Loading...
1976 09 20 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1976 Mayor Klingelhutz called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. Councilman Hobbs was absent. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and seconded by Councilman Neveauxto approve the agenda as presented with the addition of Minn-Kota Arbitration. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. ~ L.').:_: _J MINUTES: A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and seconded by Councilman Waritz to note the September 8, 1976, Planning Commission minutes. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Waritz to note the August 19, 1976, Bicentennial Commission minutes. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and 'seconded by Councilman Neveaux to note the September 9, 1976, Bicentennial Commission minutes. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Kurvers to note the notes of the Park and Recreation Commission of September 7, 1976. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. STREET IMPROVEMENTS ~ MINNEWASHTA WOODS: Staff recommended that further action on a decision to call- the bond be tabled until October 15 to see of the work is completed as required. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Waritz to extend the deadline until October 15, 1976. If the work is not completed by that date the Council will take action to call the bond at the October 18, 1976, Council meeting. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE ORDINANCE - POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION IN THE OPEN: The Council felt that in Ordinance 57A the definition of "public property" in Section 5.02 should mean any public street, highway, school ground, playground, stream or other publicly owned property within the City except parks, lakes and golf courses. Signs will be posted in all liquor establishments stating that it is a misdemeanor to have in possession open bottles or glasses of intoxicating beverages on public or semi- public property. A motion to adopt amended. Neveaux, was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Kurvers Ordinances 2D, 34C, and 57A as presented this evening and as The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, C6uncilmen Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. council Meeting September 20, 1976 -2- RESOLUTION #76-70: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution on Review of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses. Resolution seconded by Councilman Kurvers. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and seconded by Councilman Waritz to approve the August bills as presented with the change under Street Maintenance, Mobile Radio for radio in truck #109 from $98.17 to $51.12. The following voted in favor: Mayor.!Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. ,MQ±ion carried. I Councilman Neveaux asked that the Council perhaps consider a full time city attorney. LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD - PETITION FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER: The city has received a petition signed by residents along Lake Riley Blvd. for sanitary sewer and water improvements. Several residents were present. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Waritz to accept the petition as presented and forward it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. CBD PARKING LOT: Harry Pauly, John Havlik, Bernard Schneider, I and Dick Dutcher were present. The Bicentennial Commission recommended that a green area of 130 feet by 70 feet be maintained around the old village hall. This proposal will land lock the remainder of the city owned land. Harry Pauly and Ann Koltyk feel this proposal is unacceptable to them. They are proposing that the city use a 70 foot by 70 foot parcel around the old village hall for the mini park. A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and seconded by Coun,cilman Neveaux to accept the recommendation of the Bicentennial Commi-s'S:40n of their dimensions excluding whatever is needed for road entrance which would be equally split between the two property owners. The following voted in favor: Councilmen Kurvers and Waritz. Mayor Klingelhutz and Councilman Neveaux voted no. Motion failed. Mayor Klingelhutz suggested the proposal be presented to the CBD Committee and brought back to the Council at the next meeting. A motion was made by Councilman Kurvers and seconded by Councilman Waritz that if any type of transaction takes place pertaining to that property (city property) it shall be a lease agreement. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. EAST LOTUS LAKE PRD: Len Swedlund, Rick Sathre, A. H. Michaels, I Joe Betz, Dick Dutcher, and Chuck Hirt were present. This property is located on the east side of State Highway 101 and north of Colonial Grove and is presently zoned R-lA. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal and remmmended approval subject to conditions as outlined in their minutes of August 4, 1976. I I I City Council Minutes September 20, 1976 -3- The City Planner gave his report of September 17, 1976, and feels that the natural qualities of the site, the physical constraints of the site should dictate the future disposition of the property to the greatest extent possible. From an idealistic point of view it should be absorbed as a single family attached, area, single family detached, zero lot line cluster type of thing. Ecklund and Swedlund do not build this way and they have made a concerted effort to design in the majority of the concerns of the MEQC, DNR, Purgatory Creek Watershed District and city commissions, and he recommended approval of this plan provided the following points are incorporated into the final development plan. a. All the concerns of the Soil Conservation Service. b. All comments of the MEQC except for the 27 foot roadway dedication. c. All the comments regarding the dedication of shoreland as outlined in the Ecological Committee's report. d. All the comments made by the Planning Commission except for the park area south of Purgatory Creek. The Planner feels the park area should only include the flood plain of Purgatory Creek and the remainder of the land be combined with lands in Colonial Grove and developed as a single family plat. He finds the proposal of a conservation easement as suggested by the Planning Commission unenforceable. The land should be dedicated along with 50 or so feet to the city for passive and active recreation and future construction of a city trail connecting Purgatory Creek with a park on the north side of Lotus Lake. He feels this dedication will not only guarantee the integrity of the low land area but will also add economic value and increase the quality of life of the people on the interior parcels. e. All the comments of the city engineer. f. The Council at this time could waive the provisions of structure types. g. The cul-de-sac serving Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Block 3, should be moved eastward to make the lots buildable. h. The proposed walkway on the northeast side of the hill should be paved with eight feet of asphalt. Mr.. Michaels stated they have complied with every request from the commissions of the city. They can generally go along with all the Planning Commission recommendations except the question of the setback on the lake. They can go along with the idea that there be no building but feel it should be part of the lot of the particular owner and comply with all the requirements on no building in that 50 foot setback. Ecklund and Swedlund have been a single family home developer and have been successful in this field and they feel in analyzing the market place that this property would develop as a single family area and they would like to, develop it in accordance with the city ordinance and in accordance with the Planning Commission recofumèndations. Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson - The conservation easement is a problem for us in that we too don't like to see the environment harmed but the thought 6f whether or not a conservation easement is put across that property when it is not put across other lake front property maybe unfair but we can live with it. We can't live with public ownership of that area. The lakeshore is the only really economically valuable piece of land there. The public access to that lake we have tried to grant in the south area. We think that public ownership of that lake frontage area would not necessarily be more advantageous to the city if you are considering ecological problems. The watershed district, the Department of Natural City Council Meeting September 20, 1976 -4- resources as well as your own powers, if that conservation easement were in place, would allow your police actions to prevent destruction of that area. If that's public, I however, you will never know who it is that's in-there littering, destroying, trampling down. It's just a question in my mind whether or not public ownership of that area is in the best interest of the city. It takes away a great deal of property value and puts ~t under public ownership, therefore the taxes are"decreased from that piece of land. We would ask that the Planning commission's recommendations be heeded. Mr. Michaels - I just reviewed this matter on the trails with Mr. Swedlund. We can't live or develop this property in the concept of a trail in the area recommended by the Planner. We can't develop this property in that configuration. It is not economically feasible to do so. We have spent two years on this with various plans. We are most appreciative of the problems the community has. I think the developers desires should also be respected. As we have indicated we will make available the property for the open space in conjunction with the homeowners in that area that it won't be developed except through the various agencies approval which is required anyway. We urge this Council to review the Planning Commission's recommendations and to respect the desires of the developer. If it is felt that the whole Council is I needed or further public hearing is desired we have no objection to following the suggestion of Mr. Kurvers where preliminary approval is obtained and public hearing or at least notice to the community is given with the concept of the developer's requesting and if there is the kind of opposition that I don't think will exist, but if there is then the Council can make the appropriate decisiorrto" conform with the desires of the citizens of the community. We are willing to make available a trail system through the area but we can't do it in that locale. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Kurvers to table action on this proposal until the October 18 Council meeting. The following voted in favor~ Mayor Klin0elhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilman Waritz to continue this meeting until September 21, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. The following voted in favor: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Neveaux, Kurvers, and Waritz. No negative votes. Meeting continued at 12:30 a.m. I Don Ashworth Clerk-Administrator