Loading...
1985 12 02 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 2, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Oacy, Lori Sietsema and Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agen a as presented. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in f vor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and G ving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PRESENTATION Qf EAGLE SCOUT DOWNTOWN CLEAN-UP PROJECT, JIM GREGORY: Jim Gregory, representative of the Eagle Scout, was present to present the results of his Eagle Project. He started by going over the proposed plan that he presented in March of 1985. They planned to 1) Pick up litter; 2) Paint fire hydrants; 3) Pull weeds; 4) Spray weeds; and 5) Go over everything. They made only one change to this plan while carrying our the project. That change was not pulling the weeds before spraying them. They did this because the ground sterilent that they used worked twice as good as if they had sprayed the weed and let it take the poison down to the roots of the weed. After the weeds were sprayed, most shriveled up but some still needed to be pulled out because of their size. They also added a couple of other jobs not mentioned in the first proposal of the project; they we~e 1) Cutting down small, unwanted trees behind Kenny's market; and 2) Cutting down the tall grass near the railroad crossing and in the vacant lot near Chanhassen Lawn and Sport. Jim pre- sented a few of statistics of his project. They are as follows: 1) They collected over 20 bags of litter in two days; 2) The entire project took a total of 1 year and 2 months; 3) Jim had 10 helpers who put in a total of 42 hours -, 4 hours a piece; 4) Jim put in 50 hours himself by planning, working on, and writing up this project. Jim concluded by thanking the following people: * Pauly's, Kenny's, and the Chanhassen Fire Department for use of their dumpsters. * The City of Chanhassen for the supplies they donated and the tools they let them use. * The Carver County Herald for the story they did on Jim's project. * Bill Monk for getting him started on the idea of this project and helping him all the way through it to the end. * The City Council for the approval to do this project. * Councilman Geving for his special interest and help with the litter pick up. TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (MTC OPT-OUT), BRW: Jeff Benson: In Chanhassen we did do license plate surveys at y~ur major employers, particularly down in the Chanhassen Industrial Park. The other major employers we had information from them as to where their employees were coming from. We also had Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -2- the Chamber of Commerce survey. ~,500. 8ased on the percentage in total from those surveys, we at these numbers. We used your employment base, of approximately of employees coming from each of those communities, applied that to the 2,500 employment base to arrive I Councilman Gevinq: Are you projecting any additional employment in the community with that 2,500? Jeff Benson: No, that is the current number. Councilman Gevinq: Because probably 1,500 of those 2,500 happened in the last two years and I don't know what it is going to be by 1987 or 1988. Jeff Benson: I realize that there is a real potential for growth. Councilman Gevinq: I think the quality of the study is good. We have covered all the bases that I wanted to talk about, but I still need to know where we are going to go to implement this project. Jeff Benson: That is a point well taken and I did not include it in the draft because I am not sure how long this process is going to take with the City Council. I think it would be very easy to include that part of it in the final report and I certainly will. Councilman Gevinq: Are there private operators out there that would be looking for this kind of opportunity? I Jeff Benson: Definitely. Councilwoman Watson: When you look at it for us it looks like a fairly good deal. It is going to be a much different selling job for Eden Prairie and Chaska and without them, we really don't have any system at all. We have to hope that they can see the advantages in the program. That $45,000 that you have got in marketing here, bascially that will go toward getting people interested in the program. Jeff Benson: And make them aware that it exists and then get them interested. Councilwoman Watson: advertisements? Initiate, is that going to be mostly articles and Jeff Benson: We would be recommending newspaper, radio advertising, cable t.v. and those type of things. Councilwoman Watson: I think that will be an important issue. Jeff Benson: We have received real positive feedback from Eden Prairie. They seem willing to want to pay a little more because they know they have a lot to gain from this. We are very hopeful. Mayor Hamilton: I think when we first started this project all four communities knew, going into it, that there maybe additional costs and the benefits would out I weigh anything that maybe lost in additional dollars, but we also knew that all four of us had to cooperate. There is no way that we could do this by ourselves and the other communities couldn't do it by themselves. Also, for clarification, on page 53 the $538,000, maybe I missed the point of that; with these excess dollars you are I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -3- saying those excess dollars at the end of each year are going to be turned over to the RTB. That is the transit board that is going to be running this entire project so that would be a surplus they would maintain? Jeff Benson: Part of it would probably go to MTC's class. Mayor Hamilton: To pay for those transfers and that type of thing. Jeff Benson: It is paying for much more than that. cent to pay for the administration of the RTB, which and policy function, plus the transfer capabilities. You would actually need 10 per- is basically a coordinating Mayor Hamilton: Your operating costs are $721,000. the buses or whatever. I assume that's for purchasing Jeff Benson: That is based on the vehicle miles, which is about $2.00 a mile. Plymouth has opted out a year or so ago and their operating system is somewhat simi- lar to this and their cost is about $1.92 a vehicle mile. Councilman Horn: Currently, we have about 300 Chanhassen citizens that use this transportation? Jeff Benson: No, that includes Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, people that are being picked up all along that route. Councilman Horn: How many of our citizens use this system? Barb Dacy: The information I obtained from MTC for route 67 was about 20 riders. I do not know what the ridership is for 53J, but I believe it is about the same level as route 67. Councilman Horn: 50 we have probably less than 100 people that use this service and we are going to pay $133,000 for it? Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that we would have many more than that and that is the object of doing this; to get more ridership, to get people going places, which they can't do currently. I Councilman Gevinq: I think the problem there, Clark, is the peo~le who are riding it now are commuting to the twin cities. This is a direct route to'Minneapolis. If you are going to 50uthdale or if you are going to Eden Prairie Center we would probably double, triple or quadruple that ridership immediately. i Mayor Hamilton: When you look at it we are paying $133,000 now ,for a bus going down- town. There are no stops in between. But to spend the same number of dollars to be able to get to the Eden Prairie shopping center, to be able to get to 50uthdale, to Hopkins, to Excelsior and all the other spots and still transfer within the system to go even further. Councilman Horn: I have no problem with comparing the one we have now with this. My problem is comparing this with what it really does for us in looking at the whole perspective of this system. To me there is no comparison between the two systems as to which one is better. I really question whether it is a good payoff for us in the long run for the amount of people that use it. That is the question that I have to ask. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -4- Mayor Hamilton: We could use it as a marketing tool to draw more people to Chanhassen also, as we continue to develop here. As we get more and better shopping here you want to have people be able to get here and back. But I see your point and I understand what you are saying. I don't know how you could justify that much. Another study was done surveying people who are in the community currently and asking them if they would or would not use the service if it was in place. I Councilman Horn: I look at it as a decision on just like any other services we pro- vide. Are we getting a good bang for a buck out of it? All of our other services that we provide, to a large degree, support themselves, the water/sewer, that sort of thing. This one is obviously a big cost drain for us and I am wondering if we are really getting a bang for the buck out it. Mayor Hamilton: Well this way it would seem like we get more of a bang for a buck instead of just putting down $133,000 for what little we get now. Councilman Horn: I agree comparing the two services, that is definetly true. But if we opt out we don't have to go with either one. What they presented us here, as I understand it, is more service if we put the same amount of dollars into it. The question I have is there another alternative that we could take that would cost us less money and we would get equivalent service to what we have today? Jeff Benson: What I would suggest in terms of that issue, it has to go to the Legislature to change the current law because according to the current law, based on the current service that you have, you pay a 1.5 mill rate, which is $133,000. Based on the plan, if the ridership were as good as the first scenario, you are paying twice as much as you need to pay for the service that you getting or would get with I this plan. Councilman Horn: What if we opt out? Do we need to take the amount of service that you have outlined here? Jeff Benson: You could pay a little bit less based on a current legislation and have only peak service, in the morning and in the evening. It would be about 80 percent or a little higher of what you are currently paying just for that difference. Councilwoman Watson: We don't really have a choice of not providing service and saving $133,000. Even if we provide no service we are still going to have the money going out. It still costs us money because we have no choice based on present legislation. We might as well provide some decent service because we are going to pay the money regardless. AWARD ill:. BIDS: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT: h Sinqle Axle Truck Cab and Chassis; ~ Three Wheel Street Sweeper. SINGLE AXLE TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS: Bill Monk: Part of the 1986 budget, the Council did approve several purchases. Because of the time lag between ordering it and actually getting the equipment, we did move to secure bids and quotes on a single axle truck cab and chassis. On the I dump box, plow, sander and radio we took quotes. The results of everything are complied in the staff report you have before you. It is a bundle of information and may seem somewhat overwhelming, but it does seem to consistently give us the lowest and best cost. Unless it is worked directly with the suppliers and the maintenance people, (who will be responsible for the various parts of the unit, and we find it to I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 i I I -5- be much to the city's advantage in several ways.) As far as the bid goes, staff is suggesting that we go to the second low bid, which is from Superior Ford in the amount of $20,296.00 for the cab and chassis because the GMC bidl does not include an integral front frame extension. We do have one such unit and we' do have problems with the extended frame as it would be delivered by GMC. That is the reason we are suggesting the second low bid. There are, after that, a series of quotations for the dump body. It is recommended that we accept the quote from Midland Equipment for $6,495.00; for the snow plow it is recommended that we accept the quote from Road Machinery for $4,071.00; for the sander it is recommended that ~e accept the quote from Midland Equipment for $2,000.00; for the radio - the only quote we got for a heavy duty radio was for $1,100.00 from Motorola. The total cost of the unit is $33,962.00 under that series of bids and quotes. That is just a, small increase from the unit that was bid two years ago and is the exact same unit. Councilman Horn: Is the integral frame extension an option that is offered by GMC? Bill Monk: No, it is not. Councilman Horn: cification. I So, in effect, we eliminated GMC as an option by offering that spe- I Bill Monk: Yes, in a way we have. We did tell them if they wanted to bid we would go over our reasoning of several years ago when we put in the integral frame, which is made by International and Ford. We did run through all the r~asons and problems that we have had and after looking at the price differential, wh~ch we thought was quite minor, decided to make the recommendation to the Council that the integral frame be upheld in the spec. If the difference had been somethi~g like $2,000 to $4,000 or more, I don't think the recommendation would have been'the same as it is. Councilman Horn: I am just curious about the legality of setting up a spec, which I we know that people cannot meet. Bill Monk: As long as you are not writing the spec around one unit, we have done this, I don't know if this is the second or third time that we have done it. We do not consider GMC's bid an equal bid and therefore, I believe that we are on firm legal ground accepting the Superior Ford bid. Mayor Hamilton: As long as they knew up front what you were looking for. I Bill Monk: That is correct. It was clearly spelled out and underlined in the spec what we wanted. GMC had called us before hand to ask whether it was worth submitting a bid. I did tell them we would take a look at it in terms of being equal. Our recommendation tonight is that we do not believe that it is equal. I Councilman Horn: I guess the thing that I am getting at is, let"s say that there is a Ford 400 engine that we have had some problems with, could we specify a cubic inch engine that only GMC can provide us. That is still a legal bid because we have had problems with this? Bill Monk: It has been done, but I guess I don't see this as being quite that extreme. Two makers do supply this. I know what you are saying. It always comes back in the bidding process of being equal. If the supplier can show that number of cubic inches is indeed equal, in terms of what the city or anybody else is trying to acheive. I don't believe we've got a firmer legal stance than you can take. In this case we do not believe that it is equal. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -6- Councilman Horn: But there is no way that the supplier could refute that statement? Councilman Horn: In other words, if you went to GM, would they tell you that you are right, this integral frame is much superior to what we are offering? I Bill Monk: They might. Bill Monk: They would say it is not the same, whether they would say it is equal or not, I don't know. Councilman Horn: Well, that is what we are talking about. Bill Monk: I guess after we looked at it, staff does not believe that it is equal for the purpose that we want it for. Councilman Horn: It appears to me that we are setting up the spec to get what we want. RESOLUTION #85-68: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution to approve the following bids as recommended by the City Engineer: Sander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . Midland Equip. R ad i 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mot 0 r 0 1 a $20,296.00 6,495.00 4,071.00 2,000.00 1,100.00 Single Axle Truck Cab and Chassis............Superior Ford Dump Body ...................................Midland Equip. Snow Plow........................Road Machinery & Supplies Resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. I Councilman Horn: I would feel more comfortable if we had an opinion from our attor- ney before we acted on this. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that if there is going to be a problem it would come from the Minneapolis GMC Truck center who did the bidding. If they knew, to begin with, what we were asking for and they don't have a problem with it, we pro- bably are not going to have a problem, unless they feel that they have been duped in some way. They obviously don't because they were told ahead of time what they were bidding on. Correct? Bill Monk: It was clearly spelled out. Councilman Gevinq: I believe that this is just like we have done with every other bid process and that we have tried to be up front on everyone of these. If their protest were to come from Minneapolis GMC Truck Center, let it happen and then we will go to our attorney and they can work it out. As far as the formal bidding pro- cess is concerned, I think that we followed all the rules, we have reviewed the bids, we've knocked them out because they presented us with a bid that did not meet the specifications and I think we are in order. I think if we do get a protest for this bid and the award, at that time we should go to the attorney. Councilman Horn: I think we all need to be comfortable too, that we are writing a I proper spec. I have not seen any documentation that tells me that this integral frame extension is any better. All I have gotten is some word of mouth saying that we had problems with the other. I have no idea what the frequency of those problems were, or the type of the problems. I don't have any of that data to base it on and I want to make sure that we are offering fair and competitive bids in this process. I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 L7- Councilwoman Watson: There is only a $400.00 difference between the two units and we have experienced numerous problems associated with the stengths of welds and bolts, which I can even understand. For $400.00 it seems to me that just taking the simple approach is worth getting the other unit. Don Ashworth: I did review this item with the City Attorney this afternoon and he basically made the same comment that Councilman Geving did. That is, he reviewed Bill's report, he has no problem with the legal basis under which we are moving for- ward. If I was aware of the fact that GM had a particular problem with this or in otherwords, that they were in any way protesting it, he would like to know what their position is to reaffirm his position. But based on what he read, he was very comfor- table with the City Engineer's recommendation and felt it was a solid recommendation. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. THREE WHEEL STREET SWEEPER: Bill Monk: Again, as a part of the 1986 budget, the City Counci!l did approve the purchase of a three wheel sweeper to replace our 1976 unit. Th~ reason that we rushed with the bids, as we did somewhat, was because there was to be between a five and an eight percent increase in the sweeper prices as of Decem~er 1st and taking bids to the end of November, we did come in before those price increases went into effect. As you can see the bids that were received were both for Elgin equipment from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for two models of Elgin three wheel sweepers that are made. We did not get a bid from Itasca Equipment. I am not exactly sure why that was. I know FMC is not bidding at this point because of proble~s that they are having with all their three wheel sweepers that they have made recently. We are recommending that the bid from MacQueen Equipment for the Elgin ICustom in the amount of $60,930.00 be accepted and further that the $1,000.00 deduct for the six-month warranty that will cover the 1986 season sweeping season also be accepted so that the I bid be awarded to MacQueen in the amount of $59,930.00. RESOLUTION #85-69: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution to approve the bid for the three wheel street sweeper to MacQueen Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $59,930.00. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The fdllowing voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Amend City Council minutes dated November 4, 1985, page 9, add following comment as paragraph four under ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DENSIFIED REfUSE DERIVED fUEL fACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE P-4 DISTRICT, by Mr. Don Brauer: We have requested Carver County to permit us to process the fuel as regulations require. We do anticipate that the process, if ~pproved at this site, would involve some portion of Carver County's refuse. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council minutes dated November 4, 1985 with the noted amendments. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following I . voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenso~, Counc~lmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated November 6, 1985. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following vo~ed in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -8- SOUTHEAST CORNER QI ~ 117 AND LAKE LUCY ROAD, MERRILL STELLER: ~ Subdivision Request ~ Plat 85 Acres ~ Property into ~ Lots and 1 Outlot. I ~ Authorize Feasibility Study for Lake ~ Road Improvements. Barb Dacy: The parcel is now zoned Rl-a, Agricultural Residential. The site is composed of approximately 84.5 acres. There is an existing house on the site at this time. The site is located east of and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard and south of Lake Lucy Road. Proposed is a preliminary plat because it is zoned Rl-a and outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area is proposing a minimum 2! acre lots, 19 of them and an outlot adjecent to Lake Lucy. The site does contain a class A wetlands adjacent to Lake Lucy as well as a class B wetland just south of Lake Lucy Road. There were several issues with the plat. The first issue is a traffic issue. That is why you have a two items to take action on for this particular item. The proposed plat realigns Lake Lucy Road in such a manner that it maintains the 67th Street intersection with CR 117. As you all recall, Lake Lucy Road is a city street and is being proposed to be extended in the common plan. Another trafffic issue is the amount of driveways onto Lake Lucy Road. The developer is proposing a consolidated access for several of the lots both onto Lake Lucy Road and onto Galpin Boulevard. The County has notified us that these two proposed access points are acceptable, pending approval. Also being proposed is five driveway cuts onto Lake Lucy Road and an additional one was added at the Planning Commission meeting. A joint three lot, private drive is being proposed off of Lake Lucy Road at this point to serve lots 12, 9 and 7. Another issue that is important to this particular plat is the septic systems. As you know, our subdivision ordinance requires two percolation tests per lot in a rural area. Staff was concerned about the distance of the proposed septic sites, especially adjacent to the class A