CC Minutes 1997 11 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel, and
Councilman Berquist. Councilman Mason arrived during the item 5, site plan review for Famous Dave's
Restaurant.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Cynthia Kirchoff, Todd Hoffman,
Don Ashworth, Tom Scott, and Sharmin A1-Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
d. Resolution #97-90: Accept a Portion of Utility Improvements in Walnut Grove, Project 97-13.
City Council Minutes dated November 10, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 1997
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 28, 1997
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS FOR
INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS ON WEST 76TM STREET WATER TOWER, PW364A2.
Councilman Senn: Item (a). The reason I pulled that is basically, I just had a question for our staff. I
didn't see any reference points in here to go from. Have we done any research or have we come up with
any reference points as to what we're using to establish on a fee basis for this? More or less, what are
other communities charging and what are other private concerns charging in relationship to it?
Charles Folch: It's my understanding that Roger Knutson, our City Attorney, has done some extensive
work in investigation into that area. I think there's a great deal of discussion about that earlier this year,
probably during the summer when we first were having some applicants come in to talk about this. I don't
want to preface or speak for Roger but I do believe there was even information put out by the League of
Cities and I do understand from Roger, I know we had this discussion in particular with the first applicant
that came through some months ago, is that you cannot set a certain fee. That each contract must be a
negotiated contract with that individual cell company. So the community cannot establish a standard set
fee and that's it and carte blanc everybody's the same, so that much I can tell you. The rest, I'd rather not
speak for Roger on but each contract must be a negotiated contract.
Mayor Mancino: So you can't be fair in your product pricing?
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know. I have a hard time establishing a comfort level on it without seeing
and understanding what those are.
Charles Folch: I can tell you these numbers are in the ballpark of what we had from a previous lease. The
first one you approved a couple months ago. I can tell you there are some differences, particularly in the
area that this one actually has an extension provision that goes longer than the previous one. Therefore
there was some offset financially based on the longer term extension for contract and such, but is relatively
in the same ballpark financially as the previous one you approved.
Mayor Mancino: Can you come up please and give us your name and address and tell us a little bit about
timing so that if we did wait until we had some time. I also had a call into our attorney today to ask him a
few questions and he's out of town. So we're sorry about that. Not being as prepared as we could be for
you.
Bill Buell: My name is Bill Buell, and I'm with Buell Consulting and I represent Nextel Communications
who's address is 9401 James Avenue in Bloomington. We've been working on this lease for many months.
I think even early summer is when I remember first starting. It would be quite a setback for us if we
needed to wait any longer. We have done a lot of work of surveying the property and getting all our
building plans in order. We're trying to get in there before the ground freezes too much more. That's one
critical aspect of the construction for timing. As for rent, most of our rent for city water towers are closer
to $1,000.00 a month and that's even getting interior space inside of the bottom of the water tank. We
consider this on the high end of rent because we're not only paying on the average more per month. We're
also having to supply our own building. We're giving three phones to the City and we're also offering to
move the fire hydrant, if needed to create a better access to the property. So there's a lot of other hidden
costs besides just the rent consideration.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. When is our next Council meeting?
Charles Folch: December 8th.
Mayor Mancino: December 8th. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess, I don't have a problem I guess at this point letting this one go through but
I guess what I would like to see in follow-up to it is a good case of research is going to come back and
show us what other communities are getting for water towers. What they're getting for the IDS tower. I
mean basically come back and tell us publicly and privately what the rentals are where so we can get a feel
for that in relationship to the marketplace. I have to tell you, I mean one of the things that bothered me the
most about this is the long term nature of it and the benchmarks you've set basically for increases which,
you know, I don't know. Seem to do nothing more than kind of follow the CTI which typically this sort of
thing does not follow. And you know, maybe it's not fair at this point to hang it up so I won't do that but I
think before we see any more of these it would be nice to have a good foundation that we're working from
on making those decisions.
Mayor Mancino: And I would just like to, those were my concerns too. They're the same ones. The initial
term being 5 years. Being a 15 year lease that we're into right now. Those were some of the questions that
I wanted to talk to Roger about so. Then may I have a motion please?
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the lease agreement with Nextel
Communications for installation of antennas on West 76th Street water tower. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
AMEND A CONDITION OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 32 SQ. FT.
MONUMENT SIGN AND AN 8 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 24 SQ. FT. MONUMENT
SIGN REQUIREMENT~ 860 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE~ DICK HENNING.
Cynthia Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and tabled at both the September 8th and October 13th City
Council meetings. Essentially the applicant would like to construct a 32 square foot monument sign. This
is 8 square feet larger than what is permitted by the ordinance relating to wholesale and retail nurseries.
Staff does support the amendment and the variance, being that the use is interim. Staff has also prepared
for conditions if the City Council chooses to approve the amendment and variance. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Cindy, when you say interim. How
long do you think that this sign could possibly be up?
Cynthia Kirchoff: That is until water and sewer are extended.
Mayor Mancino: And we don't have that scheduled in any time in the near future, do we? Do we have a
year date on that?
Kate Aanenson: That will be addressed in the comprehensive plan...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So at this point it's wide open?
Kate Aanenson: Well ultimately the entire.., by the year 2020 so that's the ultimate.
Councilman Senn: 23 years then.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure we've had a use down there that long. That's stayed the same down there.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight? No. Okay. Discussion. Any Council member
have any discussion comments? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess my problems with this have not changed from the last time we talked about
it. I mean I understand why staff is making the recommendation they are but I just have a tendency more
right now to look at the things down there with a little more permanency. I think there's a reason in the
past why uses down there have not lasted long and that ties back I think to general traffic and population
and everything else and the general traffic population and everything else has increased substantially in that
area and I think we're going to see business uses stay for much longer periods of time. I think that can
somewhat also be understood by looking at the permanency of some of the businesses which have come
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
down and gone into that area lately. And the investments they've made, you know are not based on short
periods of time. You know aside from that I guess there's just one part of this thing that keeps coming
back and just bothering the heck out of me and that is, I mean I just, you know I see us beat people over the
head constantly about staying within our square footage allowances on signage and it's kind of like why all
of a sudden are we throwing that out of the window for no need at all because I mean especially looking at
the sign as it was presented, or the information on it, I mean it just appears to be absolutely no reason at all
why it can't stay within the square footage parameters of the, of our signage which would effectively
eliminate the need for any variance at all. And then we'd just simply be dealing with the amendment to the
interim use permit. I guess to move forward on it, I guess to get something done I guess, if I were to
approach it positively in that manner, that's the manner in which I would approach it and not as a variance.
Mayor Mancino: Kate is there, do you see a reason for us to go and review the sign ordinance along this
highway? Because I know that one of the findings or Cynthia, one of the things that you said was you
know it's on a major intersection and that the speeds will be sufficient enough so that the signage, or it was
in your opinion the signage could be bigger because of that. So do you feel that we should be literally
reviewing the sign ordinance at this point in that area?
Kate Aanenson: We're going by the underlying current zoning and this will have a different use in the
future so those other rules won't apply. We just said that the 24 square feet we felt was small based on the
way the site is being used. That's not going to be the long term use of the property. That's why it was
given the interim... We just felt the 24 square feet seemed small for this type of use. Is it going to be that
in the future? That use will not remain there. If you're uncomfortable that it's going to be there for 23
years, then you certainly have the option of not granting the variance. Saying that it should be smaller. I
want to point that Cindy did have in the staff report the 160 days are up.
Mayor Mancino: On the 6th.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: On December 6th so we have to make a decision tonight.
Kate Aanenson: We recommend you take action on it tonight. We did have a work session on this. Again
staff's position was, based on the building material that was down there again so you may be seeing the
interim use permit back for review probably in 6 months anyway by the staff. Just some issues that are
down there but whether you give it 24 or 32, we felt comfortable with larger based on the speed. If you're
not comfortable with that, you certainly have the option of saying you don't want to give the variance.., we
felt that 8 square feet...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'm okay with the interim use.
Mayor Mancino: Pardon?
Councilman Engel: I'm okay with the interim use...
Mayor Mancino: And the variance. Okay.
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: The only thing I've got, I had a question on Kate was, modifications to the building
or the structure cannot take place, nothing's going to take place virtually without city approval in one
manner or another. So the siding of the existing structure being 40 to 50 years old and two sheets of 4 x 8
plywood sort of matching that, if they went ahead and were successful, resurface the exterior of the
building again to upgrade, none of that can happen without.
Kate Aanenson: Right. There are some changes that are occurring right now that they've been informed
are in violation. And I'm trying to keep the two.., separate but right. They're bound by the conditions of
the interim use and.., building permit will still have to go through a process. And the intent is... that
building the way it was and it's got to be a landscaping business.
Councilman Berquist: But that's not to say they can't reside or do something to change the look of the
building.
Kate Aanenson: They can maintain the building.
Councilman Berquist: They can maintain it.
Kate Aanenson: The building is non-conforming. They have...
Councilman Berquist: Is it worth while to put a condition in approval that says something about any
improvement to the structure?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that's in there already. The original interim use.
Councilman Berquist: I didn't really see it as one of the conditions, but maybe I wasn't reading close
enough.
Kate Aanenson: Well it's a non-conforming structure so it would also fall in that standard, the language of
the City code that says non-conforming structure, which that is. It cannot be altered or modified unless
there's 50%, over 50% burned down. That would be the only chance that they could modify that because it
is a non-conforming structure so it falls into that category.
Councilman Berquist: So they can't reside without.
Kate Aanenson: They can maintain. They can do maintenance to the building.
Councilman Berquist: They could change the outside appearance essentially, could they not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that gets into a gray area. We've had people that have maintained a side a year
and it becomes something different so that's happened before but the intent is that it be maintained and not
changed. We've got documentation, pictures inside because there's a non-conforming residence inside that
building too. I don't know if you're aware that there is somebody that lives right there. So we've
documented what that looks like inside and out. So we're comfortable of what change.
Councilman Berquist: And you're comfortable with the four conditions of approval covering, changing or
upgrading the sign if the exterior of the building is changed or upgraded in keeping with the citation that the
sign follows the exterior of the building. Or the manner of construction.
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Kate Aanenson: I see what you're saying. You're saying if the building changes, would the sign have to
change? Well our intent is not to let the building change.
Tom Scott: Mayor, ifI could comment. It might be a good idea to explicitly have a condition that if they
are permitted as a non-conforming use to upgrade the appearance of the building, that the sign would also
be upgraded to conform with the building upgrade.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that it's not allowed to upgrade. It's allowed to
maintain.
Tom Scott: Right, you may but whether they could side it or not be considered maintenance or upgrading.
It would just make it clear that the sign has to be.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, I'm done.
Councilman Senn: We could have a sign made out of vinyl siding.
Mayor Mancino: So what do you think?
Councilman Berquist: It depends on what you say. Maybe you'll convince me otherwise.
Mayor Mancino: Well I like the fifth condition. I think that that's a good idea. Let them know. I certainly
do have a concern with the signs down in that area. There is no question and so many of the older ones are
just left there and it creates the aesthetics that I don't think we want to keep.., so I would go with what's in,
not approve the variance but what we have in the interim use permit which permits the 24 square foot sign.
May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I would move approval of the amendment to the interim use permit with the attached
conditions and add the additional condition that, how's the best way to word that then?
Kate Aanenson: Modifications of the building also match modifications in the sign.
Councilman Senn: Modifications of the building match modifications to the sign. Or vice versa I guess I
should say. And I guess inherent in my motion is disapproval of the variance.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Kate Aanenson: Well then you wouldn't need to amend the conditional. I mean you wouldn't need to
amend, the purpose of the interim use.
Mayor Mancino: Is to allow for the difference for the variance? So it would just.
Tom Scott: IfI could comment. IfI understand it right Kate, correct me if I'm wrong but if we're going to
deny the variance, then the interim use permit simply says that they have to comply with our existing sign
ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Tom Scott: So there really isn't any action necessary on the interim use permit if we deny the variance.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but then you should make a motion on it.
Mayor Mancino: Well we have to take a motion denying the variance.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the existing sign ordinance would cover the materials and everything that
they're suggesting using? All right. I understand. Okay, I'm sorry. Withdraw that motion and change the
motion to, so what you're saying is, at that point you just make a motion basically to deny the variance and
the rest is inherent.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, make a motion to deny that variance.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? I second.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to deny a request for an 8 foot variance from the
24 square foot monument sign requirement for Dick Henning at 850 Flying Cloud Drive. Councilman
Senn and Mayor Mancino voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Berquist voted in opposition to
the motion. Councilman Engel did not vote.
Councilman Engel: I'm still confused. We just did that. I'm sitting here trying to think, wait a minute
now. Let's have someone net this out.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Right now, in that area the ordinance, the sign ordinance says that the square
footage of the sign can only be 24 square feet. His interim use permit says that and that's what our sign
ordinance says. He has asked to go from 24 square feet to 32 square feet. So he wants to increase it 8
square feet. And so we've just said no. He needs to stay within the ordinance and stay at 24 square feet.
So if you vote yes, you're denying the ordinance. You're denying the variance. I'm sorry, going from 24
to 32. If you say no. You give him the variance.
Councilman Engel: I got all that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then that's it. That's all we're doing.
Councilman Engel: But what about this stuff we just talked about? I was still kind of processing that.
Mayor Mancino: Well, Councilman Berquist wanted to bring up that if, that he was an advocate of going
up to the 32 square feet but wanted to make sure that if there was any upgrade or, not upgrade. If there
was any maintenance.
Councilman Engel: The sign...building.
Mayor Mancino: Upgrades to the building or that the sign would also be upgraded. Is that correct?
Councilman Berquist: That is correct.
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Engel: That's where I was.
Councilman Berquist: I am of the opinion, but I want to hear the other side. I'm of the opinion that insofar
as this has been a transient area and we are doing what we can to foster growth down there, and this
company has come in. They've been there a year. Is December a year? Did I just overhear you say that?
They've been there a year. They're trying to make a go of it and given where they are, and given what they
want to put on the sign, which is perfectly within their rights, I am in favor of granting them an 8 foot
variance so they can put two 4 x 8 sheets of plywood up as opposed to one.
Mayor Mancino: No... one 4 x 8.
