Loading...
1983 03 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 7, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mike Thompson, Planning Commission, Craig Mertz, Bob Waibel, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, and Don Ashworth were also present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the following additions: Status of Lake Use Ordinance, M.T.C., and Metro Council. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton asked if Council members wished to remove any items from the Consent Agenda. Item 2, Sign Ordinance Variance Request, Lot 1, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park and Item 5, Year End Transfers, were removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed later in the meeting. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following Consent Ag€nda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. Rep1at Lots 3,4, and 5, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Opus Corporation, to two lots. 3. Annual P-District Review. 4. Conditional Use Permit Assignment, Brambi11a1s Used Car Sales, 609 Flying Cloud Drive, Ray Stewart. 6. Revise Penalty Structure for Utility Bills, Ordinance Amendment, Final Reading. 7. RESOLUTION #83-06 Allowing County to Issue Bonds for 201 Program Construction. 8. Cable Television Advisory Committee Appointment. Barbara Orlowsky. 9. Adjust 1983 Plumbing Inspection Fees. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 201 PROGRAM Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order and requested a motion to continue this hearing to May 2. Councilman Geving moved to continue the hearing on the 201 Program to May 2, 1983. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING YEAR IX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the use of Year IX CDBG funds. The HRA supported the staff recommendation to allocate Year IX CDBG funds for Senior Citizen Housing Site Acquisition ($40,000) and Program Administration ($1,832). A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to close the hearing. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting March 7, 1983 -2- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS: Mayor Hamilton moved to authorize staff to make application to use$40,000 of Year IX funds for the Senior Citizen Housing Site Acquisiton and $1,832 Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, negative votes. Motion carried. for Program Administration. I following voted in favor: Mayor Councilmen Geving and Horn. No MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the February 14, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the February 9, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. DERRICK DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: Mayor Hamilton - There are several items that need to be handled in regard to this item this evening. First of all, I would like to review the motion that was made April 26th 1982 at our regular Council meeting. You received that motion in your packet, entitled Conditions of Approval, Fox Chase Development. What we did was to go back through the minutes of the Council meeting of April 26th. We used the official transcript that was taken by the Court Reporter so we have a ve~batim transcription of the minutes of that evening. We went through and picked out everything that seemed to apply to the motion so what you have before you is the information that was contained in that motion. The reason for doing that I is that there were many, many items included going back more than Qne or two years. I want everyone to have an opportunity to review what actually had been moved to be certain that that is what everybody had intended with that motion. I think you will that in item 3 there was some confusion, certainly on my part, as to the in~erjection of the attorneyls comments about dockage. That is one of those items that mayor may not need to be clarified. As I understand it this motion as it is right now i s rea 1 1 y not h i n g m 0 r e t h a nap r e 1 u d e·t 0 w r i tin g the d eve lop men t contract. These are the guidelines that wè are going to use when the development contract is developed. The motion does not have to be stated exactly word for word because then you go back in the development contract and more specifically define what you intended. Councilman Ge~ - The note that the attorney interjected, I remember comments as I sat next to Russ, and I think they were only a comment on his part. It lends no credence to the formal motion. He merely made an interjection stating an opinion giving two alternatives and if I were to separate that statement into two parts, lIincluding private docks without prior approvalll I think what he meant there was that, that would be part of the development contract. At least that1s the first part of w hat he i n ten d e d and the s e con d par t lion ani n d i v i d u a 1 bas is, by the C i t Y Council, pursuant to the Conditional Use proceduresll then he went on to give another alternative which was, you could go ahead and approve this development contract allowing for x number of docks in the development but I that the homeowner would have to come before the City Council on an application by application basis. I think that is what interjected here, that in my opinion is meaningless to the entire evenings Council conditions that were summarized and I personally think that they should not have been I I I Council 'Meeting March 7, 1983 -3- included or should not haze any part of this or make it cloudy for us. I would prefer to have it deleted from the official notes. Mayor Hamilton - As normal procedure indicates the only people who make a motion are the Council members and the staff can offer suggestions. There didn't seem to be any place in the minutes that we could find that said we agreed with this. Are there any other comments on that? Dale would like to have that portion not as a part of the official minutes. That·s the part that is the note. Are there any other comments? If there are no others, I would like to have a motion accepting the motion. Don Ashworth - To clarify this, to make a motion you set conditions as far as the approval is concerned. Tonight is the first time you have seen those in writing, so your action, in fact, is to confirm that the conditions in front of you represent the conditions as you approved them on April 26th. I am simply stating that you had not previously seen these conditions in a written form from April 26th. Your action this evening is simply one of confirming that this, in fact, does represent the conditions as you passed them on April 26th. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the April 26, 1982, Council minutes incorporating the Court Reporter's transcript in the matter of: Preliminary Plat Review, 52 Lot Residential Development, Northwest Lotus Lake, Review Conditions of Approval, and/or Consider Amended Development Plan, Derrick Land Development Company, as prepared by Professional Court Reporters, 1720 Midwest Plaza West, Minneapolis. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Watson abstained. Motion carried. Don Ashworth - Point of clarification, that motion does strike the section under item 3, starting out with the word IINotell. Mayor Hamilton - Right. The next item I would like to deal with is the development contract. Are there any additional changes or anything you would like to discuss at this time? Since Councilwoman Swenson cannot speak this evening, she will tell me what items she wants brought up and I will speak for her. Bill, as built plans, her question is, in Section 3.06 (b) where it discusses a complete set of as built plans, in the previous contract in Section 2.09 it said that the as built plans would include a full set of as built mylar reproductable plans. These plans shall include the locations and ties to all sanitary sewer and watermain services as well as gate valve boxes and manholes, should that be included in the definition of as built plans? Bill Monk - Yes, it would clarify it more. Mayor Hamilton - Section 3.06. Completion date and schedule of work. Section (b). The last sentence reads, within 30 days after completion of the improvements the developer shall supply the City with a complete set of as built plans. To that add, as built mylar reproductable plans. Thes plans shall include the locations and ties to all sanitary sewer and watermain services as well as gate valve boxes and manholes. Councilman Horn - On page 10, I am curious about allowing occupancy before streets have been completed and what our policy has been in the past on that. Counci 1 Meeti ng March 7, 1983 -4- Mayor Hamilton - This is in keeping with what we have done in the past. we-dld-have-a-great deal of discussion about this particular item because I I had felt the streets should be paved prior to allowing occupancy. I did talk with Bill and Don at some length about this but they both felt and it was left up to the Engineer to make the final determination, and he felt that allowing the road to be constructed and then given a period of time to settle is perhaps the best given Chanhassen soils. Don Ashworth - Your question Clark, if you will note on page 6, Section 3.13, subsection b, at the end of that, shows the Roman Numeral I in a circle, Karen did not get in this addition but it answers your question and that is that the previous policy of the City has been to allow for building permits and occupancy permits to be received as long as the gravel road is in and suitable for travel. Ideally, you would like to have it paved the first year but the soils in Chanhassen with the heavy clays, in many cases it is better to allow that to winter, to go over one winter to assure that you do not have trench settlement. We have had that problem in some areas and they changed the policy. A good example is Saratoga. You allowed the streets to winter for one year and we found that to be much better. If you force the developer to pave the first year we could have more problems. This actually provides additional protection for the City. Councilman Horn - Is that what we did in Lotus Lake Estates? Don Ashworth - Unfortunately we paved that right away and we did not allow that to winter. I Councilman Geving - We did not accept the streets until the following spring. Councilman Horn - On page 12, Section 7.02, have we typically included in there a provision for the method of reduction of the letter of credit based on performance to date? Don Ashworth - You have in some previous contracts. Staff has really recommended against it because if you allow for a reduction based on the developer completing water lines or sewer lines and he has yet to do the street work and other grading, he could destroy what he has already put in the ground. It is a dangerous practice and the Council did, on some contracts, remove that requirement. In other words they allowed for a reduction. You could get burned on that. The current contract does delete the previous wordage that allowed for that letter of credit to be reduced. That's your decision. Councilman Horn - Those are all the questions I have right now. Everything else in here appears to be very straight forward, I thought, and represented my feelings on what the development contract should be. Councilman Geving - I would like to compliment you Mr. Mayor, for putting together this package. I had several questions, on page 3, it brings I forth the involvement of our City Engineer, at the top, under Standards of Construction, and that the developer shall make improvements that exceed or equal to City standards subject to the inspection a,nd approval of the City Engineer and I guess my question, is there the involvement of our City Engineer and staff in the approval process of this development I I I Council Meeting March 7, 1983 -5- as it proceeds. Along with the question I might have on the same page, iterr 3.05 on Staking, Surveying and Inspection where it says, that shall provide for all staking, surveying and resident inspection for the above described improvements, the City will provide for general inspection and shall be notified of all tests to be performed. The question that I have relates to our involvement and the amount of control that the City Engineer would have over this project once we begin it. We had talked before at some length about the possibility that our City Engineer, in fact, would be, I am talking about our City Consulting Engineer, would also be the same engineer that this developer would hire to do this job. I know we talked about that. Is there any discussion about that? I know we can It force a developer to use our consulting engineer. My question is two-fold then, in terms of our consulting engineer and also Bill Monk and what his controls might be when he gets down to such things as the approval of a City Engineer. Mayor Hamilton - If you would look at 3.05, the last sentence, it might clarify it. In addition the City may at the City's discretion and the developers expense have one or more city inspectors inspect the work on a full or part time basis. Bill and I discussed this to make sure he was comfortable with that and he felt that that was reasonable and he would be able to do exactly that. He does not have a problem with it. He knows by the development contract that he can hire somebody to come in and inspect it on a full or part time basis whether it1s somebody from Schoell and Madson or another engineering firm that he wants to work with he has the authority to do that. Councilman Geving - I like that. I have a question on item 7.02 and 8.13. It looks to me like those are duplicate. Let's just look at those two. It talks about the 110% letter of credit. Is there some difference in 8.13? Craig Mertz - 8.13 sets the date on which the bond is to be filed and I don't believe there is a mention of a date in which the bond is to be filed in 7.02. I don't have any problem with the date for filing the security being in a separate section. There is something else wrong with 8.13 however. I don't think the word IIsatisfactionll belongs in that second line. I think perhaps all you need is that, before final plat is signed, developer shall deposit the security required by section 7.02. Councilman Geving - I just have one other clarification, on page 7, this involves levied and special assessments against the off-line and on-line units and there seems to be a confusion in my mind since we have already levied one sewer and water unit and one trunk water against the properties. In 4.02 do we really mean to say 52 or do we mean 51 specially benefitted lots? We have already assessed one and we are looking at 51 additional assessments. Is there any clarification required there? Is this clear to you? Bill Monk - I think so. Councilman Geving - I noticed in Derrick's documentation they refer to 51. I think we are okay. I am just bringing up a minor point, the difference between what has already been assessed and what we are talking about in spreading the payment of deferred special assessments in 4.02. Council Meeting March 7, 1983 -6- Craig Mertz - I am satisfied with the wording in 4.02 as is. Councilman Geving - Then I am too. I have no other comments at this time. I Councilwoman Watson - Page 5, 3.11. I guess I wouldnlt be real thrilled to see that lighted with street lights. Could that be something that could wait for the neighborhood to make a decision whether they wanted to be lighted. They are going to be down in a valley where everybody will look over them and they are going to be the only thing to be lite up like that anywhere in that area. Mayor Hamilton - It has been standard that we include street lighting in our developments and I would just be afraid that if it was not included at this time then after homes are built in there the residents come to the City and say, we would like to have street lights in our development and the City is going to have to go through that process to put in street lights. I don1t know about the feasibility of putting in the wiring and maybe stubbing them in or something so that that is there and leave the actual setting of the poles up to the neighborhood once there are in there. Councilwoman Watson - It1s going to be rather of an oddity in that particular area to have a neighborhood down in the valley like that so lite up. Mayor Hamilton - But, as you all know one of the criticisms we constantly hear is, the development, you go through and you do the roads and you get everything in and then along you come as soon as you finish paving I the road you come back and tear it up and put in something else. I would just as soon, if we could avoid those thing, put everything in at one time. Bill Monk - We had been requiring them in the last six contract that we have done. Councilman Gev~ - I think if we are going to have a standard for a development contract, I don't think we should start making exceptions the very first chance we get. Councilwoman Watson - I understand that. Councilman Geving consistent. I