Loading...
j. City council Minutes dated June 12, 1995' I CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ' REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilwoman Dockendorf, and Councilman Berquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr, Diane Desotelle, and John Rask APPROVAL OF AGENDA: r Mayor Chmiel: There are some removals that will not be done this evening. We received, the city received a phone conversation today in regards to item number 6. Maybe we can act on that one. Do they still want us to move forward with it? My understanding is that they didn't want us to move on it. Bob Generous: Well their concern was that they didn't receive any positive action at the Planning Commission and that City Council would also vote unfavorably on it so they weren't going to show up tonight. But if you would like to take it forward without their presence. ■ Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we'd better. Roger Knutson: Have they withdrawn their application? 0 Bob Generous: Not the way their letter. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, John indicated he was going to receive a fax from them. ■ Bob Generous: And the way it's worded, it doesn't address what. Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't really address as it was discussed this afternoon. ■ Roger Knutson: Mayor, you certainly can act on it if you... Mayor Chmiel: We'll keep item number 6 on the agenda. We also are going to remove items number 7 and, or excuse me. 8 and 9. Only because we notified people that there was not going to be a 4/5 vote here this evening and all those people that were notified, of course as you can see are not here, and have been told that we weren't going to have a 4/5 here. Councilwoman Dockendorf, I'm impressed that you are here and say thank ■ you for that. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well sorry I didn't let anyone know. Mayor Chmiel: But those two will be cancelled. I had one other litany to go through yet. There was also notice of public hearing that was published for an off -sale intoxicating liquor license request from Frank Jenneke to take over the Pass By II Liquor Store. And he has requested that this item be delayed to the next agenda because he'd like to notify and have discussions with the adjacent property owners about this change. So this will be scheduled for another agenda. And that was not, it wasn't on our agenda but it was a public notice and r 0 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 that's why I covered that in case someone was here for that. So with that, is there an approval for the balance of the agenda? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carved. The agenda was approved as amended. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 14. 1995 AS NATIONAL FLAG DAY. Mayor Chmiel: This proclamation is declaring June 14, 1995 as National Flag Day. Whereas, by the Act of Congress of the United States dated June 14, 1777, the first official flag of the United States was adopted and 1711-_____ L_. A-, -Jr .J_ A A.. �.. _a '1 IAAn T...... 1 AaL ..0 ......L ..___ ..... .. A----- -a...J .... AT..a:.. »..1 7, City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALES: A. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE SECOND ADDITION. B. LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE SECOND ADDITION. C. LOT 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION. D. LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION. E. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BLOOMBERG SECOND ADDITION. F. LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BLOOMBERG SECOND ADDITION. Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Todd Gerhardt: Under State Statutes the City Council must hold a public hearing when transferring or selling land. As part of the private redevelopment agreement that either the City or the HRA has entered into with each of the parties listed on this report. Being the Press, Power Systems, Paulstarr, National Lodging. The City must hold a public hearing in disclosing of these properties. As part of the land write down procedure in that redevelopment plan it is the city's duty to hold the public hearing to dispose of this land. It's also a requirement that this hearing be held to allow any citizen to comment on the ... of that land. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address any of the respective items that we have indicated for the consideration of land sales? This is a public hearing. Councilman Senn: Don? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Maybe if we could, Todd could you just, I mean ... are nice but nobody understands what they are or where they're at. Could you just run through very quickly which parcels are involved basically. Todd Gerhardt: Lot 1, Block 1, Park One Second Addition, and Lot 2, Block 1, Park One Second Addition. This is the parcel located directly east of the Press facility. This past year they just put a 22,000 square foot addition on. As a part of the redevelopment agreement with that, there were some land write downs. On Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, the City Council entered into a private redevelopment agreement with Power Systems to construct an office manufacturing facility. Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, the City Council again entered into a private redevelopment agreement with n....l,.a...... n-1- -CA ---- 1....a -- --- 1„....a_.J : f.L_ :_ _____ aL_ _a___a C__— at_ 0 I City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 u Councilman Senn: Move approval. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #95 -64: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the transfer of ' land back to the redeveloper as agreed upon in the private redevelopment agreements for the following parcels: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE SECOND ADDITION. ' LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE SECOND ADDITION. LOT 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION. LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION. ' LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BLOOMBERG SECOND ADDITION. LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BLOOMBERG SECOND ADDITION. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 1. MCGLYNN PARK ' Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is a vacation relatively straight forward. ' It's a staff initiated utility easement vacation. Basically this line which... Pillsbury site exclusively now as the sole purpose and does not appear at this time it will serve any future properties as we have other loop watermain systems serving the area which we did not have when this original development occurred and being ' that it's public right -of -way serving this sole property at this time, it is recommended that there's no need for the city to maintain ownership and maintenance. ...Pillsbury concurred and ... accept the vacation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this vacation of the drainage and utility easement? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this specific item? Can I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: Move approval. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #95 -65: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adopt a resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements over the westerly and southerly portions of Lot 1, Block 1, McGlynn Park legally described on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO LOCATE A 23.5 SO. FT. MONUMENT SIGN AT THE HIGHWAY 7 ENTRANCE TO THE 7 AND 41 CROSSING CENTER, PBK INVESTMENTS, INC. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. We received a fax from PBK Investments this afternoon indicating that a representative from PBK Investments will not be at the Council meeting tonight. We're hopeful that the Council will act on our request for a sign variance. In the event the Council cannot go forward on the decision due to our absence, please table our case for review at the next scheduled meeting. Thank you for your consideration. I'm prepared to present the report if you so choose. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead. Councilman Senn: Question. Are they asking for it to be tabled? John Rask: Well, they called and they originally wanted the proposal removed. They didn't have really any interest in going forward. They felt that the Planning Commission denied it. Their chances are slim here. I explained to them the process and that the Planning Commission was a recommendation to City Council and there just didn't seem to be a whole lot of interest there. They're pretty much leaving it up to you and they will not be in attendance. Councilman Berquist: They didn't think it was going to be a done deal so why waste their time. Rather than go through the, does anybody want to hear the report? I just have got a couple of quick questions. John Rask: Certainly. Councilman Berquist: Who owns Outlot A? John Rask: That's currently owned by PBK. Councilman Berquist: It is owned by the owners of the center? John Rask: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Doesn't the sign ordinance allow you one monument sign on each intersecting road or on each frontage road. John Rask: Yeah, on each frontage road and technically since that's a separate recorded lot of record, it's not considered frontage for the center. So it would be on a separate lot of record. Councilman Senn: It's the same thing, can't they put a sign there and ask for a sign on that lot? John Rask: Again, there's no use on that lot right now. It's a vacant lot. Councilman Senn: But... John Rask: No, but it does limit it to, they don't technically have frontage on that, on Highway 7. Only on Highway 41 so what they're asking for is a variance to locate a second sign off of the TH 7 entrance there. R L C City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilman Berquist: So Outlot A, or Outlot 1 is a non - buildable, non - conforming piece of property that will never be built on? John Rask: No. It's conforming. Councilman Berquist: It is? John Rask: Yes. They're just asking for a variance to locate a second sign there because they're only allowed one. Councilman Senn: ...I don't mean to be difficult but when I was thinking through it or reading through it, I kept going back to the same issue. Why is it a variance? I mean why are we at issue with a variance because it seems to me you've got 7 and 41 Crossing here. We've got a lot of-to put a sign up. The point where the variance occurs is they ever ask for another sign in relationship to the use on the lot. ' John Rask: If they were to combine that vacant lot with their existing parcel that the center sits on, then correct, no variance would be needed. But since it is that separate lot of record, they're not allowed to have the sign on that lot. ' Todd Gerhardt: Even an off premise sign? John Rask: Correct. ' Councilman