Loading...
1983 03 21 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 21, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Howard Noziska from the Planning Commission, Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, and Bob Waibel were also present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented. 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: pursuant to the a. Sign Permit B 1 v d . b. Review Engineer's Report on Street Lights in Commercial/Industrial areas. d. Set Date of Board of Equalization and Review (May 23, 1983). e. RESOLUTIONS #83-08A, 83-08B, 83-08C: Authorizing the issuance and sale of $9,440,000 General Obligation Bonds, con- sisting of $5,185,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1983 and $4,255,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Resolution 83-08A); Authorizing the issuance and sale of $315,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1983, Series 1 (Resolution 83-08B); and Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of $1,330,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, Series 1 (Resolution 83-08C). f. RESOLUTION 83-09: Supporting One Postal Address for the City. 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. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the consent agenda City Manager's recommendations. Request, Photo Equipment, Suite 400, 7900 Great Plains MINUTES: Councilwoman Swenson asked that her amendment of the January 17, 1983, Council minutes as shown in the February 7, 1983, Council minutes under SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION, 530 WEST 79TH STREET, CHANHASSEN VIDEO be revised as follows: Councilwoman Swenson suggested to the Planning Commission, that procedure require that the developer either stipulate the design of lettering or coloring for signage on a building. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the February 7, 1983, Council minutes as amended. 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. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the March 8, 1983, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. 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. Councilwoman Swenson recommended that when concept plans are presented; for example, Lake Susan Park, that copies be made for Council members. SIGN ORDINANCE VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Michelle Foster and Marc Anderson, Opus Corporation, were present seeking variance approval to erect a free-standing temporary real estate sign at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Drive and Arboretum Blvd. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance with the following conditions: Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -2- 1. That Opus Corporation be limited to one free-standing off premises temporary real estate sign as contained within the request. 2. Contingent upon the sign being removed within seven days upon the I lease or sale of 80% of the property which is being advertised. Councilman Geving moved to approve sign ordinance variance request 83-3 Sign Permit, for the Opus Corporation with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. This item will be reviewed by the Council in one year if the sign is still standing. Tom Klingelhutz be allowed under this motion to erect a sign with permission from Mr. Burdick. 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. BILLS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the bills as presented: Checks #14367 through #14450 in the amount of $622,677.02, and checks #18706 through #18785 in the amount of $54,206.74. 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. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS: A letter was received from David Sellergren objecting to the extension of the moratorium. On August 23, 1982, the Council enacted a limited six month building moratorium which prohibited the construction of any fast food restaurant in the Park Two Business Park, in the Dakota Avenue/Highway 5 vicinity, and on the undeveloped property adjacent to CPT Corporation. The Planning I Commission held a public hearing on March 9, 1983, and recommended that the moratorium be extended for an additional 12 month period to allow additional time for preparation and adoption of revised zoning regulations. Councilman Horn moved to extend the fast food restaurant moratorium on the indicated properties south of Highway 5 until December 31, 1983, and delete the following clause in Section 1, subsection 3a (including without limitation, noise, glare, and litter). Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM FOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNSEWERED PORTIONS OF CHANHASSEN: Don Ashworth - My only concern is that during the interim period you do not literally have an ordinance in affect. The courts have over-ridden the existing ordinance and the City has to be cognizant of that fact. You have given the Planning Commission the assignment to relook at these ordinances and to assure that you are in a position to control that development, I am recommended that the City Council adopt a moratorium. I recognize that the City has put in moratoriums before. I recognize that some of those moratoriums have not been as successful as we had wanted. I think we have a different situation with the court of law I making the decision on the Koenke and Dypwick issue. Without some form of action by the City we are in a position that you literally don It have an ordinance that IS going to be able to control development in the unsewered area. I do not enjoy recommending putting through a moratorium I I I Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -3- but I don It see any other choice unless you are ready tonight to actually come up with wordage for how you are going to control development in the unsewered area. Councilman Geving - What would happen if we do nothing at this point? What is allowable in the unsewered area based upon the test that was made and won by Dypwick? Don Ashworth - Well, literally, any property in the unsewered area could come before the Planning Commission in terms of a proposed plat showing basically 2~ acre parcels and would have to front on an existing road, and it would have to meet a 100 foot setback on one side of the home and ten foot on the other side. If the Planning Commission failed to approve the subdivision they could then do the same process that Dypwick did and that is to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, in other words the denial, to the court. Councilman Geving - Would this type of development still have to meet certain sewer requirements for their septic systems? Don Ashworth - The court didn't take action in terms of the sewer system. We had looked to a state approval, there are certain standards set by the state. We have reached agreement with Dypwick that they will meet that minimum state permit section. Councilman Geving - A number of people in the city have known this for several weeks, have you had any applications at all since that time? Bob Waibel - No official applications. We have had inquiries. Don Ashworth - One other point, the courts, and I don1t think anyone is in favor of a moratorium, it is something authorized by State Law, if a person is denied an application or proceeding with one because of the adoption of a moratorium you are on pretty safe grounds. They probably will not appeal that decision in any type of court or if they do, it literally would not be sustained. If, on the other side, you do not go through the moratorium and we again go through a test in each case brought before you, you can be sure you would end up going to court with each of those individual cases. Again, I am not in favor of moratoriums but I don't see any other choice before this City Council at this point in time. Councilman Geving - I think some of the important aspects of this are the exceptions to the rules, for example, the plat of record lots prior to a certain date that were grandfathered in. I think that's real important for a lot of people that are sitting out there to know what those rules are and I suspect they know them better than we do. I think it's real important to know whether or not, if this ordinance is passed, what provisions for variance and I am very please to see that in here because I think there is ample room in there to allow variances even within this moratorium. Mayor Hamilton - The Planning Commission on March 9th there was a motion by Merz, can you tell us Howard (Noziska) what that motion is, apparently it's adoption of only Section 6, is that essentially all that motion was? Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -4- Howard Noziska - We had quite a lengthly discussion. We did hear a lot of comments from a considerable number of citizens of the city. There was some discussion relative to the fact that we had probably been under I a moratorium for in the vicinity of some where around five years with the way we had been running this. One thing that we were concerned about is sewage disposal and we felt that that had to be addressed. We are sort of in a catch 22 with this. I asked Craig if he thought we hadn't already been under the moratorium and he said quite possible that the courts might say yes. We thought one thing for sure we wanted to do is reduce lawyer fees and make sure that anything that went in had proper sewage so that's basically what we recommended. We hope that we can press on with those ordinances and get something harder and more complete in definition before too long. Mayor Hamilton - We haven't had a moratorium in effect. Howard Noziska - In essence no, but in actuality yes. That would be a question that some judge would have to decide at the time. It's been enacted as a moratorium. The way it1s been interpreted has basically been, it's been a moratorium on building. People who are more familiar with the ordinance than I, the ordinance was initially enacted in 1971, I believe, and was interpreted basically one way until 1977 or 1978 and then it was interpreted basically as a code restriction on building in the unsewered area. That's where, I think, you get into a real cat and dog fight if you were to get into court. We are concerned about the sewer. We are also concerned about not having anything to say about those developments and that1s why we are pressing on with the ordinance review. I Councilman Horn - My question was, had we had this moratorium in effect before the Dypwick issue came up, would the court have ruled differently on it? Don Ashworth - They could not have made application for the variance if the moratorium would have been in affect. I think if I understand what the attorney's have stated, there was a moratorium put into effect in 1977/1978. It was for the purpose of determining how the City should proceed with developments in the unsewered area. At that point in time we had Ordinances 45 and 33 into affect which basically prohibited development in the unsewered area. At the end of that moratorium there was no change in the ordinance and so the ordinance basically stood that you could not develop in the unsewered area. You did have some variance requests back to the City, Dypwick was one of those, which was denied by the City Council but that did not occur during the moratorium period. That occurred during the period of time that the City was interpreting our ordinance to say that you could not develop in the unsewered area. The court basically found that the City has two set of ordinances