think that's one thing we have to always be is Councilman Horn - Are street lights really considered a safety issue? Don Ashworth - They can be by the neighborhood themselves. Most of the petitions you have had come in have been as a result of some type of a problem in that particular neighborhood. Western Hills is probably the best example. The request from Cimarron came in because of window peekers and problems the neighbors felt that street lights provided additional security. Mayor Hamilton - 8.14, page 16. Councilwoman Swenson called to our I attention that about in the middle of that paragraph where it reads; . all areas distributed, it should be disturbed by the exacavation, and she also mentioned she would like included at the end of that paragraph; as it deems necessary to control erosion at developers expense. Any further comments? What is the difference between a corporate surety bond and a performance bond? Are they essentially the same? I I I Council Meeting March 7, 1983 -7- Craig Mertz - The City would elect to either take the letter of credit or the bond. Councilman Horn - In the last paragraph we are talking about the types of boulevard trees that should be included, is this a suggested list or is that the total list? Mayor Hamilton - Those are suggested. Any other comments? Mayor Hamilton moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution dealing with the Fox Chase Development, approving the PRD Zoning and development contract for Fox Chase Development, subject to the following: 1. That the developer meet the conditions as approved this evening. 2. Subject to staff placing into the resolution all factual information reviewed by the Council in approving this development contract. 3. Subject to a determination of the EQB issue. 4. Subject to the City Council review and approval of the resolution to be drawn by staff. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn - I would like clarification of number 3. Mayor Hamilton - There was a petition sent to the EQB last week. We received notification from the EQB today stating that because a petition had been filed the City has some responsibilities to follow and there are some things that we now have to do. One of which would be an environmental worksheet which may lead to an environmental impact statement. However, we have had very short notice to even review that, consequently we don1t even know exactly what we have to do. I feel that we need to make this a condition of approval. It seems to me that the EQB's letter is that further approvals by the City are to cease. We don't know exactly what that means. If it means that we can It approve this, what we are doing now, so to make whatever the EQB wants us to do contingent upon those approvals. Councilman Horn - That would open up the door then for us to make any other changes required by law. Mayor Hamilton - Something that would be required by law we wou1dn't really have any choice. Don Ashworth - You just approved as part of it, the development contract that you have in front of you with the changes as they were agreed to this evening. David Se11ergren - Which development contract did you have before you? The one that was with your memo? Mayor Hamilton - That's correct. Craig Mertz - The one that1s attached to the Mayor's letter of March 2, 1983. Kurt Laughinghouse - Has that been transmitted to us or our attorney's? Council Meeting March 7, 1983 Don Ashworth - Yes, it was. -8- David Sellergren - Of course, 1111 enter our objection for the record. I Don Ashworth - It was sent last Wednesday. I have an extra one if you would like it. CITY MANAGER'S POSITION REVIEW: The Council reviewed the position classification of the City Manager. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve a 6% increase retroactive to January 1, 1983. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.F. 174: The City Manager recommended the Council pass a resolution in support of H.F. 174 which would not allow dump sites on Agricultural Lands. Al Klingelhutz - I believe this act would eliminate all agricultural land and I understand the way they are thinking at the Metro Council, is because this land is so close to urbanization that it probably would not be considered as agricultural land anymore. It probably would defeat our purpose, I don It know enough about this bill and I haven't read it thoroughly, if this bill was passed because in the urban areas would actually be the only place where dump sites could go. We have all been complaining about all the dump sites being in the eastern part of the County and the County used this exact type of wordage in their I computer to exclude all prime agricultural land in Carver County which made the selection of all the dump sites or landfill sites picked out in 40% of the eastern part of Carver County. Maybe it would help us, maybe it wouldnlt. We are talking about excluding all agricultural land and it would eliminate all the other sites in Carver County. Councilman Geving - That was my point, when I read the synopsis put together by the metro people, they didn't indicate anything about the farm land. They talked about the nearness to the urbanization. That seemed to be the point that they were hitting upon. Al Klingelhutz - More percentage of our site is being used for agricultural purposes at the present time than anyone of the other sites. Councilman Horn - I think another point, too, that staff did address that issue saying that this was agricultural property but that future use would take it out of that classification after, I believe the year was 1990. I expect that if you looked at the other sites they would not be considered as being taken out of agricultural classification after 1990. I share the same concern that Al is expressing. Al K1inge1hutz - The suggestions that are being made now are to make the site half as big as it, 1500 cubic acres of landfill site instead of 3000, that it would be entirely west of County Road 17, that the only I entrance to it would be from the southwest corner, that it would not affect the Highway 212/17 corridor or the interchange and it is a feeling that there is probably a possibility when this goes before the Metro Council on Thursday afternoon, that we could get an amendment to this I I I Council Meeting March 7, 1983 -9- site to get these things done. It all came on me so fast I really haven't had time to digest it, is it saying that it will be all right if we do these things and we will get the landfill site in Chanhassen or should we just leave it go on, be approved by the Metro Council and take our fight to Carver County after it comes back to the County? Mayor Hamilton - Carver County has got final approval? A1 K1inge1hutz - Carver County has final approval. Mayor Hamilton - I really honestly feel at this point no matter what we do at Metro they are going to approve it. A1 K1inge1hutz - I am almost sure the Metro Council is going to approve it. Mayor Hamilton - I think our efforts would be better if we just took a few days off and retrenched and got ready for making a presentation to the County so that we can do a good job there. STATUS OF LAKE USE ORDINANCE: Councilman Horn noted that the Lake Use Ordinance with the changes requested by the DNR had been resubmitted to the DNR for approval and he felt the Council should have reviewed the changes prior to submission as he did not agree with some of the changes the DNR requested. He suggested that a representative from the DNR along with our local legislators meet with the Council to discuss the issues. Craig Mertz stated he would invite Mr. E1verum from the DNR to the March 21st Council meeting. Chuck Dim1er and Bob Schmitz will also be invited. LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR: Bill Monk reported that the Physical Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council did review our response on March 3rd and approved what the City recommended and directed their staff to come back to the affected cities and try and work out a more mutually agreeable solution. SIGN ORDINANCE VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Opus Corporation is requesting a variance in order to install a temporary free-standing 7~ by 4 foot double sided real estate sign on Lot 1, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The Planning Commission recommended approval conditioned upon: 1. That Opus Corporation be limited to one free-standing off premises temporary real estate sign as contained within this request. 2. That said sign be removed within seven days upon the lease or sale of the property which it is advertising. Councilwoman Watson noted that Opus Corporation which does control most of the land in the park has stipulated, in its covenants, that no more off- site real estate advertising signs are to be erected. , Tom Klinge1hutz was present seeking approval to erect a temporary off-premis IIFor Leasell sign to get tenants for his building on Monterey Drive. . Scott Martin suggested that the Sign Ordinance be amended at this time to allow off-premise real estate signs located in the same subdivision, until more definitive sign regulations as a part of the overall zoning <. Council Meeting March 7, 1983 - 10- and subdivision regulations have been completed. Mayor Hamilton - I think that staff ought to approve these things. I I see no reason why the Council needs to see these signs. We have got good staff. We are paying them good money to make these kinds of decisions and I think they understand what the Council IS position is on these things. We are concerned and we want to have some conformance and some continuity to signs but for heaven sakes let people have their signs. They have got to get a sign up to get tenants. Councilman Horn - I think the only concern in this issue is not whether they could be allowed a sign or not, the only concern was whether we would be giving fair competition with the exclusive use of the sign by them. They are in a funny situation here because they are going to be competing with their customers. We are creating a buyer beware situation. Mayor Hamilton - Perhaps there should be one sign in a case this where you can put up one sign and say there is space available and it would cover everybody. Councilman Horn --~-- use. I like the idea of a sign that anyone in the park can Councilwoman Watson - That says there are buildings back here with space available to rent. Scott Martin - There is a potential problem with that too. You will recall that Lowell Vetter had his Frontier Meats sign up, the bottom line I on that sign that ultimately forced him to take it down was the owner said, the good news is you can put your sign on my directory sign but the bad news is itls going to cost you $300 a month to do it. I think what you may want to do is just allow signage and limit the size and maybe the number. Councilman Horn moved to table this item to a future meeting. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. 1982 YEAR END TRANSFERS: RESOLUTION #83-07: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving transfers and closings as setforth in the City Treasurerls memorandum dated March 1, 1983. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to hold an executive conference to discuss the summons placed against Council members. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I