Loading...
1983 08 22 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1983 Mayor Hami1ton ca11ed the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the F1ag. Members Present Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Geving, and Councilman Horn. Member Absent Councilwoman Swenson Staff Present Bill Monk, Don Ashworth, and Bob Waibel. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the consent agenda pur- suant to the City Manager's recommendation. 1. Final Plat Approval, Near Mountain Second Addition. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. There being no one present, Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: Councilwoman Watson - I have never seen the results of the survey. Don Ashworth - I can make sure that the Council receives a copy of those. I thought that they had been distributed previously. The results were very limited as far as the results that we received back. They were not posi- tive and I guess that's basically what they are saying in here. Councilman Geving - I am very disappointed in the proposal to reprogram $105,000 that this Council had worked so hard over the last three or four years to acquire to build a senior citizens housing community in Chanhassen. We worked very hard to acquire those funds. We pigeon-holed them. We saved them and then we did a survey which as far as I am con- cerned we didn't do a very good job on. I never saw the survey results and until this June 1st, a letter that appears tonight in our Council packet, we were advised back in June that there was some problem with the elderly housing survey and that we would have to be forced to reprogram that money or lose it and as a result of that I became very excited because I had pro- mised over the last three or four years senior citizens housina for this community. I was trying to save the kind of monies that we wo~ld need to Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -2- do that and now I see that the HRA and others are proposing to reprogram this money, not to build Chanhassen but to tear down Chanhassen. The money is going to be proposed to be used to, in one case, clear a site preparatioYI of the Old Instant Web Building. That's not constructive as far as I am concerned. I don It appreciate getting this kind of a memorandum from the City Staff on the 21st of August and we have to make a decision by September 1st, when we had this memorandum over two months ago. The results of the survey would have been very beneficial to us had it been brought to our attention on June 1st. I just feel very badly about this whole thing and it's going to be very difficult for me to go to senior citizen1s on Thursday afternoon, which I do attend quite regularly, and tell them that we cannot have a senior citizens housing available for them in this City because we have reprogramed their money for other purposes. Quite frankly, I don It think this survey was done properly. If you will look at what Chaska and other communities that have built facilities such as this have done, they have gone to the churches, gotten their support, made their surveys known. Those are the people that you have got to get to. You cantt just put a survey in the City Newsletter and expect to get results. I could have predicted a very negative result. Until I see the results of the survey and the reasons why the negative responses came in I can It go along with the HRA proposal. That's another thing, why was this presented to the HRA before it was presented to the City Council? This is the first I have heard of this. I am very much negative. I am very much not in favor of reprograming these $105,472 for the purpose of tearing down Chanhassen. I want to build something in Chanhassen. At the same time I would like to have the Community Development staff member advise the planning core area citizens advisory committee that we have tabled this and cannot respond to their September 1st date until we have a chance to meet I and discuss it further. Councilman Geving moved to table action. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the July 20, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Geving. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Horn abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the July 21, 1983, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the July 27, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CARVER BEACH BOAT ACCESS, REVIEW BOAT MOORING, STORAGE AND DOCK POLICIES: Mayor Hamilton - I think as most of the audience knows and as-Gouncil mem- bers are aware, Don Ashworth and myself have met with the Carver Beach I people on two separate occasions in an attempt to resolve this issue. What I was trying to do was to come up with some type of a verbal agreement that the Carver Beach people could be happy with and that the City could be happy with and that I could support to the Council so that we could do away with this process and move a little more quickly. Unfortunately we have I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -3- been unable to reach an agreement. As you read in the packet, a proposal was made to the Carver Beach Association and frankly that has not been totally acceptable to them and to other people around the lake. What I would like to do is ask a representative from the association to speak. If you are not a member of the association and you would like to speak, please raise your hand and I will be happy to get to you just a quickly as posssible. Roger Byrne - I am representing myself. I live at 6724 Lotus Trail. It's about like you said, a lot of people aren't happy with it and it seems to me it should be tabled until we can work somethinq out instead of votina on it yes or no tonight. Let's just put it off, wait until everybody can work something out that is agreeable to everybody and then run it before the Council. Marilyn Holter - President of Sunrise Hills. On behalf of Sunrise Hills I would like to voice our concerns regarding the Carver Beach petition to have a mooring for 20 boats for the following reasons: 1. Lotus Lake is.a small lake and an additional 20 boats would be hazar- dous and unsafe. 