Councilman Berquist: 4 x 6 or whatever. Well sandwiched together, whatever. 32 square feet. I think in
order to.
Mayor Mancino: We just have to redo the vote so Mark votes. So I'm going to call.
Councilman Berquist: Well then it will be 2 to 2.
Mayor Mancino: He hasn't voted yet.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to deny a request for an 8 foot variance from the
24 square foot monument sign requirement for Dick Henning at 850 Flying Cloud Drive. Councilman
Senn and Mayor Mancino voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Engel
voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Mancino: The motion fails. We'll go onto the next item on the agenda.
Kate Aanenson: I have a question on the 120 days. We have to make a decision on this. If there's a no
decision.
Tom Scott: Yeah, are there any other motions on this matter before... ?
Councilman Berquist: I would move, can we, since I was one of the dissenters I can reopen. And insofar
as that, I would move approval of the interim use, approve the amendment of the interim use permit
allowing an 8 foot square foot variance to 32 square feet with the conditions as noted in the staff report.
Adding a fifth condition. Any modification or improvement to the building, architectural features shall
compel with conformance with the sign ordinance, i.e. the sign materials shall be consistent with the
exterior of the structure. That's my motion.
Mayor Mancino: So I'm sorry, what were you?
Councilman Senn: He just made the same motion he said before.
Councilman Berquist: I made the exact same motion Mark made except I'm in favor of the interim use
permit with a 32 square foot sign.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second?
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Engel: I want to second that one.
Mayor Mancino: And why are we voting on this again? It's already gone down.
Councilman Senn: Well no, but now we're voting on it the other way because we have to act both ways.
Councilman Engel: We're covering all the bases here.
Councilman Senn: We have to act both ways for it go down.
Councilman Berquist: Now it's a question of 32 feet versus 24 feet.
Councilman Engel: With the attached conditions.
Councilman Senn: And if this goes down, everything stays the way it is basically in relationship to the
ordinances and we have acted, correct?
Tom Scott: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: I'm trying to decide how I'm going to vote so just give me a minute. I'm really on the
fence on this one.
Don Ashworth: Mayor?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Don Ashworth: IfI may add, and at this point the die may already be cast but, let's assume at the next
meeting someone would want to reconsider this. The only party that can bring it up is a member of the
prevailing side.
Councilman Senn: If both motions fail though, who's the prevailing side? That's an interesting one, isn't
it?
Tom Scott: That's a good question. I mean we'd have a motion to deny, which we had two people voting
on one side.., and a motion to grant one so.
Councilman Berquist: May I make a suggestion?
Mayor Mancino: Let's vote.
Councilman Berquist: Councilman Mason will be here at about 7:30. Can we table this until that time?
Mayor Mancino: No, he won't be here until 8:30.
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: 8:30. Can we have the discussion? The applicant isn't here. I mean, I'd rather
have something go down 3 to 2 than something fail for a tie. 2 to 2 is ridiculous.
Mayor Mancino: Well I was going to change my vote.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve an amendment to Interim Use
Permit #96-2 to allow for an 8 square foot variance from the 24 square foot requirement for the
construction of a 32 square foot monument sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must remove any connotation to a landscaping business/contractor's yard in the
wording of the monument sign.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit.
3. The applicant must place the monument sign 10 feet from the property line abutting Hwy. 212.
4. The applicant must remain in compliance with the conditions of interim use permit #96-2.
5. Any modification or improvement to the building, architectural features shall conform with the sign
ordinance, i.e. the sign materials shall be consistent with the exterior of the structure.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSISTANCE FOR EMPAK/INSTANT WEB COMPANIES
REGARDING COUNTY ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BLVD) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 93-29.
Todd Gerhardt: Well if you thought that one was easy. At your last City Council meeting staff was
directed to review the contractual obligations between the HRA, Empak Companies and Instant Web
Companies regarding the future assistance for special assessment assistance for County Road 17. With
that staff has attached a letter from John Dean, the EDA attorney providing his opinion regarding current
agreements that may exist between the HRA and Empak, Instant Web Companies, United Mailing and
Victory Envelope. In Mr. Dean's letter he states that both Empak and Instant Web do not have any
contractual obligations between the HRA and those companies for assistance for the County Road 17
upgrade and the assessments that go along with it. However, in regards to United Mailing and Victory
Envelope, and the outlot, there is contractual language that does tie those developments to assistance for
Count Road 17 as outlined in plan modification No. 5. I mistakenly gave you Table 4. You did receive
Table 5 and you should have received Table 4 showing Phase I public improvement costs for County Road
17 between Highway 5 and the railroad right-of-way. That was one of the concerns that John Dean had
and that handout will show that it did call for those improvements. Although the project would be
acceptable under State Statute. The current agreements for United Mailing and Victory Envelope do have
caps on the dollar amount of reduction assistance that they can be provided. In the table provided in my
memo to Don Ashworth it shows total assessments already assumed by the HRA for United Mailing in the
dollar amount of $82,800.00 and Victory Envelope and the outlot is $86,560.13 .... in determining the
amount of credit available. And that calculation is using the market value of $3,854,700.00. Taking that,
and then taking $105,400.00 away from that. Giving you the base value that would be the increment
10
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
created off this site. Times giving it $3,749,300.00 times 7%, thus providing $262,451.00 in credit
available. So if you take the total assessments already assumed by the HRA, United Mailing has
$179,651.00 worth of credit available and Victory Envelope and the outlot, $52,137.87. With that staff
would recommend.., staff should be directed to prepare private redevelopment agreements for the EDA to
approve.., staff will answer any questions that Council may have at this time.
(The following discussion was poor quality on the tape with discussion cutting in and out.)
Mayor Mancino: A couple questions that I have and probably other Council members may have a few
general ones. The recommendation states in John Dean's letter that Empak and Instant Web would be
excluded from assistance. Did Empak or Instant Web, was Instant Web prior to United Mailing and
Victory Envelope? Was that the first building that went up?
Todd Gerhardt: Instant Web was the first building that went into the Park One, Park Two subdivision.
And there was, there is an agreement in place between the HRA and Instant Web Companies which called
out for the HRA to purchase the old Instant Web building and, which was where the hotel sits today. The
bowling alley is a part of that. The movie theater that is under construction right now is a part of that and
also the conference center was a part of the Instant Web building that the HRA purchased almost 20 years
ago.
Mayor Mancino: So the HRA purchased it 20 years ago and how much did they purchase that area for? I
mean was there an assistance given by the way of purchasing the building from the owners?
Todd Gerhardt: They purchased all those buildings for $3,100,000.00 and also provided relocation and
tenant improvements of $382,673.00.
Mayor Mancino: So would you give me that total that. $3,100,000.00 for the purchase of the old Instant
Web site, right?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And when was that done?
Todd Gerhardt: I think it was in '81.
Mayor Mancino: And then relocation of how much?
Todd Gerhardt: $382,673.00.
Councilman Senn: Relocation and tenant improvements or just relocation?
Todd Gerhardt: Both.
Mayor Mancino: So that's a total of $3.4 million.
Todd Gerhardt: Rounded up to $3.5.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that was in '81. So we've kind of been holding onto that land until it's just.
11
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Todd Gerhardt: Well we've sold some of it over to the hotel, the Country Suites. We've sold the movie
theater property. Bloomberg Companies and the main portion of the building was sold over to the bowling
center years ago. So we no longer own any of the old Instant Web portion. We do retain some of where
the park and ride area for the bus people are.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is
there anyone here tonight that would like to speak to the Council on this matter?
Julius Smith: Thank you. My name is Julius Smith. I represent Victory Envelope, Instant Web, United
Mailing. It's hard to keep them all straight and the land owners thereof. And the vacant lot that we're
talking about. The first question I have before I get into this, are we going to take these separately, A and
B because, or should I just talk about all of them at once? I see it as one sort of... one resolution or
whatever.
Mayor Mancino: No. Why don't we take A first. No, we can take B first, but we'll take A.
Julius Smith: All right. Because they're, what happens to one affects another so to speak. Well I'm just
here to kind of do a very quick recap. I think you're all pretty familiar with it. We have some
disagreement with Mr. Dean on his interpretation on the Instant Web contract. As you know this project
was first proposed in '91 or '92, in which at that time we objected to the project because we already had a
road and we were then told that well, we have sufficient credits of $675,000.00. The road isn't going to
cost you anywhere near that so we essentially said well, if it isn't going to cost us anything, please go ahead
and build it if you want to. For some reason or another, and I'm not really sure why now but this project
has sort of, I think they were going to do some redesign. I'm not really sure why but anyway the project
just didn't go ahead. And then late in '96, early '97 the project came up again and we appeared in January
and again in April to voice our objections because the road is not needed by us and we in the Council were
told by Mr. Gerhardt and by Mr. Ashworth that we had enough credits and in which case I stated that if it
wasn't going to cost us, cost my clients anything, let's go ahead and build it but we were assured that we
had plenty of credits to cover that. Now after the project is built and the Notice of Assessments were sent,
I contacted the City and wanted to verify that there would be no assessments owing from my client and how
do I get assurance that those are going to be covered when the assessment roll is adopted. I got a letter
back from Mr. Gerhardt that said how did I ever arrive that I had any credits coming. Well I sent him his
letter that he sent to us saying that we had the credits and I also sent him copies of the Council meetings
where those credits were reaffirmed. Well then we got together and we were informed then that we actually
had credits of $1,900,000.00. But since we had received $181,000.00 we only had a credit of
$1,700,000.00. I'm talking now for all the projects without breaking them out but it was recommended at
that meeting, and you may recall then that they couldn't give credit for the vacant lot because no building
was on it so there's no contribution to the tax increment district. However, I pointed out that the Victory
Envelope contract provided that excess credits.., would be applied to that vacant lot so there's discussion
about that so it was tabled. I then met with Todd and Mr. Dean and we were informed that they would
honor the Victory Envelope agreement but there would be no agreement regarding Instant Web or United
Mailings because we didn't have any contracts. Well, I indicated that we had some contracts and I
submitted them to the City. So we met again, I think just this last week, and by the way I appreciate the
fact that the Council put this over for a hearing because I had to be out of town on a family emergency.
But anyway, we met again and now I'm told that the credits exist for the Victory Envelope and the vacant
lot and for United Mailing and not for Instant Web. But the credits known are substantially less than any
of the credits we were told we had before. Now however beyond that, the City has assessed this road,
12
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
almost entirely against the increment district. It has not proportionately assessed this road against all the
people going all the way down to Lyman Boulevard and I presume that the reason for that is they felt most
of it would be paid by the increment district. I don't know but that's probably not a bad thing to do is not
assess it because it is really a major arterial in the city and it's connection to 212 and it's part of your
major transportation plan. But normally the people next door to that do not pay for that.., road. They only
pay for what they would need and the cities usually pick up the balance of their arterials. Now you can, it
seems to me you can assess the people for, who need the new road to the portion that they use it, but we
already had a perfectly good four lanes divided roadway. Left mm lane. We didn't certainly need that.
We didn't need the new road and I think it's going to be a very difficult time to assess that road against us
and we're certainly going to appeal those assessments should they be adopted. We have really no
alternative. There's no question that perhaps the City could probably hit us for some curb and gutter and
maybe, maybe some ground water management plan costs that are involved with this assessment.
However, the City does levy the tax.., and it's questionable whether they can assess it and tax for it at the
same time. AT any rate, you know the City could try, my point is, I don't think the City's going to really
gain very much because you look at the front footage of the curb and gutter and even figuring $18.00 a
foot, but let's say it's $30.00, when you add the administration and everything else. It's a pretty small
amount of money. AT any rate, those.., improvements could be, need not I should say, be assessed by the
City and certainly aren't payable by the HRA, or the Economic Development District, if they so choose
because all these improvements were built on city property. No one's buying down property. No one's
connecting a building to a sewer. These were all done on city right-of-way and you know the City need not,
and the HRA could pay for those improvements. Again we have to object to these assessments and to the
calculations because I don't think they were proportionately established and we have no alternative but to
object to these assessments. So the other question I have is, should the City direct the staff to get to the,
based on the staff report, to apply for these credits or create the contracts with the EDA for these amounts
in January. Since I'm not prepared, or no one's prepared to say whether the EDA will approve those, I
have no alternative but to object to the whole package anyway until that is done so I think that's essentially
our position and I don't know. I see Mr. Carlson is here. I don't know if he wants to say anything or not
but, for the Instant Web Companies.
Mayor Mancino: You'd have to come up to the podium. Jules, do you have a copy of the Minutes that
you were referring to? Could I see that copy if you have it with you. Oh, okay. Todd, do you have a
copy of the Minute? From an earlier HRA meeting. Previous years ago. Isn't that correct? Do you
happen to have that at all? Excuse me, Jerome. Well as you look through, please go ahead.
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson of the Instant Web Companies. Thank you for your time and attention.
I am here because I am very, very frustrated and disappointed with what has been occurring. I do not
understand why we get so many numbers. Why we have so much confusion. Why we were led to believe,
absolutely, these were going to be taken care of and it was not until after the fact. How would you like it?
This is what has happened to us. It's not right but I do believe that it is within your purview to make it
right and/or the HRA's and I would ask that you do so. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Jerome for the record also, I would like to say that that is exactly what we're
trying to do when we ask for contracts that, at the last City Council meeting that Jules attended and we
were given some numbers and what we asked were for the contracts and the agreements that the City had
signed with yours and Empak's developments so we could read through it and make sure that we were on
firm ground, etc. We have fiduciary responsibility to all taxpayers in our city and we wanted to make sure
that the numbers were right and that we were reading something that there was contractual agreement with.
And Todd, you know my question from the letter from April 24th '92 is that just that we didn't research it
13
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
enough or you know, you have found that you've qualified for approximately $675,000.00 worth of tax
increment assistance researching the HRA's files. Is there something that we are missing seeing evidence
here that shows that at some point, or what?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know who kept the records back in '81 but there were no agreements in any of the
files that I have in my files. So to conversations that I've had with staff, I was led to believe that they
would qualify for those special assessments like all our other businesses.., not received a credit similar
to .... located in the park and it did call out for whenever County Road 17 got developed that they would
apply at that time.
Mayor Mancino: So that was more or less a general understanding?
Todd Gerhardt: So that's what's been my letter back.., and my estimate of what increments would have
been at that time. And that was still my belief when I wrote my first report in calculating credits for it
all.., and when City Council asked to review all the contractual agreements, Jules provided me with the
United Mailing and Victory Envelope agreements. I provided those over to John Dean who did review...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I am assuming Jules, that you and obviously Todd, you have found nothing,
no agreements at all for Instant Web? I mean that's kind of a missing document, if there ever was one?
Todd Gerhardt: ...
Mayor Mancino: Do we have a copy of that agreement?
Todd Gerhardt: John provided... I didn't include it in the packet because John Dean... any additional
assistance other than what the purchase.., downtown and the relocation.
Mayor Mancino: And your interpretation is something else? Okay. We don't have it in our hands Jules so
I'm sorry.
Julius Smith: ... people can differ on... Referring to special assessments listed. The agreement provides
we have to, we being Instant Web has to pay all the costs for development, whatever building permits...
except assessments. The reason for that was because those assessments were paid by the City. By the
HRA. Now, whether or not that will include future... I'm not privy to the five modifications that...to the
HRA and the changing rules and the changing method of arriving at it. But it certainly always was our
understanding that we would get a credit equal to 7% of the construction cost of that building.., valuation
put on the building by the County Assessor. The same is true, now those are of record. I mean they're not,
they're of record.., like a found document.
Mayor Mancino: And that's over and above the $3.1 million?
Julius Smith: Well the $3.1 million in there was, the question was, the City wanted to buy that place on
main street. We were running a business there. They were going to condemn the property. We negotiated
a price for the property and also as part of the Statute, to help pay relocation costs. Now these relocation
costs were very high I would admit but we are dealing with presses and all kinds of equipment that is very,
very few people who can move that and it's a very expensive process. So I don't think it's a question that
the City was bailing us out of it, but I mean they bought our building. We then also agreed that we would
build another building. We would pay all the costs of it but that the assessments would be paid by the City
14
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
on that property because there was two ways for the City to buy down our land.., and so our position at
that time was, okay. Under the HRA assessments will be paid so, up to our 7% credit which was then the
rule. Now I... So anyway, that's where we're coming from on this. So that's the assessment side of it.
The special assessment assistance, and I think we have some, we have some arguments there. I'm not sure
exactly how these numbers were arrived at. The current numbers that Todd has referred to tonight. But
there's another real question and that is whether, I mean do we have to object to the roll itself, the
assessment itself because the road is not used by us. It does not improve benefit on us... I suppose some
case could be made for benefit for the street light or two.., but certainly not the extent of these assessments.
... assessments were not properly, proportionately levied. Those are our objections.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: ... may have a question for Todd. First paragraph of the new updated staff report.
Okay, it's the last sentence of the first paragraph. It talks about Instant, Empak and Instant Web should be
excluded from assistance based on agreements between Instant Web and Empak. Am I reading that right?
The agreements were between Instant Web and Empak?
Councilman Engel: No, I think he's referring that...
Councilman Senn: I understand. That's why I... okay. So you're just saying between us and Empak and
us and Instant Web?... okay. Then no questions. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to approach the Council on this issue? This is
just on 3(a). Todd, have we heard from Empak at all?
Todd Gerhardt: They did call today and Mr. Boyle was looking for a response from a letter that he had
sent to us regarding his delay in submitting their appeal because of the death of his mother. And there is
some language I guess in State Statute that calls out for delays... I would ask that the City Attorney review
that and provide an opinion.., is justified.
Mayor Mancino: So you would like us to table Empak assessment until the Mr. Dean has reviewed the
facts or?
Todd Gerhardt: No. I would.., you have to approve the assessment hearing tonight. You can't delay it
anymore.., accept their appeal, I think Scott...
Don Ashworth: Mayor? Todd is correct. The City Council does need to take action prior to December 1st
if that is going to be certified for this next year. The other part of that though, let's assume that during the
course of the next 30 or 45 days, determination was made or modifications to... Empak should be deleted, I
can delete it. I can't add it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't, as far as tonight goes, it seems like we're back against the preverbal wall
or into the back comer or whatever. I think we need to adopt the assessment roll and proceed with that but
I think in doing so I think, at least in my own mind these issues are far from resolved. I don't know. I
guess I tell you, I'm really tom on this thing. I guess in a way I'm glad I raised the question effectively...
about $1.6 million in public assistance kind of off the top of our head. But at the same time what has been
15
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
covered has been extremely, I don't know what the best word is but at best frustrating. I think the Council
needs to understand this more in relationship to two things and that is, one. Responding to a party who
effectively involve, or have been involved with us throughout the period of time in negotiations. And
secondly, some discussion about internally, how we get into these predicaments. As far as dealing with the
people involved here, I mean I really empathize with them because I think they're experiencing the same
frustrations that.., disillusionment, whatever you want to call it, that I am and it's, this is after, I mean this
is you know two months. The third month.
Mayor Mancino: Third month.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. But I mean looking.., for the last couple few months, I think we're going to, I
think we need to address the issue of whether it's really fair to treat people this way or not and I guess
that's kind of really what it comes down to and I'm not sure it's going to come down to any...
correspondence and letters and everything from staff saying they've got all this stuff and not assume that
the parties working on that basis is beyond me. The underlying problem I think in this whole thing is if the
attorneys opinion, at least as I'm reading it now stands, we have a fundamental problem even if we want to
give them the money. Because if there is no previous contractual commitment, I don't know how under
TIF rules we can pass the but for test which we're required to do. You know the explanation we received
previously was, as long as the but for, as long as it was in a previous contractual commitment, we're okay.
Now your attorney says it's not there so how do you turn around and say these projects wouldn't have
happened but for the use of TIF. Because the projects have happened and there are no contractual
commitments saying that there's TIF money coming to save the day on assessments or anything else. So I
think that's a real issue we're going to have to deal with. I'm not sure tonight, one way or another whether
we're going to be able to deal with that.
Mayor Mancino: And how do you propose that we deal with that?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess, I think, I don't know. In my mind I think we need to get Mr. Dean in here
and I think we need to talk to Mr. Dean and really talk through some of those issues from our own end and
just kind of figure out where we stand and where we don't stand from that standpoint. You know I don't
like taking more and more subsidy and effectively transferring the pressure of that onto the general
taxpayers and I never have liked that. But at the same time I also don't like to read through at least letters
and correspondence that I would kind of take if I were on that side of the table, as commitments and say
that that's the way I treat people because it's not and I don't care whether that's business or council or
whatever. So from that standpoint I think the issues here are far from closed but I think they need more
discussion. I'm not sure we're going to get through it tonight. I think that's helps identify some of the
things we're going to need to discuss and some of the issues we're going to need to address but I think we
should proceed with doing that quickly but at the same time, like I say, adopt the assessment roll tonight so
we can at least meet the required timing and go forward. And realizing that really the net effect of that isn't
going to affect really anybody else other than the people we're talking to. And so from that standpoint, it
becomes kind of inconsequential that we take that stance but also make that commitment that we'll really
look at those issues and look at those decisions. So that's about it for mine I guess.
Mayor Mancino: That seems very fair to me. Yes.
Don Ashworth: There, Mr. Smith was correct. There's going to require two different actions. Two
different groups. One City Council and your approving or denying an assessment roll and what's to be
included in that. And the secondary meeting with they, as would they would agree to, and pick up the
16
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
assessments for those properties that they legally could do that for. That second meeting appears to be the
best one to have Mr. Dean in and discuss the issues that Councilman Senn just brought up.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious on that basis Don then why is the Council acting on special assessment
assistance? Okay, so A is really inconsequential matter on the agenda?
Mayor Mancino: We don't have to do anything to A. We just have to do B.
Councilman Senn: So really the only action before us tonight is B.
Mayor Mancino: Right. But it's also good to address it to let Mr. Smith and Mr. Carlson know where
we're going with this because I think it's important for them to have heard this discussion.
Todd Gerhardt: He requested it. I provided you the opinion from the attorney for information and that they
pass it onto the EDA is my recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: When is the next EDA meeting?
Todd Gerhardt: The second Thursday in January. I don't know the day offhand.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone who has a '98 calendar?
Councilman Senn: Second Thursday in January would be the 8th.
Mayor Mancino: Let's just finish up 3A and then we will go back and vote on, and discuss 3B.
Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'm just really confused about what our, when I say our, the City's commitment
was with businesses... They have a $675,000.00 worth of tax increment assistance and in reading this
letter that shows they get $231, our documentation just doesn't seem to... it's difficult to know what the
right thing is to do here. So I, I think Mark's on the right track. Take care of B and do all of this later with
our attorneys. I am really at a loss to decide what the right thing to do here is based on what I'm reading.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I've got a pretty good idea of what we're going to end up doing as the right
thing and I'm awfully confused as well. Mark has explained the Council I thinks position fairly succinctly.
Mayor Mancino: I have nothing really new to add either on that particular issue so on January 8th, Jules
and Jerome we will bring that up and have Mr. Dean, our attorney there and give us, we will probably prior
to that go over a list of questions that we will ask him to be prepared to answer at that meeting to review
with him. Now, 3B. Charles.
Charles Folch: 3B is basically redundant from the formal presentation you had back in September when
we had the project engineer in and we gave a full scale presentation of the project costs as they have been
determined and the assessments that have been spread accordingly. Basically in summary, the drainage
17
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
area, drainage costs have been basically split on a percentage of contributing area. We established a front
foot cost for the roadway based on total cost. They basically have gone up about 1.2% from what we
estimated from the feasibility study and basically that front foot cost was what's been applied for the
assessments for the roadway. Watermain basically was only a few of the parcels affected by watermain
where we provided some additional services and those assessments are listed accordingly. With that the
numbers remain the same as what we presented back in September.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and how did you prorate the parcels? I mean how did you decide who would pay
what and are there single family residential homeowners who aren't paying any? Is there any sort of a
concern there?
Charles Folch: We just, again going back to the feasibility study where it was determined that based on an
established, or based on an estimated front foot cost, at that point it was proposed to assess the industrial
commercial business park zoned properties and that the residential properties to the south, which basically
a majority of them do not take direct access from the road and such, there was not proposed assessments to
them. From that standpoint.
Mayor Mancino: Now Instant Web, there is direct access. Victory Envelope and United Mailing, is there?
Charles Folch: Those two sites take access off of Park Road.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they don't have direct access either. What about Empak?
Charles Folch: Empak takes access off of Lake Drive I believe.
Mayor Mancino: And the residential south of it exactly the same that they take access, not directly off of it
but also.
Charles Folch: Sorry, you do have the one large lot subdivision, Oakside Circle basically that has one
access point that serves a few homes back in there. Then there's one that shares a common driveway
together. Basically we felt, to be perfectly honest with most of the homes taking their backyards up to the
County 17 corridor and we felt it would be difficult to assess these particular improvements to the
subdivisions. Most of these subdivisions that have come on board basically have created their own
drainage systems, storm sewer ponding, etc., inside. There really weren't contributing.., drainage to the
roadway corridor or ditch system. They basically provided their own internal utilities. Their own local
streets if you will internal. We felt it would be very difficult to try and, based on a residential zoned
property, to sustain a benefit assessment for a collector road improvement project like County 17.
Mayor Mancino: And this assessment method was voted on and approved by the previous Council when
this got started?
Charles Folch: Correct. There was a feasibility hearing on the project I believe back in late 1995 or early
'96. What we did, in fact that's the schedule that you have. The previous feasibility schedule or
assessment roll was from that approved feasibility study. We did hold a public hearing on that at that point
in time. As well as a number of neighborhood meetings.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council?
18
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Charles. One of the things I'm still trying to understand is, you know I do understand
that there were several hundred thousand dollars of kind of like previous costs or design costs that are being
folded into this. That has been folded in. Why wasn't any of that effectively reusable? I mean why did
that all have to be duplicated?
Charles Folch: Well again it came down from a timing standpoint. The previous project was proposed to
rebuild the road from TH 5 to just south of the railroad crossing. Basically when those plans were being
developed, things, the way Highway 5, at that intersection was constructed, changed how the design would
be in terms of connection to that point. The way the roadway was laid out on Powers, County 17 to the
north, affected some, really affected geometric design at that intersection. In terms of how the storm sewer
system laid out. We were only going to change a rural section if you will, a section with ditches, only down
to the railroad tracks. Now, basically this project made it an urban section the entire length which changed
a little bit how you laid out the storm sewer. Laid out, changed how you were going to, where you were
going to have your discharge points in the ponds. Things like that because now you're building the
complete package versus a piecemeal that was being proposed before. So things did change dramatically
from that standpoint.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And how or why do you feel that it's fair to lump that into the assessment?
Charles Folch: It's listed as a project. It's listed as a cost to that project account, so it's being included
here. If it's a fairness issue, or any other questions regarding that, I guess that's your decision but I'm
listing here what was charged to that account.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Well and I think the project was started and I think we've discussed this before but I
think the project was, one Council started the project and initiated the design, which spent a fair amount of
money with the design. Then a new Council was elected and stopped the project for a couple years and
then it came up again.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. I just, one of the things I'm continuing to have trouble with
though in relationship to that is taking those costs and molding them into an assessed, a broad assessment.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, as part of the assessment cost?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it's kind of like you know maybe the City did that yeah but I mean
where's the value in that to the property owner and where is the, I'm going to say fairness test in
relationship to applying that back to a cost of the project which they're going to pay for. I don't know. I
have some fundamental problems with that you know.
Mayor Mancino: I would think you could argue that you know either way.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand you can but I'm just saying I'm having trouble you know...
Mayor Mancino: I understand.
Councilman Senn: Having trouble winning the argument with myself, how's that?
19
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I understand.
Councilman Berquist: I have another question. Mr. Ashworth. You've talked about we need to certify, we
need to do something to act on these somehow tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: If we certify these, approve them now, they could any or all or them can be amended
or added to, subtracted from?
Don Ashworth: Or deleted. When Todd mentioned January 8th I started to squirm around...to verify with
Lori that she'll in fact give me until mid. I don't really have a problem with your saying you have to have a
special EDA if the.., office will not agree to an extension in January.