wetland. Our ordinance has a 150 foot set- back for a septic system so we will get the buildable areas of each of these lots, as I well as the lots adjacent to the class B wetland. Based on the percolation rates and the amount of buildable area in these particular lots there are areas available to install a house as well as a septic system that should not adversely affect the wetland areas. The third issue is the drainage pattern. Basically, there is no alteration proposed to any of the wetlands. Another recommendation that came out of the Planning Commission meeting was to reserve appropriate drainage easements given over all of the necessary lots to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Finally, Outlot A. Historically, from what I understand, this was a site that was once con- sidered as a lake access site. The Park and Recreation commission will be meeting tomorrow night to discuss that issue and will be making a recommendation to the Council at a later date. In the meantime, it is being proposed as an outlot. If it was not required by the City and wanted to be a private beachlot, they would have to come through the process at that time and apply for a conditional use permit. So that issue remains "up in the air" until the Park and Recreation Commission can give you a recommendation on that. Staff recommended approval based on the conditions stated in the staff report. Planning Commission approved of that and made adjust- ments to our recommendations. The Planning Commission's recommendations are as follows: 1. A maximum of 5 new driveways enter the Lake Lucy realignment, and a maximum of 2 driveways enter County Road 117. 2. No alteration to the existing wetlands be permitted and all existing drainage be maintained except as affected by the proposed street construction. I 3. The applicant must receive a grading and land alteration permit from the Watershed District. 4. There must be drainage easements given over all of the necessary lots to maintain the existing drainage pattern. I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 19B5 , ~9- Mayor Hamilton: staff's report? Mr. Steller, do you have anything that you would like to add to I Mr. Steller: I think we are trying to make the best use of this property that we can. I think we have done a good job. We do have 2! acre lots and some larger ones. With 19 buildable lots, it would mean that there would be one house per 4.14 acres. I Councilwoman use to be as drain that. Watson: wet as it I believe On Lots 12 and 13, that is a particularly low area. It didn't has been in the last few years. Are there drain tiles that when we talked about Pheasant Hill, we talked about that area. I Mr. Steller: There is broken drain tile on Lot 12 that could be! repairable if the wetlands would permit us to do that. Right now there is a natural drainage area that goes from Lot 12 across the southeast corner of the lot and comes down onto Lot 6. There is a culvert underneath that and it drains out into Lot 7. That is the low area where the water sits and eventually drains out into the lake. We will, on the final plat, deal with the drainage business for that area. I Councilwoman Watson: I just remember that those lots didn't us~ to be as wet. Mr. Steller: We have got some big culverts coming across the road there from Pheasant Hill. I Councilwoman Watson: I wonder if that contributed at all to th~ wetness in those lots. Off of Lake Lucy Road where we have 11, 10, 9, B, 7, and 12, is there any chance of a cul-de-sac there that would bring all of those lots ,onto one private road I or a "T" on the end that would keep those from accessing onto Lake Lucy Road? Mr. Steller: Lot B is the lot that has the present residence o~ it. That is accessed off of West 67th Street right now. subdivision ordinance provides that a private d~ive Anything more than that is not provided for and .you to do that as a private drive. i Barb Dacy: Our to three lots. grant a variance can only serve up would have to Councilman Horn: I would rather have a onto the road. variance than all these I exists lots so I chose the three lots I Mr. Steller: I was restricted to three would be best served by that. that I thought Councilwoman Watson: That's 7, 9 and 12? Mr. Steller: Yes. If we could work Lot 10 in on that, that would be great with me. I variance and eliminate one of the Councilman Horn: I would rather give him a accesses. Councilwoman Watson: How long would that private drive be if cul-de-sac on the end down by Lot 7 and B. there were a "T" or I I Mr. Steller: About 650 feet. Councilman Gevinq: I am somewhat concerned about the water drainage and runoff in the Pheasant Hill project. We did have a very good study that ~as made on this pro- ject and was presented to us and I think it resolved the problem in Pheasant Hill quite well. Now I see that is is spilling over into Mr. Steller's area. It may have Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -10- caused some problems in that lower area. I have some problems there and maybe we ought to take another look at that. There was some question about the fronting of the homes on Lot 7 and 9. I believe those should be fronted on the proposed Lake Lucy Road. I do have a comment or two on the Outlot. I would like to see us have access to the lake through the Outlot for some recreational puposes in the future, possibly as a part of our hiking trail system. I don't know if that has been pro- posed, but I would like to add that to the plan that we do have a permanent easement over Outlot A for that purpose. I was also going to propose that on Outlot A, as well as Lot 4, Block 2, that we also have an easement on the lake of approximately 6 feet for the same pupose. One of the things that we have been able to do quite suc- cessfully on Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, and Lake Ann has been to gain those accesses through the easement process and we have been able to establish somewhat of a trail system. We are just starting with Lake Lucy and maybe this is where we can get this first initial trail system going. We could start here and work to the west as that area develops. I don't know how you would feel about that, Mr. Steller, if we could do that or not. I would propose an elevation of about 958, two feet above the high water mark so at least we would have a four or six foot walkway across those two lots. Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Steller? Mr. Steller: My only thought on that is that Lot 2 there is a prime area and it is more or less isolated up there and nicely wooded, and I just don't know if people would have objection if there was that type of traffic. I Councilman Gevinq: I think it is the same kind of traffic that we are experiencing between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy right now. It is very light. People are using it for recreational walking. I see a lot of walkers from the Greenwood Shores area hiking along there. I am just looking ahead to the time when we might be able to do this I all the way around Lake Lucy, like we are doing with Lake Ann and Lake Susan. I would like to consider that. Mayor Hamilton: If you want it at 958 it is going to be so high up. Councilman Gevinq: I just picked a number. I just said that because I know the ele- vation is 958 at water level. I know that probably doesn't happen too often, but at least a reasonable length of distance from the existing water level. The other point that I would like to make is that we are in the process of building a new road, much like we did with Kerber Boulevard. We were able to gain a four foot strip for recreational hiking and biking. A lot of joggers use that on Kerber Boulevard. I would like to see us do the same thing here with Lake Lucy Road as it is being pro- posed, to extend that another