Loading...
1984 01 09 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson Members Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Bob Waibel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented inCluding an update on the City Hall water damage. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RULES OF PROCEDURE: Councilman Horn moved to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the-conduct of City Council Business. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER: Councilman Horn moved to designate the Carver County Herald as the official city newspaper. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton voted no. Motion carried. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY: Councilwoman Swenson moved to designate the State Bank of Chanhassen as the official depository of the City and authorize the Mayor and Treasurer or Manager as authorized signatures for all city checks and the following persons be authorized to enter the safe deposit box: Mayor or Treasurer or Manager. The Mayor's facsimile signature be used on all city checks. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY: Mayor Hamilton moved to appoint the firm of Grannis, Grannis, Campbell, & Farrell as the City Attorney. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BOND CONSULTANT: Mayor Hamilton moved to appoint the firm of Juran and Moody as the financial consultant for the City. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ACTING MAYOR: Councilwoman Swenson moved that Councilman Geving be appointed Acting Mayor to serve in the absence of the elected Mayor. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -2- FIRE MARSHAL: Mayor tion of Fire Marshal Councilwoman Watson. Councilwomen Swenson Motion carried. Hamilton moved to appoint Jim Castleberry to the posi- for the City of Chanhassen. Motion seconded by The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. WEED INSPECTOR: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Mayor Hamilton as Weed Inspector and Bill Monk, Public Works Director, as Deputy Weed Inspector. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FIRE CHIEF: Councilman Horn moved Department and appoint Jack Kreger Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and tive votes. Motion carried. to accept the recommendation of the Fire as Fire Chief for a two year term. The following voted in favor: Mayor Watson, and Councilman Horn. No nega- HEALTH OFFICER: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Dr. David McCollum as the City's Health Officer at a fee of $1.00. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY AUDITOR: Councilwoman Swenson moved to contract with Voto, Tautges, Reardon as auditors for the City. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Manager's recommendation and set mileage reimbursement at 23~ per mile. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the December 19, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the December 7, 1983, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Councilman Horn - I kind of like Don's suggestion on final review powers. Don Ashworth - There were three questions presented. Do you want to use alternate to allow for that and really the final review powers, that deals then with a quorum. If you were going to give them extra powers you wanted to assure that at least three people were voting on an issue. Councilwoman Swenson - Voting and agreeing, or can it be two against one. I would think it would be a unanimous opinion. I I I I I I Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -3- Councilman Horn - If they feel strongly enough about it and vote against it they can br~it to the Council, either way. Councilwoman Swenson - I think so often people are not advised that they can. If we are going to do this then it should be incumbent upon the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to announce to the applicant that they have the option of appeal to the City Council. Councilwoman Watson - Non-controversial is something that everyone voted one way or the other way on. Anything where there is a divided vote would be considered controversial. Councilwoman Swenson - Which is really true. And with the inclusion that the applicant wishes to carry it on to the City Council they have the option. That way we leave it open so that people know that they have this recourse. Councilwoman Swenson moved to place on first reading an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 22 (Board of Adjustments and Appeals) and instruct staff to incorporate the alternative form for final review powers. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAKE DRIVE EAST FEASIBILITY STUDY: ~Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, and Associates, reviewed his report. The feasibility study includes streets, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drains, and intersection improvements for the property south of Highway 5 in Hennepin County. Total estimated cost for the project is $814,000 not including costs for right-of-way acquisition. Mayor Hamilton - I guess we have a different understanding of what feasibi- lity means. It is the same problem that we have had for years with feasi- bility studies, everything is always feasible no matter what it costs. It seems to me you can't say it's feasible to do it unless you know the financing. I think our financing alternative needs to be spelled out very clearly. Bill Monk - The project was basically broken in half to have OSM do the engineering cost data on the improvements while staff would work on the financing and not bring Orr-Schelen-Mayeron in on the tax increment financing that had been done largely to date by Don, myself and Juran and Moody. It should be ready in about three or four weeks at the most. I don't think there is any question from an engineering standpoint that the project is feasible and right now it is a matter of working out with CPT how much is to be assessed. Mayor Hamilton - You mentioned that the one map showed that there is a new pond area. Does the existing pond, is that going to be filled or what's going to happen? Jim Norton - We are grading a new ponding area. Mayor Hamilton - Are you going to eliminate the old one? Jim Norton - No. Unless there is an interest in eliminating the first one then the second one in the southeast corner would have to be made larger. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -4- Mayor Hamilton - That intersection with 184th Street, it would seem to me that I just don't see how we can go ahead with a project if we don't have Eden Prairie involvement. Do we do half of the street and not do the other half? It just doesn't make any sense not to have Eden Prairie in the pro- ject and do that whole intersection at once. Bill Monk - Basically, the intersection would be all done at once. Eden Prair~south of the highway, has no desire at this point to see that sec- tion develop. They do not wish to participate in the construction of 184th south of the highway. If this project is to proceed we are going to have to proceed on our own. One of the things that we have been looking into closely with MnDOT is to see what level of financing they may get involved in concerning these highway improvements but to date they have not wanted to commit one way or another because of the timing issue. MnDOT's involve- ment could range from 10% anywhere up to 90% but I can't get them to commit at this time to what the actual percentage would be. With the tax incre- ments generated and with the MSA funds that are now available because this has been designated as a state aid fund, there is a good possibility that Chanhassen could do all these improvements and finance them. CPT is aware of all the research that has gone on with this study. I Don Ashworth - That does not stop us from setting an assessment charge should Eden Prairie ever wish to use the road. Actually making a connec- tion charge for their share of that road. In fact they did it for us when the Duck Lake Interceptor was built with capacity for Chanhassen at a cost of about $70,000. Bill Monk - This study was to layout the engineering costs involved with I ~project and that's basically what OSM was hired to do. Because staff could not get the supplementary report done on the financing there is no problem with tabling this report until that data is available. I wanted the Council to be aware that this study was out there because a lot of people had gotten it and I didn't want Council members getting calls from somebody at CPT asking questions about the study and not having seen the study. There is nothing wrong with noting the study and tabling acceptance until the financial data is available. Mayor Hamilton - I appreciate having it. That intersection still bothers me. It seems like if we are going to do that, as soon as we get that intersection done (184th) Frank is going to be sitting in here wanting to have it done on the other side of the street then we are looking at upgrading that side of Highway 5. Then I am also thinking as you go west on Lake Drive East and you open up 184th Street, have we looked at trying to run that frontage road all the way down to Highway 101 and close off Dakota or do something to try to improvement the flow of traffic on Highway 5 rather than putting another signalization at that corner. Bill Monk - The Highway 5 improvements, the channelization and widening, would~e to be done completely whether the southern approach is done first or whether the northern approach is done first, so basically, you are improving that intersection to its full capacity for all turning movements whether Park One comes in or whether CPT comes in first makes no difference. Mayor Hamilton - That will be done completely in Chanhassen. We won't use the existing 184th Street since part of that is in Eden Prairie. I I I I Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -5- Bill Monk - That's right. Basically, the gravel road that is there now would-not be used and we would even look to talk to Eden Prairie about putting a turn lane where that dirt street is so that we wouldn't need additional right-of-way. Either way full Highway 5 improvements are necessary even if we don't build 184th to its full width. We also have designated a quasi alignment from Dakota all the way over to Highway 101 as a MSA road so that can be put in at any point but the City, to date, has not pushed to have roads put in prior to developers coming in and asking that they be put in. The designation is there. The City could look at that but it would have to look at probably having to acquiring right-of-way and that involves a lot of time and work and expense and to date we have just waited until people have wanted to plat the road. Councilman Horn - It seems to me that we are looking at all of these things in little bits and pieces. We should be looking at our overall transpor- tation system in that whole area rather than just a piece of this thing at a time. We are going to get a very different imput it we only look at one aspect. Another thing is, it seems like a part of highway improvement programs include channelization in other areas and I don't know that the City of Chaska picked up the channelization when the state upgraded Highway 212 through there, why is the City have to put in channelization when we know that Highway 5 is going to be upgraded anyway in the not to distant future. Bill Monk - At this juncture we cannot get MnDOT to commit one way or another. I think it was about three weeks ago we had our first meeting with MnDOT and that's the first time that anyone had ever said that funding could even go to the 90% level depending on the timing of improvements but you have to remember that this report basically came about because of a request by CPT that we look into the construction of this frontage road through their property. That was the extent of their request and perhaps I should have brought back an overall traffic view of the area and state aid system as it goes through this area but OSM was commissioned to respond to Mr. Scheff's request for improvements only as CPT would need them. Councilman Horn - I don't have a problem with taking a segment at a time as long as we look at the whole picture when we come up with out transpor- tation plan. Mayor Hamilton - I agree. I think in all our planning we seem to have blinders on. We are looking at one little piece of it and Frank is going to come in here and he is going to ask us to do this and we will have to look at another piece of it. Bill Monk - What I would suggest is that staff come back with that type of an-Dverview and the whole thing be presented with the feasibility study, the supplemental financing report and the overview of the traffic in the area at one time. Councilman Horn - I think one of our prime considerations is we need to get nice even distances between our stop lights on Highway 5 to get the traffic moving properly. Bill Monk - There is the half mile spacing and MnDOT noted no problems with ~spacing with the intersection at Dakota. The lights are never set up to incorporate turning movements. If you turn onto a highway you can expect to have to stop. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -6- Councilwoman Swenson - I am not entirely sure from reading this report exactly how it recommends that this intersection come up to 184th. I read that we are going to have a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane, a westbound left turn light and when I read that the lights went off because I without some form of control I can see a repeat of the problems that we had at 17 and 5. We have right in and out, that's one thing, if you would have people coming out of there and making a left hand turn going west on Highway 5 or coming west on 5 and turning onto 184th Street, I can see trouble plus the fact I have never been able to quite determine why 184th Street should be considered as a major collector for Chanhassen. It is the exterior line of the City on the north side of the City. It probably extends maybe less than 1,000 feet before it hits a railroad track so it's not going to go any farther than that. We have nothing to the south. How can it conceivably be a collector street for the City of Chanhassen? Bill Monk - It is not going to really be a collector for the City of Chanhassen but it may turn into a major road because Eden Prairie's Dell Road is a major collector through Eden Prairie. It would become a heavily used road, I think, for Chanhassen when 212 is built because I think Dell Road or 184th Street would be a major connection between 5 and 212. Councilwoman Swenson - I think that the idea of putting in another road in addition to Highway 101 is a complete waste of taxpayers money and beside which is certainly not environmentally intelligent. We are eventually going to have a four lane road there, now why should we have to bear this if it's going to serve Eden Prairie. I have real problems with this road. Bill Monk - The City of Chanhassen would only be involved with constructing I this road as is necessary to serve Chanhassen. It is proposed that the road at this point be 36 foot wide because that's the width of the street that we put in industrial parks. We are not trying to turn this thing into a collector but at the same time we are trying to at least be aware of what Eden Prairie is planning along this same alignment and to work with them to come up with a good intersection and good planning for both cities. Chanhassen is not going to be involved with extending this road down to 212 or extending it up above the railroad tracks into Eden Prairie. Councilwoman Swenson - I have never had a satisfactory answer, still, for the extension of that road. What is the overall intention when they hit that railroad embankment? Are they going to dig a tunnel underneath it? Bill Monk - Right now the talk is for an at-grade crossing. There has been some talk of Eden Prairie going under the railroad and connecting Dell Road through there. That's beyond where Chanhassen wants to be involved because we have no property to serve up there. Councilman Horn - But I think we have an interest. Right now the only north/south-,nterconnect we have between 5 and 7 is 101 and how is Dell Road going to get up to Highway 7? There is going to be pressure to get from Highway 5 to Highway 7 and it seems like with all this other planning going on in Eden Prairie there is an emphasis to de-emphasize 101. The state is trying to get rid of it and every body is trying to shuffle it off I and they are building all kinds of driveways into it to make it unusable. What is going to replace Highway 101? I don't think Dell Road is going to do it. I I I Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -7- Councilwoman Swenson - Why are we permitting this dedesignation of 101. It's already there. We have a plan here to try to make the proper align- ment with 5 and I have to go back to what the Mayor and Clark have already said and that is I recognize the need for this for the purpose of alle- viating traffic on Dakota at this particular time but I have problems with, when the consultants say that this is a collector for Eden Prairie and Chanhassen which I am not going to agree with. I think before I am willing to accept that theory I would have to find a great deal more about what Eden Prairie's plans are. Are we going to replace 101 with 184th Street and what is that going to do subsequently to the citizens of Chanhassen. I am very happy to coordinate as much as we can with Eden Prairie but I am not entirely sure that this study is taking us in the direction that I feel we ought to go. ~ Monk - I think that instead of trying to explain each piece it would be better if I came back with a supplement going over the overall traffic showing the frontage road as it would go west, show the roads as they would go north and as Dell Road exists now and as Eden Prairie is thinking it will exist. Where the latest 212 alignment is, how the road will funnel down to that and how the whole picture will come together. I was just trying to introduce the Council to this study and it does seem that you caught me slightly unprepared. Mayor Hamilton - CPT is looking at adding a heck of a building or two to their complex. Bill Monk - There is a letter in here from the President of CPT and it was that letter that basically is why you decided to move ahead. Jim Norton - Maybe just to share with you some of the conversation we had with Eden Prairie, I know that they were approached and the question from MnDOT was, gee, we would like to make 101 follow Dell Road and get rid of it. Well, Eden Prairie didn't seem to be to happy with that. What they are proposing and certainly I think it requires more study is to show how the connection is made. Eden Prairie shows 5 being connected to 7 by Dell Road and Dell Road would connect to 101 right near the point where it turns from southbound to southwest. That's where they would like to have that intersection. They don't want to make Dell Road a new 101. MnDOT would like to see it go in. Certainly there is a lot more imput that's required. That1s some of the discussion that we had with MnDOT. Councilman Horn - If Eden Prairie doesn't want to make Dell Road into a 101, then why are they doing what they are doing to 101 which is making it into a street that really can't handle the traffic. They have got to recognize that there is a larger transportation picture to get traffic bet- ween 5 and 7 and it seems to me that they really haven't addressed that issue. ~ Monk - Eden Prairie does not agree with your assessment. Councilman Horn - What is their plan to get between 5 and 7? Bill Monk - Basically, to use 101 just having the IISII curve straightened ~a~ell Road comes into it as a collector street but comes in and stops as 101 continues. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -8- Councilman Horn - In other words the major flow would come from Dell Road into 101. Bill Monk - 101 would continue to be used. I Councilman Horn - I guess all I am saying is the development pressure in Eden Prairie-T5 going to force the need for putting north/south traffic onto Dell Road because of what they are doing to 101. Councilwoman Swenson - I note in your letter to Mr. Engler you are leaving to decision to proceed solely with CPT, why, and then the additional sewer lateral, the two acres of land south of Highway 5 owned by private resi- dents, how are they going to be affected by the assessment? Bill Monk - It was my understanding that basically the reason that we pro- ceede~th this report as we did was because of a request from CPT and that as we go over the financing with them that if they are not prepared to pick up whatever the assessment percentage breaks down to the Council would not be prepared to to proceed with the project. Now, that is a big assump- tion on my part but what I am trying to do here is to get CPT very closely involved with what's going on with this project. As far as the other pro- perty goes, it's also my assumption that basically utilities and access would be worked out with the City as the middle man between the owners of those two acres and CPT on an easement type basis. We did look at the possibility of putting the road so it would abut those two acres but it introduces so many curves into the alignment that it was seen as basically not the way to proceed. We would work with the owners of that property and CPT to make sure easement arrangements are made so that Highway 5 does not I have to be the only access to those two acres. Councilwoman Swenson - Have the owners of that property been alerted to the fact that this is a subject here and they may be subject to assessments? Bill Monk - I haven't gone to assessments as such because in the easement arrangement they would be extending their own access and their own utili- ties from the road as it goes through the CPT property. I believe they are aware of what is going on. Councilman Horn - I guess I was a little disturbed that the road that we just put in would have to be redesigned because it didn't meet 30 MPH curve standards. Why weren't those put in that way in the first place? This was Schoe11 and Madson. Bill Monk - I think the alignment had a lot to do with MTS who was the ori- ginal owner of that property. I have never figured out exactly why that road was built as it was. Councilman Horn - I don't want anybody to get the impression I am not for this project. I just want to make sure we don't run into any surprises five years from now when we have to redo the road again because we don't have a 40 MPH curve or it doesn't match with what we are doing on the north side. Mayor Hamilton - I want to see the whole thing tied together. I I I I Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -9- SITE PLAN REVIEW, 18 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, CHANHASSEN MEADOWS: MaYOr~ilton - Don rs-recommending that this item be tabled for at least 30 days. Councilman Horn - Before we table this I would like to have Bill work this into an overall transportation plan. As far as I was concerned none of these alignment studies really made a lot of sense. I think Bill could come up with something that makes a lot more sense Mayor Hamilton - If I remember right, when we first reviewed this, those were our feelings then. Bill Monk - There is a real need, I think, to keep this one separate and to move swiftly on this because the Council does have a specific request to put in an apartment complex. The request has been in for 45 days or wha- teverand staff is trying to process it. There is a real obligation and responsibility by the City to review this as quickly as possible and if we are going to seriously think about acquisition I would say we would have to proceed with this quickly and I could look at both at the same time. I guess I don't agree with all the alternates either but it basically would have to be some type of a highbred of #5 to make it work and to be economi- ca 1 . Councilman Horn - Could that 90% funding be applied to any of these? Bill Monk - Highway 101 is termed a temporary state highway. A temporary state~hway has a very specific definition to MnDOT. They will maintain it. They will not upgrade, re-align or do any other improvements to that road. There is a lot of talk right now of turning back 101 to the City. The state is making a big push all around the state to get rid of a lot of these temporary highways. I see minor state involvement. My discussions to date have not exceeded 10%. That is very minor in a project of this size. Mayor Hamilton - This was a request on staff's part, right. These gentle- men are here wanting to have action on this request. Are they aware of the request to table this item? Don Ashworth - I am sure the report was sent out. I am also sure that the notice to the developers was quite late. It was not presented when they initially walked in the door that we were going to be looking to additional options for 101. The best I can do is to apologize. Bill, in initially looking at this felt that there really was not an option for reconnecting or looking at how that intersection could work and after a second review he had come back saying, we really should take a good hard look at it before we foreclose the possibility entirely of redoing that intersection. That's the basis for the recommendation. Mayor Hamilton - Is this going to mess up your program too much, a 30 day delay? Frank Reese - We have prepared the plans based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The builder has got all his bids together and he is most anxious to get going. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -10- Mike Dorn - I am the owner and developer of the Chanhassen Meadows which I developed in 1972. The piece that we are in to you for the last 18 unit building is the far southwest corner of the property. Currently, we do have plans completed. Our engineering is completed. All of our bids have I been secured. We are just finishing our financing at this time. The 30 day delay is not going to cause any problem if there is a decision made at the end of 30 days. My problem, like any business, you can't just close the door and wait for someone to make a decision. We are ready to go. We do have all the plans completed and thousands of dollars have been spent on those plans. Mayor Hamilton - I think we can guarantee you that there will be a decision made within 30 days. Councilman Horn - Were you aware of these alignment studies before you went ahead and spent all that money? Mike Dorn - We were in in October to obtain fees for obtaining building permirs-prior to drawing the plans. Bob Waibel - We had our staff meeting approximately a week before the Planning Commission meeting and the staff report was written up and out of that meeting came the discussion about the alternates and we did include them in the report and did deliver it to the developer the week prior to the meeting. Councilman Horn - But when they came in here this was not discussed? Bob Waibel - I don't recall any specific discussion about the alignment I alternatives. Mike Dorn - It was at the Planning Commission meeting but prior to the Plannrng-Commission meeting we had alredy submitted completed sets of plans and all the engineering. Bob Waibel - When I did meet with the developer we were referring to older plans that had been prepared some time in the past. This identical propo- sal did come before the Planning Commission in 1975 and there were plans that were done. It was perhaps