Mayor Mancino: But we know for sure we have until the end of the year?
Don Ashworth: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: So I think all of us.
Councilman Berquist: So we can talk about that. I've got that same question regarding the fairness issue
and the $300,000.00.
Councilman Senn: As part of that though, just to, if I could Steve, I'm sorry to interrupt. Then could you
please, whenever we have this session, come prepared to really review where that district stands under
good, bad, indifferent circumstances? Because if we're going to deal with that fairness issue, it's logical
that we're going to look at that district to deal with it but we need to understand you know the broader
implications of that if in fact it's a decision we're going to consider.
Don Ashworth: We met again today to go through many of those same issues and have sent out, I believe
December 15th as the date where all of the parties, the bonding people, the City have walked out of there
with an assignment and they should now have the type of analysis you're talking about by December 15th.
Councilman Senn: That will be helpful.
Mayor Mancino: So that we can, what I'm hearing you say Mark and Steve is to go ahead and adopt the
assessment roll and review that at the same time. Because we would have the time to do that. And Don,
you would get back to us and certainly let Jules and Jerome know if or when that meeting will be and if it
needs to be before January 8th.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other comments? Then may I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the assessments as detailed within the staff report dated 15
September within the Council packet. Let's see, anything else I need to note? ... final assessments of
property ownership dated September 12th, 1997, see Project 93.29. Highway 17 improvement.
2O
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Can I add a friendly amendment that the EDA will meet to review the status of the
assessment roll in a special meeting prior to January 8th?
Tom Scott: Madam Mayor? I'd like to just keep the motion a clean motion simply approving the
assessment roll and address that in a separate motion.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: No, you may not.
Councilman Senn: And Nancy, there's really two issues there too because I mean as far as the issue on the
past cost, it's not an HRA or EDA issue so I mean Council's going to have to consider that one and the
EDA's going to have to consider the issue of the.
Mayor Mancino: Can we do that the same night and deal with it separately? From what Councilman Senn
was saying.
Don Ashworth: Policy type of issues versus a specific action to approve reductions for one or more
businesses? Sure. That can be two separate items.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then is there a second to Councilman Berquist's motion?
Councilman Engel: Second his motion.
Mayor Mancino: Without the amendment.
Resolution #97-91: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to adopt the final
assessment roll dated September 12, 1997 for the County Road 17 Improvement Project 93-29 at a
term of 8 years and an interest rate of 8%. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Is there another motion? Then I should go ahead and make the motion that we should
have a special meeting to review the assessment? Is that what you were saying Tom?
Tom Scott: However you want to deal with that topic. I just did not want it included in the motion.
Councilman Senn: No, we don't really need to have a motion to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Then we don't need to have that motion.
Councilman Senn: I think we're committed to doing that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And again, parties that need to be told of the date of that meeting will be from
Mr. Ashworth.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Next item on the agenda is new business. Yes. Please come forward. We're just
getting down everything you say.
21
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Julius Smith: Not that we're perfectly willing to sit down and talk about this at the EDA meeting and all
the rest of it but because of the nature of the Minnesota Statutes, we will have to put in an appeal and I just
want you to understand that because we do put in that appeal to protect our rights, doesn't mean we're not
willing to sit down and talk about it. But at least, I just wanted you to know that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A HAM RADIO TOWER, 1905
STOUGHTON AVENUE, STEPHEN KUBITZ.
Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. The applicant would like to construct a 64 foot tower to operate a ham
radio on the amateur level. The Planning Commission did review this and unanimously approved the
conditional use permit to install the tower. Staff supports the conditional use permit for the installation and
has prepared four conditions that are enclosed in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Senn: I just want to double check, all the neighbors were notified and nobody showed up at
the Planning Commission meeting or tonight? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Well we'll see if anyone is here to speak on that. Before, if the applicant is here. How
do you make a tower inaccessible for climbing? Is that, you know do you put barbed wire around the
bottom of it?
Cynthia Kirchoff: He was intending on putting plywood on the base of the tower. He said that worked
when he was in Chaska and he had the same type of tower. That's what he used. He didn't have trouble
with people climbing it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight?
Cynthia Kirchoff: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion?
Councilman Berquist: Plywood?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Just nail plywood to the sides and hope no one.
Councilman Senn: You can't climb it.
Mayor Mancino: Well see I'd get my little rock climbing things that you attach to the plywood and put
them up.
Councilman Senn: Oh, you have those rubber suction cups for climbing buildings and stuff?
22
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: All right Mayor.
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council members?
Councilman Berquist: What properties adjoin this property? I see it's Scott County.
Kate Aanenson: It's right on the border of Chaska.
Mayor Mancino: No, it's in Carver.
Councilman Berquist: It's in Carver County. Oh Scott County is across the border. What is on this piece
of, what is on this property here? Right in this area?
Kate Aanenson: That's the property owned by...
Councilman Berquist: So there's nothing in here?
Kate Aanenson: ...trailer home park.
Councilman Berquist: Is the trailer home park contiguous to this site or how far away is it?
Mayor Mancino: Not contiguous.
Kate Aanenson: Not a lot of properties with...
Mayor Mancino: Then I'll ask if there are any comments? May I have a motion please if there are no
comments.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit/t97-5
for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant must obtain a building permit. Engineering design for radial ice and tower structure is
required for the permit.
2. The applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing.
3. Compliance with Section 20-915, amateur radio tower standards.
4. The applicant must obtain a building permit when the tower is increased from 48 feet to 64 feet in
height.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
23
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Mason arrived during this item on the agenda.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5~300 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S
RESTAURANT, LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE VILLAGES ON THE
PONDS DEVELOPMENT~ SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT
PLAINS BOULEVARD; LOTUS REALTY.
Mayor Mancino: Staff report please for the vegetarian restaurant.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The proposal is for a 5,300 square foot single tenant commercial building. It is proposed
to be occupied by a restaurant, Famous Dave's. A non-vegetarian restaurant. Briefly, the site plan is
well... The building has multiple frontages and it was essentially that none of the elevations gives the
impression of... or of a building or service area. The applicant spent quite a bit of time designing this plan
and we feel that they were highly successful in achieving this perspective. All elevations are designed to
contained a pitched element, windows, awnings, arched windows, decorative doors, planter boxes and
cupolas. Exterior materials consist of wood and stucco. The roof is asphalt shingles. There is a colored
rendering and sample materials that will be presented by... The design is compatible and meets the intent
and.., approval with conditions. The one outstanding issue deals with the trash enclosure. There was some
direction from the City Council to investigate other options as far as the traffic enclosure goes.., within the
parking lot. We have met with the applicant on several occasions and looked at some alternatives. One
alternative would be to split the existing trash enclosure and take half of it. Put it next to the Famous
Dave's building along the southwest comer of the building. The other alternative, and the other half would
be taken to the northwest comer of the retail buildings. We believe that if we had to choose between
splitting the trash enclosures between the two buildings or keeping it where it is right now, staff would
recommend that the trash enclosure remain where, at the same location as it's proposed by the applicant.
With that, again we're recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? At this time. Okay. We will go ahead
and is the applicant here and would you like to present?
Vemelle Clayton: The applicant is here and we have more numbers than we usually do. We have Brad
Johnson, Ben Merriman, Mika Milo from whom you'll hear in a moment, and John Rose who is the Vice
President of Famous Dave's and I think it's flexible Famous Dave's rather than vegetarian or non-
vegetarian. We have come a long way with them. They have been working with the City for even a longer
period of time than the period during which we've been working with them. They haven't received a whole
lot of compliments about their building even though it seems to serve people very well and people come
back and back and back for lots of ribs and all of the buildings that they have built in all of the other cities
and it is a fine looking building except we determined it here and they gave us carte blanche to totally
redesign the building which we have done and the Planning Commission had lots of good things to say
about it so we're anxious to show it to you. I think that there are a couple of things besides the building
that we'll talk about tonight. You may want to talk about more than two more things but as I see it, we
need to talk about the trash enclosure and a little clarification on the landscaping. I would however like to
do it in exactly that reverse order. Talk about the building first and then the landscaping so you can have
all of the background of the site before we talk about the trash enclosure and therefore you'll have the
greatest advantage and understanding how it would best fit on the site. So with that I'll be back if you have
any questions but right now I'd like to introduce Mika Milo who will show you the plans.
24
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mika Milo: I'm Mika Milo. Principal in Milo Architecture Group, Eden Prairie. It's my pleasure to
present design of that 5,300 square feet office building for Famous Dave's. Or not office building,
restaurant building for Famous Dave's. On Villages on the Pond. The restaurant, like staff report said
already, is located kind of in the focal point of that whole frontal area of the Villages that goes around the
pond area and therefore it is certainly significant location for us and important for us to have a building
that will work well for the Villages. And we have been working for quite a while, both with the owner and
especially with the staff here of the planning department until we finally came up with this design that is
pretty much the design that we started from scratch after some, I would say not quite successful attempts to
work with the typical, the prototypical design. So now except for the floor plan, the building is really
completely brand new image for that type of restaurant and we believe that it fits very well for the
architecture of the Villages itself. I appreciate all the cooperation we got from the planning staff and their
input and the Planning Commission as well and design now represents a building that is designed all around
with equal quality and has materials being used on the building are typical for the Villages which is stucco
and wood siding, which is one of the typical materials we are using on the Villages and actually on the
Building #4 on the master plan which is the retail building just across the parking from that. The comer of
Great Plains Blvd. and also TH 5. Has also good portion of the building also consists of stucco and also
wood siding as well. The roof material is asphalt shingle. We have selected the best looking asphalt
shingle that we could find on the market and it is here. You can see it's somewhat gray but it has also
some color in it. It has a beigey color and a bluish color mixed in that. And so it fits well with the
material.., for the building exterior. These are.., the stucco is a... and the roof material asphalt shingle.
That forms a relatively neutral, quite, more of an earth tone.., for the building where we are again using
awnings to bring some more a highlight and to give some contrast and more interest to the.., with some red
stripes, vertical stripes on that. On the back side of the kitchen we are having just simply a yellow gold
color, base color... The front area here is... as far as the other accent color that we are looking at is the blue
green, teal color that is applied on the exit doors which are.., more of a traditional.., smokey glass and all
exit doors are designed.., even the back side where the kitchen is, we are paying quite attention to that side
as well and have also provided...the side that connects these two awnings as well. At the top of the roof we
have... The roof is really more like a cross.., relatively small building surrounded with larger buildings that
are forming the main street so we felt it important that that building is not kind of flat.., so that's maybe
what I would say...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions at this point for Mika?
Councilman Berquist: Mika, you've got a flat area over the kitchen that will support the HVAC
equipment. What are you going to do HVAC wise for the main, for the dining structure? For the pitched
roof.
Mika Milo: The equipment will be... on the roof. On the flat roof behind the parapet because we
have.., from the parapet but some.., equipment will be probably within the roof structure itself.
Councilman Berquist: Second question was, the retail building that we approved just to the east of this,
what was the exterior structure? Was that EFIS and, did we approve wood siding?
Mika Milo: We have approved those with wood siding on the more southern end of that building which
will be... That building was consisting of... consisted of the wood siding for the south one-third of the
building wood siding. Then was brick in the middle portion and stucco in front area.
Councilman Berquist: Predominant material was stucco?
25
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mika Milo: I would say one-third of each.
Councilman Berquist: A third of each? That's not consistent here, or is it? Not it's not. It looks like
we've got more siding.
Mika Milo: ... more wood than stucco but stucco is probably about 40% of the material. We've got
quite...
Kate Aanenson: ...the stucco is probably closer to 30%.
Mayor Mancino: You've got a lot of roof here too.
Kate Aanenson: And wood...there's a lot of glass in the building. The other building that you approved
down by St. Hubert's was pretty much stucco.
Mayor Mancino: And glass. A lot of glass.
Kate Aanenson: A lot of glass and stucco.
Councilman Berquist: The building down by St. Hubert's, the office building had, we had face brick of 4
feet that I recall and then it was EFIS from there on.
Kate Aanenson: And the hotel has.
Councilman Berquist: Predominantly face brick.
Mayor Mancino: Brick and wood.
Mika Milo: ...the wood that we have here, that is the siding, it has a solid stain on it. It's not wood you
are approving. You'll see the texture of the wood...but that would be a treated wood. It's not...
Mayor Mancino: Do you have to repaint it every three years?
Mika Milo: Well it has to have a stain...
Mayor Mancino: Can you explain, can I piggy back onto Steve's question? He asked it certainly from a
different perspective than I. A little bit about the HVAC .... Well number one, I have a concern with one,
the flat roof. And number two, will we see any HVAC on that part? And then on the rest of the roof,
what's going to be there?
Mika Milo was away from the microphone and his comments were not picked up on the tape.
Vemelle Clayton: We have that situation in the medical building and in the Edina Realty building where
it's up under the roof.
Mayor Mancino: But there will be vents? Okay. Mika, I have some concerns, just about the flat roof part
and how that, just design wise, how it fits into the rest that you have. Is that where the kitchen is? And so
26
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
tell me the design constraints about putting, having that be a flat roof. I mean are there design constraints
about that or?
Mika Milo: Actually the design... I also found that it's nice to have some.., some portion of the roof will
be flat in front of the slope roof so that way.., flat and sloped roof...then you would end up having the
roofs, on the sloped roof you would have...
Mayor Mancino: So but what adds to those, which I really like is the canopy and sometimes you've done
that, the canopy. You know on those two symmetrical ends, the canopy really helps define and bring out
another design element there. Another roof element which is kind of nice. Which isn't on the kitchen. Is
there any outside dining? I mean the one, you know the few that I've seen there is outside dining and in the,
obviously in the summer. Christmas, outside dining. Where is that here? Is there any?
Mika Milo: The outside dining is...but it is not really outside of the building. It is all part of this...
Mayor Mancino: No patio? No outdoor patio?
Mika Milo: Well, it's not really outdoor... It's this area here.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. That's not really outdoors?
Mika Milo...
Councilman Senn: So to answer the question, it's outdoor seating but it's covered.
Mayor Mancino: No. It's actually inside the building.
Mika Milo: In the building.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So it doesn't take, I mean you know, one of the nice things about a patio was that
it would take the amenity of the pond with it next to the restaurant. I think that was one of the thinking.
Kate Aanenson: It still does.
Mika Milo: It still does. You'll still have that outside with...
Councilman Senn: That's what I said. Outside seating with a roof over it.
Kate Aanenson: ...talk about in an architecture term, that's what you're getting. It's screened.
Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, there's screens.
Mika Milo: We are providing outside dining but we are not having a cheap looking you know terracey
porch around it.
Mayor Mancino: It's a screened in porch.
Kate Aanenson: Integral to the building.
27
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: It is like what's in Maple Grove? Okay, thank you. No, but yes? I didn't think it was
that hard. Believe me this was not a trick question for anybody. My next question is, I've noticed at some
of the restaurants that there are cement barricades around the restaurants. Are there going to be here? Oh,
excuse me, ballards.
Mika Milo: Bollards.
Kate Aanenson: Bollards.
Mayor Mancino: Bollards, okay .... Okay, and I'm assuming because they're not, there aren't going to be
any.
Mika Milo: Normally we put those only where we want to stop the traffic. The vehicle traffic... Separate
the pedestrian area entrance from.., or we use them at the same time as the light fixture...
Mayor Mancino: They're very aesthetic and they're usually.
Mika Milo: ... safety and...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Because I did see them at one of the restaurants and I was kind of
hoping that there weren't any so. Any other questions for Mika at this point? Thank you. Oh, I know.
One other, no. The only other question is, and Vernelle or Mika. I'm reading from September 24, 1996,
from Bob to Brad going over the final approved PUD. Landscape walkways shall be provided between
individual sites to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping. My only
question is, if you want to go from Building #4 to Building #3, on the north side there of the parking lot,
are we going to be putting some sort of, and it certainly doesn't need to be paved but some sort of a little
walkway so that again those people who work in, for retail, whatever, is there room to walk on the north
side of Building #4, along on the north side of the parking lot to get to #3 and have lunch instead of through
the parking lot? And secondly, will there be a trail on the west side of Great Plains Blvd. in front of #4 or
to the east side of #4 and should we connect to that? Does that make sense? Yeah, number one. Is there
going to be a trail there on the, your right. Right there, yep. Going all the way over to Building, to the
Famous Dave's so that the people who work in Building #4 can go over there and number two. Will there
be a sidewalk trailway here that, to get into Villages on the Pond this way, from here because you also have
Lake Drive which I'm sure will have a trail at some point on it. Did I do that? Or is this Lake Drive?
Vemelle Clayton: That's Lake Drive.
Mayor Mancino: That's Lake Drive, okay. So let's do it this way.
Kate Aanenson: There is a sidewalk there.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a sidewalk here?
Vemelle Clayton: There's a sidewalk going around the building.., site plan but there's none going...
Mayor Mancino: So they do have to go through the parking lot... And if they parked on this side, they
really won't have a parking lot. This is a sidewalk, right? Okay. Anyone else in front of us?
28
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: Do you have anything else to talk about with respect to the building?
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: I don't have any for the applicant .... questions for staff.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that's it. Thank you. Steve said he had a few questions for staff and I
have a couple too. Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Real quickly on this trash enclosure. The proposal is still to put it where we
originally saw it.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: I mean we've got to decide whether we want to split it... where we originally saw it.
Half of it feeding the retail space. Half of it feeding the Famous Dave's... enclosed structure with natural
ventilation. Steel doors.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Rendering plant or whatever, drives up and, I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: Where's the rendering of that?
Councilman Berquist: Whoever collects debris from a restaurant similar to this?
Mayor Mancino: No, rendering is right?
Councilman Berquist: No it's not. That's the wrong word. It is the wrong word. But the waste that's
generated by a restaurant of this nature, or any restaurant for that matter.
Vernelle Clayton: ...three different types of...
Councilman Berquist: And that area will be large enough so that, will there be vehicles with the machines
or the receptacles have to be wheeled outside and then disposed of and then dumped?
Kate Aanenson: Truck can back in. That was part of the concern about putting it next to the building...
taking away from the architecture of the other...
Councilman Berquist: Well I agree with that and having the truck have the ability to back in on the side
that's serving the retail space isn't an issue for me. But having the vehicle be able to back into the one
that's serving the restaurant I think is very important... Did the Planning Commission talk at all about the
size of the plantings that would go in to shield that thing initially or are they?
Kate Aanenson: No, they just left it to staff.
Councilman Berquist: And you guys are asking for how big... ?
29
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Sharmin A1-Jaff: ... we talking about.., around the...
Councilman Berquist: Planting baby trees?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The ordinance requires 6-6 ½ feet...
Mayor Mancino: But not particularly the PUD but yes, the ordinance. Regularly.
Councilman Berquist: All right.
Vernelle Clayton made a statement from the audience.
Councilman Berquist: Are we going to have any other buildings in the project, and I know it'd be difficult
to tell, that we're going to be faced with the same sort of dilemma?
Kate Aanenson: Well the other office buildings it was inside the building. The reason for this is because
we wanted to have the ability to... wetland, because Famous Dave's has got the wetland.., exposure on TH
5 so we wanted to eliminate that. The other.., actually a three sided building .... but obviously it's a view
corridor and...
Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, the which building?
Vernelle Clayton made a comment that was not picked up by the microphone.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, that's fine. I would like to add to that northern parking lot perimeter. I mean all the
way around the perimeter so that I'm very clear. So that staff can see it from here, all the way around here,
that there'd be a continuous evergreen hedge. The parking lot perimeter?
Vernelle Clayton...
Mayor Mancino: That's fine but I, that's what I would like to see around, whether it goes into that site
plan or not, a green hedge and I think we brought it up at the last time too. And we certainly talked about it
conceptually, a lot about shielding, and we always have, parking lots from Highway 5. And one of the
things that we talked about was using low, not high, but low evergreen hedges to do some of that shielding.
Unless, talk to me a little bit about the basin. What is that basin going to look like? Is it going to echo the
pond?
Kate Aanenson: Well that's just what I was going to say. We did look at enhancing this with more
wetland characteristics type vegetation. I'm not sure...
Mayor Mancino: How will that fit in?
Kate Aanenson: ... discussion.
Mayor Mancino: Pardon?
3O
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure I heard the discussion of the conifers coming all along that hedge treatment.
BRW did a really nice design for the edge of that. I don't have the color pictures here right now but.
Vernelle Clayton...
Kate Aanenson: It's very nice. We had the other, I don't have them with me right now but we did share
those with... What we're trying to do is really make that wetland an asset.., in front of the restaurant so I'm
not sure how you want to look at that.
Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure they do now but that's.
Kate Aanenson: That's what the consultants recommended.
Mayor Mancino: And so what happens for year round screening?
... prairie restoration.
Okay, that's what I'd like to look at.
Kate Aanenson:
Mayor Mancino:
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Comments from commissioners. Councilman Senn...
Councilman Senn: I guess I don't really have a lot of comments above what's already been discussed.
Looks fine to me. I do, you know I haven't changed my opinions on EFIS. I still don't like it so I don't
like the building materials here and I think there ought to be brick incorporated into the building on a much
greater extent. Well not much greater, there isn't any. I really don't understand how we can, except
they're requiring buildings all up and down TH 5 to be almost all brick and then require other ones to be no
brick so. But we'll have to rationalize that somewhere other to ourselves I guess.
Mayor Mancino: Well we don't have any across the street in the Roman Roos building. I mean that's
mostly stucco, isn't it? That's mostly a stucco building.
Councilman Senn: Nothing across the street's new.
Mayor Mancino: In the last two years.
Councilman Senn: Which one?
Councilman Berquist: Split face brick. Split face block.
Mayor Mancino: Is it? Is that what it is?
Kate Aanenson: Split face block with stucco.
Mayor Mancino: With stucco, okay. That's you know, was in the Prairie House restaurant.
Councilman Berquist: No, the prairie dog.., on that site.
31
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Michael, any?
Councilman Mason: I think it looks fine.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I think it's fine. I just want to make sure that we have adequate coverage of that
trash area. That's the only concern I have. It sounds like they're on top of that so.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: One of the questions that I've had about this particular use of this site from the get
go has been the potential for odors insofar as that we have a prevailing northwest wind in this part of the
world and that building sits directly northwest of a significant residential area. I see there was some
discussion about it at the Planning Commission and I'd like to hear from the applicant in their own words
as to how they intend to deal with impact because I am very confident that there will be significant impact
or significant discussion once the restaurant is open as to the odors that waft over to the Hidden Ponds
area.
John Rose: My name's John Rose. I'm the Vice President of Development for Famous Dave's and part of
the equipment package that we use, we're sensitive to that in every neighborhood. This is certainly not
unique here. We've got captive air hood systems that have a filtering system that I can't tell you what
exactly the captive rate is but it's significantly less than a hamburger restaurant or most other, certainly
any other fast food restaurant and significantly less than most restaurants the size that we have. The way
we, we have a very limited menu and the way we cook, we smoke our ribs and brisket and it's a slow
process done over 4 ½ to 6 hours and we use very, it's a very low heat. It's three ounces of wood for
instance in that whole time. They're electric ovens. Or electric smokers that use this. It's just significantly
less than...
Councilman Berquist: It's not chemically enhanced smoking or it's actually wood?
John Rose: Absolutely not.
Councilman Berquist: No chemicals.
John Rose: No chemicals whatsoever.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
John Rose: It's an electric heat source with a hickory wood and that's it. Cooked at 250 to 275 degrees for
6 hours so it's not the usual, I don't want to use any other names but up and down there there are some
hamburger restaurants that I live up and down that road also. Or I live on that road also and you'll never
see that sort of exhaust. I don't know if that answers anything.
Councilman Berquist: Well the one in Maple Grove. I'm familiar with two of your sites and I've never
been to your restaurant. I'm probably one of the few people in this room that have not been. I'm familiar
with two of your sites, one of which is being constructed now and the other one is in Maple Grove. In
32
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Maple Grove, given where you're at, the wind has absolutely no bearing on anyone anywhere. The one in
Minnetonka however, on the old Mama Lu's site, will have some real concerns for the people behind them
on the Hightop area. Was that brought up at Minnetonka's?
John Rose: I wasn't involved in the Minnetonka process...to speak honestly so I don't know. But it's, you
know we're in this for the long haul also. We would, I mean we certainly are civicly minded people. I
mean I think that Famous Dave's reputation, I hope precedes itself in here. Into this Council meeting to do
what's right and part of what's right is good for business and we chose to not be a burger place.
Councilman Berquist: And I don't want to give you the impression that I'm.
John Rose: No, that's fine.
Councilman Berquist: I'm not sure. I just want to try and cover the bases prior to the complaints being
aired. By the way, the captive air hoods. Those captive air hoods, all that, their main benefit to you as a
restaurant owner is they save you energy. They don't do anything to lessen the amount of odors that go.
John Rose: But we do use a filtering system. Maybe the wrong brand name but we filter the air before it
gets exhaust.
Councilman Berquist: Thank you very much. And the other question I have for staff in regards, as we go
into this, as we get in deeper into this project, you know I go back to the design details. The design criteria.
Somewhere in here I have it earmarked. We talk about exterior materials and major exterior materials,
surfaces shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels,
decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential.., materials. I don't know where the differentiation
between commercial and residential actually comes into play here, in this paragraph.
Kate Aanenson: Vinyl siding we talked about.
Councilman Berquist: Vinyl siding in residential only.
Kate Aanenson: Because we thought about that, you know we did that 300 units and we thought on the
other side of the street, if we have another housing project.., vinyl siding.
Councilman Berquist: The point is ifI take the building, as we go down here. First we did St. Hubert's.
We approved that office building. EFIS and face brick. And the St. Hubert's was all brick except for the
gym, which is tip up and block. And then I go to the next one and we've got roughly 30% EFIS... Now we
go to the retail building, Building #4. We've got 30-30-30 roughly in materials. Now I look at this one
and we're somewhere in the 20% to 25% EFIS and we've got 70%, 75% perhaps cedar siding. It seems as
though we are going in the direction that I don't like to be going. You've got structures across the street.
Americana Bank, Applebee's, that we've held to extraordinarily high standards and now we have a
showcase project that we seem to be going back. We're starting to slip on it. I'm concerned about it.
Mayor Mancino: Well in fact we did AmericInn, they have more wood on and we did ask...
Kate Aanenson: This one came in all wood and we, the Planning Commission recommended denial.., all
wood. Americana Bank is all stucco.
33
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Now is that a conceptual. Is that just something general or are you specific to here? Do
you want to see something different or?
Councilman Berquist: I don't know that I want to, I want. I'm making a general comment because I want
to see the direction begin to go back the other route. The other way.
Kate Aanenson: See some brick brought in.
Councilman Berquist: The standards for the project were high. I sensed. The standards for the project
being sacrificed.., for financial reasons. I understand some of that but. Well, then I sense the standards for
the project slipping for whatever reason. You know the financial aspect of it, forget about the financial
aspect. Strike that.
Vernelle Clayton...
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Well and I do think that generally, let me just bring this up with Council members,
certainly for Lotus to know because I don't want people to work on projects and then, and that is, in
regards to EFIS. It seems to be a material that the Council is concerned working with.., on the last project
that came in, the cinema projects. I want to bring that up and get that out now so everybody you know is
very clear on that. And if Council members can voice their concerns so that staff knows and so that we
know working forward that it is not a material that we want to keep on using a lot, and obviously say why.
The functionality and practicality of it and the aesthetics, I'd like to hear that from Council members now
instead of have another project coming in that uses it and we send someone back. So do you have a
concern Councilman Berquist about going ahead in other projects about the materials?
Councilman Berquist: I'm going to, if I don't move approval, I'm going to vote for approval of this
project.
Mayor Mancino: I know that.
Councilman Berquist: I simply want on the record that I consider Villages on the Ponds to be a first class
addition to the City of Chanhassen and I know everybody's working towards those ends. But I want the
exterior, I want the exterior material to be of as high a quality as the rest of the project. I don't know if
that makes sense but that's.
Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple comments. Number one, I'd just like to add a condition about the
rooftop equipment. That it will be 100% screened by parapet, and that's from views from Main Street,
Highway 5 and TH 101 so I would like to add that as a condition. And lastly I would, and the other
council members haven't said so but I'm fine with the trash enclosure. I would just like it moved north to
where spaces 15 are. I have a very big concern with people entering that parking lot to go to both Famous
Dave's and the retail building and having this building right there, even though it's going to be landscaped,
right there in front of them when they enter this parking lot. A big block there so I would just like to see it
moved to 15 but no one else feels that way so it certainly, I haven't heard any other comments. That's
where I am.
Councilman Berquist: I would argue that if we move it there, maintenance of that structure will be...
34
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: ... but as I said, that's my perspective and I hadn't heard it from anybody else but I just
needed to give that. So with that, and the only thing I would like to do is just see the final prairie
restoration sometime, landscaping plan.
Kate Aanenson: Vemelle had a comment on the landscaping. We concur there may be some so if we can
add a condition that we would review those. Make sure that they're correct and.., current landscaping
plan. That would cover all...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Sounds good to me. May I have a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the site plan. Noting in the conditions that conditions 2
through 4, relative to screening, shrubs, hedges and trees, be worked out between staff and the applicant.
And I think.
Mayor Mancino: No rooftop equipment?
Councilman Berquist: Oh, I'm sorry. No rooftops to be visible, how did you want that worded?
Kate Aanenson: Completely screened.
Councilman Mason: Well I think you want the rooftops visible Mr. Berquist. But I'm sorry.
Councilman Berquist: I can hardly make that motion being in the business that I'm in.
Mayor Mancino: May I make a friendly amendment? No, go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: All the rooftop, HVAC equipment will be 100% screened by a parapet from
Highway 5 and TH 101.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan
#97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for
Famous Dave's shown on plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 10/2/97, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by
the agreement.
2. Add three ornamental trees to the north side of the building.
3. Add 3 overstory trees to parking lot landscaping plan: one on each side of the trash enclosure and
one in the northwest comer of the parking lot. Enlarge islands on either side of trash enclosure to
include planting space for trees. Enlarge landscape island at the north end of the parking lot to
35
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
accommodate trees. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed
with the trees.
4. Change 5 spruce trees to 5 deciduous trees on west side of building.
5. Add landscaping (shrubs or hedges) to north side of property to screen parking lot from Highway 5.
The applicant shall provide detailed sign plans for staff's review and approval. A separate sign
permit shall be applied for by the applicant.
7. Lights that do not appear on the elevations plan shall not be permitted on the building.
The eyebrow window along the east elevation shall match the other windows and contain the same
decorative element.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final
grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval.
10.
The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining
the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross
access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
11. Revise the parking lot layout per staff's design (see attached).
12. A building permit shall not be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition is
recorded and the access driveway meets fire code requirements.
13. Items 2 through 4 regarding landscaping be worked out between staff and the applicant.
14. That the roof top HVAC equipment be 100% screened from Highway 5 and Highway 101.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: And when will we have Famous Dave's? When will it be there ready to go?
John Rose: June 1st.
Mayor Mancino: June 1st. Now will you do prior to, like the one on Highway 7. Are you going to have
everybody come and.
Councilman Engel: Big cookout.
Mayor Mancino: Oh good. Wonderful.
36
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Mancino: May I please have a motion?
Councilman Senn: I would move the appointment of Matthew Burton to the Planning Commission and I
would also like to include as part of that motion that if there's a vacancy in the next 3 months on the
Planning Commission, that David Moes be put in for that.
Mayor Mancino: Or if Matthew Burton decides not to take it or something.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: I'd second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to appoint Matthew Burton to the Planning
Commission and if there's a vacancy in the next 3 months on the Planning Commission, that David
Moes be appointed for that vacancy. All voted in favor, except Councilman Engel was out of the
room at the time the vote was taken, and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn? What's happening with Southwest Metro?
Councilman Senn: We haven't had a meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Really?
Councilman Senn: They don't meet in November.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Don't ask me why. I don't know why. They just don't meet in November.
Mayor Mancino: But they do in December?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Figure that one out. Those transit types you know.
Mayor Mancino: So there's nothing new to tell us? Okay. Any other Council members want to report on
anything?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I do have one quick question. On that development that is part, right by your
place. Centex. When we moved approval of that development, did we not include as part of that approval
the continuation of Lake Lucy Road all the way through to TH 41 ?
Mayor Mancino: That's the next phase of Brendon Pond. It's not even part of Centex. The part that's dirt
is still part of Brendon Pond and they have not come in for approval of that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah it's only that upper, that one upper. That's there, what Phase II?
37
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: That's Phase II of Brendon Pond?
Councilman Senn: Right. There's just a small.
Councilman Berquist: ... underlying property owner of Centex...
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Berquist: Boy, I sure seem to remember seeing the entire pass through.
Mayor Mancino: No because the reason why you didn't was because of the road alignment because there
were neighbors to the north and to the south who.
Councilman Senn: Real loud ones to the north.
Mayor Mancino: Loud ones to the n north, to tell you the truth.
Councilman Senn: You know they kept changing the road around and stuff so it was real hard to decide
where to hook it up to you know so it aligned right.
Councilman Berquist: It was I have a better idea than the rest of the City kind of thing?
Mayor Mancino: And a person who's always right too I mean. Anyway.
Councilman Berquist: Boy, somebody called and said when's that going to be done? I said I don't know.
Maybe they have to sell more lots.
Councilman Senn: Just say whenever the neighbors on the north wants it to be.
Councilman Berquist: So I'll call him and tell him I was wrong.
Mayor Mancino: I would think at some point, you know it will come in soon. There has been some
dumping there but the road hasn't. Actually no. They did fill a little bit of it with dirt because they used
when Centex had an overage of the 20,000 cubic yards over, they hauled a lot of that to Highover and they
used that route.
Councilman Berquist: Oh really?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM PROJECT
MEETINGS, TODD HOFFMAN.
Mayor Mancino~ Thank you very much Todd for, because you were on vacation last week we decided to
have you at the end of'this meeting.
38
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Todd Hoffman: I guess if Council members have questions on the public process or would you like me to
briefly go over? The referendum was approved in June 14th. We have initiated the public process in
earnest for the development of the park. The Bandimere and redevelopment of City Center Park and then
the construction of the 7 miles of community trails, six separate alignments. So last Tuesday evening was
the.., community meetings to initiate the public process for City Center and Bandimere. Those meetings
were well received. I know some of you were there. And from what I've been told, they were positive
meetings. Constructive meetings. How we can go forward and develop, refine plans for the construction of
those park sites. You saw in the Villager a public notice like this for the community parks and then last
week in the Villager, a community notice was just inside the front page for the trails. And again this is all
to solidify our promise to the community that if they approve this, these dollars, that they would be
involved publicly with the process of planning for their parks and trails. So this coming Tuesday and
Wednesday we will host community meetings for all six trail alignments identified in the referendum. State
Highway 7, Galpin Boulevard... on the 2nd and on the 3rd Great Plains, Bluff Creek trail and the Pioneer
trail, Great Plains Boulevard. Just over 500 mailings went out inviting those either adjacent to or very near
to these alignments. Personally inviting them to these meetings and then again just a general notice in the
paper that would allow those, or generally interested and do not live near the alignment to participate in the
process. As you're aware, Brown Associates is our main consultant on the parks. Howard R. Green is our
retained consultant on the trails and we put together in that letter the project team that will be moving
this.., project on behalf of the City Council. So we can get the questions of the public answered just as
quickly as possible, and as efficiently as possible. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions of
Council members concerning either issues or wants or desires concerning this process.
Mayor Mancino: I'll talk to a couple of mine. Number one, I did go to the City Center and Bandimere
Park presentation. It was very good. At City Center Park there were approximately 15 people there. I
would say 5 of them were commissioners, me, Dale. At Bandimere Park, that meeting was the second
meeting. There were probably 30 to 35 people there. Some people stayed. And a lot of the adjacent
homeowners who were going to live near the community park were there. My question on that part of it is
process oriented. It was, by the way the man, Jeffery. Jeff was very good. Very good facilitator and
presentor. It was a dump though. Everybody got to kind of say what they wanted to see in the two parks.
He didn't say yes or no. There were no bad ideas. He just took it all in and so you know I think everybody
felt like they were hear. It was one of those kind of what I want to call in the process, an easy meeting
because he took in everybody's comments. Certainly if they were outside the spectrum at all, I mean he
told them that. At this point, and Todd what I'm concerned about is, what's the next part of the process? I
assume that he's coming back with a preliminary, what I call layout of where the fields will be. What will
be you know and will come back to the residents or anyone who wants to come in. Who wants to attend
this public meeting. I have a concern that it may need to go in front of the Park and Rec Commission first
to do a review of the preliminary layout before it goes to the public to give their input, because it hasn't
been to the Park and Rec Commission at all. And then to Council.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to see the preliminary...
Mayor Mancino: Prior to going back to, out to the public.
Todd Hoffman: As you're aware, the park design is based off of a preliminary design which goes back
some six years which has been developed.
Mayor Mancino: But he's also kind of starting from scratch. I mean he, from what I heard that night, even
though there is...
39
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Todd Hoffman: ... we have things, we have demands and desires that are not met by the original concept so
we are starting from scratch.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. So it's gone to the public. It will go first to Park and Rec to review a
preliminary plan that he has and then it will come to us and we will maybe make some revisions and then it
will go out to a second public meeting? Or presentation, is that correct? Okay.
Councilman Senn: And we could just do that, we could do our part in a work session. I mean I don't think
it has to be formal. We're not going to really be taking input.
Mayor Mancino: That would be fine with me.
Councilman Senn: The other thing that would be nice, as that preliminary plan is developed, that we
simply not get the plan information but also get the back-up information just in terms of current demand
and utilization and numbers as far as different uses go. That sort of thing.
Mayor Mancino: Well and it was very interesting what the residents said too. I mean especially at
Bandimere you need to know that they have a little neighborhood park which kind of sits, it's a subset
inside the community park. And they were, you know very concerned about how they're going to butt up
to the community park. They wanted tennis courts but they didn't want lighting. They didn't want parking
so that you'd have to go through obviously their neighborhood to park and you know, good. And they
asked, they had good questions and they made good comments. So that that's part of the process. The trail
process, my only comment there Todd is, having been a recipient of the trail process, I think the thing that
concerned me when I got the letter, and especially after going to the parks meeting last week, because I had
not read my letter, was that for Bandimere and City Center Park it was very open. We want to hear your
comments. We have nothing that's planned and then I got my letter for the trail on Galpin in my
neighborhood and it says here is the proposed alignment. And so I took, I need to tell you, when it says
enclosed you will find a map depicting the proposed alignment for the trail in your area, and I thought, wait
a minute. Who decided the alignment of the trail? I know it hasn't gone through Park and Rec. I know it
hasn't gone through City Council. And thirdly, you know kind of as a resident was like, holy heck. I
thought we were being able to give our input and there hadn't been any proposed alignment. So I must say
that did concern me. I know but when I go to other meetings and it's very open and everybody can say
what's on their mind, you feel as a resident that you're going to be heard versus the snowball's already
started.
Councilman Senn: What you're saying is it should be more termed like a proposed alignment?
Mayor Mancino: Well that's what it says.
Councilman Senn: From a preliminary standpoint and we'd like to hear your reaction.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it just says depicting the proposed alignment for the trail in your area and it's like
there's, you know there are two sides to the, obviously the trail can go on and how did the proposed come
on one side and obviously there might be good reasons but also I would like to give, and again not have the
snowball going before everybody gives their comments. Because it was certainly something I felt very open
and very good about at Bandimere and City Center Park meetings.
4O
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Todd Hoffman: And I'm confident you'll feel the same way at these meetings as well. We did have to start
somewhere. There is good reason behind the selection for the proposed alignments based on topography.
Mayor Mancino: And who did decide these alignments?
Todd Hoffman: The design team which you have listed there. Project manager, Dave Nyberg.
Construction Manager, excuse me, Project Manager would be myself. Construction Manager, Dave
Nyberg. The surveying and staking people, Frank Kriz and then other folks from the Howard R. Green
Company. So we talked about these initial alignments, and from really from day one, which is back some
three years ago, many of these alignments were just the natural alignments for those trails. Others were not
and it's up to in the field investigation, take a look at it for proposed alignments based on again drainage,
topography, extent of site disruption, extensive grading.., proposed alignments.., public process to take
place and the step forward. In our conversation today, we held a meeting with Howard R. Green this
afternoon from about 1:00 until 3:30 to talk about these proposed alignments and their effects on adjoining
property owners. And what I made clear to Dave Nyberg and Howard R. Green is, as we enter into those
public meetings, we want to maintain the public trust so when we display these final proposed alignments
next Tuesday and Wednesday evening, I want to make sure that they are in the best location. You know if
you have to cut down trees in this location, it'd better be for a good reason. The other side of the equation
better be there. It's simply not because that's where the trail looks best or that's where it would make the
best trail. We have to be cognizant of all those issues. There are also a variety of policies which are
handed down from the State of Minnesota, the watershed district, Carver County, that have to do with
clearance zones for wetlands. Clearance zones for the roadway. For example, on Powers Boulevard
North, just west of City Hall here, if you take a look at the stakes, as the residents described on their cell
phones from their deck this afternoon, the orange stakes which marked the proposed center line of the trail
go right through that entire row of pine trees that line the townhomes on Powers Boulevard. That is not our
preferred location for the trail. Our preferred location would be closer to the roadway. Carver County has
handed down, at least initially, mandated 30 foot clear zone so that 30 foot clear zone pushes that trail
outside of the ditch section, into private property, through a fence and you're cutting down 40 or 50 trees.
It's these kind of mandates that we will have to work through as we go through this public process. There
are going to be things which raise the eyebrows of residents as we go through the process but we are
prepared to be very open and.., planning the details and specification and design work in construction of
these trails.
Mayor Mancino: And is this something again, the same process. This has not gone through Park and Rec
Commission and one of the things that I want to make sure is that it does, this goes back through the Park
and Rec. I'm even thinking about an area where I live, how it's going to come off of whenever Round
Lake, and when Prince develops, how that trail system will hook up to Galpin or hook up over to Powers.