four feet to a 28 foot width with a stripping for four feet so that people could use it for hiking. Mayor Hamilton: As long as we could continue that along the existing Lake Lucy Road, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Councilman Gevinq: That is what I mean, to hook that up with the new paved Lake Lucy Road all the way out to CR 17. Mayor Hamilton: As long as we have the right of way to do that now with Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Gevinq: Right. I have some other comments. I really question, per- I sonally, the use of Outlot A to be acquired by the City for parkland purposes. Somebody said that this is a park deficient area. We are really not that far from Lake Ann and some of the other parks. I think that this Outlot A should remain as an I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -11- I Outlot at this time and I would recommend to the Park and Recreaction Commission that we don't pick this up as part of our park proposal. I see that as strictly an Outlot. I am more interested in trail connections throughout the City than I am with acquiring more park land. I agree with the earlier comments that we should attempt with all measure to reduce the number of accesses onto the proposed Lake Lucy Road, I like Carol's proposal for the cul-de-sac that she is proposing on that private drive and if it becomes part of the plan, as far as I am concerned, it is a very nice addi- tive. We could then pick up Lots 7, 9, and 10 with the idea that those homes will be fronted on the proposed Lake Lucy Road. I wouldn't want them fronted onto a cul-de- sac. The real asset here is the new proposed road. Councilman Horn: My main concern was limiting the number of acc~sses onto the high- way. I think Carol covered that adequately. Mayor Hamilton: On Outlot A, rather than making a recommendatio.n back the Park and Recreation Com~ission, I would rather have them make a recommeda'tion to us as to what they think should happen with Outlot A, let them look at it and make a recommendation to us and then we can act on it. The path that Dale commented on, staff could pro- bably review that, but it doesn't look like it would be real feasible at just looking at the map that we have in front of us. You might want to take la look at that and see what the Park and Recreation thinks tomorrow night. You might want to suggest that to them and see what their thoughts are about that also. Carol's comments were good. If there is some way that we can consolidate another lot .or two onto the pri- vate drive, whether or not it is with a cul-de-sac or not doesn'.t really make too much difference as long as we can keep as many cuts off of Lake Lucy Road as possible. Other than that, I like the plan and I think it is v~ry good. It looks like it is going to be a very nice road. RESOLUTION D85-70: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution to approve the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road with provisions for a bikeway/walkway trail to be included; and approved the preliminary plat request D85-19, stamped "Received November 1, 1985 to plat 85 acres of property into 19 Lots and 1 Outlot at the southeast corner of County Road 117 and Lake Lucy Road with the ,following conditions: 1. A maximum of 2 driveways entering County Road 117 and the number of driveways onto Lake Lucy Road be minimized including authorization of a private drive for Lots 7, 9, 10 and 12. 2. No alteration to the existing wetlands be permitted and all existing drainage be maintained except as affected by the proposed street construction. 3. The applicant must receive a grading and land alteration jpermit from the Watershed District. I 4. There must be drainage easements given over all of the necessary lots to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative The Council also requested that the homes on Lots 7 and 9 front on Lake Lucy Road. This, however, was not a condition. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -12- SITE PLAN REVIEW, 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, lOTS 1 AND ~ BLOCK ~ CHANHASSEN BUISNESS PARK, OPUS CORPORATION: Barb Dacy: Proposed is Phase II of the Chanhassen lakes Business Center development. Phase I, as you all know, is already existing on Park Road in the Business Park. The proposed building is 56,000 square feet, located in the northeast of corner of Park Drive and Park Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed site plan. However, as you read through the reports there are a number of issues that had to be addressed. The primary concern was the setback and distance from the edge of the building to the center line of the creek. The creek runs along the north and east side of the site. The Watershed District requires a 100 foot distance on either side of the creek. What has been proposed here is to maximize the distance from the edge of the building to the center line of the creek. The applicant has had to push the parking setback beyond what had normally been required in the Business Park to a distance of eight feet and in some cases along Park Road. As you recall, this site was part of Opus' over all soil study. There were soil concerns in the area and they had to locate the building in a certain place and balance it keeping the creek setbacks and balance it to the particular site characteristics. The appli- cant will have to obtain a variance to the Watershed District's setback requirement. In speaking with the Watershed District, what will be done is a certain amount of area will be retained on the north side of the creek in the northerly portion of this particular area so that 200 foot distance is maintained and allowing Opus to locate their building in the proposed location. As far as the decrease in the usual required setbacks, staff is recommending additional plantings along Park Road and there is a 6 to 8 foot berm being proposed to screen the parking area. As you will note in Phase I, the loading area is screened and located in the center of the lot. It is screened by the proposed building itself. loading activities will not be seen. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on staff's conditions and the five recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report. Bob Worthinqton: We are very pleased to come before you this evening and present what is the second office warehouse building within the Chanhassen lakes Business Parks area. As you recall, back in 1983 we came before you with Chanhassen lakes Business Park 1. At that time we were interested in testing the market to find out if the hi-tech space, as it has become to be identified within this area for small users, was indeed something that could be marketed. It marketed with a great deal of success here in Chanhassen. I am happy to report that we have a successfully marketed Chanhassen lakes Business Park 1, and now we are going to do Chanhassen lakes Business Park 2. Chanhassen lakes 2 is going to be, in many ways, a carbon copy of Chanhassen lakes 1 with some differences. The major differences is with the exterior of the building. Rather than being wood and pre-cast panel, it will be all architectural brick units or architectural block units with a band of architectural painted block units to kind of give the building a distinct image, which is somewhat different from Chanhassen lakes 1 building. As you know, in the hi-tech buildings we are doing things a little bit different with the traditional office/warehouse buildings that were built up until the mid 1970's and early 1980's. One is the loaded truck dock area is totally concealed from view so that users do not have the nuisance characteristics associated with trucks loading and unloading. Any material that may be associated with that will be hidden from the public. Also, there is