Berquist: What was that? ' John Rask: Off premise. Todd Gerhardt: Off premise. It's off their premises. Not on their property. ' Councilman Berquist: So couldn't the sign be granted and the sign variance be granted with the stipulation that when Outlot A sells or is developed, that that sign would be moved? ' John Rask: Correct. Yes. We did provide that as a second option in the report. That if the Council so choose to grant a variance for this sign, that it be granted with the condition that that sign be removed prior to the development of that outlot. That was also presented to the Planning Commission. However, they felt that they had adequate signage and adequate visibility from the intersection and there was no need for additional signage. Councilman Berquist: But the fact remains that just with some legalese they could incorporate Outlot A into the Highway 41, or 7 and 41 parcel and do it completely legitimately. Why cause that expense? Mayor Chmiel: That's the question. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay, good. Well that, seeing that I would be perfectly willing to grant them the variance to construct the sign with the stipulation that it be removed when Outlot A is developed. Councilman Senn: In looking at the sign they have, I wouldn't have any problem with that either. I think I'd want to stipulate that sign and with that stipulation there. I'd much rather see them get the sign and do I I City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 something to enhance the businesses there if they feel that's going to help but I'd like to get those boats out of the parking lot. John Rask: Yes. We've contacted them on that and we are going to be, we have been talking to them about that. There's some other problems with some of the existing banners there too that they've been notified on. Councilman Senn: ...I'd rather stick those in the stipulations... John Rask: Okay. Condition 3 right now. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we... Councilman Senn: Sure you can with a variance. John Rask: Sure. That all signs be in conformance as far as banners and that boats be removed from that. Councilman Senn's comment could not be heard on the tape. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've got, I guess I have some concerns with the size of the sign. Although it'd probably be in conformance. As you showed here, John you've got a couple things scratched out. Is that 9 feet 4 1/2 inches? John Rask: No, I believe 94 1/2 inches. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I didn't know whether it was half inches or feet. Councilman Berquist: 94 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Nice sign, right. John Rask: it would be located in the existing pillars that you see now. Mayor Chmiel: This is would be located in the... community. Councilman Senn: I can see how you would get that impression. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, that's what I looked at. Their present sign that they have is on site off of TH 41 there, and that again we would be proposing an additional sign on Lot 1, which what you're saying is you would have that removed once that lot becomes developed? Councilman Berquist: Well they've got two choices. They can either incorporate Outlot I into the retail parcel, or in which case that sign can stay there forever, ad infinitum. Or if they sell the lot and develop something else, that sign comes down. Because now they only have their only frontage on one thoroughfare. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Roger. 8 i City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Roger Knutson: Quick clarification. Reference is made to an outlot. This is Lot. John Rask: Yeah, that was off an old plot that they provided. It is a recorded lot of record now. Roger Knutson: You can't build on an outlot. John Rask: Correct. Yep, correct. No, it is a plotted of record. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Has Public Safety looked at this in terms of sight lines and all the other stuff? It wouldn't be blocking any intersection sight lines... John Rask: Since it is located on a State Highway, DOT would require, they do have a spacing requirement and they would review any sign permits for that. Mayor Chmiel: That's just a right on, or a right in I should say. John Rask: Yeah, that's a right in only. ' Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Roger Knutson: Just asking a question. You have a concept in your zoning ordinance called a zoning lot. They could combine, and I don't know if they want to but they could combine Lot 1 with the lot where their building is on, have one PIN number and they have one lot and they wouldn't need a variance. It wouldn't cost. ' Now I don't know what the implications are for them. Why they wouldn't want to do that but as far as cost, nothing. Councilman Berquist: So we're not looking at a lot of title work in order to do that? Roger Knutson: Assuming they're both, and I'm making assumptions. I don't know the facts. Assuming they are both owned by the same entity, and assuming they're both abstract or torrens property and they're abutting, all they've got to do is sit down and ask for one PIN number and you've got it. They don't charge you for it. Maybe $5.00 or something. There's no expense involved. Now maybe there's a good reason why they don't want to do that. I don't know. ' Councilman Berquist: Well I suspect the reason is, because if somebody comes in and offers them