Whether it should be on the east or west side when that hook up occurs because they're the people who are
seeing the comprehensive trail plan together also. Park and Rec. So I would like to make sure that we
have the same process throughout for the trails and for the neighborhood parks so it goes through Park and
Rec and then come here to allow public again.
Todd Hoffman: Just so you're aware, those public meetings are scheduled in the project schedule. As far
as Park Commission review for public comments. Planning Commission, City Council review. Now
reviewing the preliminary documents is something new on the park. On the trails, our proposal would be to
have this public, these public meetings. Refine those plans and bring those refined plans to Park
Commission and City Council and when it was, when they were brought to City Council, that would be for
authorization of that alignment and of those plans and specifications. That would be some time in the early
41
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
part of February. So if Council would like to review this equally. If you would like updates. You just let
me know what kind of information. You are receiving everything which is decimated to date. You'll
continue to receive that. If you want formal presentations by either myself, as the project administrator or
Dave Nyberg, the construction manager.., let me know how you would like the information given, presented
to you and we will.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. The other thing I'd like to have addressed is some of the maintenance that's going
to happen, both the City Center Park trails and the community parks. As far as, are we going to keep the
trails open and if we do, Charles Folch and I made a trip over to a residents home where we had
snowblowed and the trees had died because of the salt, etc., that got on that side of the tree, etc. So as we
do trails, and we're going to have to create different methods, if we are going to clear the trails and decide
which ones and how much money we want to spend on clearing trails. And how to do it without damage to,
by the property.
Todd Hoffman: To date we plow all the 8 foot bituminous trails in the city.
Mayor Mancino: And I think that's another thing too. Also discussed how we're going to, if we're going
to keep doing that, with all these added trails. Any other process? Questions?
Councilman Senn: You know referring back to 38 and 39 of the Minutes from last meeting, when I raised
this process, I think we pretty adequately dealt with it. The other issue was trying to get a quick work
session together to talk about how we're going to approach the trails versus the.., made on TH 101...
referendum time and here we are going into these meetings which really kind of concerns me and we
haven't talked about that. I kind of thought our work session was going to be about that tonight initially
but it wasn't so I guess, are we going to talk about that before we go into public meetings or are we going
to go into public meetings and worry about it later? And if so, are we kind of giving the impression that
may or may not be?
Mayor Mancino: Well number one, we had hoped to in all honesty, get to that, the second half of our work
session tonight. I mean I didn't, I don't think we planned on it going an hour. We just planned on it going
a half an hour and then getting to the TH 101 trail. These public hearings start the 2nd and 3rd.
Todd Hoffman: 2nd.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, what if, is that Truth in Taxation night?
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: What about those of us who have a concern and can't attend the meeting? We could do
it prior to Truth in Taxation.
Councilman Mason: No. Well, I can't but.
Mayor Mancino: That night you can't come early? Okay. What time does that meeting start?
Councilman Senn: Truth in Taxation?
42
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Don Ashworth: 5:30. If I would have, seeing that we're going to have all kinds of complaints from people
saying you know they work downtown Minneapolis. There's no way they can be back here for 5:30. I'm
thinking that that night we should open the thing. We'll probably go through kind of where we're at and
then table action or maybe we'll just keep right on talking to make sure the people coming in at 6:30 or
7:00 can continue to talk.
Mayor Mancino: Mark, do you have a suggestion? I mean I hear you. I mean I think we should talk about
the TH 101 trail and I think it should be prior to starting at the other public meeting. Anyone have the
suggestion of when that can take place?
Councilman Berquist: I'm pretty flexible.
Councilman Senn: We're not meeting the first?
Mayor Mancino: We can.
Don Ashworth: I think you would have time on December 2nd.
Mayor Mancino: But that's the night of the first meeting on the trails and I think that Mark wanted to,
from what I heard you say, you wanted to do it before then.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think that would make sense.
Mayor Mancino: Well we could certainly do it on the first. I would be willing to come in on the first and
Steve would. Mark Engel, would that be something you could do?
Councilman Engel: I can make the first.., first is good. The 2nd is iffy. First is better.
Mayor Mancino: Well we're already on for the 2nd. For the Truth in Taxation.
Councilman Senn: That's been published for a long time. We can't change that.
Councilman Berquist: Has there been any talk whatsoever with the gentleman that you're using as the trail
consultant regarding the commitment that we made? In my mind, well.
Councilman Senn: Well that's what we need to talk about.
Councilman Berquist: That's why we need to discuss it... any conversation whatsoever up to this point
with TH 101, with the gentleman that's done the trail work.
Todd Hoffman: There's been no point for that discussion. They're aware that it's another segment in our
community that we would like to build.
Councilman Berquist: The point became evident two weeks ago, three weeks ago when we were.., suddenly
ISTEA funding went away...
Mayor Mancino: Mike, does 5:30 on the first work for you?
43
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Mason: Well, I've already had plans for that night. IfI can change them, I'll be there. I mean
we canceled that night so I made plans but I'll see what I can do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Engel: What are we doing the 2nd then?
Councilman Senn: I should have made plans that night.
Councilman Mason: Well see.
Mayor Mancino: So we'll see you at 5:30 on the first. On December first. Okay.
Councilman Engel: What are we doing with the 2nd now?
Mayor Mancino: Truth in Taxation at 5:30 here. Okay. I'm sorry Todd, did you have a question?
Todd Hoffman: Any points of clarification about what we want to discuss? The last time we did the
feasibility study for Highway 101 north was 4 or 5 years ago. It was at half a million dollars then. It will
certainly escalate over that point. You know we've allocated $1.25 million to these trails. We certainly
cannot accomplish TH 101 and all of the other six trail segments.
Councilman Senn: We understand that. I'm not sure there's anything you need to bring to the meeting. I
think it's just a discussion we need to have in reference to commitments and other, you know other
conversations we've had and commitments we've kind of made, etc. But it's only fair for you and who ever
the consultant is going to these trail meetings, that they understand what that is or isn't going into the
meetings. Otherwise you're going to, in my mind, kind of be put in a very awkward position. So.
Todd Hoffman: Well, we're going in to talk about six trails which were passed about, was approved by the
referendum.
Councilman Senn: Well.
Mayor Mancino: There's no question Todd, they were. There's, I've got the brochure here and everything
else.
Councilman Senn: There was also a statement that went along with the referendum that basically you
know Highway 101 trail would be occurring at the same time. There was a commitment by Council
effectively that if that wasn't going to happen, that we would, you know TH 101 was our top priority and
so now we need to kind of either figure out if that's the tact we're taking and how that's going to affect the
other trail segments or not affect the other trail segments. So that's what we need to get into and do.
Mayor Mancino: Right. And whether, how we can accomplish those or what we need to do but just have a
discussion. A dialogue on it. I don't think any of us, but you know it was a statement that was made and
we all talked about at a work session upstairs so now we have to deal with it. Any other? The meeting is
adjourned.
Councilman Senn: Whoa, whoa. Are you sure about that?
44
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Oh shoot.
Councilman Senn: We've got consent agenda. We've got administrative yet. See you and your break.
Mayor Mancino: The only reason why we took a little break you know. I thought we were almost done.
Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
C.~. APPROVE REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR HALLA GREAT PLAINS ADDITION,
PROJECT 95-13.
Councilman Berquist: I pulled it and the reason I pulled it, maybe I dreamt this. I don't know. I dream
some pretty weird stuff once in a while. That we're approving a revised grading plan. We've already
granted them an extension to the development. How are we progressing? Have we progressed? Filling in
the bluff issue and that cease and desisted and compost pile that accumulates and is burned off on a yearly
basis. Cease and desisted and all those side issues have been resolved and...
Don Ashworth: I'll have engineering or planning address that in News Alley. If you want to hold off on
this approval, that's fine. I haven't heard anything. You know I had received earlier correspondence from
Hempel and I was aware from the staff meetings but nobody has said anything about that issue for a
month.
Todd Gerhardt: I know that we went out there...
Don Ashworth: I don't know that there's a rush on that.
Councilman Berquist: I don't know if there's a rush either but I don't want to see it again if it's all
resolved and, what do the rest of you think?
Councilman Senn: No, I agree with what you say.
Mayor Mancino: I'd rather make sure it's resolved.
Councilman Berquist: All right, move to table.
Don Ashworth: Or would you consider making a motion to approve assuming that those issues have been
resolved and bringing it back if it hasn't.
Councilman Berquist: I think that's a better idea. I would move approval of the revised grading plan for
the Halla Great Plains Addition, Project 95-13 predicated on the resolution of the previous difficulties that
have gone along with that property, i.e. filling of the bluff, i.e. accumulation of compost material on a
yearly basis, and anything else that's been detailed.
Mayor Mancino: I would second that.
45
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the revised grading plan for the
Halla Great Plains Addition, Project 95-13 predicated on the resolution of the previous difficulties
that have gone along with that property, i.e. filling of the bluff, i.e. accumulation of compost material
on a yearly basis, and anything else that's been detailed. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Fo
APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2~ COULTER BOULEVARD STREET AND TRUNK
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS~ PROJECT 93-26B.
Councilman Berquist: Todd I understand that, or wait a minute. Todd? You're working on this?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Neither did the memo. We're spending another $12,000.00 because HGA screwed
up their quantities. Arguably if they'd had their quantities correct to begin with we would have, the bids
would have been somewhere in the $12,000.00 more range and that's what we would have approved. I just
have a very difficult time, with all the paperwork that's completed. We went to them. We spent
$64,000.00 for the design. Then they come back with the wrong quantities and we have to eat it. Go
through all the paperwork needed. Go through all the rest of the overhead expense to make the thing done
and they get their full fees. Not to mention, I also heard through the grapevine. I don't even remember who
I heard this from, but that the fabric had been laid on the original parking lot and the design consultant
neglected to indicate fabric as part of the criteria for the addition. Fabric underlayment over the top of the
Class V.
Todd Hoffman: No knowledge about that.
Councilman Berquist: No knowledge whatsoever?
Todd Hoffman: I can address the first one.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, how are they going to participate?
Todd Hoffman: They won't. By contract they're.., whatever it's called.
Councilman Senn: Well except for errors and omissions.
Todd Hoffman: If you recall, their original proposal was for 12, they wanted $12,000.00 to do this work
and I said no. That's not acceptable and they knocked that down to 8. Said no. That's not acceptable. I
went shopping around for another proposal... They agreed to do the work at that rate but were upset about
that negotiation and that rate. They assigned a junior tech. The junior tech omitted one of the parking lots.
They sent the paperwork out here. We bid it and you're correct. We would be paying for it anyway but
now we're paying for it after the fact.., rolling along. The trucks started coming with the rock and they
soon were over the quantities that were estimated in the bid so they knew something was up. And so we
called HGA. Had them check their numbers. They were.
Councilman Berquist: They missed the whole lot.
Mayor Mancino: No, he couldn't have. It says Chanhassen Rec, recreation center and Bluff Creek
parking.
46
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well did they miss on all of the one side or because of one side and not the side or
what?
Todd Hoffman: They left off the school parking lot.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I figured it was.
Mayor Mancino: But they had it in everything else. In everything else you have to buy on the list, because
you gave us the estimate sheet.
Councilman Senn: Todd unfortunately is essentially right. If the City signed the standard AIA contract,
which is probably what we signed, you know you're probably going to be stuck for paying for it and
there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I think the only suggestion here should effectively be that given
the problems on this one as well as the substantial problems that involves them on the school project, I
think maybe as we go forward we ought to consider who we're using and who we're not using in
relationship to these projects so it doesn't happen again.
Mayor Mancino: Can I ask one last question? Has anything been done on the tennis courts with them?
Todd Hoffman: With HGA?
Mayor Mancino: Well, meaning that they informed you that the courts had been accepted so I'm assuming
they accepted them?
Todd Hoffman: They and John Gockel, the construction manager for School District # 112, correct. My
last piece of correspondence, we took some aerial photos of the inline skating rinks and at that time they
also took a few shots of the tennis courts and that just reminded me the stain pools from this water. You
know I was never in agreement that those were accepted and so I sent a memorandum to John Gockel, Dave
Leschek and to Borson, you know stating that even though Borson, or HGA and District had accepted
these, you know somebody needs to pay for their repair and who's that going to be so correspondence
regarding that memorandum.
Mayor Mancino: So this will come up again HGA.
Todd Hoffman: This has been ongoing for two years.
Councilman Berquist: But the latest aerials that reminded you?
Mayor Mancino: November 4th.
Councilman Berquist: November 4th. Have we issued a check to HGA for their design work? It seems like
we have.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Well, have we issued the check or you authorized it?
47
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Todd Hoffman: Probably issued. Their work's been done quite some time ago and in fact when they sent
through the payable, they sent it through at an amount of $7,800.00 or $8,100.00 showing that they did
more work than they actually billed us for. The not to exceed $6,400.00 amount.
Councilman Senn: That happens quite a bit.
Councilman Berquist: Well would you do me a favor and check and see if in fact that check has been
released. There's nothing we can do about it I suppose if in fact it hasn't. I for one...hold it for a time. If
we can legally do that.
Councilman Senn: This project is now effectively over budget by about that amount then, correct?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Do we anticipate any additional change order? So effectively the budget's
come in on budget except this?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. We'll be about $6,500.00 over. The original budget was $100,000.00. So we got
down to 81.
Mayor Mancino: We got it down to 84.7.
Councilman Senn: Well then we ought to pay for the overage...the budget and worry about the architect
later maybe huh?
Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: Not from me.
Councilman Mason: Move to approve item l(f).
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Change Order No. 2 for Coulter
Boulevard Street and Trunk Utility Improvements. Councilman Mason and Councilman Engel voted
in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition. The
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino: Let's take that one more time. All those?
Councilman Senn: Why are we revoting?
Mayor Mancino: Pardon?
48
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well if we revote, one of the opposing people would have to re-raise it. Well go ahead
Nancy.
Mayor Mancino: I move that we accept to approve Change Order No. 2, Coulter Boulevard Street and
Trunk Utility Improvements, Project 93-26B because we'll end up paying it. Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Resolution #97-92: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Change Order
No. 2 for Coulter Boulevard Street and Trunk Utility Improvements. Councilman Mason, Mayor
Mancino and Councilman Engel voted in favor. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in
opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
G. ACCEPT DONATION FROM REDMOND PRODUCTS FOR THE CHANHASSEN FIRE
DEPARTMENT.
Councilman Senn: I think it's absolutely wonderful that Redmond Products made the contribution and I
think we should acknowledge that. But I also think the money should be taken and set aside in relationship
to our '98 consideration in terms of what we're doing right now on budget so I don't think it should be
lumped in and spent in '97. I think we should hold it in relationship to some of the things we're trying to
deal with in '98 and make some decisions from there.
Mayor Mancino: I agree but I would have the caveat that it go for the Chanhassen Fire Department.
Councilman Senn: Oh, I'm not saying that it wouldn't. Yeah, I'm not saying it wouldn't. I mean I don't
think we can change that. I mean that's what they gave it to but I'm just saying, rather than have it go for
new additional equipment that, you know, how would I say may not be part of any budget at this point, we
may need it to go for something, equipment that's part of the budget.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we graciously accept the donation of Redmond Products to the
Chanhassen Fire Department and that the money be set aside in the Fire Department budget for '98 and
will be tied into our budget deliberations for '98.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to accept the donation of Redmond
Products to the Chanhassen Fire Department and that the money be set aside in the Fire Department
budget for '98 and will be tied into our budget deliberations for '98. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
H. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist, questions.
Councilman Berquist: A couple of questions on, for instance. Page number 3 and I'm sorry I did not have
an opportunity to go through this and make calls to all the different people who would have ideas about
49
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
what this was being spent for. But page number 3. Repair Rescue Truck #216. $1,525.00. We just
approved purchasing a new one to replace Rescue Truck #216 two weeks ago.
Mayor Mancino: You're using the other, the old.
Councilman Senn: He's using the old form.
Councilman Berquist: Yes, I'm using the old form.
Mayor Mancino: I've already adapted to the new one.
Don Ashworth: I'll have to check but I would doubt very much that that's the same rescue one.
Councilman Berquist: You don't think so?
Don Ashworth: I don't think so, no.
Councilman Berquist: Maybe you're right. I mean we haven't gotten it yet and if it had to be repaired to
make it sellable. And then the other, without going through it on a detailed basis, which I'm loathe to do
given the time and the displeasure which I know a lot of people sense when I start going to details. It would
seem as though, looking at the budgetary percentages, that we've got as of 10/31 on a departmental basis,
that there are expense items that are, it seems as though.., sense issue. I'm sensing this now. It seems as
though there are items being purchased that go towards fulfilling budgetary amounts.
Mayor Mancino: And you're saying in implication, aren't needed?
Councilman Berquist: And I'm, well I'm questioning I guess the, if we've gone through the month of
October without them, why we would need them in November and December.
Mayor Mancino: And can you be more specific? You know just a couple items.
Councilman Senn: Maybe I could help Steven out. If you look at this particular pay register there's, what
I'm just going to say generally. Okay, in the pay register here there's over $15,000.00 of effectively,
supplies that are not the normal supplies being ordered in this budget. And that is things like new small
tools and you know buying a few carburetors and buying you know a few batteries and buying, you know
it's kind of like a stock up.
Don Ashworth: I absolutely do not believe that that is on anybody's mind here. I would also again like to
stress the point that when you're looking at a report that may be dated November 18th, and this item had
been purchased from 2 to 3 months ago and is in all likelihood just being invoiced and paid now. That is
especially true as it would deal with attorney services. Any of our contracts because a typical contract,
well if I go back through, well first of all there'd be a negotiation with Todd. Then the contractor invoicing
Todd. Then Todd sending that back over to, and maybe I should have used one with engineering because
then it would have gone to engineering. Then they end up approving this thing and then back to finance.
From an accounting standpoint, I guess I look at this as representing really expenditures through more like
July 31st.
Councilman Berquist: Really, that far back?
5O
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Well it says invoice date on these and most of the invoice dates, and I don't know if
that's from the supplier or not, are in 10 and 11 and I don't know if that's the actual invoice date of the
original invoice or what. So they don't, you know.
Councilman Senn: But if you look at the new format it gives you the invoice date.
Mayor Mancino: That's what I said.
Councilman Senn: You know like there was one here I had a question on...this is the new forms, which I
think are substantially improved. On page 4 it's Bergre Harley. There's an invoice for 11/17 that's due
date 11/24 and it's $12,258.54. And it just says second half '97. I assume that's somebody's taxes we're
paying or something?
Mayor Mancino: Harley and Elizabeth Bergren.
Todd Gerhardt: That's special assessment assistance.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: ... by National Weather Service. It was out of Fund 492. Part of their incentive program.
Don Ashworth: I'll check on that invoice question for you. I still believe that I'm right.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Don on the water tower, there's a payment in here on the water tower acquisition of
$319,896.00.
Don Ashworth: Property.
Councilman Senn: Okay. My recollection was that, last time we talked about that I thought we kind of,
you were still negotiating. I didn't.
Mayor Mancino: No, we approved that.
Councilman Senn: And we approved the final number on that?
Mayor Mancino: Yep, we did.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And so this is all the cost or this is just the cost of acquisition?
Don Ashworth: That's just the cost of acquisition. I don't understand the question.
Councilman Senn: Right, because I thought. In the last numbers I thought kicked around were higher than
this. This includes the relocation and everything?
Don Ashworth: No.
51
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Don Ashworth: The $318,000.00, and I'm assuming we had some other miscellaneous costs in there.
... payment that went to Wrase.
Mayor Mancino: And which is the appraised price.
Don Ashworth: ... remember we do have the old house on that property and there is a renter in there. So
we are going to have to deal with that issue yet.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Right, and he's paying $750.00.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Are we done now with the sump pump inspections or, we're still going to have
more of those?
Don Ashworth: Well we have, what we have are all of those homes that we haven't been able to get into.
Mayor Mancino: 41 of them.
Councilman Senn: But I mean we're continuing to pay. I thought we, okay so we're paying them on a per
inspection basis then now?
Don Ashworth: That's my recollection.
Councilman Senn: All right.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, and I think they had 200 or 300 to do you know this final last couple months and
that must be a payment for it.
Don Ashworth: Although I haven't seen them in City Hall like I had from earlier.
Councilman Senn: Okay. There was a $660.00 church paint repair here which I assume is the old church.
How are we doing or has the discussion been set up with the church about, talking about the ownership and
stuff of that parcel yet or?
Don Ashworth: Contacted Father Steve and set up.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know, there was an issue between the Mayor and Father Steve were trying to...
Mayor Mancino: I'm always available.
Todd Gerhardt: ...Father Steve...
52
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: No. I think what happened Mark is just we're pursuing that. In our last discussions
with Father Steve, they centered around 2.2 acres so we didn't have enough time to bring up the church but
we will.
Councilman Senn: Maybe you should wait for the 2.2 acres to be done.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for understanding that.
Todd Gerhardt: The reason we had to paint the church was that we had to get gutters back up on the
church. With the reroofing we had taken the gutters down and had water problems in the basement .... put
the gutters back up until we painted.
Councilman Senn: That's fine. It was more just reminded me to ask where we were on the issue is all.
The last one is, there were a number of vaccines in here that we're paying for four people. Why do we pay
for vaccines? I'm just looking for an understanding on it.
Mayor Mancino: To keep them healthy.
Councilman Senn: To keep them healthy.
Councilman Berquist: That's for fire fighters.
Todd Gerhardt: ... senior center.
Don Ashworth: So we get reimbursed from somebody on that?
Councilman Berquist: Those are all fire fighters that got vaccines.
Todd Hoffman: We paid for it. Individuals paid for those.
Don Ashworth: It was supposed to be, because my wife was on me because I didn't pay the $2.00 or $3.00
or $4.00, whatever it was and I could have gotten one for $4.00 and I didn't do it.
Councilman Senn: That's not what this is.
Don Ashworth: That's not it?
Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple questions, but Mark I kind of wanted to respond to your question
about tools and stuff. I noticed you know Snap on Tools and all that kind of good stuff. I've noticed those
throughout the year though. I mean I hadn't noticed any bigger purchases in this payables list than others.
I remember that in July or August there were quite a few. Secondly, as it has to do with batteries,
equipment. I think that's pretty typical of a city getting ready for winter so that's my perspective and it's
not to defend because I didn't really call and ask anybody but that's my perspective when I saw a lot of the
maintenance costs coming in right now.
Don Ashworth: I think Harry is one of the most frugal employees you have. He'll go out of his way to
make sure he gets towels at Driskills for half the price that he can get them anywhere else.
53
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Yeah Todd you're right. It says two fire fighters.
Councilman Berquist: Well I brought that issue up too. I mean there's a, I'm just looking at total dollars
and cognizant of what the budget is and I look at the income statements that are attached to the news alley
and I see, I see the percentages. And I see the percentages where we were last year and what we end up
with for final percentages.., percent of budget and I understand that payables have, they have to work their
way through the system but proportionately we should be the same, we should be in a similar position as to
what we were last year. If anything I would think our payable system would have been more efficient and
therefore we would have more...
Mayor Mancino: And aren't we about the same?
Councilman Berquist: Well we're, in some we are and some we're not, yes.
Don Ashworth: I would agree with that. That you should be able to look at percent last year versus
percent this year. I have difficulty though in the, if it really was the mentality to let's go out and spend
before the end of the year. That mentality should have existed last year.
Councilman Berquist: That would be true.
Don Ashworth: I do not believe.
Mayor Mancino: My last question has to do with the telemetry system. It says repairs to telemetry system.
I thought it never really got, and it's just a question for Charles at some point. Really ever got fixed right
to begin with. So when I read repairs to it, that's my only question and I'll ask it at the staff meeting
tomorrow to say, you know was it really up there working fine before we paid them for repairs? Any other
questions?
Councilman Berquist: Last question. TIF reports from Tautges. Is that it? $8,600.00?
Don Ashworth: Final accounting on that will hit $15,000.00.
Mayor Mancino: I think we paid some money before.
Don Ashworth: The report is extensive. It's, we're on our third revision. I gave Nancy a copy of a
tentative one that I had. You'll receive that report I would say within two weeks. And it is at least the size
of the audit report. You're going through 20 years of reconstructing every expenditure that was made. The
worse part there is, they're asking that they all be classified in a different fashion so throughout the years
they've asked okay, classify expenditures by personnel, commodities, contractual services and capital
outlay. That's standard..type of thing. Now they're coming back to saying, okay. We want them
reclassified in a different fashion. You've got to resubmit...
Councilman Berquist: This was required, requested by the auditors? State auditors?
Councilman Senn: And we don't have the ability to do any of it in-house?
Don Ashworth: Oh we did a lot of it inhouse. Between Kathy and Kim, they put in, well they had to do all
of the background work for Tautges. Most were through auditing type of tasks. They came back and they
54
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
said, okay. We need every one of the invoices and we need to have you bring.., and then Tautges basically
came and put them into report form.
Councilman Berquist: There's nothing that we could have done differently to have prevented this?
Don Ashworth: No. Every city is faced with...
Todd Gerhardt: They established the rules approximately two years ago. Had these rules existed 20 years
ago... Now we're basically setting up a whole standard of bookkeeping that.
Don Ashworth: But all of the new stuff now is being recorded in the new so everything we've done in the
last two years... Just a matter of resurrecting.
Mayor Mancino: Good job.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Bills. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION.
Councilman Senn: And the admin packet, just quickly. What, you know this thing on Frank Fox has come
up a couple of times. I mean are we pursuing that or doing something with it? Doing nothing with it?
Don Ashworth: He's pursuing us. We're not pursuing him. He's aware of the fact that...consider
condemnation and I think he's very fearful of that. He knows we have appraisals that are $8,000.00 to
$12,000.00 and he's trying a last ditch effort to try to get you to buy it for 30.
Mayor Mancino: 32. And move the MUSA line.
Councilman Senn: In news alley. In news alley under planning department it has staff received and will be
authorized a grant agreement for the Met Council for local planning assistance. $10,790 grant will be used
for the SRF traffic study. Agreement attached. Okay, and then back here it shows that the requested grant
amount was $23,060 and the total budget is $30,747 so does that mean now we have to come up with the
other 20 some thousand rather than them coming up with $20,000 since we only got 10 from them?
Don Ashworth: Kate explained that to me and the answer is no but how does the funding change?
Councilman Senn: Well if you don't know, we don't need to address it tonight but I'd say let's just not
authorize it to go ahead until we kind of get, I guess I'd like to understand that. Because I mean again
we're talking about '98 budget now and if it means we're going to have to stick in $20,000 now to, as a
match to their $10,000, I mean maybe we ought to. Maybe we don't. I don't know. That's something we
need to look at in terms of our priorities...
Don Ashworth: Actually that one was the one that Kate...
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, this is new but we also got a grant Mark from the Metropolitan Council for the
comprehensive plan too.
55
City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: No I understand. This is separate from that. This is just relating to the traffic thing.
Don Ashworth: Well that one changed too but, so she may have something in this week's about that.
Mayor Mancino: Bluff Creek corporate center.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, Bluff Creek corporate center. I just had a question. Now that's not a TIF
district Todd, or going to be a TIF district or anything? Bluff Creek Corporate Center?
Todd Gerhardt: She's asked for it. I always wait until you have a project.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But I look for direction from the entire Council if we do want to create one there.
Mayor Mancino: We're giving the church.
Councilman Senn: That's kind of our contribution isn't it?
Mayor Mancino: Assessment reduction program.
Todd Gerhardt: Well it's up to you on the church too.
Councilman Senn: So that will come to us yet I'm assuming under separate action, right?
Todd Gerhardt: But I would say, you know that you treat everybody the same. Look at... as you would
Steiner. Why did you give it to Steiner and not give it to...
Mayor Mancino: Well you know I agree with that philosophy. The fact of the matter is though is that
cities change and as we change and we have to readjust our thinking sometimes.
Don Ashworth: We'll get back to you.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
56