The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 03 03 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 3, 1986 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. to the Flag. The meeting was opened with the Pledge Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Roger Knutson APPROVAL Q[ AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of discussion on a new ordinance. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. a. RESOLUTION #86-11: Approve Proclamation Designating Volunteers of America Week, March 2-9, 1986. b. Chanhassen Fire Department Relief Association By-Laws, Final Adoption, Amendments. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR PROJECT: ~ Public Improvement Hearinq. ~ Approval ~ Aqreement. Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Terry Obrien Al Harvey Pennie Arneson Bob Arneson Sever Peterson Mike Gona Ray Odde Keith Gordon Nancy Tichy Brian Tichy Eric Rivkin Dave Luse 1420 Lake Lucy Road 1430 Lake Lucy Road 6921 Galpin Boulevard 6921 Galpin Boulevard Eden Prairie 1680 Arboretum Boulevard Metropolitan Waste Constrol Comm. Bonestroo Engineering 1471 Lake Lucy Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road 5525 Conifer Tr., Minnetonka 1660 Arboretum Boulevard Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -2- Ray Notermann Terry Olson Tim & Dawn Erhart Al Klingelhutz Marvin Janiske Richard M. Nieland Dale A. Gunderson Jeff Fox Bobbi & Ted Coey 1450 Arboretum Boulevard 6360 Forest Circle 775 W. 96th Street 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 7021 Galpin Boulevard 8510 Great Plains Boulevard 845 Creekwood 27990 Smithtown Road, Excelsior 1381 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Hamilton: This is a public improvement hearing dealing with the Lake Ann Interceptor so if anybody has any comments that they would like to make about the Lake Ann Interceptor you may do so. Bill Monk: As the Mayor stated, this is a public hearing on the Lake Ann Interceptor proposal between the City and the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. We did have an informational meeting last Thursday. We did have a good turn out and good discussion on this project, so I will go through this quickly. The City is considering a joint sanitary sewer/trunk project which involves running the water size interceptor through Chanhassen just to the west of Lake Lucy and Lake Ann all the way from Chanhassen's north border on Highway 41 all the way down around to the existing lift station at the southeast corner of Chanhassen Estates. This project is being proposed as a way of alleviating existing problems currently ocurring in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission system. For the communities west of the Lake Virigina lift station, there were two options that were looked at in depth, one being the Lake Virginia Forcemain, which traverses northern Chanhassen, which was a 30 inch pressurized forcemain that would go directly from Lake Virginia station over to the existing pergatory interceptor close to TH 494. The other option is the plan that is beginning to be the City's comprehensive sewer plan for some time which included an interceptor coming down through Chanhassen and another one that would come down through Eden Prairie and would, in essence, replace the Chanhassen lift stations and forcemain. The City has argued for quite a while that the interceptor represented a better long term plan in terms of serving the entire district. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Council are now ready to install the Lake Ann Interceptor and the Red Rock Interceptor, which is the one that would come through Eden Prairie, as an alternative to the Lake Virginia Forcemain. To do that it is proposed that a cautionary arrangement be agreed to. The City would pay for the future trunk use of the inter- ceptor line as it would traverse Chanhassen, it would be new service from Highway 5 up to TH 41. The area that would some day derive service from that line is outlined in red on this map with a rough location of the existing proposed interceptor. The proposal at this time is to assess this area for trunk/sewer benefit as it would draw benefit from this line at some point in the future as the MUSA line is changed and this area falls within the urban service district. The proposal would include assessments that the Council would, in essence, have to defer. There would be no option to that in that the benefit would not be dropped until some future date when this area falls within the pervious surface area. Assessments were calculated using a recent example that did come up. Lake Lucy Highlands plat that was recently platted into 2! acre lots east of Galpin Boulevard, just south of Lake Lucy, did sub- mit word that its preliminary plat submittal stay ultimate development plan. They broke the 2! acre lots down into more urban size lots. I used that example, it was about 60 acres of usable property, broke down into 49 lots ultimately. There was a ratio of 1 lot per 1.3 acres. That is a very low rate when we are considering the city's urban service area, but topographical restrictions and several considerations entered into the calculation bringing the number into 1 unit per 1.3 acres. The pro- posed assessment was generated from that number. That 1 unit per 1.3 acres was bro- I I I I I I Mc...nh 3 Council Meeting, BePll:lBF) }3, 1986 -3- ken down, multiplied by the city's sewer charge of 1 unit for $600 to come to a figure of $460 per acre. That was applied to all of the properties within this district. It is recommended tonight that the Council approve the joint project and in its approval give concept approval to the method of assessment and condition that upon the approval of the agreement which will be discussed later tonight. When I did the calculations for lot areas, I did take into account lake boundaries' and designated wetlands, as on the city's wetland map, to come up with as close of an acreage as I could given the time constraints we were under to hold a hearing. On the assessment role you will see an actual acreage and a usable acreage. The usable acreage does not necessarily mean that includes every acre of land that will defini- tely be usable. All I did take out was the designated wetlands. I am sure there will be some questions that may well come up concerning the acreage and that it doesn't appear right and I would advise the Council that a closer look at the exact acreage for all of these parcels will be looked at as federal improved right of way, etc. as we get into the assessment hearing. But tonights discussion in approving this joint project and moving ahead with construction should include an overall look at the proposed assessments and the methods to be imposed with those assessments. Mayor Hamilton: What I like to do at a public hearing is not to make a debate of it, but if you have comments that you would like to make you are welcome to do so. After your comments are made the Council will take them into consideration in our delibera- tions after the public hearing is closed and we will attempt to clarify any questions that are left. Pennie Arneson: I live at 6921 Galpin Boulevard. Am I to understand that you are going avoid the wetlands or what did he state about the wetlands? Mayor Hamilton: He said the wetlands would be taken out of the total acreage when assessed. Pennie Arneson: They would be taken out of the acreage so they wouldn't be involved at all? Mayor Hamilton: That is correct. Pennie- Arneson: We have quite a bit of forest behind our house and I have a feeling that it is going to be touching the edge of it or going through some of it and we do have some wetlands that do go through there also and quite a bit of wildlife. I am really concerned about the impact on the wildlife. Although you are going to avoid it you are still going to change it. Mayor Hamilton: Do you mean during the construction period or........... Pennie Arneson: During the construction period and are you sinking the pipe line? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Pennie Arneson: What if there is a rupture and something leaks out like toxic waste. We moved out here about 3 months ago specifically for having land and being out with the wi Idli fe. Eric Rivkin: I wrote a letter to Bill Monk and the Mayor. I own land on Lake Lucy. I would like to make some comments about the project in general and I would also like to focus on my own lot in regards to the assessments and it has an impact on the way I guess everybody elses lots are going to be judged. I like the interceptor idea as opposed to the forcemain and I think Bill has some good ideas regarding the environ- MCAV'Ch. 3 Council Meeting, ~aA~6F> 13, 1986 -4- mental impact. However, I think there are some things that residents probably would want to know which are things that were not mentioned here. That is the forcemain as opposed to the interceptor, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has a list of problems in the Metropolitan area with regard to failure of forcemains and failure of gravity interceptors. They have stated that forcemains have had an equal or better than record as far as a leakage is concerned. I was concerned about the fact that if the thing ever burst or if a forcemain would ever burst, along Lake Lucy Road, because of all the wetlands along the way would be polluted for many years. They said that the forcemains were only suppose to last for about 35 years and have a good record. Interceptors are gravity fed systems and a much larger pipe, 36 inches up to 24 feet in diameter they could be. What is the diameter of the pipe going to be? I Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that has been determined yet. Eric Rivkin: Well large enough to handle all of this. They said the leakage occurs naturally. It is not seals and whatever. There is a certain amount of leakage that occurs all the time. Because I live on Lake Lucy Road and because the forcemain would go right in front of my house, I guess in my own selfish interests, I guess I wouldn't want the whole place carved up and that thing right in front of it. In my own case I would prefer the interceptor. The deferred assessment idea, I like that and it seems fair. You shouldn't have to pay for some service that we don't have. For the future, however, I feel that it is somewhat unfair that sewer projects in general and municipal service projects. A lot of people within that red line bought land down here with the intention of moving out here to a rural setting. I bought five acres, about four of which is all woods, swamp, wetland, designated DNR wetland and I wanted it to be preserved that way and so are my neighbors to the west and the east and surrounding area on the north side of Lake Lucy. I would like to ask if the Council has thought what the depth of your consideration is to this whole issue of I running laterals from this interceptor allover the City of Chanhassen in this area to force development through the levy of assessments. This kind of thing snowballs. You put the interceptor in and it gives the opportunity for people to divide. I think the assessments on this interceptor are probably the bargain that we are never going to get. I agree with the price, it seems to be fair. I talked to the Metropolitan Council this morning and they said that this type of thing in the very long range, and we were talking 35 - 50 years down the road, they have a disagreement with the City Council that the population growth rate is not as much as you proclaim. I suppose 50 years from now this area in Chanhassen mayor may not be turned into a place that looks like St. Louis Park. But I bought land here and a lot of people behind me bought land here not wanting that. And if we want to preserve that and that is our right, it's our pursuit of happiness, the Bill of Rights say so. We shouldn't have things put on us to force it. The interceptor, I think, if it's going to go in and the people surrounding the areas are, and some of them are large landowners, 100 acres, 120 acres, farming is not a very good business to be in these days and pro- bably won't be for some time and some of them want to develop their land and they have a perfect right to, but I don't think that because they have all this acreage and can make big bucks doing this that we should suffer with, and they will be serviced by this line, that us in the areas that cannot be serviced by the sewer at all, for topographical reasons really shouldn't be imposed with laterals extending to that area. I want to get into the issue of usability and what Bill finds as usability. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we need to debate what Bill defines or doesn't define if you have specific issues that you want to ask questions about, that's what we are here for. but I I I I Council Meeting March 3, 1986 -5- Eric Rivkin: Those are my comments about the plan. Now I have some questions about the assessments. I want to make a proposal about the definition what usable land is and I want you to comment on that. I was kind of vague as to what Bill's definition of what usable land was but let me propose a definition. My impression is that unusable land is unbuildable land whereas that land would be, that the City Engineer or Building Inspectors would not allow la residential structure to be built upon because of geographi- cal features. Now these geographical features should be well defined. One is that it includes wetlands, not onl~ designated ones but undesignated ones. There is a map in the City Hall of what desidnated wetlands really are. The second point is that land that is inaccessible becauJe of the wet terrain, trapped by the wet terrain or inac- I cessible because of steep terrain. The third point is that it should be defined as land use for drainage from jthe road to other properties. The fourth is easements acquired by the state or CIty for drainage, utilities, whatever. I have got four I points. In my particular lot, I would like to show you an example, according to that definition if we assumed t]lat that definition of usable land, right now with a general look that Bill has given this, if you focus in on what is really usable, here is my proposal, here is an easement up here 50 feet from the road, that's unusable. This part here is steep in elevation and there is woods there and the engineer would never allow me to build a louse there. This is inaccessible because of the slope. This area right around her is drainage from the street and from the surrounding pro- perties. There is nothing can do about that. I can't build a house over there either. This is zoned deSjognated wetland. I have got a five acre parcel and maybe 3/4 of an acre is usable. I think I should be assessed on this definition of usabi- lity. I am sure everybody here has got a specific case about that. Mayor Hamilton: You reali e that this is not an assessment hearing and this will all be discussed probably years ddwn the road. This hearing is not an assessment hearing. The only thing we are doing heJe is looking at the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement and the Councils' action on that pdrticular item and the improvement hearing itself but we are not doing any assessing of anyones property tonight. The only thing that would be com- mented is that at the present time, under the present circumstances it would be about $460 per acre of assessible land. I believe Bill made a comment the other night that an assessment hearing may be held as soon as possible. If that is not the case the assessment hearing would not be held maybe for fifteen years, who knows. It's not hap- pening now. Your property is not being assessed. Eric Rivkin: When is the time that those usable acreages get changed? Mayor Hamilton: Not unless there is an assessment hearing. That's when all the parcels are reviewed and your comments would be germane at that time. Eric Rivkin: How about the definition of usable land. Mayor Hamilton: Probably about the same time. Bill Monk: I am keeping track of all the comments being made and we will try and give short responses once everybody has a chance. I will go back over each one very briefly and go usability, assessment hearing, and those things just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Eric Rivkin: Are you going to keep the one home for ten acre part of the contract that the Metro Council has recommended? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. It is a gravity line and if there is a break, the flow is much I less and much slower from a gravity line than it is from a forcemain. There were some calculations done on the forcemain if there were to be a break as it went past lotus lake and and Christmas lake and it was, I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of gallons of sewage would be pumped into the lake in a very short time. In a period of time that it would take them to shut it off because you can't just shut it off. If a break occurs it doesn't just stop it keeps pumping. In a gravity line the flow is slow. You can stop it. All you do is dig it up and you can repair the line very quickly and it just continues on its way. There is no question that if there is a break there is probably going to be some seepage in the ground which can be cleaned up. During the construction of the line, I am sure that some of the wetlands and the wildlife areas will be disturbed. However, once the line is in the ground all the terrain will be returned to its original state and all the wildlife will be encouraged to return and rehabitat that particular area. So, hopefully, there will be some short term interruptions. We will do everything that we can to keep everything as it is today. Council Meeting March 3, 1986 -6- Mayor Hamilton: We have fought this as long as we can. We had to hire outside attorney's that are familiar with the way the Metropolitan Council operates. We have had many hearings with them. We have worked and done as much as we possibly can to change their minds and to get the best possible agreement that we can of the Metropolitan Council and I think that we now have that. If we were not to approve the agreement that we currently have with the Metropolitan Council we would end up with something worse than what we currently have. It seemed in our best interest to go ahead with this project seeming as how they saw fit to see our side of the story and to say that the lake Ann Interceptor is, at this time, the best way to go both economically and for the long range development. Now any time you put in a pipe it's true that you do force some development. It's hard not to and this is a very unusual situation because they are putting an interceptor through a part of Chanhassen that is not going to be inside the MU5A line before at least the year 2000 which means that you are not going to be hooking up to it immediately by the agreement and yet we are in the middle of it. Chanhassen is really stuck in the middle of it. We are trying to relieve a problem that's happened in lake Virginia and we are also trying to look out for our best interests twenty, thirty, fifty years down the road so it's in our best interest to try to work out the best long range agreement that we can to solve any problems that we may have in the future. If the forcemain were to go in we would not be able to use it ever. There would be no connection to it. Consequently, we would be left to be putting in the lake Ann Interceptor at our own expense. We kind of got put between a rock and a hard spot and no matter how we come out of it to some of you, I am sure, it's not going to look right or good but that's a little bit of the history just so you know where we have been and that we haven't been just sitting here twittling our thumbs and trying to figure out some way to assess somebo- dy's property. Pennie Arneson: Is this a gravity line now? I Bill Monk: I did a parcel by parcel breakdown and I tried to figure as closely as I could with the small scale maps I had where the wetlands were and I subtracted them in my calculations from the "usable" acreage. That's the first issue. The second one is the disruption of the area, there is no question that as any interceptor goes through there will be disruption during construction and in places it could be somewhat exten- sive but hopefully can be kept down to a relatively narrow strip. As the Mayor alluded to, it's something that basically can't be avoided. One of the things that we were looking at and very conscious of through this whole thing was the disruption of I the two areas. We tried to be extremely conscious of the long term environmental effect of a forcemain versus a interceptor. The disruption when you are digging in I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -7- existing streets may not be quite as bad but we were probably more worried about the forcemain record. A forcemain is as reliable as an interceptor because we have got a lot of forcemain in the City with about 21 lift stations and a nagging headache trying to take care of the forcemains and lift stations. One thing I do know though is even if you had an equal number of breaks in either system the breaks in a forcemain, in my opinion, are much more detrimental to the surrounding area because the line is under pressure, just the amount of sewage that could be released in an equal time break in a forcemain versus an interceptor. That is something we were very conscious of and was one of the main reasons that I still believe the interceptor is the way to go because even if you have a partial blockage in here sewage will continue to flow either along the pipe or in the pipe until it can be corrected. In a forcemain a par- tial blockage can cause a break and if it does cause a break it's bad news from all standpoints. Another issue that was raised was the development being forced. I take issue with that comment as the Council is well aware normally when the City is put in a position of having to assess something it's a rate of about one unit for 15,000 square feet.. In looking at this area, because of the cost of the interceptor being about 1/3 of the cost of a local trunk we are able to assess one unit for 1.3 acres which puts, I think, these homeowners potentially in a position where even if the MUSA Line were to change they wouldn't necessarily be forced to develop because they may be able to absorb the costs associated with this line, whereas, if we were to put in a local trunk and use a more dense ratio there is no question that development would come on a much qUicker basis. As far as the usability goes, again, it's based on one unit for 1.3 acres. The reason for that is exactly what Mr. Rivkin was describing in that a lot of this land is unusable in slopes, woods, lowlands, and so on and for that very reason we did not attempt to use any type of a standard assessment rate but instead broke it down to one unit for 1.3 acres which I think is close to what may be achieved out here ultimately. Again, as we get into the assessment hearing each par- cel will have to be looked at, which hasn't been done to date, and see what they look like so that we can try and determine and get some parameters on the usability portion of the assessment. As I noted on Thursday night and again tonight is that it is pro- posed that if the project goes through that the assessment hearing would be held rela- tively soon after the contract for the pipe is actually awarded to avoid having to call these assessments pending with all the bad connotations that go along with a pending assessment and instead to assess it, since the number is known, at this point as quickly as possible so that the assessments can be set and deferred and people buying or selling property will know exactly what is going on as early as possible. It is proposed that the assessment hearing would be held probably, if the pipe were to go in, sometime within the next two years because it probably will take that long to get to the construction stage. When the assessment rate was calculated that calcula- tion was done completely separate of the fixed rate that the City is being charged. I did not attempt to back in the assessment rate so that it would equal $482,000 instead I used a localized example and came up with an assessment rate and figured what that rate would be and the rate does come up to $420,000 which is short of the $482,000 in the agreement. The reason I didn't try and equate the two numbers was that there is an overall City benefit that is being realized with the construction of the entire interceptor. There may well be added development pressures after the pipe is in because the City and developers are in a different negotiating position, but the City has basically agreed to put in the pipe. We will have to defer assessments until the MUSA Line is changed and basically, all that was agreed to for the very reason that the City is not looking actively at this point in time seeing this area develop as there are other areas in the City that still need to develop and the proposition that this pipe go in was not proposed at any point by the City as a way of altering the rural flavor of the area but instead was a way of perhaps letting that rural area develop some time in the future under a less strenuous economic impact. Although the assessment method does not work perfectly for all individual parcels, I left all the parcels at that same rate to maintain consistency. There will be adjustments that will have to be looked at, at the time of the assessment hearing in the near future. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -8- Councilman Horn: I have just one comment about trying to understand the one unit for 1.3 acres correctly. It would mean that a perso~ with a half acre lot is paying the same amount as one with a 1.3 acre lot, is that correct? ~ ~ Anyone with two acres or less was assessed one unit which is $600. As soon as it exceeded two acres the $460 per acre was triggered and all lots over two acres were done the same. I Councilwoman Swenson: I am looking at the proposed method of financing. sure that I understand, would all three of these be an ongoing thing? I am not Bill Monk: As noted the trunk surchaged and G.O. redesignation should generate $70,000 based on 1985 activities. However, should the SAC units drop down substan- tially the Sewer Availability Fund would act as a back-up so that additional G.O. obligation would not be required. The financing at this point is the first two items, the third one serves as a back-up should there be any change in the existing status of either. Councilwoman Swenson: Redesignate an existing G.O. and it would increase that by $33,000, is that what you are saying? Bill Monk: No. Don Ashworth: Basically it's an extension. When the City had the Waste Control Commission take over the old treatment plant in the Chanhassen Estates area there was a cost associated with Metro Councils taking over that facility. Each year for the past 15 years there has been a general obligation levy to literally repay that amount. That debt terminates in 1988. We would simply redesignate that amount of money back to paying off of this facility. The dollar amount is higher than it was in 1970. I What we have done is to take an equal position, the dollars as they would apply to a household in 1970 versus those dollars today and we have tried to put us literally to the same position that we were at that point in time. In other words, the dollars and services being provided when the Waste Control Commission took over the facilities and charged the City at that point in time for a system that would fully handle our com- munity versus the system that we are talking about today which once again would put us into a position of being able to totally serve our community. Councilwoman Swenson: This, at some future date, will serve the south side of Highway 5 as well as the north side? Don Ashworth: Only to the extent of the MUSA Line. Councilwoman Swenson: Is there going to have to be another drainage system similar to this to service the area farther south? Bill Monk: The area farther south cannot drain into this interceptor. Councilwoman Swenson: As I see this we are not anticipating any changes here until the year 2000, the assessments from the Metropolitan Council pay back is 21 years, if we are not allowed to do any growth in that area for 15 years it appears that the entire City will have it paid off before anybody can hook in. Eric Rivkin: Given that this is going to spur future development, is there any I chance that this zoning, people that don't want laterals extended to their areas, are they subject to rezoning because some guy in a majority of this area that's going to get service to the periphery of the line and you run all of those laterals back and I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -9- forth around this line and at the fringes of this does the City ususally expand the zoning to include everything inside that red line from R-IA to R-2A, going from a 2! acre minimum to a quarter acre minimum. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily all at one time. It would probably be a staged thing even in the year 2000 I would think it's fairly unlikely that that whole parcel would come within the MUSA Line. The line would change, the Metropolitan Council at that time would suggest a realignment of the MUSA Line, where that might fall is any ones guess. It could include the whole parcel, it might not because there are other parts of the City that would fall within the MUSA Line also and would be extended. Eric Rivkin: automatically Does the fact that may be anything that's included in the MUSA line mean that R-la is in jeopardy just by its nature? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I would think so. I would say it is fairly likely. It is agriculture. Once you come within the MUSA line then you are talking about developing that particular property into residential. Eric Rivkin: Even though we think it is rural, it is still designated now by our property tax statements as urban. We are already urban even though we are R-la, so we have had urban rights. Mayor Hamilton: I am sorry to say, the City is going through an extensive process of doing rezoning of the whole thing and that is the process that continues all the time. We are continually looking at it and trying to change and adjust and make two-year zoning so that the City grows in a real orderly fashion. 8y the time the year 2000 rolls around we will probably be going through the same process again and looking at rezoning of all kinds of areas. Councilwoman Swenson: We might clarify something too, when we talk about that one in ten acres. This does not constitute the minimum lot size. ~ ~ Approval Qf Aqreement: Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Roger to tell us what our legal position is in relation to this agreement with the Metropolitan Council if we do or if we do not approve it. Roqer Knutson: One of the things that we have discussed with the Council over a long period of time now is what is going to happen if the Council does not approve this agreement. Will you be able to stay at the current zoning ordinance requirements or are we going to be forced to go one for ten anyway. I would advise the Council that it might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but within the next year or so the Metropolitan Council is going to force us to go to one to ten. Around 1976, the Legislature passed an amendatory land plan act. Under that act the Metropolitan Council was directed to and has written a development framework plan that sets out certain requirements for all communities in the metropolitan area as far as land use development. Through the years that development framework plan was amended and is going through another process right now. By using that tool and by using the tool of sewer allocation and other tools available from the Metropolitan Council. Whether the City signs this agreement today or doesn't, you will end up with that same effect as far as the one for ten. One way or another the Metropolitan Council has got us. All this provision does is advance that day of summons. Probably not by much. I think Barb was going to talk to us about what one for ten means and how that fits in with 2! acre lot sizes. Barb Oacy: As Mr. Knutson relayed to, the Metro Land Planning Act also required com- munities of the Metro area to adopt a comprehensive plan. The City of Chanhassen did that in 1982, which consisted of this plan text and a land use plan that denotes spe- Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -10- cific land uses and what was then approved at that time as a 1990 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. To implement the comprehensive plan, obviously, we have the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Our existing zoning ordinance was adopted in 1972 and part of the Planning Commission's action for the proposed ordinance is to update the zoning ordinance to help in part implement the comprehensive plan. I would like to start with density. If I could ask all of you to eliminate lot size from your mind for awhile and just think of land area, the Metropolitan Council's policy for rural areas is one unit per ten acres with a minimum lot size greater than 2t acres. 1) How does the Metropolitan Council define a rural area? There are two definitions. They call it a commercial/agricultural area and the general rural use area. The commercial/agricultural area is strictly for those areas that are for ag preserve, a one unit per 40 acre density. The general rural use area, they define that in four ways. They say that that type of rural land is used for general farm land, rural residential areas, ex-urban development, which is an additional residen- tial development and urban associated uses, like campgrounds, R-V parks, etc. What the lake Ann Agreement is requiring the City to do is to amend our comprehensive plan to provide for a general development guide in our rural area of one unit per ten acres. This comprehensive plan defines and guides what happens in our urban area, the area that is served by water and sewer. It also guides what should develop and how the rural area should develop. When the plan was adopted in 1982, as you all recall, ordinance 45 was still in effect. So the comp plan was very general in saying the City will discourage significant residential development. Then in 1983, the zoning ordinance was amended due to a various number of factors including some legal action to allow 2t acre lots. The Metropolitan Council states that they feel that this is inconsistent with their policies. The Metropolitan Council states that this type of subdivision; for example if you had 50 acres and divided it into 2t acre lots, the Metropolitan Council calls this an urban density. They do not consider it a rural density. Their rural density is one unit per ten acres. The second issue comes up okay if the comp plan is amended to guide the rural development on a one per ten basis. How do you enforce that? That is where the zoning ordinance comes in. The zoning ordinance is an implementing tool of the comp plan to enforce the guide. How do you enforce the one per ten? The Planning Commission proposal is for ten acres. That is their preferred option as it stands now to enforce that one per ten density. Some options that will be considered, I am sure, at the next public hearing and at the City Council would be exemplified in this manner. For example, under the ten acre option, if you had 40 acres of land, obviously 40 divided by 10 equals four units. That 40 acre piece is eligible for four building units with a 10 acre minimum lot size, we divided it into four. If a five acre minimum lot size would be con- sidered, the same acreage parcel, 20 acres would have to remain as agricultural and the remaining 20 could be developed into four 5-acre lots. Under a 2t-acre minimum lot size option, 30 acres would remain and 10 would be developed. You see the denisty is always being maintained one per ten. The issue is how do you enforce it. The agreement also sets out that the City must implement these official controls by May 1, 1987. There is one more issue that I would like to review briefly and that is the issue regarding the 1990 versus the 2000 year MUSA line change. Through this process of negotiating the lake Ann Agreement, City staff counted the number of acres of vacant developable acreage in the urban service area. Metropolitan Council does a calculation as well as the City does and we wanted to make sure that their figure was right. What we came up with that there is an existing supply, 2,440 acres of vacant developable land in the MUSA area. The Metropolitan Council's policy is that that must be developed first before the MUSA line is extended to include more area. Communities in the metropolitan area who have the MUSA line bisecting their areas are all moving toward changing their 1990 MUSA line to the year 2000. We have to wait until everything is filled before that can be changed. Isn't that area right now the 1992? I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -11- Barb Dacy: Originally when the comp plan was passed it was anticipated that this would be developed on a post 1990 time frame. However, now with this change, this area that the interceptor is traversing through will not be able to be hooked up into until after the year 2000. You are not changing the area, you are just changing the year. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. Barb Dacy: I would like to state also that there was an initial time that they were considering maybe pulling the line back, but we were able remain with the existing amount of land. Councilwoman Swenson: Roger, on page 4 of the agreement on 4.2) I appreciate "(which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld)." I think that is very amusing. Under 4.3) "Indemnification - The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its employees, or agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees attributable to any claims regarding utilization of the trunk sewer capacity in the facility." Does this mean, for instance, that these people who are adjacent to but are outside that remain rural decide that they have a right to use that and should there be any suit against the City for using that. Does this mean that we have to handle it all by ourselves? I mean we'd have to battle this even though it is a manditory inclusion in the agreement. ROQer Knutson: That is correct. Obviously, it is a process of hard negotiation. This is not a particularly great paragraph. Councilwoman Swenson: It almost indicates that they are anticipating problems like I am. ROQer Knutson: Any time you enter into a contract you anticipate problems. That goes without saying. Councilman GevinQ: I would like to have Barb explain again the 2,440 acres of vacant developable land and how you are going to maintain that land base. Barb Dacy: That's the supply of land that can be developed and how we determined that was through a series of open space and plenimetering various maps. For example, we would exclude wetlands, steep slope areas, areas that we knew were unbuildable and calculated the amount of acreage that could be developed and served by sewer......... Councilman GevinQ: Using the ten acre minimum, is that right? You are just using a runoff figure of 2,440. Barb Dacy: In the urban service area only. Councilman GevinQ: let me ask you, Barbara, how existing and short term planned developments will be affected by this agreement. Plans, for example, that are in the process or if I were a developer would want to know how fast I would have to move to be able to be covered by the existing City ordinances and rules and not be caught up in this ten acre minimum before the date that we had talked about of May of 1987. But, it is quite likely that we would amend our zoning ordinance prior to that time. Could you comment on that please. Barb Dacy: Another public hearing is scheduled for the zoning ordinance for March 19th and then if acted upon at that time it could reach the Council sometime in Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -12- April. It would be up to the Council consideration the amount of public input and so on. It would be hard to say when it would be adopted at this point, but something would be before May of 1987. Councilman Gevinq: I think that is a key point, though, because if you were a deve- loper sitting out there you would want to know these dates and the up coming activi- ties. Why did they include the term greater than 2.5 acres in 6.1 (A) 3. I think that is a new term. I never saw greater than before. We always talk in terms of 2.5 acres and not greater than. That has some bearing upon how you would develop a par- cel within the ten acres. Could you explain that key word? I Barb Dacy: I believe what their requirement is based on is Mr. Knutson referred to the development framework, they specify, for example, in the proposed draft, they say that rural residential density is of no more than 1 unit per 10 acres and a five acre minimum lot size. This is the proposal that is going to the Metropolitan Council. Councilman Gevinq: That is why I say this term has changed since the last time I saw it. It's greater than. Now I don't believe I saw that word in there before. Mayor Hamilton: It was in there. Councilman Gevinq: It does have a different connotation when you use greater than, if you could say equal to or greater than, because, obviously, then it would be somewhat affected. Do you agree with that, Roger? Roqer Knutson: All you would have to do is come in with 2.501 and you got it. Councilman Gevinq: But if you are trying to develop a neat little parcel that just happens to be 2.5 or some kind of derivative of that. I Roqer Knutson: Why they drew the line exactly there, I think is arbitrary as most lines are, but that is the line they drew. Councilman Gevinq: What are the penalties for nonpayment of these annual fees of $52.801.40? I don't see a provision in here. Roqer Knutson: There are a lot of provisions. They didn't forget that subjet. One provision says they can limit our use of it, another is they can come and get levy judgement against us so they pull them out. Councilman Gevinq: The interest rate that we talked about of 9 percent. On a long term construction project, that is fairly high. Don Ashworth: I think that almost went under at one point in time. They are not proposing to sell bonds to carry out this construction, with the dry up of federal dollars. They are looking to their own sac fund, which is literally our own money that is going into this. But Dick Berg, their financial controller has put to note that average return on that fund is approximately 14 percent. They felt that since the dollars that would be used to pay for that portion of the project that would benefit Chanhassen would be paid through those monies and they would, again, pull in those investments that the City should pay that amount. Our position was you should be able to sell bonds in today's market 7 - 8 percent and that reasonably the City would in no way agree with the 14 percent or that type of interest rate. The actual I resolution of this came about through Metropolitan Council itself, the members con- sidering comments from Chanhassen basically said, lets make it 9 percent. Councilman Gevinq: I was just curious as to how that was arrived at. I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -13- Mayor Hamilton: This whole project has been a very frustrating process and a long list of frustrating experiences with the Metropolitan Council. It is one that we have spent three years on and a great deal of money. I certainly don't like the agreement and I don't think anybody on the Council does, however, we have pushed it to the maximum and we don't think we can get anymore and if we work to continue to agrue a point we would end up with something less than what we have now. I believe we have explored all alternatives to this particular agreement. We have even said at one point that we should not agree to it and we were assured that if we did that the Metropolitan Council and the MWCC would go ahead with the forcemain, which is not the best alternative. As I have said it has been been very frustrating and the Metropolitan Council tends to dictate to you exactly what they want to do and we have tried to take what they have dictated and make the best of it. What we have, I feel, is the best of what we are going to get. As Barb said, this agreement will probably not go into effect until May of 1987 or until such time that we have completed all our zoning changes and approve that, but May of 1987 is the latest that it can be approved, is that correct? Barb Daey: Right. Councilwoman Swenson: For clarification, is it not true that once this agreement has been signed, this doesn't have to wait for the comprehensive plan. Once this Council agrees to this.............................................. Mayor Hamilton: Under Section 6.1 lithe City agrees that it shall do and perform the following on or before August 1, 1986. So the earliest would be August 1, 1986. Roqer Knutson: As far as the agreement itself, it is effective when you sign it. But as far as what you have to do for these things, that is August 1, 1986. Councilwoman Swenson: We will have agreed that we are in accord with the one and ten. When will that be official? Is that not as soon as this is signed by both parties? Roqer Knutson: You have item six also coming up. You have committed yourself to doing it. Councilwoman Swenson: I wanted to dispel any misconception that can come before the completion of the comprehensive plan, and once it is done then the commitment for the one and ten is made. The only thing that still will be flexible is the actual mini- mum lot size, which has to be greater than the 2.5. I wanted to say this because if we sign this and somebody out there thinks that, gee, we don't have to worry about this until the comprehensive plan is done, which maybe next May, then they will come in and say you can't do that because we have got this agreement and we are not going to do that. That could be rather stunning to wait until that time to come in. I just want to have a clarification that we don't have any misunderstanding out there. Barb Dacy: And that's the zoning ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: That's right. This is what worries me that we have got the two combined. Mayor Hamilton: With this all we are doing is agreeing that we are going to do it... Just sitting here and listening to what you are talking about, it sure seems to me like you are going to ratify something that somebody else is making a decision on about the future development of Chanhassen and I don't like it at all. Councilwoman Swenson: And we don't either. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -14- I do not like the idea that I am in a City that is being dictated to by big brother. I hate to see you pass something like this because I don't think any of you really feel good about this. I certainly don't. Councilman Gevinq: let me tell you something. We sat here for about a year arguing about this very same thing. This has been placed upon us. None of us like it. We whittled over this many times. In fact, we tabled it and we agreed not to even sign it or even further consider it.............. I That is what you should tell them. Councilman Gevinq: We did. We threw is back at them. Our attorney has been meeting with them for over six months. We don't like this agreement any better than anybody else in Chanhassen. I don't think we have any choice. I would be the first to tell you, I hate this agreement. Why don't you tell them to forget it. You could tie them up for years in court. They can't cut the sewer off. Mayor Hamilton: Yes they can, whether you think they can or not, they can. But someone is going to come in, Tom, and you are going to get your pants sued off allover again like you did two years ago on the 2; acre. You will be fighting law suits and you are not going to have the MUSA to back you up. We are going to have to pay for it. Some developer is going to come in and sue you and you are going to be continually going to court over this. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that will happen. To answer your question, we may not like the agreement and we have agonized over it a long time, we have had very good I council representing us, they have given us very good advise, told us this is the best agreement that we are going to get, to tell them to just stick it is not an alternative at this point. As elected officials, I think we would be doing less than what we have been asked to do if we were to do that type of a thing. What we would end up with would be what we have here. I think we need to be concerned about the long range development in the community and I think this is something that we need to have. A community really needs to have it. Just because we sign the agreement, really effectively what that does, in my opinion, is tells the MWCC to construct the gravity line. Once it is in the ground you have some other alternatives and those will be explored at that time. Why can't a areas are going to develop. your decisions for you. City decide itself what areas are going to open up, what Why do you have to have an outside agency making all Mayor Hamilton: This goes a long way back to when the legislature formed the Metropolitan Council to be a planning function of the legislature. They gave them some pretty broad sweaping powers. This affects the seven county metropolitan area, but it also affects the rest of the state also. Everybody has to conform and all cities and states have a comp plan. They have to submit something to the state to tell them how they are going to develop. But they are the toughest in the seven county area. I have often times said that they might just as well run the town, the planning department. Someone brought up that you are going to be assessed on some of I parcels if you have over two acres, yet you can't divide off until you have got ten acres. That doesn't make any sense either. Bill is coming up with assessments based on 1.3 and that would hit me for an X number and other people the same way, yet I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -15- couldn't divide off if I wanted to because I have to have 10 acres. I have got 9. some acres, I could never subdivide and yet I am getting hit for a whole bunch of whatever. Roqer Knutson: That will change though at some point. Once you are able to use that trunk, whenever that point comes, you no longer have to have 2.5 acres at that point. That is not true though because I may never get to use that trunk don't run any laterals down my street, I am still stuck, but yet I am the maximum with what Bill has come up with as far as................ because if you still paying on Mayor Hamilton: You are paying for the trunk, not the lateral. I understand that, but I am saying you shouldn't have to pay for all of the assessments if you don't have more than one house. Mayor Hamilton: I think all of us have been arguing with the Metropolian Council for at least eight years. It is a frustrating experience at best and we will continue fighting the battles. Once in a while we win one and unfortunately we lose some. Has it been proven that the Council probably knows that the Metropolitan Council in the past has shoved forcemains down. Why did we give them a choice? Why can't they just take the Lake Ann Interceptor and accept it. Don't give them the opportunity. Mayor Hamilton: It wasn't our choice in the first place. They came to us and said they were going to put a forcemain in and we said no you are not. That's not what we want. We didn't ask them to do it. They just came here and said we are going to put a forcemain through your town and you are going to pay for it and you can never use it. We said that is not acceptable to us, so we have been fighting it. So now they have gone back to the position of what we have been planning for the last 20 years. It has taken us three years to fight that war so we can get what we planned 20 years to do. I take it other Councils are being forced into the same situation. Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. How many law suits are pending regarding this. Roqer Knutson: We don't know of any. We are in a situation that we can't build an interceptor. It costs approximately $12,000,000. The City can't build an intercep- tor. They don't have any statuatory authority to do it. If the MWCC and the Metropolitan Council says your not going to get it, your not going to get it. Then you go to St. Paul and battle there. So far, the Metropolitan Council and its agen- cies have been more successful in lobbying those things than anyone else. Mayor Hamilton: The difficult thing with going to St. Paul and trying to fight that battle is that most of your legislators don't know a thing about what the Metropolitan Council does and they really don't want to know. You get the legisla- tors over there and the thing was formed long before they ever got there and they don't really ever have anything to do with them. They don't deal with them on a day to day basis or even a legislative basis. They really don't have much contact with them. Did I hear you right with Dale's comments that possibly you are going to assist in the developments shown before the Council here before May 1, 1987? Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -16- Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Absolutely. Councilman Gevinq: That is why I spoke up in that respect so that you have some advance warning that you can get something going here. I Mayor Hamilton: I have met with some property owners and told them if you want to develop even a portion of your property, be sure to get it platted prior to that par- ticular time. I don't think I got a real date out of the Council as far as the earliest that this will be passed, if it is passed. Mayor Hamilton: The agreement itself says August 1, 1986. I am not sure if we have to have our land use amendment completed prior to and how do those tie together? Darb Dacy: The August 1st was in reference to the comp plan amendments and item 6. is on the agenda for tonight. Councilwoman Swenson: Again, clarification, the comp plan actually is only something that is being done in accordance with this agreement. Barb Dacy: That is item #6. Councilwoman Swenson: When do we have to comply with the one and ten, after the comprehensive plan, after the zoning ordinance or after we make this agreement with the ................ Roqer Knutson: The one and ten would be placed in the ground after you pass your zoning ordinance by May 1, 1987. It has to be done by then. You will be committing I to do it when you sign this. Mayor Hamilton: A motion is in order to approve or deny these items. We can take item six right along with' this. I think we have discussed everything dealing with 6. Item 6 that we are talking about is the comprehensive land use map and plan amendment to redesignate the 1990 MUSA boundary to the year 2000 boundary and to amend the comprehensive plan to provide for rural development densitites of one unit per ten acres, which is exactly what we have been talking about because of this agreement with the Metropolitan Council. I don't know of anything else that needs to be discussed. I think we have covered all the ground that needs to be covered. Councilman Gevinq: This item was on the consent agenda of the Metropolitan Council on February 27th approving of the comprehensive plan amendment for Chanhassen designation of the 2000 MUSA line. Is that correct? Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Gevinq: Why was this submitted to the Metropolitan Council for con- sideration prior to tonight's meeting when we had an opportunity to vote on this. Roqer Knutson: Under the states statutes on the amendatory land planning acts, the way that it has to be done is it has to go to your Planning Commission. Your Planning Commission can make a recommendation, not final. Before you can act on it, its got to be approved by the Metropolitan Council. If the Metropolitan Council says I okay, then you can still say no. You don't have to vote yes tonight. Under the sta- tute, for whatever reason, that is the way it is set up. I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -17- Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question on one sentence here. "The City will con- tinue to participate in the development framework amendment process to insure that Chanhassen's growth protections are reasonable and insure that the City has the abi- lity to provide utility service to land areas within the MUSA". What do you mean by that? Barb Dacy: The Metropolitan Council projects the year 1990 and the year 2000 popula- tion, households, and employment projections. As you know we have had, since the adoption of the original plan, continuing this agreement as to how fast Chanhassen will grow with in the existing MUSA area. They are predicting that our popultation will be significantly lower than what our own staff predictions are going to be, simultaneously, along with the population projections and land demand figures that the Metropolitan Council determines. Another requirement of the lake Ann Agreement is that we have to update our sewer plan as well to determine our capacity, etc. During the six to eight months period when the Metropolitan Council is going to hear the amendment process, we have to continue to participate and make sure that we are insuring adequate sewer capacity and we are still trying to convince them to take another look at their population and employment projections for Chanhassen, which we believe are too low. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following: 1. The lake Ann Interceptor Public Improvement Project as outlined by the City Engineer; 2. The lake Ann Interceptor Agreement as recommended by the City Engineer; and 3. RESOLUTION #86-12: The Comprehensive land Use Map and Plan Amend- ment to Redesignate the 1990 MUSA Boundary to the Year 2000 Boundary and to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide for Rural Development Densities of One Unit Per Ten Acres. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative Councilman Horn: I would like to point out one thing. If anybody doesn't know who their Metropolitan Council representative is or who their Senator or Representative is, I am sure staff would be happy to provide you with their number and I would encourage you to let them know how you feel about this issue. SUNNYBROOK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: ~ Preliminary Plat Approval; . ~ Request iQ Amend Section 17.02 Qi Zoninq Ordinance iI iQ Allow Conference Centers ~ ~ Permitted Use in the P-4 District; ~ Wetland Alternation Permit; ~ Site Plan Review. Mayor Hamilton: the issues that posal to change while back so that we could resolve some of particular time. So we have before us a pro- to allow conference centers in that. We tabled this issue a were brought up at. that the P-4 zoning district Barb Dacy: The Council tabled action on the January 13th meeting so a homeowners association meeting could be conducted. That meeting was conducted on January 24, 1986. Subsequent to that meeting the applicant filed a zoning ordinance amendment request and that was considered by the Planning Commission. Since the Council tabling action on the 13th, another alignment has been developed also beyond the one Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -18- that had been considered earlier. The preliminary plat request still is to divide the parcels into two pieces, 33 acres and 26 acres and to realign lake Drive East. However, now the alignment is in a position more toward the original point of entry into the Ward Estate. Don Ashworth: The Council does have a copy of the new alignment associated with that road. It does meet the state aid criteria for 40 mph design standard. The scale that you had looked at before made that road look quite obtrusive in terms of the bend. As you can see on the larger scale map the alignment of lake Drive East is being maintained on the east side of the project. Design standards asked for by the Wards are being met and the design requirements of the state in terms of the 40 mph speed limit, of course, could be less than that, but to insure that you could main- tain that type of speed has been maintained. I Councilman Gevinq: The road has been proposed at what width? Bill Monk: The road would be built to commercial standards, which is 36 feet. The Councilman Gevinq: Okay. Bill Monk: -- between the wetlands and over to the west edge of the Sunny brook proposal and west of the Ward Estate. At that time the Ward Estate mentioned that the problems and the way that was clogging up their site north of the potential roadway extention. Since that time we have done a little bit of work just to try and get a handle on whether the design speeds could be adhered to through this entire section. A series of cur- ves on this road which would go between the wetlands. You can see in this area down where the existing frontage road ends that we are back down to almost the same point, approximately 50 feet north where we swung up on another curve and get back over to TH 101. The driving speeds on this alignment are 40 mph, except the 400 foot curve at TH 101, but since that's at a place where stopping and starting will be taking place. Basically this is a 40 mph design. This was done I guess as much to satisfy myself as anybody else in terms that a roadway could be designed in here, the bulk of the wetlands and still sweeping through and meeting the objectives of Sunny brook and the Ward Estate. At the last meeting the Council looked at a realignment that would come up I Councilwoman Watson: We are all very concerned about the use of the MSA funds. We had several places that we want to use them and this is certainly just one and I guess in my own mind would include a bigger priorty than some other areas in the city. How will the City's participation be calculated? Bill Monk: Present City policy dictates the City use MSA monies for oversizing costs to a minimum amount equal to 33% of the grading, street and drainage costs. Another thing that is being looked at right now by the HRA is the possibility of expanding the tax reduction plan into this area. If they do, the Council may be put into a position as to which to offer - MSA participation or tax abatement to the HRA, but not both. That is the staff position at this point, but that has not been cleared through the HRA at this point. Councilwoman Watson: I am stating my opinion at this point, I don't want to pay one- third of any additional costs. I want to pay one-third of the original cost and any additional costs because of design and is the choice of the developer, not the I choice of the City or where these MSA funds could be used on other roads. I think they should bear any cost beyond that. We pay one-third of the original costs. If there is an additional cost, they should bear that cost, not the City of Chanhassen. Bill Monk: That would be an amendment to the policy, but totally within the authority of the City Council. The Council could, after the alternative study is I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -19- done could ticipation nal study. that would review the costs of the street in both alternatives and set a maximum par- level at a dollar amount equaling one-third of what is shown in the origi- Those things are all possibilities that the Council could do and numbers be generated if this were to proceed. Councilwoman Watson: I would be most interested in that. I don't think the City as whole should bear the responsibility for a particular design preference by a deve- loper. Councilman Gevinq: I think we talked about that before and that was one of the ori- ginal agreements. One of the original statements I think we made when we met was that any design that was particular to this development, that was being requested by the developer, should be borne by the developer. Councilwoman Watson: I thought we should reiterate it again tonight regardless of the fact that we had discussed it before that if this to be a Council policy, this is going to be a part of the agreement so that there is no confusion in the end. Councilwoman Swenson: I have the notes that we referred to and these were all things that were brought up at the time. One of them says the road alignment, and these were all things that we discussed at the Council level - All additional costs for the realignment of Lake Drive East Road for the sole purpose of benefiting Sunnybrook's development would be borne by Opus and/or Sunnybrook. This also includes any addi- tional costs for the loss of property value to the Ward property. That was an agreement that was verbally agreed to. Bill Monk: The Council at that point stated their intent. Remember there is a time and place that that would come into play and it would be when the Council looked at a revised feasibility study. Councilman Gevinq: I think Mr. & Mrs. Schlender understand what we just said and you agreed to that, isn't that correct? Mrs. Schlender: That's correct. Councilwoman Watson: I have a question for the applicants basically, what they plan to do with the land next to them. There is some concern that this kind of a use might bring in other uses of the same nature or commercial kinds of uses which the neighborhood would find incompatible with what they would hope for. I would kind of like to know what their plans are for the property that they have an option for that is next door to what they are buying. I believe Opus owns that. Mrs. Schlender: The agreement that we have with Opus does incorporate the entire 60 acres. We have just initially requested rezoning amending the existing zoning for a conference center. Our plans for that are somewhat undefined at this time. The reason for acquiring all 60 acres is so we have control what goes in around us. It will be compatible with the existing P-4 zoning. Our concern was architecturally to have whatever goes in there blend in with the rest of our project and obviously to have control over it. Councilwoman Watson: But you could sell off the west portion of the site to a seperate interest. Mrs. Schlender: I wouldn't want to rule out that possibility, but we do plan to develop that land ourselves. We may wish, in the future, sell a portion of it. Our current plans are to develop that ourselves. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -20- Councilwoman Watson: Does Sunnybrook have any second phase or third phase? Is there anywhere in your thinking an expantion on this use? Mrs. Schlender: I guess our ideas are limited to a lot of details because they are not formulated real firmly. I guess it depends on the success of the Sunnybrook pro- ject whether we would want to expand. But our thoughts along those lines are an extension of a colonial village. It could be a small furniture manufacturing or a cheese factory, a potter shop. Something along those lines that would be an exten- tion of the village concept. Councilman Horn: My questions are more in line with the recreational facilities. Is there a swimming pool being proposed? Mrs. Schlender: Yes. Councilman Horn: Is there any type of screening around that or will that be visible from the lake? Mrs. Schlender: No, there will be a wall behind the swimming pool to block the view from the lake. Councilman Horn: Now the softball diamond. Is that a lighted diamond or an unlighted diamond? Mrs. Schlender: Unlighted. Barb Dacy: Mr. Mayor, would you like the staff to go through the site plan? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, would you please. Barb Dacy: The site plan has not been changed since the Planning Commission other than the road alignment. The proposed facility is located on a 33 acre lot, the eastern portion of the 60 acre. What is proposed is a 47 room country inn, restaurant, and accessory recreational facilities. The first item discussed in the staff report is the buildings and the lot coverage. As you all know it borders the north side of Lake Susan. The Shoreland Ordinance mandates that structures within 1,000 feet of the ordinary water mark may not exceed the the building height of 35 feet. The proposed structure is 48 feet in height and, therefore, must receive a 13 foot variance. The DNR has verbally informed staff when they reviewed the proposal that they felt because of its location, approximately 320 feet from the ordinary high water mark and because of existing vegetation, they had no adverse comments regarding the increased height. The second issue as regarding to building location is the location of the proposed walkway and gazebo. Some of you may remember when this plat went in that a special condition was inserted into the development contract that no structure be constructed below the 935 contour. The walkway and gazebo are located within the setback. The walkway is proposed to extend down from the patio/pool area and down to the gazebo. If the gazebo/walkway is approved, staff is recommending that detailed grading plans be submitted for our review and DNR as well. Another proposed recommendation is that no construction activities occur below the 940 con- tour. We realize that this is more restrictive than what it was originally. It was approved in the development contract, however, we felt that the nature of the vegeta- tion and the slope should be preserved as much as possible. The P-3 and P-4 districts allow a maximum building coverage and parking coverage is 70 percent. The total area of the parking area and all the buildings proposed approximate 18 percent of the lot area. As far as the parking layout, the original plan shows the parking area along the eastern edge of the property. However, in between two of the Planning Commission meetings the applicant revised the plan to shift the parking area back to the west side to maximize the screening from existing vegetations and to utilize the I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -21- proposed buildings, screen the parking areas and the light standard. If approved, we are recommending that four additional parking spaces be reserved on site. As far as proposed landscaping, what is being proposed is as far as the access drive from Lake Drive East will be a long corridor of trees and so on as well as trees and other land- scaping to be proposed along the perimeter of the parking area. Staff is recommending that in the northern and western areas of the parking area that the landscaping be increased so as to screen the parking activity on site, as well as incorporating landscaping within the parking area south, due to its size. Along the south parking area here they are proposing vegetation and we are also recommending that they extend the areas between the buildings to screen the loading area as well. The lighting generated a lot concern from the homeowners. What is being proposed on this plan is eight parking lot lights that reach a height of 28 feet. The parking lot lights will have two 400 watt sodium bUlbs and the street lights will have one 250 watt sodium bulb. The street lights are 16 feet in height. There will be wall mounted lights along the southern elevation of the building. These lights will be 150 watts until 11:00 p.m. and the applicant has proposed a timer to switch them to 25 watts. Along the walkway there also is proposed to be five lights and their wattage will have a 100 watt bulb. These lights will direct light onto the proposed pathway. It is pro- posed that these lights will be turned off at 2:00 a.m. I will run through briefly the recreational facilities that they are proposing also. There is a softball field in the northeastern corner of the site. There are tennis courts, boccie ball, hor- seshoe court, and volleyball area. On the south side of the hotel there is a swimming pool and a club and patio area outside the proposed inn. On the western part of the lot there is a proposed putting green. As far as the site plan is con- cerned we would have our ten recommendations contained in the staff report. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the ten conditions. Councilwoman Swenson: I think Dale and I have something to add to it. I guess the elevation is covered by the 940. The road alignment, the additional costs of the alignment for Lake Drive East Road for the sole purpose of benefiting Sunnybrook Development would be borne by Opus and/or Sunny brook including any additional costs for loss of property value of the Ward property. There will be no cutting of trees of brush or any material alteration of the existing bluff overlooking the lake. Retain the lake homeowner's present site plan of the north bluff to the best extent possible. The proposed walkway to the lake will be as unobstrusive as possible and will not be constructed across City owned lake frontage. Councilwoman Gevinq: At this point on number 4, I don't believe that should be lighted as well. There seemed to be some concern there and I would like to omit the lights on that walkway because nobody is going to be stumbling down there are 2:00 in the morning anyway because of the mosquitos and brush, etc. I would like to remove the lights from that. Councilwoman Swenson: Or maybe the walkway should be eliminated. Councilwoman Watson: regulation. It should be eliminated past the 935 mark. That is the Councilwoman Swenson: The gazebo would have to go. Councilman Gevinq: The gazebo will go if we don't allow any construction below 940. Councilwoman Swenson: walkway. The walkway should be included in that then. We eliminate the Councilman Gevinq: I think that eventually there may be pathway or something, but no formal walkway to be constructed. Let's go back to item 4. We will eliminate all construction below 940 and we eliminated the walkway entirely. We want to be more restrictive than what was previously agreed upon. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -22- Councilwoman Swenson: Sunnybrook does not have riparian lake rights. Therefore, there will be no docks, canoes, swimming, paddleboats, etc. to compete with Lake Susan's Homeowners leisure time use of the lake. All drainage, all water runoff of buildings, parking lots, etc. will be directed north and west away from the lake and into a controlled ponding area. I know you hit the lights, Barbara as much as this agrees, they develop a detailed outdoor lighting plan to include locations, types of lighting, times of lighting procedures, and the lighting scheme must be designed to reduce the impact on the lake and lake residences. Would you say that yours has covered that? I Councilman Horn: I think what you are asking for, Pat, is a staff recommendation, in your technical opinion what you are asking for is covered under the lighting plan. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that is what I was trying to say. We don't want any lighting to affect the residents. Barb Dacy: I can't sit here and say that people across the lake are not going to see any of the lights. I don't think that is fair and I don't think that is going to be true. They will probably be able to see some type of glow. I can say that the stan- dards, for the most part, should be screened by the building and as far as when the lights on the south elevation of the building are concerned, when they are turned down to a 25 watt size bulb, it is hard to say at this point how much of a nuisance, if it is going to be a nuisance, is going to occur. All I can say is there is a lot of existing vegetation there and they reoriented the parking lot to minimize the amount of intrusion. Councilwoman Swenson: I am not as concerned with that on the north side of building as I am with the shore area. Councilman Horn: Just to put it into perspective. What we are really comparing I here is what we would have allowed as a typical, industrial use. In your opinion, is this going to have more of a visual lighting impact than say a typical building in the industrial park. Councilwoman Swenson: It will have some. Barb Dacy: I do not recall at this time what was approved with the industrial center. I have to believe there was some type of security lighting. I do recall that their parking lot standard poles were 12 feet in height for the parking area. I do not know if they had security lights at the corners of the bUilding, etc. We do require that all lights are soduim. Councilwoman Swenson: We are talking about a club and a swimming pool, and if this has got a lot of activity and a lot of lights, I can see how it could be very distracting. We have discussed this enough and I think you understand what the problem is and I am confident that you will take that into consideration. Mayor Hamilton: Is the reason those standards are 28 feet tall is to spread the lights a little bit more so that you have fewer standards than you would have if you had them 16 feet tall. Barb Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Councilwoman Swenson: We had a noise ordinance. We will expect the Country Inn to have its own internal security procedures with personnel to make sure this doesn't become roudy, which we don't anticipate. Would you say that covered it, Dale? I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -23- Councilman Gevinq: There is only one other point and I don't know how to address this and that is the height of the structure itself. It is proposed at 48 feet. Is that correct? Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Gevinq: And our City ordinance is 35 feet? Barb Dacy: Yes, that is the Shoreland Ordinance. Councilman Gevinq: Which means it has to be 1,000 feet back from the high water mark. Is that correct? Barb Dacy: If affects buildings within a 1,000 foot radius. Councilwoman Watson: So with a building the height they are proposing, they must be back to a mimimum of 1,000 feet? Barb Dacy: Yes. If they were 1,000 feet back from the lake, then they could have a 48 foot building. Councilman Gevinq: Which will mean then, in a sense, granting them some kind of a variance. Barb Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Councilman Gevinq: The 48 feet then allows you how many levels, Mr. Schlender? Mr. Schlender: It has got three levels. Councilman Gevinq: So we are 13 feet over the standard. Mr. Schlender: guests. They will allow us a reasonable use age on the third floor for the Councilwoman Watson: I would kind of like to see us move that 13 feet to the north so it is outside that 1,000 foot. Barb Dacy: The 1,000 feet travels well back into the site. You are referring to that they should reduce their building 13 feet in height. Councilman Gevinq: We would be almost back to the road if we went 1,000 feet. We wouldn't have much left. What they are proposing is a 48 foot strucuture and three stories. I don't know how else you can get around that. Mayor Hamilton: There needs to be a variance request at the same time. Barb Dacy: The zoning ordinance is not clear as to if it should be considered by the Board of Adjustments or whatever. So staff chose to process it through the Planning Commission the day of the public hearing process to receive Planning Commission and Council review. Don Ashworth: It is part of your consideration for tonight. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was a little surprised at the recreational facilities that are being proposed. I didn't realize that they were going to be so extensive. I am not sure what difference that makes, but I didn't realize there was going to be a softball field and tennis courts. I have been to a lot of large conferences and I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -24- have never recalled having time to play softball or anything like that. I would like to ask the Ward's for their comments on the proposed alignment of the road and the use of your property. Not the specific use of it, but if it affords you the flexibi- lity that you would like to have in developing your property. I Mr. Ward: We worked with Sunnybrook and Bill Monk and yes we are satisfied with it. Mayor Hamilton: So you feel that you will be able to get the development out of that property that you wanted to have? Mr. Ward: Yes. The only initial thing is that we just wanted to be included in the actual platting process because there is a slight variance that we wanted to be involved in that process. As the concept is proposed tonight it is satisfactory to our concerns and preserves our value of our property to the best that it could be arranged. Area Resident: We feel the same way that we have stated at other meetings that we have been at. Councilman Horn: We have been mulling this over a lot. The big thing that I have boiled it down to is the choice between this development or another industrial deve- lopment. I think the sodium lights would come with any park~ng lot in any industrial development. I tried to put myself in this position. I know I am not going to be the one that it is doing it, but I like to put myself in that spot and I think that if I looked at this building versus what tends to be somewhat of a cold stoney look that you get with a typical industrial building, I personally would rather look at something architecturally shaped like this than I would what I would typically see in an industrial park. The other issue that I am really concerned about is whether we are going to probagate the use of the commercial area. I have no intention of doing I that. There will be absolutely no other commercial uses in this area, and I think everybody involved should be aware of that. As far as the proposed new zoning ordi- nance goes, that is not at all what we are considering here tonight. That will be another issue. I, quite frankly, don't see how we are going to change from what we had proposed in our current zoning ordinance for this area and it certainly isn't going to be a commercial area and I don't think that should be expanded and I would ask our attorney have us to write anything that we can into this to make sure that just because we have a bar in this building, anybody can put a bar in down there, or just because we have a tennis court here, that somebody can put in a health club. That is not the intent that we have for this area. I want to make sure that we set it up very restrictively so that doesn't happen. With those thoughts in mind I would like the staff to give us any assistance that they can to make sure that this is what we are proposing. It is an extension of an industrial use as a convention center. It is not a commerical endeavor and will not expand to a commercial endeavor. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with what Clark has said, specifically I am not the least bit favorable on any extension of any commercial uses on your property. I am not aware of what you are intending to do, maybe nothing at the present time. If a com- mercial use proposal were to come in, at this point I would not look favorably upon it and I would hope that the rest of the Council would not either. Mrs. Schlender: A couple of comments. On the walkway, our concern with not pro- viding a walkway to the lake is that people will make their own walkway and I think we will have more damage to the natural terrain there by having a situation where I there are many pathways. So what we wanted to do is to provide, with DNR approval, a kind of a winding pathway that keeps this somewhat in its natural state. Our concern with the lights is not having great huge lights, just a means of safety. I think those lights could certainly be turned down to little of nothing at a fairly early hour. Being in Minnesota and with the nuisance with mosquitos I don't see anybody making use of that trail late into the evening, but our concern is more for safety. I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -25- Councilwoman Swenson: I think there is a means of stopping that. I think you can put up a wall that will stop people at that area. I think it is incumbent upon us to try to eliminate any potential infraction on the rights of the residents that are there as we can possibly anticipate them. I know activity near and around the lake is one of their major concerns. I think by eliminating that and preventing a walkway down there, we can perhaps appease a little bit more of how they are worried about this. Mrs. Schlender: So what you are saying is any access down to that lake will probably be through the park. I also have a couple comments on some of the staffs recommen- dations. Item #2 - there is a statement in there something to the effect that a building permit will not be granted until the construction contract for the road has been awarded. Just to share a little of our concern. Obviously, we would like not to be stalled with any of our construction, but on the other hand we don't want a building completed with no road to it. So what we are asking for is the cooperation from the city to make sure that that is done in a timely manner so that we are not delayed 6 months or a year before the start of construction. What is the normal timing on a contract of this type? Bill Monk: Timing of that would depend primarily on Opus and Sunnybrook in exe- cution of the development contracts and filing of the financial guarantees that the city always requires for many municipal improvement projects. Once that was taken care of it would move rather quickly in terms of trying the project under contract. The condition was put in there so that we would make sure that the bidding process was complete. There are so many places where problems could arise. We wouldn't want the building going up only to find out that we couldn't get a bidder that was accep- table, we couldn't bond this project, etc. Mrs. Schlender: Could you give me a feel for what is typical from the time that the development contract is signed and the letter of credit and so forth is completed. Are we talking about a month or two or are we talking about a longer period of time. Bill Monk: The process from here on out would take three to five months to complete. Mrs. Schlender: The other item of concern was item #5 and that was the recommen- dation to dedicate land north of the ponding area north of the new proposed road to the City for drainage purposes. One of our concerns is making sure that that area is maintained. The other concern is that we would like to use part of that property for signage and maybe some flower beds or other types of landscaping. One of the reasons for us acquiring that whole strip of land was so that we had control of it and we didn't have a problem with anything affecting the appearance of our setting. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve Subdivision Request #85-16 for two lots and the realignment of Lake Drive East subject to the following conditions: 1. The City process a street vacation application to officially vacate the existing alignment of Lake Drive East. 2. Building permits will not be issued until the construction contract for Lake Drive East is awarded. 3. The feasibility study for Lake Drive East be amended to reflect the modified street alignment and corresponding utility revisions. 4. All regulatory permits from the Watershed District and DNR and all conditions are made a part of this approval. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -26- 5. That the strip of land located to the north of the realigned roadway between the church property and the eastern boundary of the subject lot be designated either as a part of the road right-of-way, or des- ignated as an outlot to be conveyed to the City as a drainage easement. 6. Submission of a revised preliminary plat to reflect the alternative alignment for review by the City Engineer to insure the enforcement of MSA standards. 7. The additional costs of the realignment of lake Drive East for the sole purpose of benefiting Sunnybrook's Development will be borne by Opus/ Sunny brook Development including any additional costs for loss of property value to the Ward property. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton opposed. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #86-1 to allow conference centers as a permitted use in the P-4 Industrial Development District as follows: 1. Section 4, Definitions: Conference Centers: A pre-planned, centrally managed development containing facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars, and containing accommodations for overnight lodging, eating, and recreation. The development is characterized by architecturally integrated buildings, common use of parking areas and incorporation of passive recreational amenities into the overall site design. 2. Section 17.02: 6. Conference Centers subject to the following standards: a. The development shall be located on a single zoning lot. b. Sixty percent of the lot area shall be maintained for the provision of open space and accessory recreational facilities. c. Conference facilities shall have a minimum assembly area of 400 persons. d. lodging and eating facilities shall be contained in one structure. e. All structures shall be architecturally similar in design. f. lighting shall consist of shielded high pressue sodium fixtures and be so designed as to not glare on properties adjoining. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton opposed. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the Wetlands Alteration Permit #85-2 and Site Plan Request #85-6 subject to the site plan stamped "Received November 25, 1985" with the following conditions: I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 1. That the building permit will not be issued until the construction contract for lake Drive East is awarded. 2. That no structures are allowed below the 940 foot elevations. The proposed walkway and gazebo below the 940 contour elevation shall be eliminated. 3. That four additional parking spaces be added for a total of 354 parking spaces. 4. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating additional landscaping on the parking lot islands and along the westerly and northerly edge of the main parking lot. 5. The applicant receive a Wetlands Alteration Permit. 6. The feasibility study for lake Drive East shall be amended to reflect the modified street alignment and corresponding utility revisions. 7. All regulatory permits from the Watershed District and DNR shall be secured and all conditions made a part of this approval. 8. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted at time of building permit application showing provisions for protecting the wetlands and lake Susan from erosion during the construction process. 9. There shall be no cutting of trees, brush or material alteration of the existing bluff overlooking the lake. 10. Retain the lake homeowner's present site line of the north bluff to the best extent possible. 11. Sunny brook does not have riparian lake rights and there will be no docks, canoes, swimming, paddleboats, and so forth to compete with the lake Susan homeowner's leisure time use of the lake. 12. All drainage water runoff from building, parking lots, etc. will be directed north/west away from the lake to a controlled ponding area. 13. The applicant shall submit a detailed outdoor lighting plan to include location, type of lighting, and times of lighting procedures. lighting schemes must be designed to reduce the impact on the lake and lake residents. 