Loading...
1983 07 18 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilwoman Swenson, Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Horn, and Councilman Geving Staff Present Scott Martin, Bill Monk, Bob Waibel, Don Ashworth, and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented with the following additions: 1. Status of Boat Access Plan, South Lotus Lake. 2. Enforcement of Sewer Hook Up Ordinance. 3. Billing process with former City Attorney. 4. Lake Riley. 5. Budget. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. a. Adopt Joint Resolution in Support of Proposed Southwest Corridor Transportation Improvements. RESOLUTION #83-32. b. Request to Operate Concession Trailer, Lake Ann Park, James Mamer. 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. MINUTES: Councilman Geving moved to note the March 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. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the June 22, 1983, Planning 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. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the June 22, 1983, Public Safety Commission 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. PROPOSED REPEAL OF ORDINANCES 45 AND 64 AND AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE 47 TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT REGUIATTONs-rO~NSEWERED PORTIONS OF THE CITY: MerrTll Steller, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Brenden, and Maynard Happe were-present. Councilwoman Swenson - I think I am still vacillating on this 2i to 5 acre thing. I wish somebody would convince me that we have to have five acres. I am not sure that I think it necessary to have five acres. I think it should be 2i. Council Meeting July 18, 1983 -2- Councilman Geving - I was for 2i acres from the very beginning but I caved in. I think now though that if we leave it at five we can always come back down. I think we ought to try it at five and see how the response is. Councilman Horn - I think the key to that is from the last paragraph above the recommendation on page 3, that this should be considered a interim measure. I Councilwoman Swenson - For our ordinance books, will we receive an insertion there that will state that this ordinance has been repealed? It is very confusing for people who may be want to look at our ordinances. Ordinance 45 will still be in there if we don't have a supplement to it saying this ordinance has been repealed by such and such. We don't seem to do that and it seems to me that we should because then new people coming on the Council, people on the Planning Commission, any citizens who might choose to go through the ordinances, it certainly would help to eliminate the con- fusion so if in fact we do pass this I would like to offer that as a suggestion. All I am asking is that we just have a piece of paper that goes behind Ordinance 45 saying that this ordinance was repealed and supplemented by. Why is that so difficult? Merrill Steller - For many years now, property owners in unsewered areas of the City of Chanhassen have been denied substantial property rights by Ordinance 45 and the City's interpretation of same. Your present proposal to repeal Ordinances #45 and #64, as amended, and to amend Ordinance #47 to increase the minimum single family lot size in unsewered areas from 2i acres to five acres is again unfair and denies substantial property rights to property owners. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission I on July 13, 1983, several people from the floor attempted to get an answer to the question IIWhy five acres instead of 2i?1I We were given answers such as: II I t w ill m a kef u t u res u b d i v i din g e a s i e r 0 n c e sewer i s a v ail a b 1 ell. I f this is the contention of this Council I request that this fact be demonstrated in black and white so I can understand your reasoning. Another implication at the public hearing was IIthat five acres was necessary to accomodate private septic systemsll. It is my contention that a 2i acre tract that passes the percolation requirements and with your new septic system amendment is more than capable of handling a single family residence with no danger to public health, welfare, and safety. Another answer was that it controlled density. What is your density goal? And doesn't it seem unfair when one single family residence per 2i acre tract is deemed too much when we have areas such as Chaparral? Another answer was simply IIthere is really no magic number and five acres seemed like a pre t t Y goo d fig u r e . II I her e by r e que s t t hat un 1 e s s the Co u n c i 1 can sub s tan - tiate the necessity of increasing the minimum single family lot size from 2i acres to five acres with pertinent facts and figures that the present requirement of a 2i acre tract minimum single family lot size be retained in the unsewered areas. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton - I think what I would prefer to do is to have, you had some specific questions there, I would like staff to address those for the second reading to give you more specific answers at that time. Maynard Happe - I was at the Planning Commission. I have a piece of pro- I perty. It was said that in the future it would be easier to subdivide a five acre piece than it would be a 2t acre. The property that I have is impossible to, it's 10 acres. You can It divide it into five acre because it would come right through the house thatls already on the property. It I I I Council Meeting July 18, 1983 -3- can't be cut down to 2i acres because it the lots would be too narrow and the proposal that I had was to cut it into three acres which the lots would be good lots. If this five acre one goes through I am stuck again. I have been trying since I bought the property to divide it and I have always been told that unless I tore down the house I couldn't build on it. Well, there has been pieces of property that have been divided since that time. I would like to voice my disapproval of this cutting it to five acres. I would say that each piece of property has it's own problems that you have to contend with. Mayor Hamilton - I certainly agree with your property. I can see your problem and I know your property and I can see where that probably wouldn1t be a problem there. Councilman Horn - If we said 2i acres there is nothing from preventing you from going ~hree. Councilwoman Swenson - When you consider your three acres, are you con- sidering roadways and this type of thing? Maynard Happe - It would all border on Dakota Lane. Councilman Horn - I would like to see some staff report on the types of properties that are available and just what the impact would be on several of these. Use this as one example and look up some other areas and see what impact this would have for us. Two, 2i, or five acres and approxima- tely how many people would be affected by it or that couldn1t subdivide at all because of that difference. Mayor Hamilton - Perhaps using Mr. Happe as an example. Talk to him and he can tell you what kind of lines he would want to have. There are other homes on that street already. Just get his ideas and see if what he is talking about doesn1t make sense for an area like that where there already is development taking place and I guess suggest back what some criteria might be for an exception. Scott Martin - This sort of study is the type of thing that the Planning Commission is doing now. It will be very time consuming and it1s going to dupicate what the Planning Commission has been talking about. There is always going to be people that aren't going to be accomodated because of minimum lot size. Councilman Geving - I might suggest another thing, that night when we talked about this Al Klingelhutz had a number of people from the south area here and I am sure they can fill you in or you could even look at some of those. They were the ones that actually agreed to the five acres. Councilman Horn - Could we get a layout of that property (Mr. Happe1s) and why it wouldnTt work? Ray Brenden - I feel the same as Mr. Steller and the other gentleman here that 2i acres is sufficient. I don't see any reason for five acres. I don't know why you want five acres. A septic system certainly can be placed on 2! acres and I think another thing that, I have been in this City for about 40 years and we have been getting a lot of adverse publicity lately on our tax situation and I think all you are doing is adding to that by calling for five acres when 2i will certainly be sufficient for a single Council Meeting July 18, 1983 -4- family home. In the area that we are in we don't get anything out of the City. I live on County Road 117. I gave the City a piece of property for $1.00 to put a booster station on for the well about ten years ago and we I probably have the poorest roads up there in the state when you look at Lake Lucy Road. I really feel that maybe it's about time that those of us that live outside of the area here are taken into consideration on some of these things. Thank you. Councilman Geving moved to place on first reading an ordinance repealing Ordinances 45 and 64 and amending the Zoning Ordinance 47 to provide deve- lopment regulations for unsewered portions of the City. 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. BILLS: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills as presented, Checks #14662 through #14738 in the amount of $905,280.52 and checks #19080 through #19156 in the amount of $543,050.56. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE OF MINNETONKA WEST JUNIOR HIGH, 6421 HAZELTIwr-BLVD: Councilwoman Swenson-moved to approve-a conditional use-permit for the adaptive reuse of Minnetonka West Junior High School, Planning Case 83-3, subject to the requirements of Section 7.04, subsection 11 of Zoning Ordinance 47. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, I Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION REQUEST, NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, CHARLES AND IRENE SONG: Mr. and Mrs. Song are seeking Council approv~to subdivide a ten acre building site from an approximate 110 acre parcel. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the subdivision request subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant receive an access permit from Carver County Public Works Department for access as proposed. 2. That the applicant deliver to the City, Certificates of Survey with legal descriptions for the resulting two lots prior to the filing of the conveyance. 3. That a certification from the City be filed with the conveyance indi- cating that the balance of the property is not eligible for any resi- dential, commercial or industrial building permits until such time as the ordinances governing the unsewered areas of the City are amended changing the building permit eligibility of the property. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No neg~.t.i"y.ei,vot.e...~..~, ~.?tion carried. Kf'_-~-\()¡;)i¡!()(\ (\,-, ~-,{r>,\ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN CHURCH, OUTLOT A AND PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK~ PLEASANT~ES: The Lutheran Church is proposing-ro- -- I construct a 1~00 square foot addition onto the existing church and make parking area improvements. The Planning Commission recommended approval with consideration for the possibility of requiring hook up to the sanitary sewer system. I I I Council Meeting July 18, 1983 -5- Council members expressed concern regarding connection to the city sanitary sewer system. Reynold Roberts - I am the architect on the project and also a member of the church. I guess it might be in order to give a little history on this whole thing which became more complicated as we moved along. As you can see by the site plan we have a very small building existing on 8i acre site. It was built about 17 years ago. We have been in the planning sta- ges probably for at least two years and seven or eight years ago we attempted to raise money to add on. We failed. We now were able to raise a modest amount of money in the form of pledges to put a small addition onto the building. The addition is around 1,500 square feet. We really don't generate probably as much waste as a single family residence. There is an average of one person there during the day, five days out of the week. Maybe no one there one day out of the week. We started our early planning and of course this was one of the first things that we thought about is let's check into the availability of sewer. Our existing septic system was in the way of the proposed addition. We didn't want to change that. We did inquire of Mr. Monk. We are talking here about a building cost of about $120,000 and we are talking about a total cost of running the sewer line, in addition to the charges that would be made by the City, of probably $12,000 or 10% of the total cost of our building. Very frankly, if we are required to do that, that would shoot down our project. If we were building and maybe some day we will, a $600,000 addition, of course you can see that even if that $12,000 grew to $15,000 or $20,000, we are still talking about a much smaller percentage of our total building budget. We were given the information that at some point along the way Holy Cross Church was given the opportunity to hook up when the sewer was installed but we are not required to do so and in the process of putting on this small addition that we would not now be required. It was optional. So we were looking at $4,000 as compared to a rough estimate of $12,000 and that is why, even though it might cost more in the future, we elected to go the way that we did. We all kind of overlooked this conditional use situation. Somebody said that construction had already started and this is true. I think a lot of us from the church weren't even aware of that situation. We were not aware that there would be a problem when we submitted the plans. When the contractor submitted the final plans, we have awarded a contract. The contractor has been waiting a month to resume work. He sub- mitted plans and specifications for a building permit and it was discovered that we have to come before the Planning Commission and the Council. That's kind of a capsule history of how we got to where we are. Councilman Geving moved to approve the conditional use permit as requested for the addition and parking area improvements for Holy Cross Lutheran Church of Minnewashta as proposed in Planning Case 83-4 and as depicted on the Roberts Architect's Plan dated received in Chanhassen's Community Development Department June 22, 1983, subject to a land alteration permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 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. SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 19 AND 20, MURRAY HILL: Mr. Richard Stout is requesting preliminary plat-approval to subdivide Lots 19 and 20, Murray Hill into three residential building lots. The Planning Commission recom- mended approval. Council Meeting July 18, 1983 -6- Councilman Horn moved to approve the subdivision request, Planning Case 83-6, as depicted on the preliminary plat for Murray Hill Second Addition dated received June 22, 1983, Chanhassen Community Development Department. I 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. CHANHASSEN CEMETARY, GALPIN BLVD. Mayor Hamilton moved to table action until someone from the association 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. CHES-MAR DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, CARVER COUNTY: Councilman Horn moved to approve the Carver County plan for improvements to Ches-Mar Drive with the condition that a street light be installed at the end of the street vaca- tion. 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. RILEY/MENTIN DRAINAGE AGREEMENT: RESOLUTION #83-33: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the City Engineer's and City Attorney's agreement to install improvements as outlined in the City Engineer's letter to Steven Riley dated June 14, 1983, and present a cash settlement of $3,500 to be split between adjacent owners. The $5,850 to be allocated from MSA Fund interest earnings to cover the expense of the improvements. 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. I OPEN STORAGE: The City Manager asked the Council if the staff should take ãfiïOre active role in removing trash, junk, business equipment, etc., or should staff look for a more comprehensive review by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney suggested warning letters followed by action for junk, trash, unlicensed cars, etc. As far as potential Zoning Ordinance violations, he recommended that the ordinance should be updated prior to citing violations. Council members requested a list of violators and violations for their review. 1984 PRELIMINARY LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION: The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the question of grant applications at their July 12 meeting. This discussion generated a concensus that at this point the City should be establishing development instead of acquisition as the number one park priority, unless that acquisition was contiguous to an existing park or a step in a developed plan. They recommended the following two prelimi- nary applications be submitted: 1. Development of Herman Field, an 11.3 acre park tract north of the intersection of Oriole and West 64th Street. Cost items would include the access road, parking facilities and overall site grading including drainage improvements. I 2. Installation of lights at a softball field at Lake Ann Park (probably Field #1). Councilman Geving - Rather than that development of Herman Field,and I know thatls an area in Chanhassen we are not doing a lot for the people up there recreation wise, but the big area in Chanhassen that gets the most play is I I I ouncil Meeting July 18, 1983 -7- Lake Ann and I like the idea of sometime proceeding with a park shelter. We need water put in there for one thing and at least restrooms. I think in terms of need there is a far greater need at Lake Ann than there is for Herman Field. Mayor Hamilton - Herman Field, I believe, we have about $30,000 already escrowed for development. Bill Monk - The Park Commission did wrestle with that same question. They came back in the position that what they would like to try and do would be to perhaps build a small shelter/change room type of set up at Lake Ann as just a yearly improvement type thing and not go full bore with the park shelter only because it is premature as far as utilities are installed. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to see something come back to us and say what the $30,000 would do at Herman Field. Bill Monk - Basically, what we were looking at is cost items to include under~ grant. The access road, parking facilities, and overall site grading which are by far the major cost because the site is not a real good one the way it sits right now and it needs a lot of work. We were looking at use of that $30,000 for construction of the ballfield and that type of thing. STATUS OF BOAT ACCESS PLAN, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE: Mayor Hamilton gave an update on ~status of the park plan. At this point it is very preliminary. Councilman Horn stated he would like to review the plan. ENFORCEMENT OF SEWER HOOK UP ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Swenson asked if the City can force connection TO the City sewer system. The City Manager stated there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the City can force connection or not. The City Attorney stated there is a specific state statute that says city's have the power to require people to hook up if sewer is available. LAKE RILEY: Councilwoman Swenson discussed the possibility of corporate effort between the Watershed District, DNR, Eden Prairie, and Chanhassen to help clean up Lake Riley. She would like to discuss this with Eden Prairie, DNR, and Watershed District to get their feelings. CITY ATTORNEY: councilman Geving - My concept of what we did back in late May and June was that we would farm out our legal practices to various expertise as the need arose much like we do the city engineering business. It was kind of a surprise later on to note that that particular firm (Larson & Mertz) was not listed in the last City Newsletter. I kind of expected that maybe somewhere along the line after 18 years of service to the City that they would get some share of the City business. It's only after I reviewed some of these memorandums that have taken place that I felt we needed to bring ourselves up to date on just what our concept is going to be on whether or not there would be some share of the City business given to Larson and Mertz for certain types of work. Don Ashworth - I am sure there are items that will involve Larson and Mertz. ouncil Meeting July 18, 1983 -8- 1983 BUDGET: Mayor Hamilton noted that several budgets were over 50% expended. (Legislative, Street Lighting, HRA) STEERING COMMITTEE, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT: The committee will be meeting next week to discuss alternatives and options for payments to John Havlik and Tom Krueger. This will be presented to the HRA for their decision. I A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman Horn to adjourn. 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 I