Loading...
1986 05 05 I I I ~e~ G''H o~ REGUIAR OlANHASSEN CITY CDUNCIL MEETING - M:ly 5, 1986 -1- Mayor Hamilton called the neeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. '!he neeting was opened wi th the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: M3.yor Hamilton, Counci1meml::ers H:Jrn, Watson and SVenson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Cbuncilman ~ving. srAFF PRESENl': Lbn Ashworth, City M:lnager; Barbara Dacy, City Planner; IDri Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator; Bill MJnk, City Engineer APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Cbuncilwanan Watson ITOved, seconded by Cbuncilwoman SVenson to approve the agenda as presented. '!he following voted in favor: M3.yor Hamilton, Cbunci1meml::ers H:Jrn, Solenson and W:ltson. N::> negative votes. MJtion carried. CDNSENT AGENDA: The following consent agenda i tern was rerooved for further discussion: d. Appointment to mBG Advisory O:mni ttee Councilwanan Watson ITOVed, seconded by Councilman H:Jrn to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's reccmnendations: a. Pheasant Hill 200 Jlddi tion, Tom Klingelhutz: 1. Final plat approval. 2. Approve Developnent Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for PiPer Ridge. b. Approve Developnent Cbntract and Cbnstruction Plans and Specifications for PiPer Ridge. c. Final Adoption of Civil Defense Plan. The following voted in favor: M3.yor Hamilton, Cbuncilmembers Horn, SVenson and Watson. N::> negative votes. MJtion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Gary McEnelly, Carver Cbunty Airport Study O:mnittee: McEnelly stated that approximately two years ago the County was approached by citizens asking that the Carver County Board appoint a cx.mnittee to study the feasibility of constructing an airport for public use. '!he County Board appointed such a cx.mni ttee and they conducted a survey throughout the County and found support for the project was overwhelming. '!be O:mni ttee received input fran the State and various groups throughout the County. '!he O:mni ttee presented a a::mprehensi ve report to the County Board for a publicly CMled airport which initially \t,Uuld have a single runway and utilize approximately 300 acres of land. MnOOl' suggested several agencies that nay provide funding, incllXling the FAA. '!he County \t,Uuld be responsible for approximately 10% of the total cost. '!he O:mnittee will have a naster plan drawn and order a professional feasibility study. '!he location would be determined by the professionals completing the study. Mayor Hamilton asked what the break-even point \t,Uuld be on such a erall facility so that it \t,Uuld not be tax burden to county residents. M::Enelly stated that they g4~ O1anhassen City Cbuncil Minutes - May 5, 1986 -2- would start with 50 hangars and does not feel there would be a problem filling it. '!he State indicated that requests for space for 12 to 15 planes is enough I justification to g:J ahead with the project. lwt:Enelly stated that he was not aware of any definite break-even numbers, but feels there is sufficient interest in the oounty so as not to create a tax burden. ~ further stated that state funding is available. 'Ibe Cbunty Board should be making a decision in May. PRESENTATION OF 1985 AUDIT REPORT: Bob Voto, Senior Partner (Voto, Reardon, Tautges and Company) presented two reports for Cbuncil review - the 1985 Audit Report and 1985 Management Report. Salient points fran these docurrents include: - 1985 Audit Report: The Audit Report has been prepared in acoordance with governmental acoounting standards. It represents a pure statistical presen- tation of the City's financial activities for each of the City's fund groups, Le. general, special revenue, debt service, capital project, special assessment, public enterprise and trust and agency funds. Fbints to be noted incl u:1e: o <:eneral Fixed Assets: '!he audit report is a qualified report under general acoounting standards with the exception of general fixed assets. 'Ibe City of Olanhassen naintains inventories of all personal property (desks, equip- ment, vehicles, tools, etc.) as well as real property (buildings and land inclu:1ing values). Ibwever, the City does not naintain values associated with sanitary sewers, curb and gutter, waternain, etc. As such, an overall g=neral fixed asset system does not exist. 'Ibe City should oonsider establishing a general fixed asset system. If such were cxxnpleted, it is I believed that the City would receive state/ federal recognition and be one of the few cities wi thin the state to receive a certificate of oonformance. o Budgetary Statements: In addition to the current Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balance statements for each of the City's funds wi thin their respective fund groups, are also the l:udgetary sheets for 1985. 'Ibese sta- tements depict ooth the l:udgetary arrounts for each of the operating funds as well as the actual revenue and expenditures for these funds. - Management Report: The Management Report sumnarizes the audit report and places into perspective the relationships and trends of the audit report. Key points of this years Management Report include: o State Aids: Page 2 reflects state aids received by the City since 1979 as well as property taxes during that same period. As can be seen fran the graph, state aids have been very erratic showing ooth increases as well as decreases. State aids have not kept pa.ce with the overall growth pa.ttern of the City and, acoordingly, property taxes have been forced to increase as a result of level state aid pa.yrnents. Page 3 dem::mstrates this point further, Le. if the City of O1anhassen would have received state aids under the "IXlI'e formula", the "City oould reduce operating property tax levels of the general fund by over 50%". 'Ibis same point is again depicted on Page 4 which graphically shows the instability of state aids. 'Ibe state is again discussing further cutbacks. ve recarmend that the City oontinue to noni tor the effects of these reductions on the City. I o Financial Cbndition: The City is in a much better financial position then it was five years ago. ve oongratulate the City on their overall financial position and oontinue to reoammend that this position be naintained. I I I Ci ty Cbuncil Minutes - May 5, 1986 -3- p;-i 01t / o Operating Revenue/Expenditures: Pages 6 and 7 reflect the major sources of revenue and expenditures for the City for I::x:>th 1984 and 1985. Pages 8 and 9 reflect the cash and investment p:>sition of the City. 'll1e primary reason for the increase has been tax increment oollections plus an improvement in the financial p:>sition of the general fund. 'll1e cash checking account is in an interest bearing account. Interest earned on investments totaled $437,000 for 1985 (aI::x:>ut a $40,000 increase over 1984), which is somewhat unusual for metropolitan cities. 'll1e financial oondition of the City is improving. o Receivables: Pages 11 and 12 reflect taxes and special assessments receivable as well as delinquencies. ~tice that for 1985 the total oollection rate has been 99.5%, 97%, 97%, 94%/97% and 96% for the years 1985 to 1981, respectfully. 'll1is is a solid oollection rate. 'll1e Ci ty should oontinue to stay on top of delinquencies and to 00 whatever can be Cbne to make sure they do remain in the current ranges. o Capital Asset Replacement: 'Ibis is a new state law that allows a city to levy taxes outside of its levy limitation for specified capital asset replacement. It is a special purpose tax levy. It is a vehicle for all cities to use for major capital improvement programs, especially street resurfacing, etc. We recarmend that the City weigh the benefits of this new law. o Reserves: Pages 17 and 18 reflect the cash talances of the City as well as recarmended reserves. It should be ooted that in 1985 the City exceeded the reserve level. We believe that the City should oontinue to stay al::x:>ve the minimum set so as to insulate itself fran federal/state cuttacks. o Single Audit: 'Ibis is a new law (decurrent) required by the federal government for 1985. '!he City should oontinue to I1'Onitor the effects of further cuts or elimination of federal programs such as revenue sharing, a:mnuni ty developnent block grants, and LAWCON. o Tax Increrrent: Page 27 reflects acti vi ty wi thin the City's tax increment district. 'll1e projection for this district was cx:mpleted in 1983. 'll1at projection showed an approximate $50,000 deficit p:>sition for 1985. In actuali ty, a p:>si ti ve $300,000 talance exists. It appears as though the tax increment district problems are being resolved and that a solid finan- cial p:>sition is being achieved. '!he City has maintained records to main- tain the original projections in an updated fashion in-house. We recarmend that the City oontinue to I1'Onitor this fund. o Special Assessment Ibnded Debt: A special report was prepared in February, 1983 regarding the City's special assessment debt. 'll1e oonclusion of that report for the 1972/73 improvement I::x:>nds was an additional levy of $150,000 per year. '!his has been levied for the years 1984 through 1986. O:mpared to our projections, the current cash talance is $170,000 ahead of those earlier projections. $110,000 of that amount represents special assessment prepayments which means that the remaining $60,000 has been achieved through interest earnings/delinquent oollections, etc. An additional description of these is shown on Pages 34 and 35. o rata Processing: '!be level of sophistication of the City's data processing systems has significantly changed over the past few years. In 1986, total Dn c) .(;J Chanhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -4- independence from R3msey County will 00 achieved. EXisting personnel are operating the systems and have enhanced both the City's ability to a:mplete work, but additionally the arrount of infonnation which is available. '!he I Ci ty should ronsider review of the overall data processing systan to insure that changes rrade have been properly tested, documented and secured from tampering. Councilwanan Watson asked whether the City should ronsider a new bond rating given the City's financial strength referred to by Mr. Voto. Mr. Voto responded that the City's overall financial rondi tion was much stronger than when last rated and that another review of the rating rray 00 warranted. '!he City should discuss this with their financial advisor. Discussion arrong Council members followed. Mayor Hamilton thanked Mr. \bto for presenting the report. PUBLIC HEARING: wr SPLIT ~UEST 'ID A DIVIDE 36,440 SQ. FT PARCEL IN'ID 'lWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 18,212 SQ. FT. and-18,228 SQUARE FEET,1tr 7061 SHAWNEE LANE, JAMES A~ Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing ~order with the following interested persons present: Bill Engebretson Vickie Abernathy Pat Albrecht Mike Agnew 7120 Utica Lane 7050 Rec1rran Lane 6951 Tecumseh Lane 7061 Shawnee Lane Bill Engebretson, 7120 Utica Lane: I am the chairrran of the Greenwood Shores I Association. Everyone I have talked within Greenwood Shores would like to pre- serve the large lot character of our area. I think rrany of us lIDVed here to get out of the high density housing in the urban area and we would like it to stay that way. At one time, there was a rovenant for the Greenwood Shores Asso- ciation that would not have allowed this, but the way it is OCM it probably meets the letter of the law. If this pandora's box is going to 00 opened, there is about another oozen lots that rould :meet the criteria of the new rode and spli t than and cxxne up with, in some cases, over 20,000 square feet. So, for this reason, we would like to preserve the character of the area and keep the large lot size that we have and not start this splitting of the lots into two lots from one lot. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other cx:mnents about the lot split at 7061 Shawnee Lane? James Agnew: The rrain purpose of me doing this is to fix up the hane that I have on that lot which is the old Kerber farm and right OCM it looks like a ballfield and it's not as rongenial as the other homes around here. '!hat's the whole object, to rrake it look ootter. Anybcx1y familiar with it, I'm sure, will agree to that. Right OCM, to me, it's useless. Pat Albrecht, 6951 Tecumseh Lane: I also live in Greenwood Shores. I guess that I just have one question. Are you going to tear down the old house? James Agnew: What I plan to 00 is to fix it up and reside in it. I've already I done a lot on the interior. W1at I want to do is reside in it and fix up the side I I I O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -5- a little bit. I plan on putting on a porch. I'm trying to rrake it look nice. Everybody I've talked to... everybody seems to... Pat Albrecht: I guess I don't agree. I got one of the letters and I was one house back and I talked to PeOple across the street fran you. Anyone I have talked to didn't agree that they wanted it. James Agnew: I did personally walk around and talk to each person. Pat Albrecht: I guess I feel the same way that Mr. Engebretson does and you can start breaking up the lots into a lot snaller than they are and we'll end up with a lot of chopPed lots and we all bJught out in this area because of the large lots and OPen space. With no further ccmnents fran the public, Councilwanan Svenson rroved, seconded l:8 Councilrran Horn to close the public hearing. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmembers Horn, Svenson and Watson. N::l negative votes. Motion carried. Barb Dacy: As you know, the Greenwood Shores subdivision was platted in 1959 before water and sewer services were available in this particular part of the ci ty. Water and sewer was installed in the mid-70's. '!he larger lot sizes then are the result of creating the lots prior to water and sewer service. '!he Greenwood Shores subdivision was then zoned to R-l, single family, with the adoption of the existing ordinance of 1972. '!he minimum lot size required l:8 the R-l district is 15,000 square feet. So, the parcel is approximately 36,000 square feet and what is being proposed is to split it in approximately one-half l:8 each parcel rreasuring 18,000 square feet. In terms of the existing R-l district, the lot size and the lot width requirements are being rret as well as the house's newly created setbacks. An issue staff wanted to bring to the Coun- cil's attention was the rrethod of which it is being subdivided. '!his has been an item we have discussed before in past requests. '!he applicant is proposing to split it in a rretes and rounds format rather than a proposed plat. Because the parcel oontains this curve in the northeastern oorner, we oontacted the Carver County Surveyor and he has stated to us that this line has to be described up into this point, therefore, the rretes and rounds description is one or two lines longer than a description like the east 121 feet of lot 1 and the westerly portion of lot 1. \\e wanted to bring that to your attention because the subdivision ordinance does allow for rretes and rounds split of a platted lot if that description can be done in a very simple nanner such as the east half and the west half for example, as included in your packet. So, we did explain this to the applicant and we did go through the options and we requested that the Council oonsider this tonight because going through the plat process would involve a oonsiderable exPense, so I guess if you want to sumnari ze the issue with this subdivision, one of the issues is how it is proposing to be divided as well as the ooncerns that have been created l:y the neighbJrhood. However, the R-l district, or I should say the proposed subdivision is rreeting the requirements of the R-l district. Councilwanan Watson: I, too, live in this neighrorhood and I oontacted several people and I wasn It able to find one person who felt that this was a good idea. The neighborhood, I think, was platted with rrore in mind than just sewer and water. I think back in 1959, this was a snaIl lot and I think it was platted 03 O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -6- with that in mind. It was platted in the middle of a rornfield. '!here wasn't I anything around it. '!his would definitely destroy the integrity of that. W: oon't have any 18,000 square foot lots. And, everyone who bought a lot in there and a lot of them have houses buH t since the sewer was put in, and people bought those lots at a minimum of 35,000 square feet because that's what they wanted to live on. I feel that the other thing is this farmhouse faces this neN lot. It will no longer face the street. It's rather odd to have a house face the back or side of a building and I really feel that it would 00 sane serious damage to a neighborhood thatls been existing for a very long time. Councilwc:m:m SWenson: I am a little surprised by this metes and bounds thing. It seems like it wasn It too long ago when we had one when staff was quite ada- ment about having it into a strip. Ilm ronfused. B3.rb Dacy: Our reccmnendation was that based on the Council's previous direc- tion on previous metes and bounds on a request, we felt it difficult to recan- mend approval of a description that wasn't east half of IDt 1 and the west half of IDt 1. If, to be frank, this lot rould be described as the easterly 121 feet of IDt 1, staff would have been recarmending approval. Ibwever, it I S a longer description because of the curve in the northeastern rorner. '!his is the way it has to be described. Councilwoman SWenson: '!hen, the alternative to this would be the platting or replatting of the block into two? Barb Dacy: '!hat I s rorrect. Councilwc:m:m SWenson: Which \\Uuld require surveying and all that sort of thing. I think that even though it meets the criteria, apparently fran the ordinance, I am concerned about the dlange in the neighborhood and the integrity of the existing neighborhood. I ronfess though, Ilm really not quite certain how to handle it. I Councilman Horn: Just a question of Roger. NJuld we have a legal basis to reject this? I agree it Ooesn't fit in dlaracter with the neighborhood, but it ooes meet our ordinance. Roger Knutson: let me ask a question of Barb. What ooes the Canprehensi ve Plan say about lot sizes? Barb Dacy: It does not SPecifically address lot sizes. Roger Knutson: Unless you can p:>int to sane violation of the ordinance, it is strongly difficult to turn Oown anything. You I ve already rrade a decision when you g::J with those ordinances. Mayor Hamilton: W:ll, I certainly agree it I S a deviation from what the neigh- borhood has had in the past and probably what the intent of the neighborhood was and has been in the past. Ibwever, I also hear what Roger is saying, if Mr. Agnew wants to split his lot, the neighbors don It necessarily have to like it but he has a legal right to 00 that. And, I oon It know that you are going to I totally ruin the integrity of the neighborhood or that particular area. I don It think people I s hanes are going to be devalued or anything because one Person 6.~ I I I O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -7- splits, but it certainly really doesn't open a pandora's l:ox, but I am sure that people in that neighoorhood have thought about doing it and perhaps OCM rrore of them will. I don't know. Your home has to be situated right on your lot in the first place to be able to split it. 'Ibis one happens to be so that you have roan to do it. S:xne of those large lots rray have their hanes right in the middle where they can't split it. I IDuld suspect a lot to those lots can never be split. I agree that I don't like seeing a neighborhood changed with someone a:ming in. All the lots are larger, and OCM you are <;ping to have a CDuple of s:na.ller ones. But, at the same time you have a legal right to do that. Since all you have requested is to do that, I IDuld go along with that, rot I IDuld also recarrnend it be platted and have it be CDnsistent with what we have done in the past with similar type requests. Councilwanan SWenson: Was this established as a regular subdivision in its CDnception? Councilwanan Watson: Yes. Councilwanan 1:Menson: Well, I just don't see anything we can do. Councilrran Horn: I don't either. James Agnew: I IDuld like to reassure everyone that it's not a grotesque thing. The lot does appear, I'm sure everybody here will agree, that has seen the lot, that it looks like a ballfield. Councilrran Horn rroved, seconded by Mayor Hamilton to deny the metes and rounds lot split request #86-2 so that the applicant can prepare a plat for the pro- p:>sed subdivision. 'Ibe following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilnan- bers 1:Menson and Horn. Councilwoman Watson opposed. M:>tion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED LEES OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Ibn Ashworth: '!he City must allocate $132,610 in revenue sharing funds for 1986. 'Ibe City Auditor's Office is recarrnending that these rronies be allocated for the 1986 p:>lice CDntract. 'Ibis recognizes the instability of the state and federal programs and p:>tential reductions in these. Mayor Hamilton: Any public carrnents on this particular item? Is there anybody here who IDuld like to speak on the federal revenue sharing? Resolution !\b. 86-25: A rrotion was rrade by Councilworran SWenson and seconded by Councilrran Horn to authorize the use of 1986 Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the arrount of $132,610 for CDntractual p:>lice services in 1986 and further authorizing the City Manager to amend the 1986 rodget to reflect said alloca- tion. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilrnembers Horn, 1:Menson and Watson. !\b negative votes. M:>tion carried. MINUI'ES: Councilwanan 1:Menson stated that when she asked for verbatim minutes it was rrore for the Park and Recreation Comnission and Planning Comnission minutes, not City Council minutes. gL Ci ty Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -8- Mayor Hamilton noved, seconded by Councilwoman watson to approve the May 17, 1986 City Council minutes. 'Ihe following voted in favor: M:lyor Hamilton, Councilmembers Horn, 9.venson and watson. l-b negative votes. M:>tion carried. I Mayor Hamilton noved, seconded by Councilwooan SVenson to approve the March 24, 1986 ~rksession minutes. 'Ihe following voted in favor: Mlyor Hamilton, Councilmanl:ers Horn, SVenson and watson. l-b negative votes. M:>tion carried. Councilwooan watson roved, seconded by Mayor Hamilton to approve the April 7, 1986 City Council minutes. 'Ihe following voted in favor: M:lyor Hamilton, Councilmernl:ers Horn, SVenson and watson. l-b negative votes. M:>tion carried. Mayor Hamilton roved, seconded by Councilwoman Watson to amend and approve the April 21, 1986 City Council minutes. 'Ihe SPelling of Ted Coey should be corrected on Page 34. '!he following voted in favor: Mlyor Hamilton, Councilmernl:ers Horn, SVenson and Watson. l-b negative votes. M:>tion carried. Mayor Hamilton noved, seconded by Councilwanan SVenson to note the April 9, 1986 Planning omnission minutes. '!he following voted in favor: Mlyor Hamilton, Councilrneml:ers Horn, SVenson and Watson. l-b negative votes. M:>tion carried. wr AREA VARIANCE RE}JUEST, wrs 1927-1931, CARVER BEACH, LEWIS mITALLA Mlyor Hamilton: Councilmembers have received a letter fran Dale Geving, who is not here tonight and will be gone all week. He asked that we table this item because he had sane cxmnents to rrake on this p3Iticular variance request. I will leave it up to the Council. Mr. Woi talla is here and wants to rrake cxmnents and we could take those o.:mnents and then table action until Dale has had an oppor- I tunity to review the a:mnents, so that he can rrake his a:mnents into the record and we can vote on it at the next rreeting or we could table the issue or we could deal with the whole issue. Councilwooan SVenson: I ~uld like to table any definite decision in Councilwooan watson: Take cxmnents. Table the action. Mayor Hamilton: Is that OK with you, Clark? Barb, did you want to brief us on this p3Iticular item first. Barbara Dacy: '!he parcel is located in the northeast corner of IUnderosa and Yuna in Carver Beach Estates. 'Ihe existing lot size is 9,322 square feet. In the mid-70's, the p3Icel was split and a building permit issued on the northerly portion of the property. '!his particular p3Icel has a history, in 1983, Mr. woitalla applied for a lot area, lot width and a front yard variance request and at that time the Board did nove to deny all three of the variance requests, so the present request is for a lot area variance to the 15,000 square foot stan- dard lot size in the R-l District. '!he proposed structure that the applicant is wanting to build on the subject lot does rreet setbacks as required. As you know, Ordinance l-b. 47-J passed in 1977 allows platted lots of record to receive the building permit if they rreet 50% of the lot requirements: lot area, lot width and depth. Ibwever, because this parcel was created after the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance which was adopted February 8, 1972, staff's posi- I tion is that Ordinance No. 47-J does not apply to the subject parcel. '!herefore, the Foard of Adjustments and ApPeals recarmended denial, stating that the Zoning f) l Mt-d I I I fto; City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -9- Ordinance is not imposing a hardship, that the lot was split prior to the appro- val, and granting a variance would be rontrary to the spirit and intent of the 15,000 square foot lot size. Russell Norrran: My name is Russell Norrran. I represent Lewis w:>italla. I understand that there was no ordinance in 1972, but it was just an ordinance that the Council went ~, 10,000 square foot minimum, but there was no ordinance at all. I believe that . . . Don Ashworth: I believe you are talking about a general guideline that we used. The reference has been rrade to a specific ordinance that is on the rooks. Russell Norrran: And, this was certainly the plat was there, but not this little square and I jtrlged from what the Planning Carmission said that is the only reason they weren't g::>ing to allow a variance on that. So, I believe your ordi- nance of 1977 was passed after this had been subdivided and I believe the a:m- ment that Mr. W::>italla did not o::me to the Council for permission to subdivide, I think in your am reports said that he did not need to a:me to testify. I think rrore important when this was sub:livided in 1976, that Mr. w::>italla was dlarged special assessments on it until 1983 that he paid. I think in 1983 that the Council paid him reck and I think that it should be checked into acrording to Minnesota statute 270.07, I don't believe you are allowed to cb that without the approval of the a::mni.ssioners or going to the cx:mnissioners. So, Mr. Woitalla was under the impression that this was a buildable lot since 1976. I believe your 1977 ordinance deprives him of the use of that lot. I do have and I'm sure you have seen it rrany times, one ropy of the definition of hardship of the Minnesota Statute. If you cb pass an ordinance afterwards which Cloes deprive him of the use of the land, that is a hardship. He does ask that the Council grant the ordinance. I have nothing further. Mayor Hamilton: Do any of you have any questions? '!hank you. Barb Dacy: Maybe the City Attorney would want to a:mnent as well. Although it was passed in 1977, Ordinance No. 47-J, established the effective date of the ordinance and the time line as to which the 50% rule would apply. That is the only response I have to the attorney's cx:mnents. Roger Knutson: Self -created hardship is not in reference to the fact that we rrade the split. '!here was a zoning ordinance requirement on the rook - 15,000 square feet. He divided it up. He rould have met it. He rrade his am decision to fade CMay and create his am hardship. He brought himself cbwn to 15,000. He rould have oornplied, but he didn't. '!hat's self-created hardships. Is that 462? About self-created hardship? '!his isn't a section, but in Olapter 462 provides a hardship self-created, the Council is rot required to handle. Mayor Hamilton: Any cx:mnents? Councilwanan SNenson rroved, seconded ~ Councilman Ibrn, to table this item until the next meeting of May 19, 1986. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmembers SNenson, Watson and Ibrn. No negative votes. MJtion carried. CARVER CDUN!'Y SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN REVIEW, MIKE LIEN Barbara Dacy reviewed the Carver County Solid Waste Master Plan in which nine 76 O1anhassen City Cbuncil Minutes - May 5, 1986 -10- items listed were implications for the City of O1anhassen. She stated that the City would need to establish a recycling program, continued operation of yard I waste programs, oooperation and participation with the Cbunty and looking at implementation of all these solid waste strategies as well as participating in research for resource recovery facilities, public education on recycling, !::ackyard a:rnposting, paper reduction and even an office recycling program for O1anhassen City Offices. She stated that the Planning Department is to establish a solid waste advisory committee to assist the Cbuncil in implementing some of the programs. She noted that a target date of 1987 for a drop-off recycling center is anticipated, with a curb side collection program by 1990. Mike Lien stated that the Cbunty is very serious about the whole solid waste affair and 95% of his job is solid waste abatement. H= presented the draft and corrmented that he has been attending Cbuncil neetings around the Cbunty. H= stated that there is always a need for a drop off recycling center and strongly reccmnended the City pursue the issue. Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to see a cx:mni ttee fonned fran the O1amber of Ccmnerce, business exmnunity, etc. and really investigate the programs. He also suggested advertising for volunteers to help seek local financing in addition to the state funding. No action was taken. SUNNY SWPE ~'S ASSCX:::IATION, STEVEN BURKE: a. Request for Cbndi tional Use Permit for Recreational Beachlot b. variance Request to Recreational Beachlot Requirements I Mayor Hamilton: At the Cbuncil meeting on April 21, 1986, the Cbuncil roved to deny the request !::ased on the findings of the City Attorney which was !::ased on corrrnents rrade by the City Cbuncil. W: have such findings of facts presented to us. I think if the Cbuncilmembers have any questions about this, we can cb that. W1at we can cb, our action for this evening, is approve of the applicant's request for conditional use for recreational beachlot with five conditions. There is also a variance to deal with and I suggest that this be denied. steven Burke: W1en we rrade our application for the recreational beachlot. I just have three questions. If the Cbuncil were to approve and rrake that a recreational beachlot tonight, at this };X>int, it is our intention to to file for a building permit application variance to cb that, but if we allow that it be rrade a recreational beachlot and until such time as we apply for that variance in order to build a structure cbwn there, will by allowing it to be rrade a recreational beachlot, have any bearing or affect .on our application, at such time as we rrake it to have the structure built? If it <:bes, we do not want it changed to be designated a recreational beachlot. So that would be ~ first question. If it's going to rrake no difference on the application at whatever tine we file an application, then we would let it becane a recreational beach- lot because I think what we can cb then, which I beli ve we can't do ncM, is put up the canoe racks. 'Ihe other question is as a vacant R-l lot, what can happen upon a vacant R-l lot in this city? Is it better for us to just leave it vacant? 'Ihose are the two questions I have. I know what recreational beachlots I can cb because it is detailed in your beachlot ordinance. am we have a house? I I I r -" ":" 1;3 City Council Minutes - M3.y 5, 1986 -11- Can we store a roat trailer dJwn there? Could we put a storage building dJwn there? N:Jw, when we say we are talking wi thin the entire cx:.mnuni ty on all our own lots until a house is built, can a person store firewood or store a roat trailer, or rore importantly for use we have that dock that we're talking about oow. Can we leave that there without being in violation of some ordinance? Roger Knutson: If you put up a roat shed, or what have you, it can only go in as an accessory use, not as a principle use. 'Ib be a principle use you have to put a house on it. Steven Burke: What you are saying then is that all lots in the City, regardless of just a.med ~ hornecMI1ers, a house has to be there before roats can be stored, before storage sheds can go on. Specifically, the question I need to find out is if we leave it just a vacant lot, we presently have the dock on the property. Are we going to be cited in being in violation of that that ordinance? Roger Knutson: Just sitting on the land? At sane point, the City has to rrake a decision as to whether violations are occurring. In rrri point of view, if someone has some minor things on an anpty lot, it probably \\Un't cane to anyone's attention. ~thing illegal is done, we have a limited budget to rrake sure 00 one doesn't have anything sitting anyplace. As far as whether that dock that is oot being used sitting on a lot, I guess I \\Uuld probably say it is a technical violation. Steven Burke: I'm certain that because it's gone this far, we may have sane complaints fran the neighbors on either side who nay say, "You've been told you can't put a dock out. \'by are they being allowed to leave this structure there?" And, if that's going to be in violation of the ordinance, if we rove it across the street onto one of the lots that aren't on the lake that isn't built on yet, we're still in violation of the ordinance. '!he only thing it seems we can d::> is rove it across onto a wilt lot and so what do we do with the thing? Roger Knutson: In rrri a.m mind, a lot of those things probably \\Uuld be found to be and that \\Uuld be a prosecution. Steven Burke: I guess that answers the second question, but I need to cane reck to the first question and that is if we allow it to becane a recreational beachlot at this time, if at anytime in the future be it a week or two years fran oow, we cane forward and say that we are 'OCfoil making application for variance to build that structure down there, is it going to be affected ~ allowing it to be changed to a recreational beachlot? Roger Knutson: Ole of the things that you might very well a:msider is that one of the basis for variance is 00 other uses for the property without the variance. Cbnceivably, if you already had a recreational beachlot approved and running, that gives you the use of your property. Steven Burke: '!hat being the case, it appears to us that we should leave it since we do intend on building ,as a vacant R-l lot and it appears that we could theoretically leave the dock d::>wn there until such time that we were cited and at that time we \\Uuld have to rove it to some place that it \\Uuld not get cited or sell it. r~,:' / t ":.: O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -12- Roger Knutson: If I am hearing you right, you wish to withdraw your application? steven Burke: Yes, we do. ~ will leave it as it exists today. Can I ask one I further question? '!he adjoining property CMIlers have oornplained that we have rot had sufficient security down there to prevent people fran launching. ~ have put in a couple of fenceposts. It is nw belief that we are not in viola- tion of an ordinance as an R-l lot CMIler to fence our property for the security and safety of the neighborhood. Roger Knutson: '!hat should rot be in violation. Steven Burke: ~ IDuld then formally like to withdraw the application. SKEI'CH PLAN REVIEW FOR 126 SINGLE FAMILY rars, QIANHASSEN VISTA SUBDIVISION, EAST OF KERBER OOULEVARD, ENTERPRISE PROPERl'IES, INC. Mayor Hamilton: ~ asked staff to come reck this evening and give us a synopsis of the cx:mnents that had been na.de at the previous Council rreeting so the devel- oper IDuld have a clearer idea of what the Council's position was on some of the na.jor issues dealing with this subdivision. Councilman Ibrn: I think Barbara pretty well covered the issue and I think there are still a few decisions to be na.de. ~ should note that Number 5 is still purely a staff recorrmendation. I don It believe the Council has given clear direction to the developer. Mayor Hamilton: I am not sure if we need to at this time. ~en you have a I sketch plan review we are rrerely trying to point out the areas of greatest con- cern to us and then it is up to the developer to go reck and either incorporate those into his plan or to leave them out. 1m I correct? B:lrbara Dacy: Yes, the sketch plan review is exactly that. Regarding the Frontier Trail connection and the Saratoga connection to Kerber Blvd., I believe that the applicant has stated that they IDuld be amenable to either reccmnendation of the Council - either to connect it or cul-de-sac it. lbwever , staff remains firm on it I S recarmendation that these connections be na.de and thus the reason we included the rraro fran the Public Safety Director. '!he Engineer has prepared some additional information regarding traffic patterns, etc. If you want to explore each of these issues in further detail, the appli- cant is here. Mayor Hamilton: '!hat I s fine. I guess it was nw feeling that we did not have this on the agenda to explore anything further other than to na.ke certain that the corrments that were na.de on this issue at the last Council rreeting was being represented in your rraro. I ron I t want to look at a new plan. I feel we should just pass on our cxmnents and at that point it goes reck to the Planning Carmission and its up to the developer at that point if they want to incorporate any of these ideas we lve had. '!he Planning Carmission will then na.ke a recan- mendation to us as to how they see it and then proceed. '!hat I s how I see this particular issue. Don Ashworth: It is a sketch plan and the City Council need not take any SPeci - I fic action. '!he items in front of you represent the statements you na.de before and you na.y wish to add or delete to those. I I I 71l Olanhassen City Council Minutes - M3.y 5, 1986 -13- Councilwanan Svenson: Bill, I diOO I t recognize this before, but on the sketch plan I saw Sierra Drive, Frontier Trail and Saratoga all running into Kerber Blvd. !bes the entrance of the Sierra Road that intersects at the curve on Kerber Blvd. pose any problems to you? Bill M::mk: I don It believe so as all three will be very closely checked as we !lOve to preliminary plat. I have only Cbne a quick look at where they will. I think !lOre important than the curve was going to be the grades. I don I t believe they pose a problem, rot that will be closely checked and if minor adjustments need to be nade, then we nay at time of preliminary plat. Councilwanan Svenson: I note that there seems to be rather red sight problems on this curve, rot it seems you have already taken care of it. '!he only thing I would like to corrment on is that I am still concerned about the excess of the 11,700 sq. foot lots. I ~uld like to see PUD' s with a maximum of a 15% to 20% leeway in lot size fran our 15,000 square foot deviations. In other ~rds, I would like to see a minimum of, let I s say, 20% mder the 15,000 square feet. Other than that I think everything has been pretty well rovered. Councilwanan watson: Basically, everything that I am roncerned about is in here. '!he lot width issue is still very important to rce. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a few a::mnents. I wanted to rrake it clear that there was rcention of some of the lots that I had discussed in rrw corrments, but I diOO I t think it came through clearly in Barbara I s a:mnents. Has the developer received a ropy of the minutes of our previous rceeting? I hope they have so they can read them for themselves and they rould also attempt to decipher the romnents that were nade there. 01 page 21 of our minutes of the rceeting of the 21st, I cxmnented that in Block 7, I ~uld like to see two lots deleted and in Block 4 that rot 7 be deleted. I suggested that... Barbara Dacy: Mr. M3.yor, what I did was note those specific lot and blocks and then we rcet with the applicant a week after the last Council rceeting and for- warded those specific lots and blocks to him. '!hey did not receive the minutes, however, I itemized everything fran the last Council rceeting for their review. M3.yor Hamilton: I think I ~uld like to see you give them a ropy of the minutes that pertain to their particular area of interest. !bes the developer have any questions or corrments you want to rrake about any issue? Greg Frank: I ~n I t take a lot of your time. Mayor Hamilton: G:>od, because I don It want you to present a new plan or anything. I just wanted you to comnent on what our specific corrments were about your developnent at the last rceeting. Greg Frank: ~ did have another drawing here and then we tried to address rrany of your cxmnents tonight. Mayor Hamilton: I think that is another issue and it I S not the issue that we are dealing with tonight. ~ are not prepared to sit here and review another plan at this time and rrake cxmnents on that. Greg Frank: '!hen perhaps in a !lOre generic sense refer to the old plan, and point out a ample of things. 72 Cl1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -14- Mayor Hamilton: As long as you are not planning on having a debate. Maybe I shouldn't have asked for your a:mnents. Greg Frank: I guess I am sort of at a loss of how to start this. Mayor Hamilton: I guess what I \\Uu1d like you to Cb is, if you have SPecific qrestions about the a:mnents that we nade. I think that is where you should direct your a:mnents. Clarification is all. I Greg Frank: I think your intent was to increase sane of the lot widths on several lots, particularly this one area here. It was also suggested that this road here be switched to the south. In our design, I think it is best that we keep these lots here and perhaps lose a lot here because this road is shifting this way, which will help these lots out. '!hat is one of the changes that the planner suggested we Cb. It accanp1ishes the same thing you want to Cb which is to increase the width of these lots. '!hat's one };X)int. Another thing is along the perimeter here, we had an op};X)rtunity sit Cbwn with staff and recognize their CX)ncern about the 952 or least to have a bench for a walkway across there. We defined that CX)ntour line and tried to define the tack lot line, along that CX)ntour line, which in some cases encroaches rrore onto the lawns and in some cases it g:>es the other way. ~in, it will preserve the integrity of that 952 CX)ntour around the };X)nd. Another area that the Council had CX)ncerns with was this cul-de-sac and this. We were able to nake those switches. Again, I think that pulling this thing around and shifting the roads will accanp1ish what sane of the intentions of the Council were to increase lot widths. Perhaps not losing the two lots here, but losing it here and here by again shift the roads. Those types of changes will rreet your intentions. Counci1wanan Watson: Can there be lot widths on that plan so we can see how nany of these are 75 feet or 80 feet? You can't tell by looking at it. I Greg Frank: Yes. '!his was a CX)ncept and we haven't gotten to that yet. Councilman Watson: I understand that and I \\Uu1d expect that when we see it again it will have that. It is an important issue and I \\Uu1d like to know what lots are. Greg Frank: cne item I \\Uu1d like to touch on briefly is the creek along the north side of the property. I understand that the project was reviewed in a very preliminary fashion, the pro};X)sed grading along that creek in a project to the north. I think this item has a long history. Watershed District recarmen- dations is that creek should be straightened out and provide sane riprapping which will empass significantly, also sane slopes going through here and \\UOded areas. He stated that one of the nain CX)ncerns of the Planning Carmission, City Council and ours was the preservation of those trees. In view of those changes, we had an op};X)rtuni ty to review that tased on what the developer to the north is pro};X)sing, that we might incor};X)rate that into a plan. I think sane of those that we felt were very sensitive nay not be as sensitive based on what the watershed District stated about the vegetation. We will be incor};X)rating the changes that the Watershed District has recannended. I guess I want to establish what rrri goal is. I want to I establish a planned unit deve10pnent which will preserve the amenities, provide I I I ~f.i'I \b;eY O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -15- a variety of affordable housing and have lots to deliver to builders ~ September 1st. In order to accanplish the goal, I really have to have close to 126 units on this area of land. It is going to be very difficult because of the terrain which has been p::>inted out at the various meetings that we have attended. 'lb avoid excess time SPent on oonflict bargaining or negotiations working with guidelines already established ~ the City Council, we drew up what we thought was a fair and reasonable ooncept plan fran our p::>int of view and fran that of the City I s p::>int of view. 'Ibat was the first plan which you haven It seen. N:M on this first plan, it followed what was approved ~ City Council about six years ago in this section here for western Hills 4th Addition. What was approved for them was, I think, fifty-seven single family lots and nineteen "0" lot line lots, a total of 76 lots. 'Ibis proposal in the same area, follows the same general road aligrnnent but is showing sixty-three lots, in other ~rds a Cbwn grading on density. We met with staff and all of these lots, I Cbn I t think there is a 70 foot lot in this plan. I think 80 is about the smallest. Wlen we met with staff, they thought that we ought to try to preserve the trees, which made us shift these lots and instead of having eighty foot frontages in order to keep the same square footage, we made them deePer and narrower lots and that is where we have been running into trouble ever since and oonsequently, if it is Council I s opinion, that, and when we went to the Planning Cannission ~ the way, they looked at the plan and I think that they all made the statement, or at least anybody that lnade a statement regarding small lots said that they did not have a problem with the small lots because of what we have Cbne in trying to protect the amenities. If Council has a problem with the number of 70 and 75 foot lots on the plan, then I ~uld like to get that fran the O:>uncil OCM because I ~uld like to go b3.ck to our original ooncept which sort of followed what the Council has been saying for the past year and then I won I t be wasting . . . we have Cbne five plans and I just Cbn I t want to keep going b3.ck to the drawing toard with rrore plans. Because the cxxrments that have come fran O:>uncil regarding the last plan where we had 126 lots and we have reduced it Cbwn to 123, that is below rrw threshold and I see that the various O:>uncil people are not satisfied with what they see at the 123 lots. So I am asking if that is the case, should we ooncentrate on 80 foot or larger frontages and not ooncentrate on the trees because we can I t do ooth. We have already gone below the threshold and we have gone below your threshold with widths. We want to Cb what the City wants to accept and still be able to be viable in the market place. We can It be viable in the market place, we have O1aParral which has just been approved and are going to oome on line just when we Cb, and that other developnent in the southern Part. I have Cbne some a:xnputer run-offs on our size lots a:xnpared to others. I ~uld like your feedb3.ck on the list. M3.yor Hamilton: I think you have heard our feedb3.ck and that was the purpose of having the very thing. I think you have heard our oomnents that were made a oouple of weeks ago and we are just trying to clarify those SPecific a::mnents that we made. 'Ibose a:mnents will be taken b3.ck to the Planning Carmission for their review. 'Ibey may make the same reconmendation, they may make the recan- mendation that they like your plan just the way it is without changing anything. But that it up to them to Cb and to decide on. We then will have to look at it again try to determine if we are willing to live with that or it is not going to be satisfactory with us. Wlat we have Cbne and what we are telling you is there are some areas of ooncerns and if you want to address those that is fine. If you chose not to address them that is your choice. I can It tell you to change the number of lots or make the widths 80 or 90 feet. 'Ibat is up to you. We are gi ving you our a::mnents. Fjr\ t \:jJ O1anhassen City Council Minutes - Ma.y 5, 1986 -16- Sal Segal: Well, it seemed to rre that the Planning Camnission recarmended our plan to you, didn't they? N:> , no, no. '!hey said no way oould you get away with such s:nall I lots. Mayor Hamilton: I would appreciate it if you would not cx:mnent. '!he Planning Carmission reviewed it, we have their a:mnents, we have reviewed their minutes. Again, it was a sketch plan review for them. Sal Segal: I was hoping we would be able to get some kind of direction so that when we came back with the ooncept that the preliminary plat, we wouldn't be just starting over again. Ma.yor Hamilton: I think we have given direction. As I said before I can't tell you that you have to take three lots out of there or one lot. As Greg was saying, if you nove some things around and you think that it is a better plan and that is <ping to acccmrodate the ooncerns that we have had, then that is your decision. We, as a body, are all in agreement that we Cbn't particularly care about s:nall lots and 75 foot frontages and we have been very oonsistent with that with all of the developnents. I am probably the only one that is not as ooncerned about s:nall lots as the rest. I think if you had checked minutes of previous rreetings on approved developnents, you would have seen that. I think the only one that we have approved with s:nall lots sizes is Near M::>untain. Sal Segal: Olr lot sizes are larger than anybody that you have approved in the past year on an average, nedian or even when we disoount any overages over I 20,000. Just taking the average of 20,000 or less, were so much larger than any other developnent that you have approved in the past year. If it then gets down to the width, then we want to <p with a plan that is <ping to give us the width and we are <ping to have to just bear with the trees and handle those separately, I mean we can't Cb bJth. We can protect the slopes and the water areas and everything else, rot we can't save all of the trees and deliver 80 foot and larger lots, it's irrpossible. If you are telling me that you Cbn' t want to see these 70 foot lots, then I guess I have to interpret you that way and o:xne back with the wider lots. I also thought that I oould satisfy this problem on narrow lots, if you are ooncerned with people a:mi.ng in and asking for a variance by having oovenants saying that no variances are allowed on side yard setbacks that might alleviate your ooncerns on that and should that be oonsidered in our plans. Ma.yor Hamilton: I think you should oonsider all of those things and in working with staff, they will give you very good direction. I understand your position, you are wanting us to be specific about what you are <ping to take back to the Planning Carmission so that it sails right through. We have made our exmnents on your sketch plan. Sal Segal: I just tried to avoid all the hassle that you went through on these other projects that I oould read into the minutes your frustration you had and I tried to avoid that and I am getting frustrated I'lWself. You are telling me I should have g:>ne through this whole procedure of five or six rreetings with you. Here I thought it would be a fresh approach not to have to Cb that. I am trying I to get the thing Cbne and I would like to Cb it in a manner satisfactory. I I I Olanhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -17- Councilwanan Svenson: If you were <ping to widen those lots, how is this going to affect the square footage? . Sal Segal: It doesn It affect the square footage. 'll1e square footage \\Uuld still l::e large. Councilwanan Svenson: Are you going to l::e able to pull off sane of the excess on sane of those very large lots and distribute it rrore evenly? Sal Segal: en sane of the large lots, we can It do anything with them. W1at we have cbne on our latest plan, if that is the route that the Council wants us to take, we can arrive at a plan that gets us cbwn to 12 lots that are 70-75 feet out of 129. W: \\Uuld have 9 lots that are ll, 700. Qrr average lot \\Uuld l::e 17,800 and our average lot if you discounted the over 20,000 \\Uuld l::e about 14,600 and our rredian lot \\Uuld l::e 14,000. W: can deliver that kind of plan. That is a general thing. 'll1at is what I am seeking l::ecause our average lot line at setback, which is sanething you are roncerned with, is 85.74 feet. I guess what I am asking is if you \\Uuld like TIe to roncentrate on that area, then I will cb that. 'll1at I s what I want to cb is roncentrate on the area that I have a chance of having sane <pod acceptance on. W: have already gone through five plans. In \\Urking with the staff, they have l::een very helpful and very ronscientious, but they rray have rrore feeling for saving trees and less feeling on the width of the lots and you rray have rrore feeling on the width of the lots. Since you are <ping to !Take the final decision, I \\Uuld like that kind of feed- reck so that I can a:me reck here with sanething that has a chance. Mayor Hamilton: I think, as I have stated l::efore, that the width of the lots and the overall si ze of the lots is rrore important. I think I am speaking for the rest of the Council. I know Councilrran Ibrn is very roncerned about trees, as all of us are, we cbn I t like to eliminate them, but resed on what I have heard the Council say including Dale when he was here, that is the prirrary roncern of this Council, but I \\Uuld let each one of them speak for thernsel ves. Councilrran Horn: I guess I can It quite see the rorrelation of that l::etween wider lots and fewer trees, they are <ping to have to show Ire that one. Mayor Hamilton rroved to accept the findings of staff and the additional a:mnents rrade regarding the Chanhassen vista Sketch Plan Review. MJtion was seconded by Councilwanan Svenson. 'll1e following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Coun- cilmembers Svenson, Watson, and Ibrn. N:> negative votes. MJtion carried. Susan BJyt: Two weeks ago when you went over this, first you listened to the developer, then you rrade your cxmnents and then you li stened to us and that was the end of it. It I s like we have no impact on what is happening here at all. Mayor Hamilton: 'll1ere is nothing to impact tonight. 'll1is is all going b3.ck to the Planning O:mnission. You will all l::e able to talk to them, you will all l::e reck l::efore us again, you will l::e able to have your input there. Susan BJyt: W: rrade sane suggestions about developnent that you rould have relayed to the developer, but after we rrade our a:ments, that was the end of that. se C11anhassen City Cbuncil Minutes - May 5, 1986 -18- Mayor Hamilton: '!hat is why I suggested that the developer be given a copy of I the minutes of the previous neeting because that was really the nuts and oolts of what we had to say. fue only reason this is on the agenda tonight is for us to say, "yes" we agree with what staff has presented to us and that those are the cxxrments that we nade pertaining to this project. Susan Ibyt: But your cxmnents Con It take into account anything the public says. The public spoke after you nade your cxmnents. All your cxmnents were already made and then we spoke and that was it. I feel like we have no impact on what the City. . . . Mayor Hamilton: What I have told you is this is going tack to the Planning Can- mission and you can give the Planning O:mnission all the input you want to give. You are not being left out of it at all. At the last meeting you had as much input as you wanted to give. SUsan Ibyt: Why Cb we speak to you, why Co you let us SPeak here? \'by have the public nake o::mnents if you are not <'ping to use those in your decision naking. I am just questioning your procedure. It seems like you ~uld listen to them and then to us and then nake your cxmnents. Mayor Hamilton: I think if you heard rre clearly, when they came up here I did not want to hear a feN plan, they went ahead and spoke anyway. I didn It cxmnent on that. SUsan Ibyt: I am asking about two weeks ago. I Mayor Hamil ton: '!Wo weeks ago is two weeks ago, that is history. we can I t go two weeks ago and Co anything over. I Cbn I t know what you want to Co at this p:>int about two weeks ago. '!he public had nade their input, they gave us their cxmnents and it is all a natter of public record. Cbuncilwanan Swenson: In regard to your criticism here, the developer was given a list of a:mnents. If you remember, the Mayor reccmnended and directed staff to pull together the cxmnents that were nade ~ ooth the Cbuncil and the public and to advise the developer of the. . . . . . . . SUsan Ibyt: NJ, it says the Cbuncil's a:mnents. Cbuncilwanan Swenson: I have in I1Tf hand here a list that was given to the devel- oper that contains Cbuncil a:mnents and public a:mnents, so infact there were five items here that were listed by staff as having been nade ~ the public. This was directed to the developer at that particular time. So you haven I t been overlooked, the a:mnents have been given to the them. Barb Dacy: A week after the rreeting, staff rret with the developer. '!hat list was a ~rksheet between staff and the developer. It did list the Cbuncil a::m- ments and it did list the a:mnents that were made at the City Cbuncil neeting, the drainage issue, the park issue, etc. Everything that was rrentioned at that meeting was cxxrmunicated to the developer. '!he minutes were not prepared at that rreeting, however, that list was used as a ~rksheet for them to go from I there and to prepare whatever they wanted to prepare for tonight I s meeting. In the rreantime, we consolidated cxmnents and issues. If you ~uld like a copy of the staff rep:>rt, I ~uld be rrore than happy to give that to you. no t.1~ I I I O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -19- Councilwanan Swenson: And you will sutmit to the developer, a copy of the minutes so that everything that you have said will be included in the minutes. Mlyor Hamilton: Procedurely, there hasn't been an official public hearing. This has teen an informational gathering process that we have g::>ne through at the developer's requ=st and we \IDuld te rrore than happy to listen to all the a:mnents fran the neighl:x>rhood. '!his has not been an official public hearing. SUsan B:>yt: IX> you then take our a:mnents into account? Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely, we are rrore than happy to cb that, but it was not an official public hearing. '!he official public hearing is held by the Planning O:mnission. '!he Council can also hold a public hearing if we desire to. If we feel that there is rrore information that needs to be gathered and that the public still wants to speak, we always cb hold a public hearing. REAR YARD SEI'BACK VARIANCE RmUEST, wr 8, BIOCK 3, Cl)WNIAL GROVE AT wrus lAKE 2m ADDITION, HERB BJ:DCMBERG: The lbard of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 12 foot variance. OONSIDER PEl'ITION FRa.1 MERITOR OORPORATION FOR WATER EXTENSIONS '10 aIANHASSEN HILLS: '!he City Engineer presented a petition fran the Meritor Corporation requ=sting municipal installation of a trunk watermain along rn 17. '!he develo- per's proposal includes extension of the trunk line by the City while all inter- nal improvements are to be amer installed. M:>nk feels that City involvement is essential due to the oversizing aspects and multiple properties involved with extension of the 18 inch facility. Resolution #86-26: H3milton rroved, seconded by Ibrn to approve preparation of a feasibility study for construction of a watermain along rn 17. '!he following voted in favor: Mlyor Hamilton, Councilmembers Ibrn, Swenson and W3.tson. tb negative votes. Motion carried. SEl' PUBLIC HEARING DATE '10 DISCUSS <IX>SE CX>NTROL AT CITY PARKS: rori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator explained that the g:x>se population in our area has increased steadily over the past several years. '!he City has received oomplaints fran residents that the geese have taken over our beaches and are creating a health hazard. Sietsema stated that she has met with Jim Cooper fran the University of Minnesota regarding a g:x>se rerroval program. '!he program involves rerroving the geese fran our area and relocating them where geese popu- lations are low. '!he areas rrost affected by the goose population are Lake Ann, Greenwood Shores and Lake Susan. It \IDuld take two years to c:x::l11plete the program which \IDuld reduce the g:x>se population by 75%. '!he estimated cost for the first year \IDuld te $2,000. Hamilton rroved, seconded by Horn to instruct the Park and Recreation Ccmnission to hold a public hearing to receive public a:mnents aOOut reducing the g:x>se population at Lake Ann Park, Lake SUsan Park and Greenwood Shores Park. '!he following voted in favor: M3.yor Hamilton, Councilmembers Ibrn and Solenson. Councilmember Watson voted no. Motion carried. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LIQUJR ORDINANCE 2-J: CouncilwCJllaI1 Swenson rroved, seconded by Mayor Hamilton to approve the first reading of an amendrrent to the liqoor ordinance 2-J as presented. '!he following OBi O1anhassen City Council Minutes - May 5, 1986 -20- voted in favor: Mayor H3mi.lton, Cbuncilmembers 9Nenson, Watson, and Horn. I No negative votes. M::>tion carried. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE: Cbuncilwanan Watson o:mnented on the terrible condition of Bluff Creek Drive. She stated that there are enough people row who would be interested in checking out the costs of taking care of the road and would like the City to initiate a proposal that would get the costs together and rraybe get this project oone for this year instead of next year. Mayor Hamilton felt that this should oot be rroved out of order as far as road constructions are concerned and that it should be oone on schedule. Bill M::>nk reminded the Cbuncil that they approved a five year plan guide. In that guide list for 1987, the first {ilase was Bluff Creek Drive. Bluff Creek Drive will have to be d:me, but a decision does oot need to be rrade row. Mayor H3milton ccmnented that it was a g:x>d concern, but that the City should stay with the schedule they row have. '!be Cbuncil m:rnbers agreed. SPRINKLING BAN: Bill M::>nk reviewed the sprinkling b3.n rratter. He felt there were two options: 1) to institute a b3.n over a p:rriod of time; or 2) to ask for general a:xnpliance fran the residents to cut down on sprinkling at certain times. He felt that the Ci ty will experience problems, especially with potential fi Ie protection. HP. I also stated that the City is neeting the punping factor, the problem is the storage isn It there. Mayor Hamilton rroved, seconded by Cbuncilwanan 9Nenson to direct the City Engineer to prePare a letter to residents concerning the sprinkling rratter. '!he following voted in favor: M:lyor H3mi.lton, Cbuncilrnernbers 9Nenson, Watson, and Horn. No negative votes. M::>tion carried. If there would still re a problem after rronitoring the usage with just the general a:xnpliance of the residents, the sprinkling b3.n would then irrmediately gJ into effect. SPRING 'lOUR: The spring tour was scheduled for Saturday, May 31, 1986. DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK UPDATE: Barb D3.cy updated the Cbuncil on the Developnent Framework lobbying effort by the southwest a:mnuni ties. She stated that John Bolan, a former Met Cbuncil Chair- person was chosen as lobbyist for the group. She stated that the cost is reduced to less than $10,000 and there is enough rroney from participating a:m- muni ties. Mr. Bolan suggested having a neeting with Dirk Devries and Ray Joachim at the City Hall, May 12, at 5:30 p.m., inviting elected officials from all the southwestern comnuni ties to express their concern with the Developnent Framework. Mr. Bolan will lobby Met Cbuncil m:rnbers and prePare specific language for the Developnent Framework draft. '!he public hearing is set for May I 15, however, the Met Cbuncil has indicated they will hold regional public hearings throughout the Metro area and the hearing record will re closed July 15. Mayor H3mi.lton should rrake a presentation as the public hearing. t"O'2)' ~....,..f ~.,.,.~, P'~ P' I I I fl.'} l?\, ~.0 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - M3.y 5, 1986 -21- ASSESSMENT CDNTRAcr: Councilwanan Solenson roved, seconded by Councilwanan Watson to approve the cnntract for joint assessments with Carver County as presented. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmembers Solenson, Watson, and Horn. NJ negative votes. MOtion carried. INFORMATIONAL SIGN 00 HIGHWAY 5: Bill MOnk wanted sane action taken on the informational sign on Highway 5. It should be taken Cbwn or repaired. '!he Chamber has received permission to have a sign on the Ibrwn' s Standard property. Bill MOnk said staff will probably decide to take it Cbwn, but salvage any p:rrts they can. Councilwanan Watson roved, seconded by Councilwanan Solenson to adjourn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilrnembers Solenson, Watson, and Horn. NJ negative votes. MOtion carried. Prepared By: Kathy Sundquist Vicki O1urchill Karen Engelhardt M3.y 30, 1986