14. Sunny brook shall establish internal security to regulate and to handle noise and any disturbances. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: This will come back on a consent agenda as a final development agreement? Barb Dacy: The final plat will come back, yes. Councilman Horn: And we want the things that we discussed included in the verbiage in that. Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -28- Councilwoman Swenson: I think what we are saying, Barb, is that we want this reassurance that we are not going to have restaurants along the lake there. What we were going to say was that restaurants, etc. would only be allowed as integrated parts of the convential center. Barb Dacy: Right, and that was the intent of the zoning ordinance amendment. The second reading of that ordinance amendment will come back at that same time as the consent agenda item. The development contract will list specific conditions of approval on the plat. Councilman Horn: I think if there are any areas in these where we have eliminated on section or one and not another where they are not consistent, we should have that clarified, like the gazebo issue to make sure it is clean. I CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHAMBER QI COMMERCE REGARDING THE CITY IDENTIFICATION SIGN: Mayor Hamilton: In the past couple of years some of the Chamber members, Ted Korzenowski in particular, have been complaining about the sign that the City has on the corner of TH 101 and Highway 5. It is on the northwest corner. There is no question that it is the wrong corner to have the sign on in the first place because by the time you see it you are past the turn off and that hasn't done you a whole lot of good, plus it has small lettering and you can't really read it. What they are asking now is for the City to just to take that sign down. At one point I agreed that perhaps that would be alright. After thinking about it and with talking with Don I don't necessarily agree with that right now. They haven't completed their plans to put a sign up on Gary Brown's property, which would be as you approach the turn off. It would be a bigger sign and would be lighted. They had some plans to do it and it became rather expensive. Consequently, they kind of backed out of it. I think even if we take our sign down, I don't think that we should take it down I completely. If nothing else, just cut off the top part of that sign, maybe two- thirds of it and take out all of the junk in the middle and maybe have someone design and make a nice maple leaf that would fit in between the two posts that are existing that would say "City of Chanhassen, Home of the Dinner Theatre" or something on the sign. There would still be something there that those people are going to know that those people are in the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Gevinq: Even if it said "Welcome to Chanhassen". Mayor Hamilton: What I am saying is rather than take out the sign completely, which is what the Chamber is asking, cut it down and make use of the posts that are already in the ground. I would suggest that we send a letter back to Jerri Martin or to Don Andrus and tell them that we will cut it down, but we are not going to take it out and that we would still use it as an identification sign for the City of Chanhassen, even if it is a low level sign. Councilman Gevinq: Let's try it. Councilman Horn: I don't know if the Chamber is going to proceed with this, but I was really somewhat dissappointed when I saw what their plan was. It reminds me of the sign that David Bell put up here, which is a plastic and iron post sign, which I was dissappointed when I saw that. What we had asked for was something made out wood and had a wood look and what we got was a metal and plastic look. This, to me, is the same type of a look. Mayor Hamilton: They went to only one sign and they got a proposal for that and it was really expensive. They were trying to figure out how they could rent space on there for an equitable amount and be able to pay for it. I I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -29- Councilwoman Swenson: Through my experience on the sign committee I can tell you if you allow advertising on that sign, we are going to get a lot of heat. You are going to have everybody wanting it and the next thing you know you are going to have to have ten signs out there because everybody is going to want signs facing traffic. Mayor Hamilton: The cost would be prohibitively high, so there are going to be a lot of people who couldn't afford it. The Dinner Theatre would take up a big chunk of it and he wants it and he rightfully should have it. I wish we had something to direct traffic into the Dinner Theatre. They do so much business with this town, they are certainly entitled to a sign directing traffic off of the highway. Councilwoman Swenson: Don has in his last paragraph, "Once final designs are agreed to, the general con census of both the HRA and City Council was that the current city identification sign would be removed concurrent with the installation and that the City would commence reconstruction to compliment to Chamber's sign. I think what we have just been saying is we are not going to have a sign, we are just going to change the one that we have. I see conflict there. Don Ashworth: I din't want to box you into anyone thing. We would remove the existing one and install a sign that would compliment what the Chamber was doing. In other words a low lying sign that would just say "Chanhassen". Mayor Hamilton: But not necessarily remove the sign that is there, just cut it down and use the posts that are there. Councilwoman Swenson: He's talking about moving it too. Don Ashworth: I will clarify that to make sure we have an option, just to make sure. Mayor Hamilton moved to direct the City Manager to forward his draft letter dated February 28, 1986 to the Chamber of Commerce regarding the business identification sign. 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. NEW ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Swenson: I think we have a potential for having a topless and bot- tomless niteclub. I would like to have an agreement from the Council to ask the Counselor to draft an anti-pornography ordinance. Roqer Knutson: Whenever you draft an anti-porn ordinance you're rubbing against the First Amendment, so you have problems. But the one area that you have a lot of discretion is in the liquor licensing. That is probably the best way to go. I assume most of those places that have this kind of entertainment usually sell liquor at the same time. That would be the place to put something like that. Councilwoman Swenson: How do we go about doing it before we have to be confronted with it? There were a couple of us that were exposed to a conversation Tuesday. The comment was made, as I remember, be advised that this is being initiated in Shakopee and therefore if Shakopee goes can we be far behind? The interpretation was that this was a possibility, and I want to close this possibility before it gets to be an issue. I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure don't want any. What I am really trying to say is that I would really like a consensus of the Council and I am asking, and make a motion if you will, that however it should be done that we proceed to have at least documentation that this is our intent. Mayor Hamilton: Is topless dancing porn? Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -30- Roger Knutson: Under the Supreme Courts definition of obscenity, toplessness in itself is not pornography. Roqer Knutson: Under legal terms that would not be porn, but you address those things in your liquor ordinance, if you want to. are going to I Councilwoman Swenson: Then maybe anit-porn is an improper choice. Councilwoman Swenson: We would amend our existing liquor ordinance? Roqer Knutson: If that is what you want to do. Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed that it has been said that people have a right to put this porn and restrict it to certain areas of the City, which takes out of the rest of the City. Roqer Knutson: There are two different things we can talk about, pornographic books stores and things like that. It has been a hot item and there has been recent Supreme Court decision on community zoning. There are two thoughts, 1) disperse it and, 2) put it all together and don't disperse it. Sometimes they are upheld and sometimes they are thrown out, but there is some recent decision to say you can pro- bably do that if it is a very carefully round ordinance. If you are concerned about topless and bottomless sorts of things, you can probably just address that in your liquor ordinance and not face all the other issues. Councilwoman Swenson: I would be happy to start with that. Councilwoman Swenson moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an amendment to the liquor license ordinance to include a clause regarding topless and bottomless dancing I (indecent exposure). 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. REVIEW 1986 INSURANCE POLICIES: Don Ashworth: I am happy with the covereage that we were able to come back with. There is that cost increase factor, it is still within the budget. In 1987 you are going to be looking at a very excrutiating process and a very eye opening one. I read one of my professional journals regarding Watertown, SD. It is a very similar sized community. Their premium is $554,969.00. Councilman Gevinq: The only thing that I am concerned for is the Council members. That is the one issue that I always felt gave us some insurance of a lot of the liti- gation that we were into 3 or 4 years ago. I just felt comfortable when we had that. ~ Ashworth: That stays in place. You are talking about the umbrella. For a number of years I had recommended against that simply for the standpoint of why pay a premium to cover yourself when you have a state statute that basically puts a limit onto the amount of liability. The question was always one of "what happens in a catastrophic situation. Will a particular court throw out that state cap and thereby subjects you to some type of a penalty that would exceed those amounts. Scott County is a good example. Roqer Knutson: Those state caps are meaningless when you start seeing the different I civil rights acts like 1983. Any time the City gets sued, routinely it is 1983 count. Don Ashworth: On the other side, there has not been award that has exceeded that state cap in terms of particular cities that have not had the umbrella type of coverage. I I I Council Meeting, March 3, 1986 -31- Roger Knutson: That could be, but under 1983 those state caps don't even come into play. Don Ashworth: The two options, there is a $500,000 basic policy in place. We are looking to increasing that to $1,000,000. In addition, Roger's office is preparing bascially a memorandum to outline the potential problems that we face in this area. I think it is going to be very difficult to come back with an umbrella policy that, again two years ago those things were cheap. Ten million dollars could be purchased for $3,000 to $4,000. I was hoping we would come back with a $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 policy that might be $8,000 to $10,000. I don't think that is possible today. At least that portion of it you will expect to see something back on that within the next two weeks. Councilman Horn: I was contacted recently about some way of including the CAA under this umbrella, whether it would be through the park and recreation or whatever. Don Ashworth: We did ask that attorney's office for an opinion and I just received one this past week. What you are basically trying to do is to limit the amount of exposure the CAA has. I think Roger's office has done an excellent job in going through how we can reduce that exposure for our CAA members. Roqer Knutson: One point about Dale's comment about personal liability. Under state statutes there is a requirement that the City indemnify public officials and hold them harmless for any loss occurred as a result of acting in their offcial capacity, regardless of the insurance. Councilwoman Watson: And that holds up? Roqer Knutson: Yes, because the potential plantiffs out there, it doesn't affect them. There are some exceptions and some weasel words, but that is the general rule. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the 1986 Insurance policy as presented by the City Manager. 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. REVIEW MNDOT T.H. 212 SCOPING DOCUMENT: The City Engineer reviewed the staus of the scoping construction pr?cesses for the proposed 212 project. He noted that the official mapping process was programmed to be completed by early 1987, also that the scoping process was needed to comply with the state contruction process. Formal comments concerning the scoping project would be referred directly to MnDot. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the formal response to the scoping document and reaf- firmed the support of the 212 project. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist