Hamilton: possible. I think the whole sign ordinance has to be reworked as quickly as Roqer Knutson: Barb just pointed out to me, as you were discussing this, that the new draft would allow this extra sign. Councilman Horn: My only concern with this whole thing is going ahead before we have enacted the ordinance. What is the time schedule on that? ~ Dacy: By April the Council should have reviewed it. Councilman Horn: I assume your need is immediate. Peter Pflaum: wait. The best selling time is between now and June. It would hurt us to Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the the sign variance to locate a temporary, iden- tification sign for the Near Mountain/Trapper's Pass Development located at the southwest corner of Townline Road and Vine Hill Road and being 55 square feet in size with the condition that it be reviewed in two years. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. Councilman Horn: If we modify our ordinance, I necessary for this to be reviewed in two years. an ordinance in place sooner than two years. I don't think that it would be It sounds like we are going to have don't think that is necessary. Mayor Hamilton: what is going to in two years. I think we should still say two years because we can't speculate happen with the ordinance and we may want to set it to be reviewed The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST lQ ALLOW AN OFF-PREMISE INSTITUTIONAL SIGN, MINNEWASHTA CHURCH: Jeremy Cone: I represent the Minnewashta Church. We want the sign for two reasons; 1) to clarify the right road to turn on. The sign will be located at Church Road and Highway 7. It is for new people visiting the church that know the church is there, but they sometimes have a problem locating Church Road. We also felt that it would be nice to have a sign there to let new visitors and new people living in the area know that our church is there. Our church is located in the City of Shorewood. We have had calls in the past that people have said that they weren't aware that there was a church there. It is a real unobtrusive sign that will blend in with the surrounding area. It is just a little sign that says "Minnewashta Church" with an arrow pointing down the street. Mayor Hamilton: I have a question about that. If that is all you are going put on your sign, it seems to me if you want to attract people to your parish you would want to let them know what kind of church you are. Minnewashta Church doesn't tell me anything. Jeremy Cone: That is the name of the church. It is a community church. Mayor Hamilton: Are you affilitated with anybody. That still doesn't tell anything. me Jeremy Cone: We use to be a Congregational Church, but there has been some conflict of interest between our particular body and what the national people are doing. So the name has been changed to just Minnewashta Church. Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -14- Councilman Horn: So the sign is exactly the way we see it here on this schematic? Jeremy Cone: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: You are going to put this on Gary Carlson's property, does he know this? Jeremy Cone: Yes. He has a horse pasture there and he told me that if the sign did go up that it had to be sturdy. Barb Dacy: Mr. Carlson did sign the application, so yes, he is aware. Mayor Hamilton: Again, there are comments about our sign ordinance permitting only one sign, but if the Church is in Shorewood .................... Barb Dacy: The ordinance just permits one on-site sign for each church or institution. Mayor Hamilton: But they don't have one in Chanhassen. Barb Dacy: The ordinance doesn't make a distinction as to where the particular institution is located. The sign is located in Chanhassen, however, the institution is located in Shorewood and they want to put the sign in Chanhassen on the site where the church isn't at. That is why the request went to the Planning Commission and the Council. Directional signage is also allowed only on site and this is considered an off premise sign. I Councilman Horn: So the question is not of two signs, the question is whether it is I an off-site sign. Barb Dacy: Right. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see us do the same thing with this as we did with Trapper's Pass, to allow it, but to review it in a year or two to see how the sign is holding up and see what it looks like. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the sign variance for an off premise institutional sign, located at the corner of Highway 7 and Church Road, being an 8 square foot sign, for the Minnewashta Church with the following conditions: 1. That the sign be reviewed in two years; 2. That the sign shall not be placed closer than 10 feet to any street right-of-way. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPOINTMENTS: ~ Representative iQ the Minnetonka Community Services Advisory Council: ~ Planninq Commission: Councilwoman Watson moved to appoint Mrs. Ann Osborn to the Minnetonka Community Services Advisory Council with the condition that she give a quarterly report to the council regarding the activity with this committee. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -15- Planning Commission Appointment: Councilman Horn moved the appointment of Tim Erhart to serve on the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT !Q PROVIDE HIGHWAY ~ STREETSCAPE PLANS, BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES: Don Ashworth: I initiated this primarily because we have so many plans that are under way. One of the biggest problems that we have is coming into the community from the east side and looking at the businesses we have on either side of the road. There is no reason that that section of the community should not look as attractive as our business park. What it basically comes down to is to establish some standards that you want to insure. The state highway department is in the process of preparing plans. They are not going to incorporate any type of standards into those unless we tell them what it is we want. The timing seemed right to put into effect the speci- fic improvements that we want to see as goals for us. Mayor Hamilton: I guess being in a business myself, it sounds like you are going to do some screening here. Some of those businesses, I don't think, want to be screened. They are along Highway 5 and if you start screening them you are going to start to take business away from them. Don Ashworth: We are not talking about screening the businesses. But we do have a problem with the lights, both the overhead lights and the head lights along Highway 5. You put an additional two lanes on that and it is going to magnify that problem. I am not interested in any way detracting from the look of, for example, Lyman Lumber. It is very attractive. What I am concerned with is as you are coming in and you have traffic that is heading east along those two frontage roads and the glare of those two lights as you are traveling. That would be the only berming portion that I would do. We have looked to a policy that different engineers will do different projects. That is a good idea to diversify the city. On the other side you want to make sure that the efforts of everyone of those engineers are coordinating, and each one of them knows what it is what you are looking for along that entire length. Mayor Hamilton: Why Brauer & Associates? Don Ashworth: It would be any of the firms. I met with Mr. Hoisington and we were going through both the broadened study area and the intersection plans. I can take it back and have Koegler's firm do something very similar. I think they do a good job also. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't we have them give us a bid too. Don Ashworth: This is really on an estimated total number of hours. Councilman Gevinq: Is this $4,000.00 the total amount? Don Ashworth: Yes. The project total. Councilman Gevinq: And out of that do you expect to get some kind of a plan? Don Ashworth: They plan and then they would do it by sections. So you would have a sectional trail all the way down Highway 5. The biggest thing is in terms of lighting. We want to make sure that the level is such that it doesn't hamper the traffic on Highway 5, but at the same time provides adequate light for the frontage Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -16- road and for Highway 5. There is no reason that that entrance cannot be a very beautiful entrance into our community. When you come in there at night, you don't get that image and it is too bad. Councilman Gevinq: I just wouldn't want to put up something there that might be torn up by the expansion of Highway 5. Don Ashworth: This would be just for the opposite reason. We are telling the State Highway Department what we want to see them do as far as our plans. Councilman Gevinq: We issue the plan, the actual construction of the lighting, the berming, etc. Don Ashworth: We give them the standards and see if we can get their agreement and get them to incorporate those into their plans as the actual construction occurs. So they would pay for that section in their right-of-way. We would do that section as a part of the frontage road, so a portion of it we would do as well. I brought it back to you rather than the HRA because the economic development district is under the purview of the City Council. That is your district. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see what Mr. Koegler would have. always liked the things that he has come up with. I have Don Ashworth: I have no problem with that if you want me to bring this back. I Councilman Horn moved to table this item to a future agenda and directed the City Manager to contact the firm VanDoren-Hazard-Stallings and get a bid from them on the same issue. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: I Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF STATE CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER PURCHASE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: Don Ashworth: Given the amount of money involved in this, City Council action really isn't required. But any time we talk about any computer purchases or anything in that area, I have always tried to bring that back to the City Council. The total cost would be $300 to $500 for the initial installation. The State will pay all costs of the software, main computer, and maintenance of that main computer. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agreement with the State of Minnesota for installation of the CJIS Computer. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. Councilman Gevinq: there are adequate costs that we will he talking about. On the second page of Castleberry's letter in the middle, monies in the budget to cover this expenditure in addition be looking at later in 1986 for a microcomputer addition. he says to the What is Don Ashworth: We actually had monies budgeted in 1985 for a microcomputer system that would connect into the Sheriff's Department and that microcomputer can be used for a number of public safety pieces of software, here locally and again tie into the Sheriff's Department with the Sheriff being the first line enter point rather than the City duplicating any kind of injuries. The Council did approve carrying those I monies into 1986. We are not prepared to make any recommendation toward those monies until the Sheriff can have it straight what it is that can or can't be done. Councilman Gevinq: The State says that you are free to send your full time terminal operators to this school so that they can learn the operation. Who is going to run this system? I I I Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -17- Don Ashworth: Jim would do entries, as well as each of the officers who serve Chanhassen, who are, to the best of my knowledge capable of making entry into the system right now. This piece of equipment is basically no different than the existing terminal that exists down at the Sheriff's department. Councilman Gevinq: an operator that we I guess what I am leading up to is I hope this doesn't lead us to are going to bring on board at some future time. Don Ashworth: I can assure you that we are not looking in that direction. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE LETTER OF REPRESENTATION AS RECOMMENDED ~ VOTO, REARDON, TAUTGES AND COMPANY: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a policy requiring that a "Letter of Representation" be signed by all elected officials, Commission members, and employess who may influence "any sale, lease or contract" of the City, per Minnesota Statute. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. FEDERAL/STATE FISCAL PROBLEMS: Councilman Gevinq: I am sure that Don has been contemplating this subject for a long time or at least more recently with the declared budget deficit they are expecting at the state level this year, some $750,000,000. But more importantly, some of the fiscal things that are happening at the federal level with the Gramm-Rudman Act and all agencies now are being asked to reduce up to 4.9 percent. It is a very severe cut as a federal employee. We are probably going to be able to survive this year, but we have no idea of what is going to happen next year and the year after. We are just seeing the tip of this iceberg. Through it all, the impact will always be stepped on down from the federal level to the state and from the state to the city. That is what I wanted to talk about, is the federal revenue sharing and its impact on us, the state disparities, our allocations of monies from the state, maybe those monies that we had planned on and now won't be getting. Maybe just a discussion from you, Don, and how you see some of these things starting to focus in your mind and what impact is it going to have, not only in 1986, but beyond next year. Don Ashworth: I think that this is a subject that deserves to be placed onto an agenda to give the Council something to analyze and thereby get questions that you would like to see answered. The federal revenue sharing is almost assuredly out. The City has known that that would happen. For 1986 no allocations are being made. We have taken away any dependency of this City on federal revenue sharing. We literally did that two years ago. In 1986 you will not see any effect. There will be a long term affect in that there has been a number of projects that have been completed by using federal revenue sharing funds. Community development block grant funds may very well, also, go by the way side. We receive a fixed allocation under a guaranteed program through Hennepin County for our two homes in Hennepin County. They do provide us with approximately $45,000 per year. That has been reduced con- tinuously from $45,000 to $35,000 and now it appears that it may be closer to $25,000 as a result from these cutbacks. The cities, in all are, rather than looking to smaller amounts of money for each of the cities, going into a competative process between themselves. Again, I think that the affects of some of the budget cuts are not directly affecting us for 1986 because we have taken steps to try and correct that, but in terms of future programs for some optional things that we have been able to accomplish. Those options1will no longer be there. I will also address the issue Council Meeting, January 27, 1986 -18- of state aid and homestead credit. You have seen that in the newspaper, but until certain issues become clarified, you don't know what the real affect of those are. They have shown 3! percent as the reduction in state aids. What they did not say is that 3! percent is on a biennium basis and that the aid payments to Chanhassen or other cities were made already. So that means the full impact of that will occur in 1986. In addition, because of the way the allocation formula works, it will turn out to be 8.1 percent of state aids. The state aid portion, although it concerns me, it really is not a major budgetary problem for us. The one that does concern me that was not really put forward as a part of Perpich's announcements was the reductions in the homestead credits. We are all aware of the fact that when you pay your property tax bill, as a part of that it shows a homestead credit of $650 and you pay that much less in property tax. That homestead credit amount is an obligation by the state of Minnesota where they said that they were going to pay a portion of those taxes. In this proposal the state is basically saying, well, we are not going to pay them. So the taxpayer will pay the reduced amount, but the state won't meet that obligation. It comes down to 8.9 percent of the homestead credit amount won't be lost to the school district. The good news of all of this is that I did go through our 1985 records. The City Council is aware of the projections that we made because we updated projections as a part of preparing the 1986 budget. The actual revenues came in about 5 to 7 percent higher than we anticipated; whereas expenditures came in about 5 percent under from what we had expected. We are looking at approximately $150,000 more as a part of the budgetary process that was not anticipated earlier and will more than offset any of these cuts. Councilman Horn: So we are alright for 1986. It's 1987 that will be questionable. I Don Ashworth: Especially the federal problems in terms of just taking the dollars away. I think this is more of a generic thing from the standpoint of our highway I system. I think from a federal standpoint, we all have to be concerned. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist I