Loading...
1983 04 04 I I I CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 4, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Bill Ryan from the Planning Commission, Craig Mertz, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Don Ashworth, 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: Mayor Hamilton asked if council members wished to remove any items from the consent agenda to be discussed separately. Item b, Ordinance lOA, On-Site Septic Systems, Item e, Zoning Ordinance Amendment Extending Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for IIFast Food Restaurantsll, Item f, Resolution Opposing Governor's Plan for Distribution of State Aids, were removed from the consent agenda. Items hand i were deleted from the agenda. Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Traffic Signalization Agreement and RESOLUTION #83-11 for TH5/CR17 Intersection. c. Approve Street Light Conversion of NSP Fixtures from Mercury Vapor to Sodium Vapor. d. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Murray Hill 2nd Addition. g. RESOLUTION #83-12 Proclaiming Volunteer Recognition Week (April 17-23) j. Reset Special Meeting Date, Receipt of Bids, 1983 Bonds. April 26. 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. FIRST READING, ORDINANCE lOA, ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Swenson moved to amend Section 3, 3.01, of proposed Ordinance lOA by changing the following sentence. All such installations, construction, alterations, extensions, and repairs shall be executed in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance; provided, however, that the Inspector lIand Engineerll, may, by permit, allow an existing system which is in a state of IIfailurell, as defined by this Ordinance, to be restored to its original configuration, rather than being fully re-constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance, if in the opinion of the Inspector lIand Engineerll such restoration will abate the system's failure and that such restoration will reasonably assure satisfactory performance of said system. 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 moved to place on first reading proposed Ordinance lOA as amended. 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. Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -2- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR IIFAST FOOD RESTAURANTSII: Councilman Geving moved to deny the ordinance amendment. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. I The following voted in favor: Councilman Geving. Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn voted no. Motion failed. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve Ordinance 47K-8 Temporarily Prohibiting the Construction of Fast Food Restaurants within certain areas of the City. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. RESOLUTION OPPOSING GOVERNOR'S PLAN FOR DISTRIBUTION OF STATE AIDS: RESOLUTION #83-13: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve a Resolution opposing S.F. 487 and H.F. 545. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the March 7, 1983, Council minutes. 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. Councilman Geving moved to approve the March 21, 1983, Council 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. WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE: At the Council IS request Kim Elverum, DNR, was present to discuss the proposed Water Surface Usage Ordinance, specifically areas of the ordinance which the DNR denied. It was decided to set up a committee of Craig Mertz, Councilman Horn, Wally Coudron, and Henry Sosin to meet with Mr. Elverum and resolve the issues raised by the DNR. Mr. Elverum will prepare a written response to the ordinance as it currently stands and this letter will serve as a starting point of discussion for the committee. Wally Coudron will chair the committee. I Councilman Geving moved to table action on this item. 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. NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A WASH-OUT SYSTEM, APPLE VALLEY RED-E-MIX: Matt Fischer, Hugh Fischer, and Bruce Goldstein were present. Bob Waibel - Apple Valley is seeking approval of a conditional use permit, non-conforming use permit and ordinance variance request to install a wash-out system. They have been determined as a non-conforming use and as such are allowed to exist there until, I believe, the year 1992 at I which time they would have to terminate. The property is zoned Central Business District which does require a conditional use permit. The system would essentially re-use the water that is used for flushing out partial loads in the trucks and also cleaning out the plant at the end of a days I I I Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -3- operations. The PCA acknowledges that they have little information on this type of system or the cement industry itself but they agree that this has some potential or apparent benefits from an environmental standpoint. The City Attorney has concurred that a permit with the recommended conditions as found in the March 3rd staff report is acceptable. Mayor Hamilton moved that the conditional use permit and zoning ordinance variance for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Planning Case 82-4, be approved with the following conditions: 1. That Apple Valley, Inc. will immediately, upon the execution of the conditional use permit, install at its Chanhassen plant and at its own expense, a wash-out system, which installation shall be in accordance with the detailed plans and specifications as presented in Planning Case 82-4 Conditional Use Permit and as approved by the City Engineer. 2. That Apple Valley, Inc. agrees that it shall te¡minate the non- conforming use of its property located at 201 West 78th Street no later than July 1, 1992, in accordance with Section 20.01 of Ordinance 47 and furthermore shall not claim compensation from the City of Chanhassen for the investment costs of the wash-out system and appurtenances thereto in the termination of the use either through public acquisition or through the provisions of said SectiDn 20.01 ~f Ordinance 47. 3. That Apple Valley, Inc. obtain any necessary discharge permits for the wash-out system from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and/or Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 4. That Apple Valley, Inc. fill in the existing wash-out pit on the property to existing grade utilizing clean fill. 5. That the wash-out system have compliance to the performance standards for noise as contained in Ordinance 47-1. 6. That the silo that is laying on the ground be removed from the premises. 7. That a fence, similar to the fence around the Hanus facility, be constructed around the tank areas at a height of eight feet. 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. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, CARVER BEACH ESTATES: Councilwoman Swenson noted that she had talked with Joe Troendle and there is some question about the access to his property from new Nez Perce Drive. Councilwoman Swenson moved to table action until Mr. Troendle is satisfied that access is provided to his property. 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. Don Hess - I believe there has been a very honest attempt here to have an easement which has been drawn and given to the attorney and presented to Mr. Troendle granting him rights of easement over Lot 5 until such time that there is an alternative access provided. That1s been offered. I don It know why it has not been accepted. Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -4- Mayor Hamilton - Until it has been signed by Mr. Troendle, we are not going to deal with it. All this Council has asked for repeatedly is that there be an agreement so that we know that Mr. Troendle is not going to be landlocked. We want to see an agreement in writing. Joe Troendle - The first agreement that we signed with the understanding that I would have an access to the south. I wouldn't be landlocked. The reason we bought that strip of property on the north end of Carver Beach and the south end of our property is so we would have an out to the road that is just south of the lots that we own. I understand that Carver Beach Properties suggested that they would leave a lot open there that we can get through there. What I am interested in knowing, would the City of Chanhassen allow a road to be built in there? Just the fact that he leaves a lot open doesn't mean that you people would allow a road in there. That's the reason I didn1t sign the letter I got. At the present time I just have their say so that they leave a lot open but that doesn't assure me that the City would allow a road to be built in there. Don Hess - We can't presume to know what your action is going to be unless you take action on that. Joe Troendle - If I had the assurance from the City of Chanhassen that that lot would be open and available to whoever owns that property, whether it1s me or somebody else, to come in there with a road if we wish to, there would be no problem. I Don Ashworth - To do that there would have to be some type of a I contractual agreement entered into. You can It bind a future Council. I guess that's what Mr. Troendle wants to know is if we would guarantee a future Council. We can It do that short of literally some type of a contractual obligation so that means the agreement as written would have to be changed so that it would become a three party agreement wherein we would contractually commit to allowing that street to go through. Mayor Hamilton - Rather than debating this here, I think you ought to get together with the staff and try to reach some type of an agreement. Bill Monk - I don It think there is a plan in your packet that showed Lot 5. The Council as a whole does not, Don correct me if I am wrong, have any problem with pursuing a supplimentary agreement for access across Lot 5. I think that can be accomplished between Mr. Troendle, the City, and the developer. I am sure we can have that back on the next agenda for Council approval as long as the Council as a whole does not see any problem with that. Mayor Hamilton - Get together and work that out. Councilwoman Swenson - Would that be binding on future Council IS? Don Ashworth - I think it would have to work back with the Attorney's office. Councilwoman Swenson - Let's leave it there then. I I I I Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -5- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNSEWERED PORTIONS OF CHANHASSEN: Councilwoman Swenson - The motion as I read it in the minutes here, March 21st, is using Ordinance 64C as an interim ordinance adopting only Section 6 and that internal access must be provided for subdivisions of two or more lots and I guess I don't understand where did all this come from? Scott Martin - After going through the discussion at our last meeting and prior to my having knowledge of how the minutes were written, Pat, which I, too, had some problem with that after I saw the minutes and after I had done this, it was very apparent to me that if we are going to deal with the unsewered area we can It just slap some frosting on what we have got and say, now we are going to say you can It put a driveway access onto a certain type of street and that will take care of all our problems. What I tried to do was go a step further. The first thing we already did tonight was the first reading of Ordinance lOA which goes beyond the emergency septic system regulations and establishes the definitive septic system regulations when that's adopted. We went further than your action in that area because we were prepared to and we felt why fool around with a band-aid approach if we can do it right the first time. Councilwoman Swenson - We already have a restriction in 33 that says it has to be on a public street. We went through this exercise with Waldrip if you remember and we wouldn't allow any accesses onto Galpin Blvd. so I don't see that this is any different than that. Don Ashworth - This is a new ordinance as it would apply to the unsewered area so you are going to have to really take those features that you want from 33 and say, here is what is being included. If you don't explicitly say those, again, the court is going to have the same problem that they did with Dypwick. Councilwoman Swenson - Why do we have to have 500 feet on an ordinary street? Scott Martin - First of all the 500 foot frontage only takes affect for lots of 10 acres or more. The basic reason for that is so you don It get some very unusually long narrow lots, West 96th Street is a good example, that's going to make it very difficult in the future to re- subdivide with urban services. What you are trying to do is have the tracts rectangular in shape because it1s a lot easier to re-subdivide those in the future. Our definitive regulations, whenever they come into affect later this year, will not only provide for but require provisions for re-subdivision. This ordinance does not go that far. That's why I selected the larger lot size and a lower gross density so we can allow some development since you basically had the unsewered area shut down for new development in the last ten to 12 years, I think you ought to go gradually in this area rather than open up a can of worms and find that you have got a bunch of Hesse Farms allover that are going to be impossible to resubdivide. Councilwoman Swenson - Maybe that1s not all bad. Councilman Horn - I have a question about gross density, where do you draw the border line? Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -6- Scott Martin - It would be on the property to be subdivided. If a guy has got ten acres and he has a house on it he can It re-subdivide it because he has already got a density of one for ten. I Councilman Horn - I don't see a developer coming in here and doing these lots. I see people like Dypwick coming in here and buying ten acres. What's a development. Where do you draw the circle around this gross density figure? Scott Martin - It's from the parcel as of the date of the enactment of the ordinance. Craig Mertz - Using Clark's example of Dypwick, the developer would have been Teich. Councilman Horn - You are saying, the original property owner. Scott Martin - It's the size of the property that's recorded as a separate tract of land as of the date of this ordinance. Councilman Horn - Let me give you another example, let's say I go buy five acres from Al (Klingelhutz) and Pat (Swenson) goes and buys five acres from Al, is Al a developer now? Scott Martin - He is a subdivider. If Al has 40 acres, the most he can subdivide out of there are four new lots including the residual and the minimum of those lot sizes can be five acres. Councilman Horn - What I am getting at is where we apply this gross density and who is the developer? I donlt see this as a developer situation. I Scott Martin - You go back to the original subdivision of the tract as of the adoption of the ordinance. Councilman Horn - But it isn't subdivided as a tract. piece by piece years later and that's my whole point. you can assign a gross density. It's subdivided I don't see how Scott Martin - Itls the same as telling Lotus Lake Estates that your minimum lot size is 15,000 square foot but you can't have more than 2.9 dwelling units per acre so what's to say that the way a house is sited on a lot that ten years from now this guy wants to split his lot. It's the same difference but on a smaller scale. Councilman Horn - The difference is that Lotus Lake Estates comes in as PUD development. It's a subdivision. Scott Martin - So is this. Councilman Horn - It's a PUD subdivision as compared to a single unit subdivision. You can put a gross density figure on what he is doing I but how are you going to do it when he is not going to have an overall plat layout for those four, five acre chunks he can get rid of on this 40 acres. I I I Counci 1 Meeting Apri 1 4, 1983 -7- Scott Martin - You can certainly require it. I would suggest that you do. Craig Mertz - Carver County is keeping track of what parcels are being cut off of farms and judging then from time to time whether the farm is in compliance with this density. Councilwoman Swenson - If I would like to buy 15 acres of property and in my minds eye I am planning on giving five acres to each one of my children so all three of us have five acres, you are telling me I can't do that. Scott Martin - You could if you are buying 15 acres out of an original 40. Councilwoman Swenson - One of the problems I have with Ordinance 45 was the fact that is somebody had ten acres and want to divide their property in half for a son to build a house and we say no, you can It do that and to me this is repugnant. Somebody ought to be able to sell part of their land if they want to as long as it's within the five or 2~ acres. I just don't go for this maximum density. Councilman Horn - I think if we have got five acre minimum we don't need any gross density figure. Councilman Geving - We instructed staff to come back with a reasonable plan because we turned down the moratorium and I, too, was looking for Section 6 to be just lifted right out of there and that's what I expected to see tonight. I actually saw something better. I think staff went beyond what we asked them to do and I like what I saw. My personal feeling is that I saw five acres originally and then I got to thinking about it and I really think now my preference is for 2~ acre size lots. I think if we look down the road long enough or far enough you will find that if a person were to buy that 2~ acre lot there is less chance that he will in the future subdivide it into a lot of an acre or an acre and a half. I think the whole issue of maximum gross density should be thrown out. The main thing that we instructed staff is to go back and tell us how we could build in these sewage problems into the overall plan. That's really our problem and that's why we had Ordinance 45, at least that's my interpretation of the intent of 45 was so that we had some standards for sewage treatment in the unsewered area. I do think, as far as access restrictions are concerned that we should try to encourage the sharing of driveways to the maximum extent to keep the number of accesses onto Hwy. 101 or any other public road to a minimum and I don't know how you do that because once it gets divided up it's a matter of sharing and common agreement between two landowners. As far as the minimum building setbacks, I think they are fine. I think personally that these are reasonable. This would give the people that own the land an opportunity to sell, to develop into smaller pieces. I am going for the 2~ acre size lots. Al Klingelhutz - Item 1 on the first page concerns me a little bit. liThe Ordinance should apply only to lands lying outside the 1990 MUSA Line.1I I realize we all want sewer but what if there is a farm or two lying in between and that has to be developed before this third farmer, how is he going to do anything with his land and it's very possible that piece of land won't be developed before 1990. I guess that's my question on item Counci 1 Meeti ng Apri 1 4, 1983 -8- 1. Are we going to let that farmer sit there and not be able to, Pat I couldn't sell you a piece of land according to this ordinance. I did have a question mark on the density. I don't like the idea of being able I to sell a lot and give up five acres of land that I can't really do anything with according to this. Minimum lot width, 200 feet on a public street and then I go down to access restrictions, actually I don't believe there is a farm in Chanhassen except mine on West 86th Street that doesn't abut on a collector or a minor arterial or one of these other streets. In order for any of these farmers to sell a lot they would have to put a public street into their property. Another concern of mine, if you had a son that wanted to build a house or a daughter on your property, just want to subdivide off one lot, how would you get access to that lot if you can1t get onto one of these public streets? I went down to number 3 under Physical Site Requirements, IINo lot shall contain more than one acre of SCS Class I or II soilsll you have got a five acre lot, you have got a corner of land of 2t acres that's non-productive but adjacent to that you have got three acres of productive land, you couldn't sell that building site because you have got more than one acre of productive land. The next one that I have was IIAn SCS soil analysis report for the entire tract or parcel proposed for subdivision.1I Maybe I am wrong on this, if my farm was outside the MUSA Line and I was to subdivide it into five acre tracts, would I have to get an SCS report on the entire farm? Scott Martin - All that is being subdivided. Al Klingelhutz - If we went to the five acre minimum lot size and the ten acre density, would I have to do it on the whole farm? Scott Martin - Yes, thatls being subdivided. The idea there Al is that I works hand in hand with the requirement to preserve prime agricultural land, Class I and II soil. If you throw out the preservation of Class I and II soils and you are not concerned about the holding capacity of the property for septic systems on a general basis as the planning process begins. That kind of information has got to be provided to staff up front so that we can make some judgments on whether the layout of the proposed development, whether it's 2t acres or five acres, whether it makes any sense. Al Klingelhutz - If they go into a five acre minimum density and not the one in ten, I can see it makes some sense, but why would I have to do it on the balance of the farm that I can't subdivide until sewer get in there? Say I had a 100 acre farm and you went on the ten acre density, I could get ten units on that farm and I could put them on 50 acres and the other 50 acres would stay in agricultural land, why would I have to do it on that 50 acres? Scott Martin - I don't think you would. I mis-understood your question. The purpose of the soil analysis report is to look at those lots that are being subdivided for building not the residual that1s being retained in agricultural production. Scott Martin - If you are of the opinion to allow greater development than what's suggested in here, that might be a throwaway because you can't preserve farm land and then allow 2t acre parcels to be developed at the same time. I Al Klingelhutz - I guess my biggest problem with taking all Class I and II soils, that's about the only soil that's really good for building too. I I I Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -9- Councilman Geving - I doubt that we are going to be able to preserve much farm land. Al Klin~elhutz - There is one other question I have on the 12% slopes. I know 12~ slopes are quite a hill but you get a nice 12% south slope, the most beautiful place to build a solar home that you have ever seen or an earth home, you are building into the slope, where you come out of the house it's fairly level, that's one other question I had, too. Mayor Hamilton - What we need to consider right now before we go any further is whether or not the Council wants to consider the ordinance as it has been presented to us or do we want to do as we had moved on March 21st to recognize Ordinance 45 and adopt Section 6 of Ordinance 64C. Personally I am not in favor of being as restrictive as the ordinance that Scott has presented to us this evening. I think if we did what we originally intended on the 21st of March and I think we discussed it at some length at that time, and we all felt comfortable with that. Now we are looking at something completely different. Councilwoman Swenson - We might mention also, that our motion, although we don't rubber stamp the Planning Commission, coincided with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Hamilton - That's a good point because we decided this is something we wanted to do this should go back to the Planning Commission for their recommendations. We followed the Planning Commission recommendation and I thought it was a good one and still do. Councilman Horn - I am uncomfortable with moving ahead with this too, based on the fact that the Planning Commission hasn't seen it. I see two possibilities, one would be to go as they had originally recommended or the other possibility would be to run this past them for their review to see if they agree with us that it's not as good as what their recommendation was or at least get their recommendation on what's been presented. I suspect they will probably feel the way we did on it. It puts us in a bad situation. We are seeing something that they haven1t seen. I would like to get their comments on it. Craig Mertz - They would have to have a public hearing on this. I am really puzzled about what the Council IS intention is with respect to Ordinance 45. We have one section in 45 that says that subdivision is prohibited until sewer is available. A motion was made by the Planning Commission to repeal. 45, that failed. The Council IS action appears to be basically the same thing. Is it the Council IS intention that we are going to enforce all of Ordinance 45 except for one provision that prohibits subdivision until sewer is available? Scott Martin - Which means you are allowing 2~ acre lots. What I was trying to do was eliminate Ordinance 45 so we don It have all these conflicts between ordinances. Ordinance 45 tries to do two things. It tries to be a subdivision ordinance and a zoning ordinance. The court didn't like that. Mayor Hamilton - Ordinance 45 is not a bad ordinance. Council Meeting, April 4, 1983 - 10- Craig Mertz - If you do want to allow these 2~ acre lots and you want to dO it in a simple fashion, which is what I seem to be hearing, I would suggest that you repeal Section 2.01 of Ordinance 45, that's the one that says that sewer has to preceed the subdivision, and then also enact the emergency septic requirements which were in Section 6 of the draft. Bill Monk - That's already been done with lOA. I Mayor Hamilton - Bill, do you recall if that's what the Planning Commission did? Bill Ryan - No, we did not repeal it. We were being asked to interpret what the intent of Ordinance 45 and 33 were when they were passed and how they should interpreted now, what is the intent of the document that we intend to draft and it just wasn't the right place to answer that but we did want to do something to protect the public welfare and safety of the people that if they do develop out there we insisted they develop something that's going to protect them and their neighbors. Public health was our main concern. We didn't want to try to interpret at that time what was the intent of Ordinance 33. The real question that came up in our meeting was, was the Subdivision Ordinance drafted to allow development in 2~ acre parcels or was it written to restrict development and none of us felt in a position to be able to answer that question. Mayor Hamilton - It seems like what I hear the Council saying is they are in favor of five acres and repeal the portion of 45 to allow subdivisions and include adoption of Section 6 of Ordinance 64C. Councilman Geving - Could we ask for a show of hands on the 2~ or five acres? I think that's a key issue. I Mayor Hamilton - Let's just ask, would you be in favor of 2~ or five acres? Councilwoman Swenson - I can't say because we have a lot of farms on Highway 5 and I would rather have five acre farms if we are going to give access onto Highway 5. Mayor Hamilton - We said here, also, to add a section, internal access must be provided for subdivisions of two or more lots. Councilwoman Swenson - I am going to abstain. one way or the other. I don It have a feeling Councilman Geving - I will stay with 2~ acres. Councilwoman Watson - Some day we are going to run sewers in here and who is going to pay for those sewers? With five acre tracts there is not going to be anybody who can afford to pay their sewer assessment. Would 2~ acre parcels make it easier for the potential for paying for putting the sewer in some day? Mayor Hamilton - It is so depressing to talk to the Metro Council and I seeing what they are trying to do and I am not so sure we will ever develop this area. I I I Council Meeting April 4, 1983 -11- Councilwoman Watson - It's a long ways off but you know we have already had sewer projects that didn't pay for themselves because we bet that things would develop and people couldn't pay it and we forced development. Mayor Hamilton - Now we are talking about the year 2000 before they allow us to do much of anything so we were asking these people who have land that perhaps they would like to sell or build something on to wait until at least the year 2000, that's not fair to them. Hopefully, by the time we get that far down the road there will be another sewage disposal system. Councilman Horn - I see this as somebody going out and putting a house in the middle of nowhere and eventually thatls going to get into an area that has all housing development in there. I think what will happen is that with five acres you have allowed enough space that you could plan a subdivision around that at a later point. I don't see this thing being crowded or any sewer going in until you have eventually put a subdivision in. With a subdivision you have changed the whole character and you are talking about 15,000 square foot lots and by putting a five acre parcel there you have given yourself enough flexibility that you can work that house into the rest of the subdivision. The guy that moves out and buys five acres isn't going to look at that as a thing that he can subdivide later and put a neighbor on. He moving out there to get away. The only time he's going to subdivide again is when he has got sewers in. That's really the way I see this concept working. Councilwoman Watson - Five acres. Al Klingelhutz - I guess you could have been pretty well protected by that. The ordinance states that the one side yard has to be so many feet and the other one so many feet so that you can get another lot or two in there. I am not adverse to the five or 2~ acres. Councilwoman Swenson - I would hope that the City has learned a lesson in regard to the North Service Area and that if in fact the sewer goes through people with five acres, for example, understand that these are the number of assessments on that property and they are going to be levied right away. Mayor Hamilton moved to support Ordinance 45 and repeal Section 2.01 of Ordinance 45, adopt Section 6 of Ordinance 64C, set the minimum lot size of five acres, and include a provision that internal access must be provided for the subdivision of two or more lots. 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. LAKE DRIVE EAST FEASIBILITY STUDY: In light of the letter received from Dean Scheff of CPT, Councilwoman Swenson moved to direct the Engineer to prepare a resolution authorizing the Engineer to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Drive East. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton voted no. Motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Mayor Hamilton presented a outline of steps to be taken by a subcommittee comprised of the Chairman of the HRA, Chairman of the Planning Commission and himself, to insure that work continues on the downtown redevelopment project. No action was taken. Counci 1 Meeti ng Apri 1 4, 1983 - 1 2- SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITING AUTHORITY: A bill has been introduced in the Legislature (H.F. 883) which would change the county site selection authority to basically an advisory committee and give the county boards I the final authority to make the actual selections. Representative Dimler was present. Council members voiced their opposition to the proposed legislation. No action was taken. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. 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. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I