on the books. One that says you cannot develop in the unsewered area and the other that says that minimum developments will be 2~ acres. They basically stated that the City could put into effect an ordinance that would control development in the unsewered area but you could not do it on the basis of picking and choosing. It had to be one ordinance solely and that ordinance had to be explicit that the only way you would allow development would be a,b,c,d,e. I I I I Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -5- Councilman Horn - I think I understand what this would do for us but I guess I would agree with the recommendation. It's very frustrating to have lived with this thing as long as we have. When I was on the Planning Commission and we tried to get these things changed. We tried to get the overlay district in and we were constantly suffering for the fact that we don1t have these things in place. We have just gone through a period where development is practically zero and if we can It get them in place when we have our activity down, I don't know how we are ever going to do it. I don't know that we are even going to have them ready when this moratorium ends and I really totally oppose what's gone on in the last years with the interpretation of Ordinance 45. The Metropolitan Council probably has that intent but that certainly isn1t my intent. I think we have to open that area up and we have to set guidelines and I can't believe that we can It get it done before now. Al Klingelhutz - There is a group of people here, some of them were at the Planning Commission meeting and most of them spoke. This word moratorium, it reminds me of a mortuary and when I think of mortuary I think of death and every time you put a moratorium on something it seems to die in Chanhassen. We had a moratorium on the downtown area. We had a moratorium on the fast food restaurant, you had six months to complete it and the six months are up, we still haven't got an ordinance. I don't know what's happening. All these people have got pieces of land and they are getting up there in age. I think the thing that really concerns me is the farms in Chanhassen are being assessed for development land and it can It be used for anything but farming and this is a big concern of mine. Last year my farm was assessed at nearly $4,000 an acre and I know if I put it up for development purposes I couldn't get that today for development and if I put it up for agricultural purposes I would be darn lucky to get $2,000 an acre the way the farm economy is today. Yet, here we sit. We pay the high taxes and we can't do anything else with our land because the City in effect for the last five years has had a moratorium on any development in unsewered lands. I guess since Ordinance 45 has been interpreted differently I have told the City Attorney and some of the staff how it was originally planned. We had an ordinance that was taken over from the township, 30,000 square feet with no controls whatsoever and we felt, in 1971, we needed something a little bit more restrictive. We had a lot of discussion on it. To me that ordinance meant that we would be allowed to build in Chanhassen in the unsewered areas on 2~ acres. Not over three times as long as it is wide. The house has to be set ten feet from one property line and 100 feet from the other property line. That was in case sewer would come in so that another house could go in there. It had to come before the Planning Commission and City Council and if they saw any problems with the percolation test, the City Engineer inspected. I think it's quite complete on those things. An ordinance that was passed 12 years ago. We have had Hesse Farm come in under it. We have had some of the Bandimere Farm come in under it. We have had several single family 2~ acre tracts and I don't think any of these pieces, up to this time, caused any problems. I just feel we have had a moratorium long enough and that these people should be able to do something with their property, especially the property that isn't good for agricultural purposes. Mr. Bandimere has got 55 acres of trees and woods and even a little lake. There is no one in the neighborhood that has got dairy cattle, he can't rent it out for pasture. What's happening to it? It's growing up in brush. It was beautiful when it was pasture and it would make two, three four very nice building sites and I can1t see any problem with it. The Council Meeting, March 21, 1983 -6- way the City has been interpreting the ordinance no one can get anything done and really I feel we have had a moratorium long enough and I think these people here would respect decent planning in the City and I am I not against good planning, but you put another years moratorium on the five years we already have had and I think that's when the City might get into trouble and we might be spending some more thousands of dollars in legal fees. Thank you. Sever Peterson - I have some land in Carver County and just listening to Mr. Klingelhutz' comments, I know most of these people personally but the ones I don1t know, my Grandfather knew their ancestors and they have been here a long time. I feel that to put a years moratorium, these things run in economic cycles and I think it's pretty difficult for some of these people. These people have lived in this community and been the background for this community and I think that to ask for a year moratorium is an injustice to these residents that have been here for several generations. I would just like to add a little support to what Mr. Klingelhutz has said and say that I think these people do deserve consideration. Thank you. Tom Klingelhutz - You could easily adopt the Carver County on-site sewer ordinance right now. It's one of the finest in the state. There is nobody here that's going to figure one out any better. You could use their inspector. Councilman Horn - How about instead of passing a moratorium we select a group to come up with a recommended preliminary ordinance until we get ours in effect. It would at least give us some safeguards. It would I include the sewer, it would put some type of a minimum size and length and setback requirements and review that and see if we can't put that as a temporary ordinance. Mayor Hamilton - I don't think we would get too far out of control if we did just the same thing as the Planning Commission. We are not going to have 100 people come in tomorrow to build homes in the unsewered area. Councilman Geving - I have a real problem with that. This group that meets just about every Wednesday or every other Wednesday is trying to do just that and if we have another group trying to do that, we might be working convergent circles~ I would prefer to continue on with what we are trying to do with out consultant. It is a slow process. I think the idea that the Planning Commission came up with was not a bad one because the only concern I have is, just like you have all stated, I really am not in favor of the moratorium but I do think we have to have some rules by which a developer could take a 2~ acre parcel and come in and put a home on it. I don't know how good these Minnesota Pollution Control Standards are that are mentioned here in Section 6 or what Tom mentioned as far as Carver County is concerned but I suspect that those are the rules that we live by anyway, aren't they Bill? Is there a better standard? Bill Monk - We are currently working on an ordinance numbered lOA. It's I to the point where it will be coming before the Council very soon. It adopts PCA and the County standards. Councilman Geving - I don't bel ieve that we really need a moratorium. I I I Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -7- Councilwoman Watson - If we adopted just this Section 6, would this then put in effect those specific sewer regulations? Bill Monk - Basically, Section 6 is kind of a stop gap thing until we can get lOA in effect. It's a much more comprehensive review of both the PCA and the County regulations. Councilwoman Swenson - I think that the imposition of the continuation of the moratorium is a blanket hardship. We do make provisions here for variances under the guise of hardship which is pretty standard. I think we might have a little problem with allowing subdivisions for awhile since the zoning ordinance we now have calls for a manditory P district for more than 25 lots and I am not sure that a P district would be what we would want in that unsewered area. I think we would have to do something about making sure that this does not specifically apply in the interim ordinance. I personally have never been able to figure out why we couldn't have, if a man has got 2t acres or five acres why he wasn't allowed to put a house on it. I think this is too restrictive. I have a little concern with large subdivisions, regards future expansion of the City sewer, which will come. Right now this Council and the Council before was struggling with mistakes that were made by a previous Council and I guess I am trying very hard not to do something that somebody else is going to have to pay for, not only financially but emotionally. While I am in favor of what you are saying Al, I think that we have to proceed with some type of caution so that if it is opened up that it isn't done helter skelter. Is it possible to draft an interim ordinance and exempt the unsewered area from the P district requirement of the zoning ordinance? Scott Martin - I don't think that is necessary because you are not obligated to zone any property PUD. Zoning is a legislative decision that you can determine based on your comprehensive plan and your P district developments, by their very nature, assume you are going to have sewer and water service available. I would suggest that if you want to allow development in the unsewered area you do two things. You enact emergency septic system regulations and you also probably through a resolution tonight instruct staff to begin interpreting Ordinance 45 as apparently it was interpreted prior to 1977, i.e. allowing 2~ acre lots which is your minimum lot size in the R-1A District. Councilwoman Swenson - The section of Ordinance 45 that I am really quite concerned with is the requirement of the street. I would think that if it's going to be a subdivision it would have to be handled the same as any other subdivision we have now. We certainly want to avoid any more exits onto Highway 5. You can't go down every 2t acres or every 180 feet and have an entrance onto Highway 5. I think most people are reasonable enough to understand that this would be a safety hazard and I think we have to make provisions for that. Scott Martin - I don't think you can make a provision for that in your ordinance per see That's part of your planning process when you are looking at a site specific, where is the best place to locate an entrance to a public street on Highway 5. We would handle development in the unsewered area given what I just recommended as an option. Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -8- Al Klingelhutz - The County does have in their ordinance that no two driveways shall be closer than 500 feet. The County has a 40 acre provision. The townships in the county have the right to come in with I 2~ acre lots in their wooded acres or land that isn't being directly used for agriculture. I think that1s a little different than in Chanhassen but I think some of these things could be used in a new ordinance in Chanhassen. I just feel that to put a moratorium on now between tonight and Wednesday when the paper comes out you are going to see about 20 people up here with applications. Councilman Horn - We are concerned about having 2~ acre lots along the main highways, would it be a problem if we changed that to some larger number until we had the final ordinance in place. Bob Hendrickson - I live in Eden Prairie but I have some land in southern Chanhassen. In Eden Prairie, for many many years, they have allow five acres with 300 feet of road frontage and I live on such a parcel. I have never understood why Chanhassen prohibited people from having that way of life. Councilwoman Swenson - We have to remember that if we take a large parcel and divide it into a subdivision at this particular stage, when the sewer finally does go through, how are these people going to react if they have a great big assessment come on. All these things have to be considered and I think that they can't be precluded and ruled out. Councilman Geving - I think maybe a combination of what Clark was striving for early with a study group might be more applicable. We have I seen some ideas come up here. May be we shouldn't rule out that idea of a group of three or four people couldn't get together with staff and develop some guidelines and come back to us. Mayor Hamilton - The action that the Planning Commission took seems to be adequate. They moved to still leave in existance Ordinance 45 and to recognize that and then also to recognize Section 6 of Ordinance 64C. That would seem to me, in the interim until we have finished our ordinance work, to cover us. We are making some bets there that we are not going to get a landslide of people in here. I guess I am willing to take that gamble. Councilman Horn - I think that covers most of the areas. The only other think that I can see as a concern would be if we did only have 2~ acre parcels. I would suggest changing that to five until we adopt the final ordinance. Mayor Hamilton - Then you would have to amend Ordinance 45. We can say that we are going to recognize Ordinance 45 as it exists and then we would adopt Ordinance 64C recognizing only Section 6 of that ordinance. Councilman Horn - It is not clear to me what this Dypwick case has really done as far as what1s in effect yet or what is still proper to be in effect. I Mayor Hamilton - Ordinances 45 and 33 are not recognized as valid ordinances. We are saying we will allow development within the unsewered areas still recognizing Ordinance 45 and adding Section 6. I I I Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -9- Councilman Horn - But, if the Judge has said that Ordinance 45 is not valid, us taking that action really will have no effect. Don Ashworth - There is a definition question and that's what Al was speaking about before, in terms of prior to 1977. There is a section in that ordinance that deals with parcels of 2~ acres, that had been since 1977 interpreted by the attorney's office to mean that that only applied to parcels as of record in 1971. Otherwise you could have no subdivision whatsoever and the court took the other interpretation. I think if this Council would instruct city staff to interpret that ordinance in accordance with what the court interpretation was. I still have deep concern about somebody coming in potentially on 5 or 101, there should be some allowance in there to insure that all access should be maintained through an internal road if more than one lot or something like that so that you can assure that you would not have Highway 5 with continuous lots. This would be first reading and in bringing it back for second reading staff could attempt to place into this interim ordinance those type of guidelines that might be workable. Councilman Horn - I think we are pretty much in agreement on what we want. It's just a matter of how we get there. Mayor Hamilton moved to recognize Ordinance 45 as still an existing ordi- nance and place on first reading Ordinance 64C as an interim ordinance adopting only Section 6 and direct staff to add a section that internal access must be provided for subdivisions of two or more lots. 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. NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A WASH-OUT SYSTEM, APPLE VALLEY RED-E-MIX PLANT: Mayor Hamilton - This is an item that we have all discussed at one time or another in years past. At one time we had felt that there should be no intensification of the ready mix facility. They have come in now asking to have a wash-out system. Craig Mertz has stated that he felt that an agreement could be reached whereby if a wash-out system were to be put in it would not jeopardize the 1986 agreement with the City and the ready mix that they would vacate their facility at that time. That's the one thing that I am mostly concerned about is that by intensifying the use of that area, which I see this as doing, that it does not jeopardize that agreement. Bob Waibel - That would be one of the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff that they hold the City harmless from any added costs or investment made for the installation of this system. Mayor Hamilton - Did Russ or Craig review this? Bob Waibel - Russ did. He felt there were no problems as long as they agreed to terminate their use as the City would enforce its ordinance or in the case of a public acquisition. They would agree to terminate the use but they would also not ask for any added compensation for this particular facility. Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -10- Mayor Hamilton - If in fact that is the case, I would like to have a second opinion. I would like to have the agreement reviewed that we have currently with the ready mix and review this proposal and give us a second opinion. Councilwoman Swenson - You may remember that about l~ or two years ago we were in court with this company and it was made quite clear to them that we didn't care for intensification. Subsequently they put up another silo without a permit. It is now laying down on the ground and making the area look even worse than it did before. One thing I would like to know is where the water is going now? I would like to have an opinion, if we disturb the existing agreement at all, does this leave us open for more requests from them? I Bob Waibel - This could be considered as an alteration rather than an enlargement or an intensification of their use. It is not expanding their capacity as a plant. It simply appears to have environmental benefits to the methods that are being used right now for disposal of the partial loads, clean out activities, as well as reduce the volume that would be needed to be disposed of in a solid waste landfill sites. If we could document that there is an environmental problem right there now, we could possibly have them install this as an enforcement action. Councilwoman Swenson - What is happening with the water now? Bob Waibel - Right now they are pumping approximately 600 to 700 gallons per partial truck load and it's washed into a pit on the western portion of the property. There probably is some seepage there. It will dehydrate I and solidify and then it probably would be not much of an environmental problem. They do have some fly ash that is used in filler material and may have some trace elements that go into the soil or water table. To what degree? PCA does not know. Scott Martin - This request would allow them to recycle their water. Mayor Hamilton moved to table action until either a representative from Apple Valley Red-E-Mix or the manufacturer is present. 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. NEAR MOUNTAIN ASSESSMENT REVIEW: Sherman Goldberg was present. Lundgren Bros. is requesting the abatement of 13 sewer and water lateral assessments that were placed along Pleasant View Road because they will be constructing sewer and water laterals in Near Mountain Blvd. and will not benefit from the existing laterals. Staff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Goldberg asked if these assessments could be spread over all the lots in Near Mountain once the plat is filed. The City Engineer stated he felt this could be handled administratively if a letter of consent is received from the owners. Mayor Hamilton requested that this item be placed on a future consent agenda. I I I I Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -11- Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the request as presented and instruct the City Engineer to place on a future agenda the spreading of the existing assessments over the entire development. 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. 1983/1984 INTOXICATING AND NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES: Eleanor Kottke, representing Women Against Drunk Drivers, spoke on what the organization is trying to accomplish in getting people to understand that they should drink responsibly. Councilman Horn moved that Bloomberg Companies, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales On-Sale Non Intoxicating Off-Sale Non Intoxicating the following licenses be renewed for 1983/1984: Kenny's Super Market Off-Sale Non Intoxicating Superamerica Off-Sale Non Intoxicating Bluff Creek Golf Assn. On-Sale Non Intoxicating Holiday Sttionstores Off-Sale Non Intoxicating JGM Liquor Warehouse Off-Sale Intoxicating Kallestad Enterprises, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Pauly's, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Off-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Riviera Club, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Chanhassen Legion Post #580 Club License Sunday Sales Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and negative votes. Motion carried. Chanhassen Fire Department On-Sale Non Intoxicating Saint Hubert's Church On-Sale Non Intoxicating (Valid for six, one-day events) The following voted in favor: Mayor Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No Staff noted that the Non Intoxicating Off-Sale License for Quick Stop Groceries has been revoked due to Mr. Peterson's failure to provide the dram shop insurance coverage as required under state law. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR SOLICITATION OF BIDS, RICE MARSH LAKE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: RESOLUTION #83-10: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving the construction plans and specifications and authorizing the solicitation of bids for Rice Marsh Lake Drainage improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MTC OPT OUT PROGRAM: Mayor Hamilton presented a status report of Opt Out activities with surrounding cities. Representative Chuck Dimler explained the new legislation affecting this program. Council Meeting March 21, 1983 -12- 1982 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT LAW: The City Engineer discussed some of the pertinent information in the law: 1. The City is responsible to define the boundaries of the watershed I and establish a Watershed Management Organization in the form of a watershed district or a joint powers agreement by December 31, 1983. If not completed by that date, the County becomes the agency responsible for establishing a watershed district. 2. The Watershed Management Organization must complete a Watershed Management Plan (through 1990) by December 31, 1985. 3. Municipalities are then required to prepare local management plans in conformance with the district plan within one year of the overall plan's adoption. A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Mayor Hamilton to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I