the current market value for the lot, they'd sell it. Then the sign comes down. ' Roger Knutson: Then what they have to do is come in here and get a split letter and then you could say, then you condition the split ... you could. ' Councilman Senn: Steve, I understand that too but I really like the idea of the variance here because it cleans up some other issues that I think we'd like to see cleaned up. City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilman Berquist: That's fine. What I'm arguing for is their right to have a sign under the sign ordinance that says that they can have a sign on either frontage. So as long as that's achieved, I'm okay with how we do it. Mayor Chmiel: John. But with the variance, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the findings of the sign ordinance, how does that address this? John Rask: Staff felt it was inconsistent based on the fact that they are only allowed one sign and that we do try to limit the amount of signage at intersections. That was one of the criteria brought up when discussing the sign ordinance. When we did those revisions recently. And basically we felt that with the existing wall signs and the monument signs, they have adequate visibility there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. John Rask: And the Planning Commission concurred with what staff had recommended there. Mayor Chmiel: If we make this exception here, we would then have to start making other exceptions and that sort of shoots down the new sign ordinance that they pulled together this past year. Is that right? Councilman Berquist: I may be ignorant here but I need some clarification. The sign ordinance, the previous sign ordinance permitted a building owner, if the building owner was on an intersection, to have one monument sign per frontage. John Rask: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Did the new sign ordinance destroy that? John Rask: No, it didn't. It still holds true. One for each street frontage. Councilman Berquist: Alright. Councilman Senn: But you're saying is their access to TH 7 does not constitute frontage. John Rask: No. Councilman Senn: But Lot 1 would if it were... John Rask: Correct. They currently have it up for sale and they want to proceed with trying to selling the parcel and it was my understanding from talking to them, they had no plans on combining those two parcels. Councilman Senn: As far as consistency goes... John Rask: Yeah. Well again, looking at the new standards that have been brought out. Councilman Senn: But we've done that since the new standards were in place. John Rask: In PUD's. In Market Square. 10 n n r L 1 Il City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilman Senn: Yeah, all over in PUD's. I mean is this the magic word that because it's a PUD ... and if it's not, we don't? Mayor Chmiel: Where do we do it presently? Councilman Senn: We've got it at Market Square. Byerly's. Help me out. Several more I believe. John Rask: Market Square was, or Byerly's, excuse me has the one pylon sign. Councilman Senn: And the one monument sign down at the intersection. John Rask: Yeah. Well they technically had two street frontages. Councilman Senn: ...intersection and down at the entrance. John Rask: Yeah, I believe they have three. Councilman Berquist: Where the one sign is, that isn't, I don't know what that ... what is it? That one sign that was on the corner was in fact on the outlot that—building. John Rask: Well the sign ordinance says one per street frontage and I don't have all the past history on some of those developments. I do know for a fact though that what's required today and the way we interpreted, based on the status. That being a platted lot. That did not, we made the interpretation that that was not considered street frontage for that center. And if we discussed the various options with the applicant as far as, if he wants it, this is what you have to do. And they chose the variance route. Councilman Berquist: Okay. I guess there's other avenues for them to achieve what they wish to achieve there. If they want to pursue the variance route, then perhaps we owe it to them to turn it down. John Rask We can certainly discuss it with them further too about combining the lots. Councilman Berquist: Why don't we just table it? Which is what they wanted to begin with. Mayor Chmiel: Well at least you give them a little more alternative though. Councilman Senn: I don't know. I mean I don't, again I'd almost rather let it come through the way it is and... Councilwoman Dockendorf: But can't we get acquisitions in another manner? Councilman Senn: Not if they don't require a variance. They won't ask for one. Mayor Chmiel: True. Councilman Senn: So it sounds like we're given an opportunity here. The question is, do you use the opportunity or don't you. 11 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm trying to balance that. I mean that's one type of pollution as opposed to what I consider sign pollution. You know just over proliferation of monument signs and it's a very visible center. And it is fairly neighborhood oriented. Whoever lives in the area knows what's there, whether it needs another sign, I'm not certain. I guess I'd prefer just to let it go. I'd move to table it. Or not table it. I move to deny it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? No discussion Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to deny the request for Sign Permit Variance #95 -2 based on the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The shopping center and the occupants located in the center already have a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service. 