2. There is no rationale for allowing Carver Beach homeowners to moor boats when Sunrise Hills homeowners and Lotus Lake Estates homeowners and other associations on the lake are not allowed to do the same. 3. By allowing one you are establishing a precedence and opening the door for other associations to request the same privilege. Our recommendation is that you postpone a decision on this issue until the public access issue is decided and until the reclassification of Lotus Lake has been completed. These issues are critical and should be considered carefully before making a decision on the Carver Beach proposal. Bob Dols - I am on the Board of Directors for the Lotus Lake Association and the position that the board has taken on the proposal that was pre- sented to the Mayor and Council in a letter dated June 6th from Mr. Glen Grenier, I found to be not acceptable based on the fact that it1s asking for privileges that would be counter to what I consider to be in the general public interests. I feel that the proposal that they have setforth by stipulating that the permits and canoe racks be exclusively for the use of the Carver Beach residents, takes public property out of the domain of the public and dedicates to what is essentially private usage by one segment of the community. It is particularly unfair to those residents who by virtue of the fact they don It happen to reside in a particular part of the community are denied a privilege that certain people are asking to be given to them. I think it's also somewhat unfair to those residents of the community who have had their homes and their property assessed at a fairly significant rate for the purposes of tax information to have this public property turned over for private usage, it's to the detriment of those few who are paying higher rate of taxes for the privileges that these people are asking for at what I assume to be no increase in their taxable rate on their homes. Mayor Hamilton - Just to clarify one thing that you have said and that is If there were to be canoe racks put down there, mooring buoys, should something like that be done that would be available to every resident in the City, not just the residents of Carver Beach. It would be on a permit basis so you would have as much an opportunity as I or anybody else to obtain a permit to moor your boat there. I am not saying it would be done. Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -4- Glen Grenier - 6630 Lotus Trail. I don It have anything prepared formally I am just going to reiterate a few points that we brought to your attention. One of the points which comes to mind immediately is that the thing that I the people of Carver Beach are asking for is not something that is a new privilege but we are asking to retain a privilege which has been exercised for 20 or 30 years. The situation has existed and we are asking to retain that. We have illustrated to you that the usage that we are asking for based on a public opinion survey represents only~ I believe, 3~ to 5 addi- tional households on the lake. We are not talking about a marina so to speak. The survey results indicated that the people in that area feel that is one of their rights. If the City takes that right away that the City is well in the wrong and this does not only represent the opinion of people along a very specific area of the beach but people well into the area of Carver Beach. In written response on our survey, we got back a great deal of comments about how they can't believe how the City is removing this pri- vilege which they have exercised in the past and they can't remember what happened, how the City has gotten such great control over that. We would like you to see favorable upon the request that we have made. Now, that's not to say that we are not willing to compromise as well. The second meeting we had and discussed some possible alternatives, we all left that feeling fairly positive and that keeping the swimming raft that we felt would be a reasonable thing, we agree with that, and also providing canoe racks, we agree with that. It's just specifically the issue of mooring that we can It seem to come to complete terms on and there were some propo- sals made but they were, I guess, too limited in scope to satisfy everyone. There was a proposal with regard to the issue of mooring that people north of the boat launch should be allowed to continue to use that property without intensification until those people no longer owned that property. I We felt that, that was a little bit too limited although it IS in a direc- tion that we would like to go. Our counter proposal would be that those persons who are concerned enough about this issue in the spring of the year to have made formal request to the Sheriff's Department be given the privi- lege to continue using the property until they no longer own their pro- perty. That would be something that would fit the immediate desires and if further discussion of the issue is needed or we feel that morring is needed on a larger scale~ we feel it would be appropriate to approach that through the Park and Recreation Commission. In summary~ we agree with the propo- sals that we have come to terms on, in terms of keeping the swimming raft~ the City providing canoe racks, keeping the launch open perhaps when a new one is established, that is another issue, however, and to allow those people who have applied in the spring of this year to the Sheriffls Department for mooring permits, be able to moor until they no longer own property in Carver Beach. Rick Friedlander - I live in Sunrise Hills. It is my understanding that one-of the issues facing the Council is where to put one public access to Lotus Lake. We are currently considering one on the south end of the lake and that would mean that the access that's currently available in Carver Beach would be closed out. I think that would be kind of rough for the people in Carver Beach who are used to having a nice place to put their boats in and it might be a neat idea to consider one of a couple of alter- natives. One would be to have the Carver Beach site as the one public I access site and have it meet the DNR's requirements for adequate parking~ etc. so that it would be available for public use. Another possibility would be to perhaps deed the pieces of land over to the group at Carver Beach that would be responsible for cleaning up and maintaining and putting up canoe racks and doing this sort of things as are all the other asso- I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -5- ciations around the lake. It seems to me I am afraid that the City should be taking care of essentially a private beach lot for the people of Carver Beach. David Wollan - I am from Sunrise Hills. There are quite a few issues that have been brought up this evening. I think the one at hand that we should be looking at is the saving for all and what would benefit the most for all and I think you have a handfull of people that would benefit the most out of this. One thing to look at is the safety factor for the lake and the size of the lake. As you well Lotus Lake is not a very deep lake and the more boats you have got on there the more they are going to tend to be out in the straight away and some of those straight aways are very narrow and the lake is not long at all. I think you are looking at a hazardous situation in the future. Henry Sosin - I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I would like to make a few points which are probably redundant but at least let me put them in my perspective. The issue tonight is whether public property, owned by the citizens of Chanhassen, can be used for a restricted group of private citi- zens. My personal feeling is that, that1s incorrect, it's wrong and as people elected to office you couldn't conceivably consider