added control over how trucks enter and exit the site. Secondly, each of the units that are going to be divided within the building will have their own entrances into each of their spaces. Each tenant will have his own entrance into and out of his space. I I I I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 I -13- i Following Council questions concerning creek protection, drainag~ patterns and parking availability, Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Chanha~sen Lakes Business Park Two site plan #85-11 as shown on the site plan stamped "Rec~ived October 31, 1985" with the following conditions: I 1. That additional landscaping be planted between the Austrian Pine and Summit Ash on the center island adjacent to Park Road.1 2. The applicant must receive the required permits/variances from the Watershed District and DNR. I 3. Concrete aprons including gutters be constructed at each access to maintain the flow of runoff in the streets. I 4. The most easterly section of the storm sewers must be RCP (in place of plastic) with a flared end section and rip-rap. I 5. Restabilization of all disturbed areas outside the contruction limits as soon as possible following initial grading. I 6. All bituminous areas be lined with concrete curb. I 7. Silt fence shall be installed along the north and south property lines to protect creek and pond from erosion during construction. i i1n f a v 0 r : May 0 r Geving. No negative I I Motion was seconded by Councilman Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and votes. Motion carried. Geving. The following voted Swenson, Councilmen Horn and SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ 9,784 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAREDO DRIVE AND WEST 78TH STREET, STATE BANK ]I CHANHASSEN: The City Planner, Barb Dacy, reviewed the bank building building layout, access and parking in conformance with plan, signs, landscaping and lighting. site plan including the the downtown redevelopment I Mike Higgins and John Thorstenson were present representing the ;bank and further addressed Council comments concerning specifics of the building',s architecture, site drainage and access. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the State Bank of Chanhassen site plan #85-3 stamped "Received October 31, 1985" for a 9,784 square foot bank buildi~g at the northwest corner of Laredo Drive and West 78th Street with the following conditions: i That the southerly access be temporary and relocated to connect with the new road to the west. Silt fence be installed around the existing culvert oJtlet and along Laredo Drive to control erosion during construction. 1. 2. 3. A positive outlet be established for drainage from th~ garden/ court area. 4. I All bituminous areas be lined with concrete curb and should not be extended beyond the property lines. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -14- 5. Approval of an access permit from Carver County and compliance with all conditions. 6. Approval of the Watershed District and compliance with all conditions. I Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUESTS REGARDING INDOOR HOCKEY RINK, CHANHASSEN/CHASKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: Lori Sietsema: The Hockey Association is in the process of building an indoor ice rink in the prop shop building owned by Herb Bloomberg. In this construction and planning of putting in this ice rink, they have asked the City to come through with a few services in operating and maintaining the facility. That proposal is in your packet. Hard costs to the City would be approximately $2,500. That would be the ice attendant's salary. Other costs: the time, the maintenance, workers, flooding the rink, resurfacing and snow removal come to be about $4,000. I have reviewed this proposal and I feel that an indoor ice rink would be a very well received facilty in the City of Chanhassen, however, I feel that the proposal as outlined in Mr. Johnson's letter is not feasible for the City. I have reviewed this with Don and we agree that the City could operate this facility as a City function more efficiently than the Hockey Association can when you consider insurance costs. We could also offset some of our costs that are occurred by the rental fees that come in. Mr. Johnson is here to make any comments. Brad Johnson: I think it is a good idea. It eliminates a lot of problems that we I would probably potentially have long term in operating this. As I told Lori on the phone, the building is being cleaned out and being put together and how many hours we will be able to actually pay for this year I think is going to be up in the air. But next year, based on Hopkins operation, we will have no problem with 500 - 600 hours. This year is another problem. I would like to ask the City to kind of bear with it through the process and give us what support you feel that you can have. The atten- dant is necessary for basic safety and patrol. The Association itself is venturing every weekend, and a couple thousand dollars to get it operating, we have got to deal with who is leasing it down the line, it is Herb Bloomberg's property, and all those types of things. So, if you could appoint someone on the staff to negotiate along the lines of Lori, it really takes the burden off our back. We just don't have the management to take care of it, also there will probably be a lot of Minnetonka people using this since Chanhassen does extend to that school district. Basically, there will be two hockey associations using it. Councilwoman Watson: I can see where the City doing it would be better. It is kind of late for this year, but however it can be worked out so that it pays for itself. Councilman Gevinq: I think it is a great proposal. We have been looking for a faci- lity like this since 1972. I guess we didn't realize that it was in our own backyard. Is Herb Bloomberg donating this building to the CCHA. Brad Johnson: It was set up as a part of the new downtown. Mr. Bloomberg is doing I it, basically, on a percent of gross lease. That means if we don't rent it this year, it is nothing. I like the idea the way it is set up. Councilman Gevinq: I am familiar with the CAA. I was president for a year and have been active in it for a long time. It has a large membership, but it is a membership that is very fluid. It is hard to get a lot of people to work and participate and to I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 I -15- put in their time. I have always thought the only way that it c~Uld really work is through the community effort. I think this is the right way to go. I am very much in favor of this. Councilwoman Swenson: I notice it says, "we are late in the season and able to achieve the proposed operating budget of $9,000.00 this ~ear." you anticipate as being an annual budget for this? we may not be Is that what Lori Sietsema: I got that figure out of Brad 'S............ Councilwoman Swenson: this, is that correct? i You anticipate that it is going to cost $9,000 to operate i I out for $10. I asked them numb~r. They have con- hour. That was $6,000 and is a Iwash. So we are I is with maitenance and Brad Johnson: Hopkins has a similar rink, which they rent why the rent it out for $10. They said they just set that tinuously rented it for 600 hours and brought in $10.00 an that was what it cost them, about, to operate. He said it saying it will cost $4,800 to operate at fixed cost. That everything, but is should bring in about $9,000. Councilwoman Swenson: what you are saying? So it shouldn't really cost the tax payers anything. I Is that Brad Johnson: Yes. This year could cost, but next year, no. Councilman Horn: I think it is a good plan. Mayor Hamilton: I think it is a good plan as long as the City runs it. It should be controlled by the City. Councilman Gevinq: Is this a 1985 adjustment or a 1986 adjustment? I Don Ashworth: You have a section in your budget which is referred to as self- supporting programs. As long as the program is self-supporting; Lori can start that type of a program. So we are not looking to a budget adjustment. If we end up with any problems, we would have to bring it back to you. Right now Iwe are anticipating that we still can run in the black for 1986. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the indoor hockey rink with the Park and Recreation department carrying out overall sibilities, which include the following: I proposal as presented operation respon- 1. Revenue/expenses 2. Ice Maintenace 3. Scheduling 4. Rink attendant Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and votes. Motion carried. i favor: Geving. ! Mayor No negative APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS lQ LAKE DRIVE EAST BETWEEN DAKOTA AVENUE AND ~ ~ HIDDEN VALLEY: Bill Monk: Based on the petition that the Council has received some time ago, a I feasibility study for construction of Lake Drive East, a road between Dakota Avenue and TH 101, has been completed and is attached. Mr. Mittelstadt and Mr. Frigaard are here from OSM to walk through the report and see if there are questions. Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -16- Bob Frigaard: As Bill stated this street was petitioned for by the devloper of the Hidden Valley addition. Lake Drive East is one small segement of the entire Lake Drive East, which goes through the CPT property and all the way through the Opus pro- perty, etc. This segement just goes from TH 101 on the west to Dakota Avenue on the east. It is a proposed 36 foot face to face street, concrete curb and gutter, base and bituminous as per MSA (Municipal State Aid) system design. Lake Drive East is on your Municipal State Aid system. We have proposed widening it out for a right turn lane here between TH 101 and Marsh Road and also we put costs in the report for some minimal amount of temporary improvements along TH 101. The state, in the next couple of years, will be doing some upgrading of Highway 5 and at that time we are going ask them also to maybe do some upgrading on TH 101 between Lake Drive East and Highway 5 because of the proposed Lake Drive East coming from the west. During the design pro- cess we would have to work with the state on some details on that. The grading of Lake Drive East from TH 101 through approximately Hidden Court Road is under process and will be done by the developers. The other utilities are being put in by the developer and the water and sewer are primarily back in the interior street. The only utilities that are needed here is a piece of storm sewer in Lake Drive East to tie into the storm sewer that the developer will be putting in. It is necessary to storm sewer the intersection of Dakota Avenue. In order to do that the only outlet for that storm sewer would be to the east or maybe the pipe that goes down in the revene by CPT. We would propose that this easement be procured along the south edge of Lake Drive East but south so that we do not have to disturb the surfacing that is presently in existance. The total estimated cost of the project is $377,260.00. Of that, in working with the staff and on the assessments, it is recommended that the City's share, which is handled to the MSA funds, is 90 percent of the storm sewer and one-third of the street cost and the total right-of-way acquisition cost. There will be a necessity to require some right-of-way behind the Sinclair station and the back of the rear of the houses on Chanhassen Estates. The recommendations as far as assessments are basically within the area from TH 101 over to the edge, here. The lots on the south side have no access onto Lake Drive East. The Sinclair station has its access off of Dakota. The assessment as proposed is based on the total front footage of the abutting property. The lots within the Hidden Valley addition, the developer had requested that the cost of his portion, along the residential area, that the total cost would be split among all 109 lots and we have gone along with that proposal. The footages as I stated are here and are shown on the map. We did select a footage for the American Legion Post and there is a setback of 120 feet. There will be a definite appraisal of the property to see if the benefit is there. Mayor Hamilton: On Lot 7, that is the proposed church site, I believe. Can we assess them? Councilman Gevinq: You bet. Councilwoman Swenson: Where is Chanhassen's section? We have got 300 feet here for Chanhassen. Bob Friqaard: That is the American Legion. Their new access is being provided here. We are working with staff on that. Sixty foot of access does not seem like an appli- cable assessment for benefiting any higher piece. So we went back approximately 120 feet setback and picked a 300 foot figure across there as an assessable figure. Councilwoman Swenson: Will that eliminate their access onto TH 101? Bill Monk: The only way that the access onto TH 101 would be eliminated would be upon ultimate development of the site when they come before the City Council with a I I I I I I Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 I I -17 on that access point being done wi~h the existing new site plan. The Council could then place a condition left or taken out. There is no way that anything can be access until such time when the site develops. I we are picking up that assessment going to assess the Legion? I until such time Councilwoman Swenson: So actually, when there is a change. We are not Bill Monk: At this point you are making no decision about the a'ssessment. I am saying that there is a good chance that I will be recommending, at time of assessment, that the assessment be deferred in some manner because the City created the access situation. Whether the Council goes along with that is impossible to say at this point in time. Bob Friqaard: Based on the proposal, each of the 109 Lots would get a $5,544.00 charge and then Blocks 5, 6 and 7 would end up with the $34,000, $59,000, and $39,000 and the 300 foot that we were just talking about for the Legion Iwould amount to $16,296.00. Councilman Horn: Is the Legion aware of this study? Bill Monk: A copy of the study was sent to all abutting property owners, whether they were proposed to be assessed or not. Copies went out only learly last week. I don't like to release reports to much in advance of the Council,getting them because you won't be aware of what is going on when somebody else might 'have their report. They did get one. Tonight's meeting is just to look at the feasibility study and accept it or ask that it be modified and it still has to go through the public hearing and there are a number of formal steps that we still need to go through with this project. Councilwoman Swenson: I have problems with that particular section, the $16,000. Mayor Hamilton: That is going to be discussed in a lot more de ail. Councilwoman Swenson: If we approve the feasibility study however, we are indiretly approving these figures. I would like to exclude that particulkr figure. Mayor Hamilton: We are just approving the concept. all be discussed and that can be changed. I At the public hearing, that will Bill Monk: The study definitely does say that the American Leg~on property is bene- fiting through the construction of the road. You aren't approving the figure so much as you are approving the concept of the study. I think that before this is over, the City may have well moved in to an appraisal standpoint to deter~ine exactly how much the Legion property does benefit and that will have an affect on everybody's assessment. I Councilwoman Swenson: So the numbers are not specific? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Bob Friqaard: Through the preliminary hearing the numbers, again, are just a guide and you still have the right to change anything up until the ti~e of the assessment. Councilman Gevinq: I have a concern over that road alignment that touches the existing State Highway 5 as shown there. Have you looked ahead and projected your I thoughts on the expansion of Highway 5 and what it will do to this alignment? Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -18- Bob Friqaard: there out. You have already approved this alignment. We had to take it from Councilman Gevinq: Okay, so you were locked into that. I Bob Friqaard: So we are locked into what you had approved before. There is quite a knob through here and there has to be quite a bit of excavation through here. It will be necessary to pick up a couple slope easements on the back of some of those narrow lots, just a temporary slope easement. We will also have to work close with the Highway Department. I think basically the concept of Lake Drive East all the way through is that it is almost what you would call a service road for Highway 5. Councilman Gevinq: The other conern that I have is the easements that will probably have to be bought behind the Sinclair station and the duplex homes south of the pro- posed roadway. The reason I say I have a concern is that we have no way of assessing those assessed easement costs back to the benefiting owners. In this case you are indicating that there is no benefit, so they will not be assessed. This is contrary to some of our previous policies whereby we were able to buy easements and then spread the costs to all the benefiting homeowners. In this case we may pay a bundle for those easements and the people will walk away scotch free with their cash, no benefit and everybody else will pay for them. Have you thought about that? Bob Friqaard: slope easement. tion. We won't be taking and land from the Lots other than maybe a temporary The property would come off of Outlot 1, that is the Sinclair sta- Councilman Gevinq: Is there a benefit to them? Will they be assessed? I Bob Friqaard: Under the proposal we do not have an assessment in there for them. Councilman Gevinq: Don't you think that there is a benefit to that Sinclair station by gaining access to the back side of their property for vehicular traffic? Bob Friqaard: Yes, if it were given access. But my understanding is that their access now is off of Dakota Avenue and it would be retained there. Councilman Gevinq: Any thoughts on that? Bill Monk: This situation is a little bit unusual. Outlot 1 is two parcels. Sinclair station owns a portion of Outlot 1, the very eastern portion of it. The balance is owned by the Chanhassen Holding Company. In looking at the land actually owned by the Sinclair station, there is no way that they can access, and I don't believe the City will allow them to access onto the new Lake Drive East because of the alignment to the station and proximity to the existing intersection of Dakota. The balance of the property will be rendered totally unusable through the easement acquisition process. Whether that was done intentionally, because they knew a road was going to go through there in the future, I don't know. So there is no way to say that anything benefits in there. Councilman Gevinq: I have one other concern and that is the same that other members have indicated. I don't think that there is a great deal of benefit in this road I alignment to the American Legion. I am familiar with that piece of land that they have been trying to fill over the last four or five years and that access point is a very low spot. In fact, they are still trying to fill it up with dirt so that they can get access to the ball diamond. We are going to have some problems with that one. We will be discussing that, but I don't think that there is $16,000 worth of I I I i Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -19- I benefit because if there is a road that has to go in there to make this a marketable I piece of property, somebody is going to have to build it and they are going to have to pay for it, in addition to the $16,000 that we are talking about. I think the figures here are going to be changed a lot before we are done wi~h this. Bob Friqaard: You mentioned a low area that has to be filled. We have some excess material. i Councilman Gevinq: That might be a good selling point at the public forum. I Bob Friqaard: We can certainly improve that property if they want the excess I material that we have. It will help them and because it is close by it would pro- bably reduce our costs for getting rid of some of that. Councilwoman Watson: I am very interested in our use of the MSA funds and I see three projects, two of them which were mentioned tonight and one that was not men- I tioned. I am very concerned on how we divide up and the use of our MSA funds so that Bluff Creek Drive, lake lucy Road and lake Drive East can all make use of those MSA funds and can be built in 1986. I Bill Monk: That was the reason that in this report I put the total numbers and the yearly increment that we are allotted because it helps to see th~t if this one goes at this amount and lake lucy goes at another amount, I think it gives the Council a" chance to see how the monies might be used. Other projects are funded in 1986 and 1987. Mayor Hamilton: expect. I think we need to see that laid out so we have an idea what to I Bill Monk: There are people from the public here that may want to comment. I think members of the Kerr Company are here and may want to make comments to the Council so that we can take something into account as we go into the publiclhearing process. Frank Kramer: I am with New American Homes, who is the actual owner of the -property. We have reviewed Bill's report in detail. We had preliminary discussions with Bill back in July, August and September where we were discussing the cost of the project, the assessment possibilities and how the improvements would be made. At that-time we indicated that the grading for lake Drive East up to the east property line on our plat would be made by us. We also dicussed what we felt was thejupper most l~mit of the cost of the project, which the high would be $250,000 and the low would be somewhere around $200,000. Another assumption that we made was that the assessments would be made on a acreage basis instead of a frontage basis. B~sically, we feel that the assessments as presented do not reflect benefit as it relates to all the abutting property, especially on the north side of the frontage road. We are not prepared to proceed given the findings of this report and ask that our concerns be reviewed for the upcoming improvement hearing. Councilman Geving moved to approve the feasibility study detailing improvements to I lake Drive East between Highway 101 and Dakota Avenue as prepared by OSM and dated October 28, 1985, further that a public improvement hearing be c~lled for January 27, 1986. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Hornland Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. . Council Meeting, December 2, 1985 -20- CONSIDER PETITION FROM REUTER, INC. FOR WATERMAIN EXTENSION ALONG AUDUBON AVENUE: Bill Monk, City Engineer, reviewed the petition from Reuter, Inc. requesting munici- pal extension of water facilities in Audubon Road to service the proposed manufac- turing site. The feasibility study would be complete in house and only after execution of a development contract with the petitioner. Mayor Hamilton moved to authorize the preparation of an in-house feasibility study detailing a watermain extension in Audubon Road to service the Reuter Manufacturing complex upon the execution of a development contract with the petitioner. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist I I I