an oversight that the alignment alter- natives were not mentioned until the week before the Planning Commission meeting. The only new plan that was drawn up was the topography, I believe, for this particular proposal. Mike Dorn - The only thing we had drawn was a sketch plan prior to October or-Ihrs-year. It was a very light sketch plan to make sure that it met all the R-4 requirements for the number of units. Councilman Horn - I would like to think that when a developer approaches the City Starr-he would be assessed of any of the plans that the City is thinking of when they go through this because they are assuming a big expense at that point. It isn't going to do any good to go through the whole thing and then spring the plans on him. That's just not the way to do things. Mike Dorn - We were assured by the Planning Commission that they would figure-DUt some other way of running 101, probably straight down behind and would not go through the property. I think it was unanimous by the Planning Commission that they wouldn't disturb this property. I I I I Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -11- Mayor Hamilton - That's not their decision to make. Councilman Horn - That certainly is my personal preference also. Unfortunatery-every time we have talked about it we find out that finan- cially that isn't feasible. I still don't understand why that isn't feasible to do it. If we have to make a railroad crossing, we have to make a railroad crossing but that's what we are going to find out from Bill when we go through this overall transportation plan. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to see two things brought back if we table this item. The traffic flow. It wasn't clear on the map to me how the traffic is to move in and out. Also, in the southwest corner there is a creek or drainage area, how is this going to affect that? Mike Dorn - It shows on the map that they are using the same two access driveways that are currently existing onto 101. There have been easements that were filed back in 1972 to allow to go from the last piece onto the other property to access 101 where the current driveways are. Frank Reese - You had a question about the use of the southwest corner of the property and that's going to be undisturbed. The natural plantings will be staying as is. Bill Monk - One of the questions on this particular item is whether the Counc~s basically agreeing with some part of alternate #5 or whether they want more study put into alternate #1 which, I believe, is basically unfeasible. What stand does the Council wish to pursue at this time. When the study was originally done the idea was to table it with no further action at that point and there wasn't a lot of comment as far as which alignment should be pursued. Mayor Hamilton - You couldn't do anything because there wasn't any money. You can come up with the best alternative possible but if there is no funds to do it you are stuck anyway. That's the position we were in. you are looking at the best alternative is the most expensive alternative and we have no way to pay for it. I don't see that the alignment is ever going to change. I don't think anything is ever going to happen. I certainly don't want these folks to sit here and start hanging their hat on the possibility that they are going to be able to build a building and say, well, we are going to put you off for five years. In five years we still don't know any more than we know today. Bill Monk - We would never be able to afford any option so to pursue this was-basically out of the question and that's the reason that the comments came out like they did in the planning report. I guess what we are putting before the Council now is, this study is there, if we wish to set aside the possibility that any alignment could take place that would look like either #3, #4 or #5 or any highbred of those, the City would actually have to be prepared to acquire the site now. Not to just put these people off but to actually acquire. If there is a concensus on the Council that this is just never going to go, fine, proceed with the apartment complex. It's a major issue and if it's not handled now there is a good chance that the road would not be aligned to come directly down into that intersection and get around their proposal. Mayor Hamilton - I would encourage you to work with Mr. Dorn and his archi- tect. Maybe they have some idea about that intersection also. Council Meeting January 9, 1984 -12- Mayor Hamilton moved Councilwoman Watson. Councilwomen Swenson Motion carried. to table this item to February 6. Motion seconded by The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET, PEN INDUSTRIAL CENTER: Councilwoman Swenson - For the recor~I asked Bob, how do we ascertain that the recommendations, for instance from the DNR and the Soil and Water and MnDOT, be incorporated as we go down the path? Bill and the Planning Department will incorporate these requirements as they are indicated in the letters that we received back from these various agencies so that down the road people will know that they have not been skimmed over. They have in fact been taken into consideration and will be incorporated in the require- ments. Councilman Horn moved to approve a negative declaration on the EAW for Pen Industrial Center. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried. CITY HALL WATER DAMAGE: The City Engineer gave a progress report on the clean-up-in the City Hall and Library. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I I