doing such a thing. This is not a new issue. There have been letters from the City Council and City Staff to the residents of Carver Beach this year, last year and some years even into the seventies concerning this very issue, asking them to remove private boats, private docks, etc. It was initially done on the request by the City Council and at that time you had a lawyer telling you, the City Attorney, telling you that you were perfectly within your right that this was truly public land, not private land and that this should not be used for those purposes. I understand in the recent past another lawyer independently looked over all the information and assured the City that the City does own that land. There are no preconceived or preconditions related to the transfer of the property to the City in lieu of their property taxes and that the City Council can do whatever they wish with that land. The Council, in February, when facing this same issue has already voted, I believe unanimously, that private use of public land is incorrect and these boats, docks, whatever, should have been removed and I understand issued an order to that affect. Through proper channels issued letters which were eventually disregarded and then people from City Staff went to actually remove this material and were faced by a group of people and literally threatened at that point. I wasn't present. That's only what I understand. The grounds, I believe, which this request is based on is really groundless. I can understand it is the desire of the Carver Beach people to have use of that land but I don't think there are any legal or moral grounds upon which to base that request. The gentleman from Carver Beach who asked for the opportunity to retain privilege, usage does not grant privilege and since the privilege is not legal in the first place I don't think there is any reason in which to continue the use of private property. I think that the citizens of Carver Beach gave that land freely. They were not under duress and deeded the land to the City of their own free will. I don't think as other people have said tonight, that the issue should be tabled for further study. I think the City Council should uphold their prior decision, namely that public property owned by the City should not be used by individual private people, at least a small select group. Mrs. Gordon Tock - I would like to make a comment to these people of Sunrise HillS:--I live right there by the public opening now and I see these boats come in all the time and where they go is either across from us Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -6- or they go down towards Sunrise Hills. I don't believe there are 20 big boats in Carver Beach area because people that live in that particular area cannot afford them. We want to be able to fish and since these more expen- sive homes have moved in down at the other end of lake, we do not have that privilege anymore. We go out on that lake and try to fish and all we have is skiers and they are very careless how close they come to a boat. It's not us that have the big boats that are causing all of this ruckus as far as your lily pads and your lotus's are concerned. I Georaette Sosin - I am on the Board of the Lotus Lake Association. I am really sorry that tonight actually had to occur or is occuring because I think the very last thing that anybody who lives on our lake or any other lake or in any community wants to do is to confront each other in any unpleasant or negative manner. I think that all kinds of actions have been taken by many people to avoid this because we all live in a very, very small finite lake that's very fragile, we all worry about it, we all have children, we all worry about the children, we worry about the traffic and in escence the only difference between Carver Beach and the Lotus Lake Association or any other association is that those of us in the Lotus Lake Association do own our lakeshore. If they indeed take the land back and own their lakeshore they will be a part of our association. I have always assumed that we have worked together as far as the safety of the lake is concerned and as far as preserving the lake which is very, very now close to be being in bad condition. I do believe that the Carver Beach people want to have the best interests of the whole community at heart, we cer- tainly do, and I think that tonight as a matter of principles and I think that what Council has voted on through the public process was a decision that Council should uphold and should continue to uphold. Hopefully, Carver Beach residents and all the rest of us in this room tonight will continue to work together to try and keep the lake from deteriorating and be friends and neighbors because no one is trying to take anyones rights away. I think all of us here want very much to see that the lake be used fairly and properly. I Candy Takkunen - I just wanted to clarify some things that the Lotus Lake Taskforce, after hundreds of pages of testimony and dozens of hours of work presented our conclusions here at a public hearing in June that issue sort of is somewhat at rest or in a process now and I would invite you to read the hundreds of pages of testimony if you have any questions. I know that there are a number of people from Carver Beach who came and talked to us during those times. I did find the minutes from our June 1st meeting and I wanted to read part of those this evening because at that meeting when we were coming to our final conclusions and the conclusion at that meeting you probably know was that the Lotus Lake Taskforce supported one boat landing on the lake and that that at present time is the site owned by Bloomberg on the south end of the lake. At that meeting after coming to those conclu- sions, a question was asked and I quote, "from a Carver Beach resident, what would happen to the access currently being used in Carver Beach?" and the by our committee was "that it would be permanently closed in such a manner that it would be unusable to anyone. II This is also a direct quote, a comment from the Carver Beach residents who were in attendance, "that would be just fine with the residents in that area, we would not object to havina the access closed.1I I would conclude that after the hours that we that we had of having this issue presented to us that, at this point, in mind, that part of the issue, not the canoe racks and that sort of thing, but that, that part of the issue is closed. I I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -7- ~ Kina - I am from Sunrise Hills. We do a mlnlmum amount of boating on the lake but the times that we have been on the lake, I have been very con- cerned about safety in the Carver Beach area. In that location where there is the swimming raft and there are swimmers often times out in the middle of the lake and as the boats are going by, I am very concerned about someone getting hit by a boat. I would be much more concerned if there were a boat mooring and access in that area. I think that would increase the risk and the danger in that area. Glen Grenier - With regard to the property, the property that we are requesting to retain the privilege of using is not a portion of the City owned property that is being maintained at all by the City. With regard to the safety factor of the lake, it is very likely that the amount of usaqe that we are asking for in terms of hours of use per boat on the lake woüld be very likely less than 20 hours per season. That's quite a small number. The safety of the lake is at this point in time with the state of the lake, more related to the nutrient pollution level of the lake and not the amount of boats moored on the surface. With regard to exclusive private use of public property, I don It think we are asking for use of this property in such an exclusive sense as is being portrayed here tonight. With regard to the incident that occured in Carver Beach when the City came down to claim the watercraft moored in front of this property, there was no threats issued and it was not a violent confrontation. It was an illustration that this is a local neighborhood issue even though it is a public lake and that there were concerned citizens and that the City should perhaps listen a little bit more to what we had to say and we offered a public opinion sur- vey to help speak for all the people in the area. I guess I don It believe that it's a moral issue. I don It believe it's a big safety issue as well because of the fact that the amount of usage that we are asking for is so minimal. I guess because it's a precedent is why it appears, in many people IS eyes, to be such a large thing. Ron Harvieux - I live at 6605 Horseshoe Curve. I happen to be a lakeshore owner. As I listen to this it begins to drive a question in my mind as to what it is that I supposedly have, as being a lakeshore owner and paying the taxes that I am paying, that the people who are requesting to use public land in a fashion that's the same as what I have. I can look at it. They can look at it. I can put a boat on it. They can put a boat on it. Yet, I am paying significantly more money to do that. Whether I use it or not or whether they use it or not, I don't think is the issue. I don It use mine very much either. It's there for me to use. I am sure that if their's is there for them to use they mayor may not use it. I just think it's a basic issue of fairness. I am paying dearly for something. I think that the rights that I have are pretty much the same thing that they are asking for without paying for it. Henry Neils - I pay just about everything that I make to live on the lake. This privilege I have of being able to moor my boat there and have my children raised there is very important to me and if I have to pay dearly for it I think that everybody else can make those same sacrifices too. Mayor Hamilton - I guess as a matter of clarification, one of the reasons why this came back again was simply because when the confrontation took place this spring in the Carver Beach area I thought there must be a better alternative than to have the Sheriff's Department and some of our good residents standing out there eyeball to eyeball threatenina each other or discussing it in a very heated manner. Consequently, I feït there must be Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -8- a compromise position that we could reach that would satisfy a majority of the people involved. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that but I felt there were some unusual circumstances that were present here. I wanted to have an opportunity to review those and to discuss it with the people that live I in the area and we were unable to reach agreement and consequently it's back to the Council now. I do think there are some unusual circumstances that apply to that property. It's an unusual piece of property in the first place. If it was possible for the City to give it back to the resi- dents of that area I would be more than happy to do that. That would cer- tainly solve the problem. They could pay the taxes on it and use it as they saw fit. Unfortunately, as far as I know, legally we are unable to do that. Councilman Horn - I think the biggest issue in my mind is the use of public land. I have been very concerned about that area in the past because the City has spent a considerable amount of money already developing that park site and then we turn around and put up no parking signs so that the resi- dents can It use it. To me that really makes an area an exclusive use because it can It be used by all citizens. It can only practically be used by citizens that live in the area. If we truly want that to be public pro- perty we are going to put some type of permit system out there for mooring or whatever and the no parking signs have to come down so it's feasible to be used by a majority of the City. That was my position when we voted on this earlier and I still hold that position. Councilwoman Watson - Our basic thing to do first is to vote on whether we want to reconsider this? The decision was already made back in February. I don't know that I have heard anything particularly different. I know I I live one block from a City Park and we have no more privileges than anyone does who goes down to Lake Ann Park or any other City Park. We have a pic- nic table and the City mows it and there is a barrel, that's it. We can walk down there. We can't take a vehicle in there. We can It launch a boat from there unless you can launch it by hand and I am sure that if any pre- cendent were set by allowing these special privileges in anyone City Park you are going to have them in the rest of them. Councilman Geving - It bothers me a lot to see a a lot of people in Chanhassen who are residents and neighbors and friends divided over issues that they really should be working together on because you all live on Lotus Lake for the most part. It's a small lake and for almost 50 years or better this Carver Beach Association seemed to have gotten along. In the 16 years that I have lived in the City I don't recall any major incidents in the entire area. We have no police problems down there. We have no problems with people. Everything seems to go smoothly as compared to other parts of the community. In fact we have so many other dividing things that happen in Chanhassen that this is a small issue when you put it in its totality. We are divided by things like Highway 5 and Highway 7, three school districts and 24 square miles of property, and now we are talking about a small lake consisting of homeowners throughout the area that are divided over one little issue. We voted back on February 3rd of this year to do one thing and that was to clear up an area that seemed to be in conflict with our ordinances and we did that unanimously as a group we I decided that there should be no mooring, docking of boats and any other facilities on public lands. We have had an opportunity as a City Council to discuss this and