3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENTS: A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER B. PARK AND RECREATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS. Mayor Chmiel: Todd, do you want to? Todd Hoffman: Task force? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Oh no, I'm sorry. Planning Commission members. Relax, take 5. We'll go to the next one. Is there any discussions that you want to do this evening in regards to this? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to appoint Craig Peterson. Councilman Senn: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor to appoint, oh! I also had a request from the Chair that called me today saying, could we have a second alternative to the individual because one, and I'm not sure which one is, could conceivably be moving. And so they'd like to have an alternative to number 1. So if we could have 1 and 2 of the 3 people that we interviewed today. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to appoint Craig Peterson with an alternate of Don Mehl Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'll accept that as a second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, friendly... with a second. Okay, any other discussion? 12 L City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to appoint Craig Peterson to the Planning Commission with Don Mehl as an alternate. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Todd, your turn. Park and Rec. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. We were short on applicants for the resident to the task force up until last Thursday. We ran a couple of...in the Villager. That resulted in additional applicants coming in. However, as far as geographical diversity, the majority of the applications are south of Highway 5... ' chose to apply so we have no applicants from western Chanhassen. We stated in the composition of the task force that we needed... However, in light of the applications, we simply recommend to abandon... concept and select or appoint 6 of the 11 applicants. Councilman Senn: Could I ask the question and make a suggestion. Could we simply act on the ones that we ... support tonight and act next week on these applications that we kind of have... before the meeting started tonight. I'd love the chance to really read them through and think about them a little bit. ' Mayor Chmiel: Do you find that a problem? Councilman Senn: ...seem to take everybody on different things. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see that as a problem. ' Todd Hoffman: I see ... get underway with the business and ... next 3 people. Councilman Senn: Okay, so out of these additional applications then we're supposed to make comments? ' Mayor Chmiel: Essentially pick three? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Six total. Depending upon how you want to, simply because the 3 were in. Councilman Senn: No, I want to do everybody. I want to pare down... whatever. I'd like to more or less appoint the commission representatives and then leave everybody else out of it and look through it and decide ' from that which 6. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I concur. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Councilman Senn: I'll move that then. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded. Any discussion? ' Councilman Berquist: I want to understand what I'm voting on here. You're saying you're not going to. 13 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: You're in. Councilman Berquist: I know I'm in. That's a given. The 11 here that, okay. We're simply going to accept this. Table this until we have. Councilman Senn: No, all we'll accept here is the first five representatives. So you're not getting out of it... Councilman Berquist: I know. That's not the question. I've resigned my ... but when after this because the first meeting is Wednesday. Thursday. Wednesday. Thursday. Todd Hoffman: We'll move that off... I originally set the meeting for this Thursday contemplating that we should be able to move that at least a week farther off ...simply move it off one more week. Councilman Berquist: I don't know, do we need to move it? Todd Hoffman: No, we could get underway with the 5 who we currently have on board. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I think we should. The duration of this Todd is just until September potentially? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you don't anticipate a lot of attrition? Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Chmiel: Call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council appoint the five commission members to the Padc and Recreation Task Force and table the 6 resident appointments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LAKE MANAGEMENT BUDGET, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR Diane Desotelle: Actually... overall lake management fund. As you recall, last year when we approved the new budget we had a budget just specifically designed for the Eurasian Water Milfoil ... other issues of just water quality... so we've been working really hard to put out lake management plans which you've seen this past spring newsletters. I've been working a lot with associations and we've also been monitoring. What I wanted to just go over with you tonight is how I kind of see or how staff sees the budget being used because, tonight I want to get have you... some direction, suggestions for one of the items. Roughly, there's $40,000.00 in the budget and overall... to date we've spent about $18 on the management plans which will be used now as an ongoing plan as we move along the process and the project and so on. So we use that and then we've also offered, for those that do have enough funds to match the State grant this year, to treat those lakes. And we've really been encouraging associations to work together... only be spent if it was for the public good. So we've worked with Minnewashta and will be working with Riley in kind of an overall management plan for milfoil. So I'm not 14 ' City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 sure how those funds will get spent this year. For sure all of Minnewashta... They have been approved to treat 70 acres on the lake. You can look at the positives and the negatives, especially in the ... Minnewashta. They have really worked hard to educate themselves as to what the different options are and have done their homework and feel that they've gotten together as a group and the DNR has approved what they want to do. We're continuing to do the monitoring and sampling in order to make plans for future projects and just keep our eye on what's happening out there. I don't know if you know but this year they did find milfoil on Lake Ann. We haven't looked at Lake Lucy but it is on Ann but it's not anything terrible because Ann does have a lot of diversity of vegetation where some of the other lakes don't and the milfoil can take over a lot more quickly so... We're also going to begin to do lake management plans for Ann and Lucy. One of the things that I wanted to do with some of the money was set aside $2,500.00 each for lake projects for Minnewashta, Riley and Lotus, which we did management plans for this year. And we're planning kind of a demonstration day with the Lake Riley group. We're going to have a landscape architect there and a ... there that will talk about lake plants as well as what you can do with your lot so we're going to kind of go over a steep slope lot and one that's shaded versus one that's flat. Talk about different types of native vegetation they could plant instead of mowing up to the edge. Creating buffers and things like that so what we wanted to do with some of that money was offer some sort of a cost share program and one of our ideas was maybe those homeowners that would decide to do some sort of landscape alternative, that those, up to 25% of the cost, not to exceed maybe a couple hundred dollars, would be used only towards the purchase of vegetation. And those homes would kind of be ' demonstration sites. We even talked about putting up little signs, just for a temporary period because on the lakes and stuff, they will be able to see that there are alternatives to landscaping. That the different types of landscaping will help as buffering for water quality. We're trying to educate them on lawn care and we'll offer more habitat diversity and so on. But then when I started looking at offering these cost share programs, I ' wanted to make sure that we knew exactly what we were looking at and get your feedback on if you thought that was a good idea or not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions in regard to what Diane has just discussed? Steve? Councilman Berquist: I don't know enough about it to speak well. No, nothing at this point. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Diane how much, can you anticipate what's the total dollar amount that we have to ' spend on this project? Diane Desotelle: Current... we're going to set aside $2,500.00. I was actually going to leave it up to the ' association and maybe they only want to take $1,000.00 of that amount as cost share to the homeowners. I'd like to leave it up to them to decide as a group, if you're open to that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. My only concern is you get in fighting among all the different landowners about who gets, divvying up the money I guess is my concern. Diane Desotelle: Well that's why we thought, well you know-just a percentage or just say everybody gets you ' know, it depends on how many people are interested. I mean I'll be surprised if we get more than half a dozen groups in here. There are a couple that are landscaping right now so it's real convenient. There's a couple that are just finished in doing something but at the same time they still have to pay for the design and the grading and things like that. I don't want to offer too much here. Just some incentive to do something. So this was 1 15 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 just an idea to do maybe either 25% of the cost and then have a not to exceed amount so if somebody really wants to do something elaborate. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's an interesting concept just because it does offer that little bit of an enticement without funding the whole thing. And it is a fairly small amount of money overall. And it does show the city's dedication. Our feeling of importance on this issue. Diane Desotelle: Well it's kind of a way too, I'm thinking of it as a way to help educate through the Lake Associations. I have to start somewhere to work my way out. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark Councilman Senn: Two concerns. I guess specifically about ... I don't see a problem with that but in terms of that, I would like to see that earmarked more ... You basically take the ... and that sort of thing and look at areas of need and areas not of need. I think we could earmark it that way because we're looking at demonstration projects rather than simply flip it out and say, the first whatever people who come in and, that those people need to come in and be an extension of or right in the middle of already, you know an area that's pretty well buffered or ... already. I don't personally like to see ... landforms around the lake just like everywhere else. Not all one thing or the other thing and so that's what I'd really like to see it earmarked more from our perspective because I don't think that would happen if you left it to the association. I have a concern that if you use the association to do it, I guess all I can do is speak to the association of the lake I live on, on Lotus Lake. I think you would not be reaching over half the population on the lake. Because of past things. They just don't associate, so to speak. And I'd rather see this brought of something of broader appeal like the ... every neighborhood that has common property on the lake. That's a pretty significant amount of property as well as lakeowners associate with those neighborhood lakes and I'd hate to see them kind of just not get interested in it because they're going to an association that they have nothing to do. Diane Desotelle: Right, right. This is just a start. I mean I'm hoping, you know I don't know. You know maybe we shouldn't do this but then I was hoping that maybe it would branch out to people who have wetlands in their backyards and so on, and encourage them because we still have people that throw their grass clippings in here. Mow out to the edge and if you have that buffer concept but it's still, it's trying to get the word out there some how. Councilman Senn: I understand that and I think your ... I'm just saying, I'd like to see staff keep a tighter control of that rather than kind of handing it out to the associations because I think... talking about. I think what you'll have is people either turn on or turn off to it, depending on their. Diane Desotelle: No, I was using the associations as a communication but I wasn't going to just give them the money to distribute it. I think that, I mean that's my idea that we would still be distributing it but we're using the associations as kind of a communication .... on our mailing list and so on ... association and also all the beachlots at this point. Councilman Senn: So it's... Diane Desotelle: Right, right. We're doing that. As a matter of fact on Riley, we're also contacting an Eden Prairie group. 16 I City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Councilman Senn: Okay. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Diane Desotelle: The other thing we thought too is we'd have specific criteria for the type, you know it's not ' for somebody to plant a maple tree in their front yard. It's got to be specifically for buffering for lakeshore vegetation and so on. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think you have direction. Diane Desotelle: I think so. I'm just looking for I guess either approval or don't do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well let's find out by just going and question. All those in favor of the recommendation that Diane has for the direction for the program for landscaping in and adjacent to the lakes with individuals, indicate by saying aye. t All the Council memben voted in favor. ' Diane Desotelle: We'll give it a try. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. ' CONSENT AGENDA CONT: R APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ]IMPROVEMENT ' PROJECT 90 -15. Councilman Berquist: $123,000.00 worth of change orders. Brings the total is $1.566. Where was the original budget at? Charles Folch: Total change orders, the first change order was about $60,000.00 so I have the original contract amount of about a million, close to a million four. You take out $180,000.00 on the current... Councilman Berquist: Okay. In the first paragraph you're talking about the issues and previous Council directed staff and the project engineer to resolve the concerns that are addressed in this change order. You go ' on and you list the items and you say, the majority of these items have already been completed with the costs completed were forecast at the time the assessment hearing was being held. What's the majority? The 1 thru 23 or the 1 thru 25 or how... ' Charles Folch: I would say the ones that weren't specifically resident related, where there's an issue of going back farther into a driveway to get a better grade match or doing some extra boulevard shaping, things like that. Those types of items that still needed to be worked out, that people got up and spoke at the assessment hearing ' on. Those numbers weren't exactly planned for... Just going through the items, that would be. Councilman Berquist: Well just answer this maybe. 1 17 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Charles Folch: 13. 16. 18. 21 was done previously. 20's also done previously. So that's about it. Just a few resident concerns that we had to address. Most of the other ones are related to the storm water management type improvements that we had or additional change... Things like that... We've actually had these work orders from the contractor. We've been accumulating for about a year and a half and it's taken basically this long to negotiate exactly which ones we felt should be paid for and should be paid for. As I mentioned earlier, this list was twice as long... Councilman Berquist: That's the last question. Was how much negotiation actually took place? Charles Folch: Quite a bit. Councilman Berquist: Don shows me $250 grand roughly was the original deal. Okay, good. Alright, I'm happy. Councilman Senn: I'm still not sure any of us are totally enamored with it but that's kind of what we're stuck with basically. Charles Folch: Basically what you have is, all the change orders basically are what... Councilman Berquist: Okay, I move approval of that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution #95 -66: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Change Onler No. 2 for the Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project 90 -15. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. L. APPROVE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR PROJECT NO. 93 -26A. Councilman Berquist: I just had a question regarding the amounts. Just it seems as if that all of a sudden we're $20,000.00 more than we had originally figured. 14 of which, 15 of which was the O'Shaughessy property. Now correct me if I'm wrong. The O'Shaughnessy property, wasn't that the Good Value deal? The Good Value project. Charles Folch: The southern part of the property. Councilman Berquist: And that's gone away? Charles Folch: That's gone away. Councilman Berquist: Okay. So that necessitated that. And Harvey had appraised that for, I wish I hadn't dropped my stuff on the floor. Charles Folch: Harvey appraised the property, that kitty corner, the northeast quadrant for an easement so he felt the value there would be very comparable to Betty's property in the southwest quadrant, being that they had 18 1 7 1 7 H City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 Highway 5 frontage and also County Road frontage so ... north of TH 5, was very representative of what she'd be paid here. Councilman Berquist: Alright. And then the other settlement was the Krauss' where the city is also paying them for a temporary easement that had not been included and had not been negotiated previously? Is that what I'm to understand? Charles Folch: That's correct. At the time we were doing Phase II, the Upper Bluff Creek utility projects, we knew about the scale of the project coming, but the plans weren't far enough along for us to know exactly how much right -of -way and how much easement we would need... We knew there'd be some overlap so we talked with the Krauss'. We explained the situation and they were very cooperative. They said go ahead. We'll let you access the property now and do your work and we'll worry about figuring out what you need for a permanent easement once a set project comes along so they've been very cooperative. Councilman Berquist: Okay, alright. Alright. I'll move that. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the temporary and permanent easement agreements for Project No. 93 -26A. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. NL APPROVE RESOLUTION REVISING THE CITY'S PERSONNEL POLICY. Councilman Senn: As I understand the changes that we're making, not all of the changes we're making are required of the law, one way or the other. Some of them we are making, may bring us into conformance with something one way or another but they aren't necessarily required changes... except I would like to see, we're sticking in effectively a new use of sick leave that goes for adoption and I'd like to see it worded in a fashion where more of the control of the appointing authority than just automatic because that's something that can be more readily scheduled and planned for. I mean at the same time, you've got a manager and we're closing everything else. I mean it's not the same situation which is uncontrollable, such as when a pregnancy occurs or whatever but I'm just wondering if we could have some more controls on that because I think that's leaving it a little too loose to simply say that it's a legitimate use... Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're only talking 3 days, aren't we? Or are you talking about maternity leave? Councilman Senn: Just the paid portion, okay. But you can take, so you can take the unpaid portions see so, and that's what I'm saying. I'm not separating them simply... (There was a technical difficulty with the recording of the remainder of meeting. The following is a summary of the actions taken.) Resolution #95 -67: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Resolution Revising the City's Personnel Policy. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 19 City Council Meeting - June 12, 1995 N. APPROVAL OF CHARPTABLE GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION, ST. HUBERTS CHURCI-L Resolution 095 -68: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Charitable Gambling Permit Application for St. Hubert's Church. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. P. ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT, CITY HALL EXPANSION, KKE. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the decision on the Architectural Contract on the City Hall Expansion until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 0.. APPROVAL OF BILLS. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the bills as amended by Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion carved. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 20