I think as elected officials you have got to recognize that many times we make unpopular decisions and so the decisions that were made on February 3rd were unpopular to some people and yet to other people I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -9- were the right thing to do. We are not always right but we try to be and we try to listen to all the people in Chanhassen. On this issue alone I know that I have talked to many of you out there. I feel the group that we got together to study the lake on the launch facility was proper and that their decision and recommendation to the City was proper and hopefully we will have a launch facility on the south end of Lotus Lake and at that time we will close for all time the Carver Beach launch facility. I think if the raft met the specifications for our ordinance, I would say that it has a proper use there. I would say I have heard nothing new and I am very much in favor of continuing with the vote that was made on February 3rd and that was to not provide any docking, mooring or any other facilities on public lands. No action was taken. ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, REPEALING ORDINANCES 45 AND 64: Mayor HamilfOn~Those of you who had questions pertaining to this proposed ordinance amendment, have your questions been answered? Merrill Steller - I haven It seen any answers. When were these made available? Mayor Hamilton - I believe they were prepared Friday. Don Ashworth - You (Merrill Steller) had presented questions to the Council and the Council had asked for responses to those questions. Mr. Martin prepared the responses basically to the City Council. Merrill Steller - I haven't had a chance to read these but I will do that now. Don Ashworth - The question was, why five acres instead of 2!. Mr. Martin responded to the Council a number of points. One that the Council had gone through this process starting in April. That the City Attorney had reviewed the item and determined that the Council should go back through a public hearing process with the Planning Commission. That process when initially considered by the Council had become five acres. That is what went back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin brings up the points of concern as to our sanitary sewer system. We have had a number of failures. In our 201 Study reflected a number of failing septic systems within our community. Mr. Martin notes those failures and questions basically any time you reduce the acreage you have a greater chance for a failure of a septic system. The City Planning Commission at the current time is going through this issue. They will have their work completed by the end of the year. I am not sure at this point in time exactly what that recommendation wi 11 be but I am pretty well assured that it wi 11 be a spl it recommendation that they will be making recommendation for lower standards in a portion of the community and larger lots in the area right now that is referred to as rural service area. I don It know what will finally come out of the Planning Commission but it is recommended that the City take a conservative position at this point in time in putting in the five acres versus the 2!. I am confident they will not go below the 2! but it is potential that they would stay at five acres. There was a secondary question, the City implied during the public hearing that five acres was necessary to accommodate pri- vate septic systems. liMy contention is that a 2! acre tract passes the per- colation requirements is more than capable of handling a single family residence." Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -10- Mr. Martinis response was that it is true that a septic system could be accommodated on 2t acres or even 15,000 square feet. However, we have had problems within the City in terms of developments on smaller acreage where septic systems have failed. The question, IIWhat is your density goal?1I The Comprehensive Plan establishes four primary residential density cate- gories for residential developments in the City. Rural density which is 2t acres per unit. This density is presently limited to The Hesse Farm area in southern Chanhassen. Low density where you have one to 3.4 dwelling units per acre with an average density of 2.2 units per acre to be used as a guide in this area. Medium density where you have 3.5 to 6.9 units per acre with an average density of four units per acre. High density we have more than seven units per acre. The low, medium, and high density I refer to are only allowed in the area where we have full municipal improvements. Mr. Martin notes that the Planning Commission is currently considering three different districts, A-l which would be agricultural rural with 40 acre minimum lot area. They have a second category at present which is A-2 agricultural urban with a five acre minimum lot areas and R-1A large resi- dential lots having four acre minimum lot area. I ~ Klinaelhutz - It seems to me that this group of people here have been mighty patient. I find now that you have come up with a five acre ordi- nance which will probably last four or five months and it almost seems like an effort in futility to have gone to all these meetings and then at the end of the year you are going to come up with an altogether different ordi- nance for the rural area. I thought we were going to establish something here that would go into the comprehensive ordinance that you are preparing and not have to go through a rehearsal on it again in three or four months. Mayor Hamilton - It would certainly be hopeful that whatever happens here this evening would be used as a guideline by the Planning Commission. Take it back to them and it would be a strong indication of the direction that the Council would like to see zoning go and I would be less than happy if they were to take a different direction. I Al Klingelhutz - I heard something about one in 40 in parts of Chanhassen, 15 that all the area outside the urban service line? Bob Waibel - The 40 acre minimum lot area is the A-l District which would be this area starting in the central west portion of the City and then going down what we call Bluff Creek Watershed to Pioneer Trail. Al Klinaelhutz - Would that line go down old County Road 17 or follow the old MUSA Line? Bob Waibel - It appears to follow quite closely the old MUSA Line. Al Klingelhutz - Most of the people here are from that south area and they are looking for something less than the one and 40 I am sure. Frank Fox - What size lots did they have the trouble with the sewer? Councilman Geving - I would say five acre lots on West 96th Street. I Don Ashworth - There were some in The Hesse Farm area and on West 96th Street, Camp Tanadoona area. Jim Thompson - Can you give us the cost of what the Federal Government and Chanhassen is paying to redo those sewers? I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -11 - Bill Monk - There is a $3.5 million project going on in Carver County right now-to-repair septic systems throughout the county. Merle Volk - On these failures, do you know was there perk tests taken at the time-they were put in service? Councilman Geving - Those homes have been there for many, many years. Merle Volk - There has been a lot of changes made in the systems in the last 15/20 years which I am sure you are aware of but I think the perk test is a big factor as far as size of the lots. I am really interested in it because I have a 22 acre parcel that's kind of a sore spot with the tax situation and I am going to have to do something with it. It's either that we clear it or we are going to have to try to develop it and I strongly urge you people to try to put something through and I would appreciate some kind of answer. It would really be a shame to clear, it's one of the few native stands of woods that's left. Merrill Steller - I would like to call your attention to page 3 of this memorandum. I haven't had a chance to read this over. I guess it's not a matter of whether I agree with their findings as whether the Council agrees but where it says, question/comment. The quote there is not complete. This is what I said. IIAnother implication at the public hearing was that five acres was necessary to accomodate private septic systems. It is my contention that a 2! 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. II I would like to also mention that these homes that you have had problems with I suspect strongly that they probably never have been given a permit in the first place and why should we, the property owners now, if they pass the percolation test and with their new septic system, why should we be penalized for those homes being allowed to be built years ago. Muriel Mall - I am here to ask a question. I have the Truan property on Lake Lucy Road and it needs to be sold. What can I go back to prospective buyers with? What is the zoning there, five acres? Don Ashworth - The proposal before the Council is five acres. Prior to this point in time the City did not allow a subdivision in the unsewered areas. The ordinance before the Council tonight allows for subdivision. The only question is whether or not it should be 2~ acres or five. My point in saying that we should stay with five is simply recognizing that the Planning Commission is working on this. If the Council approves the five acres, the parcel you are referring to has not been subdivided, they would have to come in and go through subdivision, meet the five acre requirement. Richard Eide - I own 60 acres down here and I see no reason with the developm~that they have had in the last few years on septic systems, etc. that you can1t go into 2~ acre lots. I know in Scott County and a few of the others where they have even had water tables, etc. that are probably three or four feet deep they can turn around and build these mound systems. They are getting to far updated in new systems that I think it is ridicu- lous to set this at a five acre lot size. I think you could get by with two acres real nice. Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -12- Maynard Happe - I was just wondering what you consider the property that I own? What does that come under? Councilman Geving - It looks like A-2, five acre minimum, according to the I Planning Commission proposal. Maynard Happe - As I said before, it is impossible to divide it into five acres. There are seven or eight lots on that road that are anywheres from 1-3/4 up to four acres. There isn't one of them that has had any trouble with any sewer system and I said the last time that I was thinking about dividing it into three with about three acres apiece. Dana Heck - Where the devil is our land on that map? The Johnson estate. That limits us to the 40 acres? Bob Waibel - Yes. The proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance anticipa- tes one for 40 acres. -- Dana Heck - Why with the new percolation do we limit this? Bob Waibel - I have not been involved in all those Planning Commission meetings but they see this as an area that would be urbanized first. This would be an area that would probably be urbanized at a later point and then possibly never. Dana Heck - My questions is, if your new sewer system percolation test works why are we limited to 40 acres? We have been trying to settle an estate here for the last ten years and we are having problems. Councilman Horn - If the proposal as presented this evening went through, then it wou~e five acre parcels for your area also. We have been studying this issue for way too long. What's happening now is we are finally getting to the point where the Planning Commission is about to make a recommendation on this and we are caught, as we usually are, off guard and we have no interim ordinance at this time so what we are looking at this evening is more or less an interim ordinance until we can get a comprehensive look at the whole area and that's what is being done by the Planning Commission. I Dana Heck - If the percolation test works, let's go two - 2~ acres. Eleanor Heck Kalkes - I am also involved in the estate. We can't see the Planning Commission either so it's hard to put any input into this. I don't know when you people decided to annex all this land, my mother was still living there and of course she didn't like it but we weren't involved and it's unfortunate that we are so close to Chaska, we right near this great big warehouse, we are sot of between a rock and a hard place right there. You are deciding that we can't develop anything until the year 2000 but you also decided to take us in. Now either take care of us or give us to Chaska. Jim Thompson - The Planning Commission will be meeting every week on I Wednesday night in September and two of those meetings will be dealing with the new ordinance. The meetings are open for public input. To date we have not seen any interested citizen. We need your input because we are in the process of putting down on a map how we feel the City should be deve- loped and we may be saying that on one piece of property we feel there I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -13- should be ten homes per acre and another one two and another one one and another one one on 40 acres so we do need your input. Mayor Hamilton - There will be additional public hearings on this matter also prior to anything being passed. Ray Brenden - I have heard some comments and people are confused, what are you talking about 40, five and four. Where did the four acres come up all of a sudden? Mayor Hamilton - The question before us this evening is whether or not the proposed ordinance change is going to be 2~ acres or five acres. The first reading, it was five acres and that's what is before us at this time. You folks are asking for 2~ acres. The reason that we have gotten into some of these other discussions is simply because there is a revision of the Zoning Ordinance being done by the City of Chanhassen at the present time. To date they are saying that this map that you are seeing up here now, they are identifying some areas where they are recommending four acres, 40 acres. This is the first time that I have seen this too. The Planning Commission is going through their process reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and recommending back and that process won't be complete until at least the first of the year. Ray Brenden - I still don It understand your reasoning for five acres with respect to a septic system. With all the new inovations and septic systems and have talked to a number of people and they tell me that down the road it's easier to subdivide 2~ acres than it is five acres and I am not talking about lay people that I have talked to about this. I have talked to people that are knowledgeable in the development business. Merle Volk - That woods I got over there, what is that classified at? Mayor Hamilton - That would be A-l. ~ Klingelhutz - One and 40. Mayor Hamilton - Let's not get hung up on that. That's just in the discussion stage. Dick Vogel - Let's talk about that 22 acres. You mean that's zoned for 40 acres and that man can It build on that land? Mayor Hamilton - If it is, yes. That is not the proposal on the table this evening. Dick Vogel - How many acres do you need for a suitable septic system with a percolation test? ~ Klingelhutz - Carver County has one and 40 acres. They can subdivide off one acre of land off of 40 acres and get a building permit if the per- colation test passes. Carver County Ordinance allows as little as one acre off of that 40 acres to be sold off as a building site and a building per- mit will be issued if the percolation test passes. Bill Monk - Given the soil conditions you could go down to one acre and find an-acceptable site. It can be done. I also know that as a part of the 201 Program that's going on that we have got one to three acre parcels Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -14- where we cannot find a site to put a septic system on that will perk. We have taken numerous percolation tests on three over on Dogwood and found that could not hold a septic system and we are putting in a community mound and the same is true down in the West 96th Street area. I guess it's a I very difficult question to answer in Chanhassen because of the heavy clays and the poor percolation rates and right now it's questionable whether to go to 2t or five acres on a septic system. I am sure you are going to find a lot of sites in Chanhassen where 2t will take a septic system but at the same time I feel quite sure that you are going to find a lot that will not. Merrill Steller - If your perk test is okay you are saying that one acre can be built on with a septic system. Bill Monk - I am sure it could be. -- Merrill Steller - That's my contention. I want you to seriously consider that because I think you are really doing a disservice to the people in the unsewered areas. If their property passes that perk test there is no reason that a 2t acre tract can It be a one residential building site. Be fair about it please. Richard Eide - I have lived here 23 years. I have got 60 acres and I got one house on that 60 acres and we put in a septic system at that time when we first moved out here. In 23 years I have yet to have that pumped. Sever Peterson - I have worked with percolation companies that take these percolatiQn tests on a given 40 acre parcel in Carver County and we couldn't find nowhere on that 40 would it percolate. My point is that I I would like to support tonight is that I would be very much in favor of the 2t acre consideration here versus the five acre for several reasons. First of all I do work and serve on a Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation Board and we have there 1/3 acres. Provided it perks it's fine. I think that it's much easier for a desirous homeowner to afford 2t acres than it is five acres and I think that's very relevant to we people that are just starting a family and starting our homes. A second point would be that it's easier to keep 2t acres looking nice than it is five acres. A third point would be that if a landowner has eight or nine acres in a wooded lot and provided it perked there would be three gorgeous home sites possible in there and at five acres there would only be one. I think that1s a waste of a resource and I think it's a waste in our system. My last point would be, I was before this Council a month or two ago on our taxes and the Council treated me as a farmer and I appreciated that. I went back to the County and they didn't treat me so. They put the taxes back up. A piece of pro- perty that I bought for agriculture they put it up and I am taxed almost three times what I paid for it just last October. If I am going to be taxed that way, if I am going to be taxed on a development basis I think I ought to have some opportunity, if I desired to have some development, and so on the basis of those four points I really strongly support con- sideration and I appreciate the Council IS willingness to consider this 2t acres and I support that strongly. Mayor Hamilton - I think you made a really good point. I think what the I County is doing to us in taxes is unfair and it certainly is going to in my opinion force us to go to smaller lots. Councilman Horn - As I stated earlier I have been a strong advocate of opening up this area for some type of development. I am sorry that it has I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -15- taken this long. We had a lot of concern in the past voiced against doing this same thing based on septic systems, not being able to do get the proper subdivision when subdivision does come, assuming that it will. My concern at this point is more getting something going and my initial reaction was to go to five acres because this is an interim ordinance that we are looking at. A lot of people are giving us the word that we probably shouldn't even be going this far on it and my feeling is, let's go to five acres and we will take exception on a variance basis if somebody runs into a h a r d s hip 0 nth i, s t h i n g . I was a 1 i t t 1 eta ken b a c k, I g u e s s, by the s t a - tement that the gentleman made that the subdivision might be easier in the future on 2~ acre plots than they would be on five. If that's the case it really throws out the major argument that I was looking at. I don It quite understand that. Maybe I would like a little more clarification on that point. That really is my only reason for preferring the five acres o v e r 2 ~ i s t hat I t h ink i tis ani n t e rim s t e p . W e w ill i; h á vet a ken a v e r y large step, I think, if we go this fac eWe really haven It had the study on it that we want to have but we will have by the beginning of the year. I really think that with adequate study in the area that I ,have .no problem at all with this 2~ acre lots or maybe even acre lots in certain places. Councilwoman Watson - I guess for right now I would stick with the five acres but there are lots of points and I think the tax point is a big one and unless we can get that straightened out there is no way people can afford to have any land in the City. We are going to have to do something about that but I think at this point if we went to five acres we are making a very large step because we haven't had anything. Councilman Geving - My comments are pretty much the way I felt originally on this whole subject. The very first night that we started talking about this I was much in favor of the 2~ acre lots and I think the reason that I am thinking that way is that I am starting to see stagnation in Chanhassen that continues to grow and grow and we don It seem to be really opening up anything. Tonight, for example, there was evidence of this rural versus the urban crisis that seems to be coming faster than we can accept it in some areas and I see that happening more and more. I see development moving to the southwest and to the Chanhassen area slowly and surely it will get here. We have been holding it back a couple of years now and I think the time has come, even the courts are telling us that, to open up this land and make it available to homeowners so that the develo- pers can develop their land. I am very much in favor of the 2~ acre lot size as the minimum single family home in the rural unsewered area of Chanhassen and. I will continue to think that way. Mayor Hami 1 ton ",. I feel there are many factors to be considered. One of the very important ones, I think, is taxes. The way taxes .are going in this County and with the price of land we are not going to have anybody living here pretty soon and you people who own the property won't be able to sell any lots to anyone. One of the overriding factors that this Council felt previously, why we should have five acres was simply because of a planning factor. I think all of us felt at one time that if we had the land subdivided in five acre tracts that it would be easier in the future as the land developed to subdivide that into more regional areas and put more homes in there when the sewer comes along. The sewer may never come. Chanhassen has been expecting it now for years and the Metro Council keeps moving it back and frankly I am sick and tired of waiting and I think you people are landowners, you know what the market is out there and if you would like 2~ acre tracts, I am all in favor of it. I hope you can find Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -16- people to buy them and then I would like to see you come in with a variance for an acre lot or something, I think that's even more affordable. I think Clark1s comments are well taken. I think we did take a big step going to five. I would like to take even a bigger one and go to 2i and get on with the development of the community. I Councilman Geving moved to adoption of Ordinance 47-AJ, an ordinance amending Ordinance 47, the City's Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 33, the City1s Subdivision Ordinance, and repealing Ordinances 45, 64, 64A, and 64B, with the insertion of 2i acres as the minimum single family lot size on all unsewered lots. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented: Checks #14739 through #14815 in the amount of $1,009,613.64, checks #19161 through 19252 in the amount of $97;202~43, check #14843 in the amount of $1,178.00 and check #14853 in the amount of $327.50. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. REPLAT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MINNEWASHTA CREEK FIRST ADDITION: Mr. David Hanisch ~seeking approval to replat Lot 1, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek First Addition into two lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that an additional sewer and water unit assessment be levied on the newly created lot. I Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the replat request for Lot 1, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek First Addition as depicted on Lot Surveys Co., Inc. Preliminary Plat dated received Chanhassen Community Development Department July 20, 1983, with the condition that a sewer and water unit assessment be placed on proposed Lot 2, Block 1, as per the North Service Area Public Improvement Project policy. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESIDENTIAL AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST, PLEASANT HILL ADDITION: M~urt Ostrom is requesting a height and location variance to erect an area identification sign to be placed in the right-of-way of Murray Hill Road. A revised sign plan was presented showing the sign height to be six feet which is within ordinance standards. Councilman Horn moved to approve the location variance as requested and as shown on the revised sign plan with the condition that the sign be main- tained and repaired at the discretion of the City Engineer. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOT WIDTH, AND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 1927-1~ CARVER BEACH: Lewis-wDitalla-TS seeking a four foo~ont yard I setback variance, 25 foot lot width variance, and 5,250 square foot area variance to construct a home in the Carver Beach neighborhood. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended denial of the request and that the amount of the sewer and water assessment paid to date be refunded. I I I Council Meeting August 22, 1983 -17- Councilman Geving moved to deny the request for the front yard setback variance, lot width variance, and lot area variance on Lots 1927-1931, Carver Beach, Planning Case 83-11, and the removal of the sewer and water unit assessment and the amount paid to date, less an area assessment, be refunded to Mr. Woitalla. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FIRE DEPARTMENT BYLAWS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE: Mayor Hamilton moved ~able action until t~F~Department has approved the Bylaws. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1984 POLICE CONTRACT: Mayor Hamilton moved to accept the 1984 Police Contract as offered by the Carver County Sheriff's Department in the amount of $199,560. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1984 BUDGET/FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Geving moved to hold two public hearings: 1.) The formal Administrative hearing on proposed uses of Revenue Sharing, to be held on September 12th, and 2.) the City Council hearing, including adoption, on October 3rd. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LEVY LIMIT BASE ADJUSTMENT: RESOLUTION #83-39: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution increasing the levy limit base adjustment to the maximum extent possible (figures reviewed by the Council included $95,000, but could be higher). Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES METRO AREA REGIONAL MEETING: This meeting will be held-September 29th in Bloomington. A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilwoman Watson to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager