CC Minutes 1997 06 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Bob
Generous, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEERS; PARK, OPEN SPACE
AND TRAIL SPECIAL ELECTION.
Mayor Mancino: The public announcement is a resolution recognizing volunteers for park open space and
trail special elections. I will read this and then we, as a City Council, I'd like to have sort of a receiving
line. To come up in front of you and thank you. Have you come up personally for doing such a wonderful
job volunteering, some of you for two years. Some of you for six months. Some of you for five weeks, etc.
But let me read the formal proclamation. Whereas, in August of 1994 the Park and Recreation
Commission recommended the City Council appoint a special task force to investigate a special election;
and Whereas, in June of 1995 the City Council appointed an eleven member park task force; and Whereas,
this park task force worked tirelessly for two years enlisting dozens of volunteers to forward this special
election to the Chanhassen electorate; Whereas, an independent campaign committee was formed to
promote the benefits of the special election; dozens of civic organizations, neighborhood associations and
individual residents hosted informational meetings discussing the contents of the special election; and
election judges invested weeks of planning and a 12 hour day at the polls to ensure the integrity of the
election. Whereas, all totaled, over 1,200 volunteer hours valued at $18,000.00 was invested in this
initiative. And Whereas, on Saturday, June 14, 1997 the residents of Chanhassen voted on the following
question: Should the City of Chanhassen be authorized to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an
amount not to exceed $4.9 million to finance the acquisition and betterment of park, trail and open space
recreational facilities? And Whereas, there were cast a total of 1849 votes of which 1142 were in favor of
the aforesaid bond issue and 707 were against the same, zero ballots were spoiled or defective, and the
bond issue in question was declared approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council on Monday, June
16, 1997; and Whereas, the efforts of these volunteers have helped to secure the future of parks and
recreation in Chanhassen, an essential service that positively impacts health, crime prevention, the
environment, the economy and our quality of life. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Chanhassen City
Council that Monday, June 23, 1997 be proclaimed Park, Open Space, and Trail Special Election
Volunteer Day. Thank you very, very much. So Todd if you can help us, we'll come on up and we'd love
to have each volunteer come up and get a...
Todd Hoffman: As everyone comes up and you receive your mug and your handshake and then walk right
up on the front here and pose facing this way for your portrait.
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated June 9, 1997
City Council Minutes dated June 16, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 1997
c. Resolution #97-42; Approval of Gambling License, Chanhassen American Legion Post 580.
e. Update on Postal Service Carrier Annex.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council and make a visitor
presentation? Please do so at this time. Come up to the podium. State your name and address please.
Wayne Salisbury: Thank you. Wayne Salisbury. Oak Hill Association. 7699 Nicholas Way. As the
Council members and the Mayor recall, I was here earlier for the EDA meeting regarding the money that
Mr. Johnson put forth. I'd like to take this opportunity to do a couple things. I think first on my agenda
would be a recognition of the City Council. The difficulties that we continue to experience with Mr.
Johnson at Oak Hill community. As a board member of the Association, I witnessed many meetings of
different opinions that we should be addressing the City Council. If we should go public with our
difficulties. If we should make it known. Well we've got no choice now. We've already got the reputation
now in the real estate market. As I said earlier, we've got the reputation, stay away from Oak Hills
community. That's not a speculation. That's the truth. That's the way it's resolved. So we have no
choice now but to make our anxieties and our hurt, if you will, known publicly. And this is the first, and
I'm sure there will be others that will be wanting to come to Council meetings and giving their piece. As I
said earlier during the EDA, I'm only one representing 90. Now do all 90 members or 90 owners have
difficulty? No, they do not. I'm not even going to go so far as to say a majority of them. They probably
do not. The majority don't have difficulties. But as a community, all 90 of us are affected. Because
although our home, our individual home may not be affected by the structural problems that we have,
indirectly it is. Down the road it's going to be. We've seen that. We've had people that have had no
structural damage, no difficulties whatsoever and have tried to sell their home and have been unable to. Or
have had to take a loss. I won't mention the individual's name now but I think it was two weeks ago, they
sold their house and they had to lower their house, I believe it was $500.00 at closing. $5,000.00 at closing
because of the difficulty with Johnson at Oak Hill community. $5,000.00. At closing. Can you imagine
that? I want to leave the Council with just one thought. We are not apartment dwellers back of Byerly's
on the hill. We are not tenants. We are not under a one roof. We are individual homeowners just like you
that have a single dwelling. I came from a single dwelling. I elected to buy into a townhome being retired
on a fixed income. Fortunately my wife still works. But that's why I bought into a townhome. I bought
into a hell of a mess is what I bought into. I want you think of us as 90 homeowners. Citizens of
Chanhassen. We're not apartment people. We're not tenants. We need your support. We need the City's
support. If it hadn't been for the City, and I say this very carefully. If it hadn't been for the City we
wouldn't have had this difficulty. If they had done their job, we wouldn't have had this difficulty. Is that
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
speculation? No. Just the way it is. Is there bitterness behind this voice? There's an awful lot of
bitterness. Because what do we see? What do we speculate? What do we feel, the 90 homeowners? We
feel that we're being deserted by the City of Chanhassen. This lawsuit, the criminal lawsuit brought on to
Johnson by the City has been delayed into August. We don't know why. On one comer we hear lack of
preparation, but we have a real sense that the City's hoping that those 90 people that are a problem up on
the hill will bend and permit Johnson to come in and make the necessary repairs. Well I submit to you, if
you would do that tomorrow or the next 30 days and those problems are resolved, he still has to be liable
for that criminal activity. For those code violations. So think of us as being citizens of Chan, would you.
As homeowners. We've got people crying up there. I mean literally crying. We've got a lot of single
parents up there. They don't know what to do. I had a lady call me about 3:00 this afternoon. I wasn't
going to mention this. Bless her heart. First name is Laura. This has nothing to do with the building code
violations or anything else but this lady called me and she said Wayne, you don't know me. I don't know
you but let me tell you a story. The railing on her porch caved in. Fell off. Not even part of the code
violation. If a child had been leaning up against that railing when it went, the child would be seriously
injured. So what are we faced with? Another letter or phone call to Johnson. No, the community up there,
the Association is going to have to hire somebody to go around and not just look at these things but they're
going to have to tear into them. Make sure that we don't lose a child or an adult. That's how bad it is.
We've got people that can't even open their front doors for crying out loud. We've got cracks in walls we
can put our fists in. No exaggeration. Some of you have seen it. So think of us as being homeowners. I
didn't want to say this but think of us as being voters. We pay a lot of taxes up there. I pay $2,000.00 a
year. I can't sell my house if I wanted to. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Roger, can you give us an update or tell Wayne where we are in the criminal
case?
Roger Knutson: I don't know the exact date it's going to trial. Sometime in August. Sitting here I can't
tell you which date. There is a date established. I just don't know what it is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. It's around the middle of August?
Roger Knutson: Sounds right but I'm not sure. If you don't know the exact date, if you just call me in the
morning I'll tell you.
Wayne Salisbury: ... exact date.
Roger Knutson: Somebody told me but I've forgotten it.
Mayor Mancino: Wayne I also know that there will be a meeting between the Board members of Oak Hill
and the law offices that will be representing the City and some of the City Council members to do an
update on what's happening in the court case. So that will be taking place and one of the lawyers from the
law firm who is handling this particular case has, as you know, has gone into surgery so it will be at the
end of this month, beginning of July. So we will have an updated meeting. Any other visitor presentations
that would like to address the City Council at this time?
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTH HALF OF
SECTION 16 (GATEWAY WEST); APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT DATED MAY 1997;
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; PROJECT 97-1.
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have our project
engineer, Mr. Phil Gravel with Bonestroo here to provide a detailed presentation on the feasibility study and
prior to him doing that I'll pass out a new colored overlay that you can look at during the presentation. It
will help you follow along...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Phil Gravel: Thank you Charles. Members of the Council. I think you're all pretty familiar with this
project so what I'll do is briefly review this proposed construction and the phasing of it and then I'll also go
over the costs and the proposed assessments. First of all, to get sanitary sewer to this site, we'll connect
onto an existing sanitary sewer at the east edge of, or the west edge of... development. Extend it westerly
along the Coulter Boulevard alignment, and then throughout the development. That sewer drains to a lift
station that was constructed previously and is down by the cemetery on Galpin Boulevard. In addition,
watermain will also connect at the Coulter Boulevard area on the west end of Autumn Ridge. Follow the
Coulter Boulevard alignment and then extend southward on the north/south road. Also to the west on the
east/west road and eventually it would get down to near the Wrase property where a future 2 million gallon
water tower is proposed. In addition to that there is associated storm sewer improvements and ponding
improvements. That's going to be coordinated with the developers. They're going to grade most of the
storm water ponds as part of their mass grading and provide for right-of-way runoff treatment as part of
their grading plan. Then we get to the street construction. The streets will be the same thing as Coulter
Boulevard between Galpin and Audubon. That's a 36 foot face to face street with landscaping, trees and
street lighting. There will be Coulter Boulevard running east/west. The proposed north/south street and a
connection to Highway 5. Future phase could be the east/west street that would connect to Highway 41. In
addition to that there's some improvements on the state highways that would need to be completed. The
traffic signal and associated turn lanes on Highway 5 and a traffic signal on 82nd Street. Finally there's a
sidewalk associated with the public improvement portion of this, and it's not shown on the drawing but
there'd be a sidewalk, continuing sidewalk that's already on Couker. On the north side of Couker
Boulevard and also on one side of the north/south street and on one side of the east/west street. In addition
the developer will privately put in a sidewalk along the north side of 82nd Street. The phasing of this
project is somewhat contingent upon what the developers want to do and what happens to the state
highways. For the first phase, the 1997 work is pretty much set up to get this Lot 3 on line and that would
consist of extending the sanitary, the trunk sanitary sewer in westerly and southerly as necessary and same
thing with the water main. The only other thing we would do with the Phase 1 work is part of the street
construction on the north/south street. Where it goes adjacent to Lot 3. And then I think we would also do
the, there's some soil correction work that'd be necessary on Coulter Boulevard at the far east end and that
would be timely to get that done this year as well. Future phases would include the actual construction of
Coulter Boulevard. The construction of the water tower. That's what we're calling Phase 2. Phase 3
could consist of the north/south, north of Coulter Boulevard and the associated utilities with that. Now a
fourth phase could be east/west of the road, if and when that's constructed. And since the original report
was prepared, we made a couple revisions and they're included in the staff handout. One of the things that
was done was to add a Phase 5 which only consists of a water main loop along the south side of Lake
Minnewashta. That's been in the City's comprehensive water plan for a number of years and it's really
necessary to provide another water feed to the people on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The timing of
that is somewhat contingent upon when additional water main would be constructed, either along Highway
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
5 or Highway 41 to meet this loop. So in the handout that you got with your staff report, there's a Phase 5
that includes extending water main from the south side of Lake Minnewashta up to Highway 41. As far as
costs go. The tabled shown here, Table 1 in your report is, this is the total project cost and it's not broken
down into phases but sanitary sewer would be roughly $272,000.00. Water main is roughly $468,000.00.
The new water tower, which is a 2 million gallon tower is about $2.4-$2.5 million. And you can see the
other streets. That water main loop for Lake Minnewashta that I talked about is around $355,000.00.
There's a little difficult construction associated with that because of some of the wetlands and tight
quarters there. That gives a total project cost, including construction and administration and associated
costs of $5,894,000.00. Now how that breaks down, and probably what's most important to you is shown
in your report on pages 11 and 12, but there's revised ones in the handout that Charles made that shows
how the phasing and revenue from assessments can be brought into the picture. Essentially all of the
project costs are assessed to the adjacent properties with the exception of, as proposed in the report, with
the exception of Coulter Boulevard and the water tower.
Mayor Mancino: And the main in Phase 3, the water main trunk.
Phil Gravel: I was going to say, in addition there's some trunk water main and also trunk sanitary sewer
that assess the lateral benefit for those mains. Meaning if there's a pipe in the road that the property
receives lateral benefit from, which is most of this property, they're assessed an equivalent of 12 inch
watermain costs and trunk charges to pick up the over sizing cost. So I don't know if you've had a chance
to review this table. I can go through it with you if you'd like. The first phase work, which is the work
that would be done this year at a total cost of around $993,000.00. The assessments, the total assessments
from the first phase, would be more like $1.3 million. That's because we propose to assess the entire
development, their trunk area sewer and water charges and you can see that that's around $280,000.00 for
sewer and $375,000.00 for water. So in the first phase we have a positive revenue. The second phase,
when the tower and Coulter Boulevard kick in, there's not much assessment. There's a total project cost of
$3.3 million and assessments only of $82,000.00. Those would be those lateral benefit assessments.
Which results in a net negative revenue of about $3.25 million. Similarly on the third phase, which is part
of the north/south street. North of Coulter Boulevard. The project cost is around $700,000.00.
Assessments there are about $625,000.00 and the net revenue again is a negative of about $89,000.00.
The fourth phase, which is the east/west road. If that goes that would be 100% assessable. The utilities
and the improvements so that, the assessment covers the cost. And the fifth phase, which is the Lake
Minnewashta water main loop, that's 100% trunk water costs. As you will recall, a lot you have a
positive, specifically on our water assessments, we've had a positive revenue assessment because we've
been trying to build a fund to cover some of these costs, like this tower and wells as they come on line so.
In this case we end up with a negative but in the grand scheme of things it's all supposed to even out. The
only other assessment issue on this is that, other than the developer, the Wrase property is also proposed to
be assessed area charges. Trunk area charges which is on a per unit rate. In the past with properties like
that, that are all properties, owner occupied and less than 10 acres with houses, we've only assessed them
one unit at the time of the assessment and deferred the rest or assessed that in the future. With that site and
sometimes.
Mayor Mancino: ... majority of the property around have to pay for the smaller piece? To pick up that.
Phil Gravel: The smaller piece ends up paying when they come on line. And what we can do with that
piece is, at the time of the assessment hearing, which would be next fall. The fall of 1998, if it's still a large
lot, one unit property, we could assess it one unit at that time. If things have changed since then, the
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
assessments would be more in line with what's in the report. I skipped over this rather quickly because I
know you're all familiar with the project and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any Council, any questions? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Phil, as far as the 3.382 that's basically the city portion then, what funding sources
does that come from?
Phil Gravel: Well a lot of it can come, and Charles can help...with the trunk water main. As I mentioned
we've had positive revenue from previous projects with that.
Councilman Senn: And how much of that's going to, I mean I know we did but isn't that.
Phil Gravel: It's not enough.
Councilman Senn: It's not enough, right?
Phil Gravel: No. There's two other ways. There will be future trunk area charges and then I believe that
the staff has considered TIF from some of the city local share. Charles?
Charles Folch: That's correct. I don't know Todd if you've got the numbers scheduled at. In fact that
was presented in your report that was brought to the Council at the last meeting in terms of the breakdown
of the TIF cost and this was an element that was identified in that TIF schedule.
Todd Gerhardt: And if you remember back in developing the TIF plan, there were certain obligations that
fell back as a general obligation of the City. We listed those out as a part of Don's report and my report of
you can't just assess everything out there so we broke out our percentages and I didn't hear what item you
were talking about.
Phil Gravel: The tower.
Todd Gerhardt: The tower.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so our fund will take care of most of that stuff and what it doesn't, then the TIF
will take care of the gap? Okay. And then the TIF will also be supplying reimbursement also to the
private parties then too.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: But at least under this, the way that's being shown and how this correlates with the TIF
schedule, is right now that's being shown here as assessments basically.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What portion of the assessments are going to be paid through TIF?
Todd Gerhardt: Well the way we figured it out, depending on the developer bring in a building based on
the dollar amount per acre, they build the buildings. It should all be picked up by TIF. They should
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
generate enough increment over 3 years that the development should be able to pay for all it's assessments,
if we did our calculations correctly.
Councilman Senn: So the entire $2.5 would be picked up by TIF?
Todd Gerhardt: Only until building comes in. I mean they will have to pay those assessments until
building comes in. Once a building comes in, they enter into a minimum market value and we have a
private redevelopment agreement and based on a half year's worth of taxes over 3 years, we will reimburse
them their costs for those assessments. $2.00 a square foot for taxes on a commercial building, we feel that
it's going to be real close but that the development should pay for itself.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And more specifically, can you talk a little bit more about this $355,000.00 for
Lake Minnewashta. I mean how is, is that coming out of the trunk then or is that coming out of TIF or
what?
Charles Folch: It's initially proposed to be funded through TIF. Many of the areas that this particular line
would traverse are properties that are currently outside the MUSA so there's not an ability to assess those
properties at this point in time. What I would foresee happening is that, as we have done in the past with
many trunk improvement projects that were kind of out ahead of the game schedule, when those properties
do come into the MUSA in the future, and they do come on line for development, then we will collect trunk
hook-up charges for the unpaid assessments and so we'll recover the money at that point in time.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What portion of the $3.382 is going to be paid by TIF then?
Charles Folch: I believe we're looking at most of it.
Todd Gerhardt: I'll be bringing, we have to do a plan modification to this. So I will be bringing back.
We' re anticipating all of it at this time and then get reimbursed through the hook-up charges in the future.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Not at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Phil, will you explain to me just a little bit of background on the water tower and it's
being built in Phase 2. What will that do? Who will that serve and why does it need to be built Phase 2?
Give me just a little rationale behind it please.
Phil Gravel: Sure. I'll attempt that. The tower's been planned for quite some time. Since 1993 when the
City did a comp water plan. And essentially it's need is dictated by when there's enough users that we need
the storage. You know there's Well No. 7 under construction now to meet the demand and there will be
another well coming on in the next year or two in addition to meet just the current growth demands. It
doesn't, it benefits this area. It also benefits the community as a whole. It will ride on the water system
with the other towers in the system. It will provide storage to level off the peaks is what it does.
Mayor Mancino: Can you also just explain, this is a minute question, on Phase 3 the water main and the
trunk, $112,000.00. Why that isn't being assessed back?
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Phil Gravel: Oh, yes I can. This report proposed assessing all the trunk charges on the first phase,
meaning the entire site. And then future phases had some trunk main installed with them. Actually what
that line is... common lot line that will go from the tower to one of the mains in the street.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, understand.
Phil Gravel: It doesn't really have any lateral benefit. As long as I have this up again and we're talking
water main, I neglected to mention something that we feel's kind of important. This project will also
provide an interconnection with Chaska. It's deemed an emergency interconnection because the two
systems aren't exactly on the same elevation. The same pressures but it's something that, like the Met
Council and everyone else is encouraging it. It's a nice thing for you in case of water emergencies.
Mayor Mancino: And why? So we can pull some water from Chaska if we're going dry or something?
Charles Folch: In either case. Ifthere'd be some sort of emergency water shortage in one community or
the other, you could be able to open that up and allow water to flow either direction in the system. For
emergency use only. It would not be a normal operating function.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And we are tonight, our job is to go ahead with this and okay Phase 1
because that's what's going to be started so that Lot 3 can be built for this fall. So we will again look at
Phase 2, 3, 4, 5 and give the approval at the appropriate timing?
Charles Folch: That's our recommendation to Council because we've got a schedule in front of you based
on what we feel can be accomplished based on work load and also what's compatible with what the
developer's telling us their schedule is but again as we all know, things can change and maybe adjust
slightly so we would propose to come back to you with each phase as we move into them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Phil Gravel: Well I think procedurally that the Council would, and Roger can correct me, would approve
the report as a whole and then authorize construction plans and specifications on a phasing so then the
hearing process is over with. For all phases.
Mayor Mancino: Understand. Any other questions at this time before we open it for a public hearing?
Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: So Charles, are you asking us then to basically buy off on this phasing now? Betting
on the fact that we would go ahead with for example Coulter on this schedule?
Charles Folch: That's not necessarily correct. You're basically, we'd ask that you approve the elements of
this overall project in concept but Phase 1 is what's important basically tonight to authorize the initiation of
plans and specifications that we can initiate a construction project yet this year. We would propose to
bring back to you, or come back to you for authorization to begin Phase 2. And at that time, if there were
some changes to be made in what elements would be part of that Phase 2, then you know certainly that
decision could be made. But we would hope in general that conceptually this list looks fairly good to you
tonight.
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we have not, as a Council, had time to talk about Coulter and whether we are
going to continue that roadway and I think we'd need some time to have discussion around that. In fact
Phil, will you talk about that a little bit. As far as Coulter and if we're going to put a water main or we're
going to go right through the wetland, how much disruption will we be doing to the wetland just putting in
the water main and the sewer, etc. ?
Phil Gravel: Generally the underground construction, you know from a permitting standpoint is a lot easier
because there's no filling involved and after one season it's not even evident that we're there. Coulter itself
doesn't have a lot of wetland impact. If you can look at the drawing there, there's only about 100 feet on
the east end that's actually a wetland that will be crossed. So the, to answer your question in the short
form, the utility construction doesn't have much of an effect. Although I did mention that we think it would
be prudent to do the soil correction on that end as a part of the first phase and I guess I still feel that way.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Charles.
Charles Folch: One point of clarification, as Phil's trying to make in terms of saying that the utility
construction will not have a lasting, permanent disruption or permanent effect on the wetland and project
but in general the disruption that is made by constructing these utilities along that corridor will be as, have
as much of an impact or greater than constructing, actually constructing this road through the corridor.
But Phil is right in the sense that from a long term standpoint, once the utilities are in, you backfill and
compacted, you know a few years down the road you probably won't be able to tell that there was any
disruption made.
Phil Gravel: That's one other reason why we'd like to do the base work at this time too is because if we're
going to disturb the wetland anyhow, we might as well just go in there once and do that at this time as well.
Mayor Mancino: But by putting in the utilities you're going to go in and make as wide of a swath as you
would with the road, is what I'm saying. You're going to pull out all that soil. You're going to take it.
Dump it somewhere and you're going to create a 36 foot swath anyway. Am I right in assuming that?
Phil Gravel: That's about exactly right. It's about 36 feet. Because of the depth of the sewer.
Mayor Mancino: So you have to go down 15 feet so you get your, okay. I learned that today.
Councilman Senn: And what's the cost then of doing that base work then?
Phil Gravel: Soil correction. It's about 15,000 to 20,000 yards. The developer, as we've been discussing
grading with them quite a bit. That's why we got the ponds and stuff graded. They have some excess
material. We can get it from I think it's on Lot 1. So the hauling costs and stuff would be down but it's
probably in the $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 range.
Mayor Mancino: And that's included in the cost under Phase 1 ?
Phil Gravel: Close.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Okay, because I didn't see it called out there. That's why I was wondering.
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Phil Gravel: No, and it's not specifically spelled out, no.
Mayor Mancino: Does that still give us an option if we go ahead with Phase 1 to say no to the... ?
Charles Folch: This is just basically getting a major time and construction factor out of the way for the
future if you choose.
Phil Gravel: Yeah, and it has a lot of benefit to the utility construction too to get that base properly
constructed.
Councilman Senn: Now if we get a decision made on the Wrase property sooner rather than later, I mean is
that, you made a comment I thought of we could.., liked to do the tower sooner rather than later.
Charles Folch: Well it's on our '98, it's been on our '98 schedule since we approved the plan back in, the
comp water plan back in '93. So I think if we can accomplish some sort of either agreement or move on
from there I guess. We're going to need to know probably around the first of the year or so whether or not
we've got a site on the Wrase property or whether we have to look for a site on this development. Because
in order to begin construction of that tower next summer, we need to be moving with plans this winter.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so your comment then assumes moving that up at this point...
Charles Folch: Moving up?
Councilman Senn: Well you'd, a couple weeks ago you referenced you'd rather get going on that tower
sooner rather than later so I was wondering does that mean, if the property gets settled you'll do it in '97 or
start it in '97 or it'd be '98 under either?
Charles Folch: It will probably be '98. Given where we are at this point in time, this year. You know mid
summer gone, it's going to be '98 either way.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Phil. Are there any other questions from Council members? Thank you.
May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please.
Mason moved, Berquist seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the City
Council on this issue?
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. Mike Howe, a representative of the Park
Commission was unable to be here this evening. The Park and Recreation Commission simply wants to be
on record that unless absolutely necessary, they are not in support of the Coulter extension but they're
willing to listen to the arguments for and against that connection.
Mayor Mancino: And why are they not in favor?
10
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Todd Hoffman: In favor of it? The City has worked hard to assemble 100 acres plus of open space
preserve and really the only thing that would go through it would be Coulter extension so if it can stay out,
you can simply leave the preserve without the road. It's a benefit to that land.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other, anyone else wishing to address the City Council? Seeing
none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, comments from Council members. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I knew it was coming up. Big numbers. The only comment that I would make
is that the, as we go along. What I'd really like to see in conjunction with the report, is the forecast of
revenue report the debt. That's not necessarily anything that the Director of Public Works or engineer can
put together but it would be nice to be able to look at it in a revenue expenditure perspective as opposed to
strictly expenditure. I have faith, you know given all the discussions that have taken place prior to our
approving the PUD, I know, I feel confident that the thing will come together. And yet the information
seems to be somewhat piecemeal and it would be nice to have it told a little bit more concisely.
Mayor Mancino: That could be a condition.
Councilman Berquist: ... one or two documents and that's going to be the other thing that I would like to
see is that as we go on and approve the additional phases, that the budget revisions be made and the
offsetting revenue side of the column be detailed. All total, we're looking at a, if everything goes just
absolutely wonderfully, what would be the total length of phases 1 through 5? 4 to 5 years. Okay, thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: And of course we would have input into that schedule too as we go to Phase 2, 3, 4, 5
and it can be revised. We can take things out, put it in, etc. Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'd like to see it get started but the only reservation I have is one that Steve mentioned
which is, I'd like to see a little more detail on the revenue projections so that we don't get over extended.
That as a...tax increment. I'd like to see the schedule faster than 4 or 5 years too but I don't think that's
for me to decide. That's all I have to say about it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Nothing.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: As far as proceeding I guess with the plans and specs, I don't have a problem with that
at all. I don't want that I guess to be taken as necessarily an endorsement as to everything that's being
suggested under it because I think there are some elements of this project that still need discussion.
Mayor Mancino: The elements being one, Coulter. The extension of Coulter Drive. Number two, the
revenue side. Anything else?
11
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well primarily the Coulter issue I think is going to be one that is in need of some
discussion. As far as the revenue stuff goes, what I would really like to see there, I think Steve and Mark
both referred to it but I'd really like to see a schedule put together so we can see when the developer pays
the assessments over what schedule we're expecting to see those you know be reimbursed to the developer.
And also you know when the City pays their $3.8, or $3.382 from the TIF and you know when that's going
to be reimbursed from the hook-up fees. You have schedule that all out for us so we can see when, not
only when the expenses and the TIF are going in but when the repayments are going to occur and where
those repayments are going to come from.
Mayor Mancino: Good. I have just one other further comment because I would like to see those, both of
those things in the conditions so whoever makes the motion, to see the revenue and Coulter. That very
clearly, we have not decided whether to go ahead with that or not. Thirdly, I would like to have planning
and the Park and Recreation be part of that conversation so that we do get all sides looking at it. And to
look at the rationale as whole. Whether we should go ahead, just not from fiscal point of view but from a
quality of life. From traffic flow. From land use planning point of view. With that, may I please have a
motion.
Councilman Berquist: I've got one question for Todd, if you don't mind. Given the discussions of the
Park and Rec Commission regarding Coulter, was there ever any talk about the desirability of a trail that
would extend through the wetland?
Todd Hoffman: Yes. We have a concept plan on file which encircles the wetland and the 100 acres with a
trail system and then it has a bisecting trail connecting down through the center which would experience
wetland, low lying areas and so there is a trail plan which goes around it and then also through the site.
Councilman Berquist: And that through the site layout follows Coulter or something? It does not?
Councilman Engel: It doesn't?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Councilman Engel: If we put a trail in, like you're talking about, does it need soil correction or can you lay
it as it sits?
Todd Hoffman: There needs to be some soil correction, or that's a different profile of trail through that low
lying soil. We're not talking about building it directly in the wetland but in some low lying poor soils. If
we go across the wetland, it would be a floating boardwalk type of trail condition.
Councilman Berquist: So your intent wasn't to disturb the wetland at all? Stabilization of the soils.
Kate Aanenson: Still would require a wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Berquist: It would?
Councilman Engel: Either way?
Kate Aanenson: That's our opinion. Todd and I have talked...
12
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well the point is that if in fact we go ahead and spend a little bit of money to
stabilize the soils, when we lay this water and sewer main, does it provide us anything, any advantage
whatsoever aside from a future road if we would ever choose?
Todd Hoffman: Not as currently conceptually planned. No, it does not. Something we've, the Council
may wish to talk about as well is on the east terminus of Coulter right now there's kind of a hammer head
and how are we going to address the west terminus? Is there going to be a second hammer head and so
you've got ends to connect? Is that a part of, I'm not sure how that's going to be addressed in the phase 1
of construction. You know on the other side, are you going to connect and make another hammer head so
all you have left is a piece in the middle, or is it just going to be a curved line? I'm not sure how it's
planned.
Councilman Berquist: Tell me what...
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, there's no street in Phase 1 so it shouldn't do it.
Phil Gravel: The north/south... I think with Phase 1 you can probably...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Last, just a real simple question Charles is that, the go ahead with
Phase 1 this year, is that part of our planning for bonding in our capital improvement projects this year?
Charles Folch: Yes it is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: Well how far down the list could we conceivably go?
Mayor Mancino: This year?
Councilman Berquist: Bonding.
Mayor Mancino: Well we're doing phase 1 in '97.
Councilman Berquist: It's conceivable that.., well of course by the end of the year, it's already 7 months
into the year. Okay.
Councilman Senn: I'll move that we accept the report and authorize preparation of plans and
specifications.
Mayor Mancino: For Phase 1.
Councilman Senn: For Phase 1 with two caveats and that is, with the understanding that future phases will
be discussed in terms of components being included and not included. And secondly, a complete expense
and revenue schedule or expense schedule with off setting revenue schedule be prepared so we can see that
by the time that plans and specs get completed.
Councilman Engel: Second.
13
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Resolution #97-43: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council
approve the feasibility study dated May, 1997 with amendments dated June 18, 1997 for the street
and utility improvements in the north ½ of Section 16 and authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for Phase I, Project No. 97-1 with the understanding that future phases will be
discussed in terms of components being included and not included. And secondly, a complete expense
and revenue schedule or expense schedule with off setting revenue schedule be prepared so we can see
that by the time that plans and specs get completed. As each phase is ready to be initiated, staff
would propose that the City Council authorize the preparation of plans accordingly. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: BLUFF CREEK DRIVE OVERLAY~ PROJECT 97-9.
Mayor Mancino: And may I say right now, under the next item on the agenda, which is unfinished
business, number 4 has been deleted because it went to the Consent Agenda. I would like to put under
number 4, because we have someone from Southwest Metro Transit, I would like to pull item that was
tabled under the Consent Agenda, (f) and at the time under unfinished business bring that up for us to
discuss. So right now, Award of Bids. Number 3. Bluff Creek Drive Overlay, Project 97-9. Staff report
please.
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Back on Tuesday, June 3rd, bids were
opened for the Bluff Creek overlay project No. 97-10. We received a total of four bids with the high
ranging from $79,400.00 down to the low bid being received from Wm. Mueller and Sons at $64,868.00.
Wm. Mueller and Sons has a proven track record with the City in the past. In fact they just last summer
completed the overlay project on Kerber Boulevard which went very successfully so we, from a contracting
standpoint would recommend them based on a reputation. It's also important to note that this project is
being funded by the Municipal State Aid construction account since Bluff Creek Drive is a State Aid route.
It's approximately 10 years since it's reconstruction and it fits right in with the MnDot schedules for
structural overlay at age 10 so with that, staff would recommend the award of bid to Wm. Mueller and
Sons.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions from Council members? Then may I have a
motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #97-44: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to award the bid for Bluff
Creek Drive Overlay Project No. 97-10 to Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $64,868.00.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: F. APPROVE RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL LEVY
TRANSIT OPTION FOR 1998.
Don Ashworth: This item was tabled from our last meeting. Council has asked for some additional
information as we moved through the budgetary process for both the City and to the Authority. We did
happen to meet with.., people. They have agreed to provide that information as both of us start to work on
14
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
our budgets .... set about to be heard as part of the Truth in Taxation notices. Through a glitch in state
law they actually could have gone up to between 11% and 12% which has been the actual growth in the tax
base. The cities, the legislature intended for local governments, specifically counties and cities, to not
exceed the two factors. One is referred to as the listed price index, which is very similar to a CPI except
it's for goods and services of the city. The second would be a factor, the gross households growth which
we have been led to believe is about 3.6%. The first about 2 points for a total of about 6%. Talking with
the other opt out cities we felt that it'd not be in the best interest of Southwest to go along with what the
legislature kind of had forgotten to do because it would reflect badly on all of us and would hold their
increase to basically the formula that the cities are under. I'd hope to have the numbers by this evening. I
talked with Len this morning and they were not available but continue to believe that it is about the 6%
level. If we do not carry that out as a local option, it will be done at a metro level and basically under
State law, I don't know if it's a glitch again but it will go through as that 12% increase. So you are
benefiting your taxpayers if you approve this resolution.
Mayor Mancino: And we could approve it with part of the stipulation in the resolution that Southwest
Metro Transit will abide by the same laws that govern the levy limits for Chanhassen.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we could impose that. Is someone here from Southwest Metro? Would you
like to come forward and give us any more information or maybe field questions from us.
Len Simich: Sure I'd be happy. I am Len Simich. I'm the new Director of Southwest Metro. I think Don
covered it well.
Mayor Mancino: Congratulations.
Len Simich: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this kind of hit all of us by surprise, quite frankly. We didn't
know until after the session was over that this little glitch did exist. We spent a number of meetings with
the Metropolitan Council administrative staff. The other opt out communities and we came to this
agreement in terms of what was the best way to proceed and we felt by keeping more dollars locally,
keeping more dollars in the taxpayers pocket was probably the best way to go and we came up with this as
an alternative. The Met Council could have come back and said, we will levy the difference then because
by Statute they could. But they have agreed not to so we think we've kind of put together a pretty good
deal for all parties involved here. It means a little less money for us to operate but we can live within the
same limitations placed on the city. We are doing a number of things right now to tighten our belt and
making our system more effective, more efficient and we see that happening more in the future too so. I'd
be happy to answer any questions specifically about it, or the service in general.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Council members. Any questions for Len at this time? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Len, as I was understanding this, and I guess I just want to understand it better. The
way the legislation is set up is, if we don't authorize effectively the full allowable increase, then the Met
Council's allowed to use the difference. Is that correct?
Len Simich: Correct. Mayor, Council member. That is correct. If we do not levy it locally, the Met
Council will. Another little twist is that the Met Council doesn't have the option of levying something less
than the maximum. They're required to levy the maximum so in a sense it would be more money.
15
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: And there is agreement at this point that they will not do that then?
Len Simich: Yes. Again they have agreed. Kurt Johnson and Jim Solm have agreed to do that. They feel
it's an administrative decision. Not a policy decision so they have given us their confidence that that's
would happen.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So the levy limit you're asking us to go ahead and approve now is the 6% and
then we will deal with budget issues and expenditure levels when we review your budget then to set the
actual level.
Len Simich: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So to follow this whole scenario through, if we don't, if you don't use the whole
6% further into the process they don't have another shot at it, correct?
Len Simich: The only way that they would is if the statute states we have to provide the same level of
service as the previous year. That would be the only way that they would come back in. The other little
caveat there is that the service has to be effective service. Meet performance criteria so that doesn't mean
if you have service out on the road today that is not performing well, that you're forced to keep it. But we
do have to keep that minimum level of service that we see out there on the streets today. That is performing
within the guidelines.
Councilman Senn: Okay. All right.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, very much. May I please have a
motion.
Councilman Berquist: I move to approve the resolution as detailed within the packet levying taxes for
Southwest Metro for 1998 and with the added that Exhibit A, the notice of intent to exercise local transit
tax levy as detailed.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-45: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a
resolution declaring intent to exercise local transit levy option for taxes in 1998 with Exhibit A. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A FRONT
YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL, SCOTT WIRTH.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item was tabled from the last City Council meeting. Only three Council
members were present and... The applicant, located in the Sunny Slope Addition. These lots are zoned
PUD. A majority of them are under the 15,000 square foot requirement. They also have some flexibility
under the setbacks. For instance the front yard setback is 20 feet. It has another front yard setback
because it has a double frontage lot. The applicant is requesting to put the addition of a deck... The
ordinance does allow 25 foot for encroachment. The applicant is wishing to make that a little bit larger by
encroaching another foot and a half into the setback. Staff, in reviewing this felt like there was reasonable
16
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
use of the property with the deck that does meet the setback requirement and had recommended denial. So
did the Board of Adjustments... any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council
please.
Scott Wirth: Good evening Mayor and City Council members.
Mayor Mancino: Can you give your name and address please.
Scott Wirth: Oh, it's Scott Wirth, 361 Deerfoot Trail, Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Scott.
Scott Wirth: I'm not asking for a water tower.
Mayor Mancino: You couldn't pay for it.
Scott Wirth: True. A foot and a half variance is all I'm asking for just to make the deck a little bit more
livable. What I've found over the last six weeks that in order to get a variance granted you must have a
hardship. I feel I have two hardships with this property. First offI have an easement and it's the only
easement in the 12 home subdivision that I live in. It takes up approximately a third of the property, of
which I still pay property taxes on. Secondly, I have two front yards which I recently found out. I was not
aware of that. I always thought my back yard was my back yard but I've just been told by the City that it's
a front yard. Without the two front yard situation I would not be here today. I'd be able to build a deck to
the size that I'm wishing for. Really that's all I have to say. Again, I'm only asking for a foot and a half
just to make the deck a little bit more livable. There will be a lot less waste as far as the lumber is
concerned. I have to use the same lengths of lumber whether I have the foot and a half or not. Are there
any other questions?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Council members to Scott?
Councilman Berquist: The question that I have for you Scott is the Board of Adjustments, which I'm lucky
enough to be a member of. I had asked about exploration of a stairway system that allowed the deck to be
reduced to fit within the guidelines and yet not, the stairway would fit within, the deck would fit within the
guidelines and reorient the stairway in such a manner so that it wasn't right outside of the sliding glass
door. Was there any work done on your, by you exploring different stair alternatives? I see none. I see no
mention of any.
Scott Wirth: The only thing I could do is wrap around further to the west of the house and be sinking posts
through a cement platform that I have at the basement level. A patio. I really didn't wish to build on top of
that patio and be putting posts through that area and would also be increase the deck costs by probably
another $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. What I mean was building over here. I would have to come out this way
and then come down these stairs. This is what I intended to do right now.
Councilman Berquist: You were going to wrap around the west side?
Scott Wirth: Exactly.
17
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: You'd be inside the easement.
Scott Wirth: The easement runs something like this. So I would have to, I could extend the deck straight
out like this and then come back here and somewhere over in this.., come down. It's doable but it would be
a lot more expensive and I would be putting posts through a patio, which I don't wish to do and the City
Council has, or actually the variance department had stated that the two stairs are not needed. I do have
other stairs over in this area but.., door is on the southwest comer of the home and it just makes sense to
have the stairs on that end.
Councilman Berquist: I mean I understand that in a perfect world on a perfect lot that that would be the
much preferred way to go. That was something that again that I had asked about at the Board of
Adjustments. I had come up with a couple of ideas that weren't necessarily workable. I've also wondered
since then about putting a stairway within, I mean you'd still end up with reducing that 12 foot deck area
to 10 feet. Putting the stairs inside that but it would at least prevent you from walking out of the sliding
glass door right into a stairway. That's another alternative. That's the only question I have. I don't want
to take too much time.
Scott Wirth: I took some pictures of the homes in my area and I know it's another subdivision but they are
neighbors of mine. They live right across the street and their home is only 20 feet, approximately 20 feet
from the street and I'm asking that my deck be 33 ½ feet from the street. 23 ½ feet from the property line
but 33 ½ from the street. And from these pictures you can see how close their homes are to the street. It
indicates that the street could never be widen. I really don't think that's a...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Scott? Thank you very much. Is there anyone here
tonight wishing to speak on this issue on the variance? Any neighbors? Yes Scott.
Scott Wirth: I'd like to add one more thing Nancy. I had approximately 35 neighbors sign a petition that
would allow the construction of this. They did not have any problems with it at all. And I did send that in
at one of the last.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't think we do have. Scott, did you find anyone who had problems?
Scott Wirth: Not one home objected to it.
Mayor Mancino: In your neighborhood.
Scott Wirth: Not one objection.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Staff did we, do you know, did we have any calls about any neighbors being
concerned about the variance request? Do you know?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Question Scott for you. Explain to me again why you can't take the deck around the
other comer. I mean why can't you just take the deck around the comer and avoid the variance?
18
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Will you explain to me what you're asking. Visually. Can we take this picture?
Councilman Senn: Well this picture is misleading and the reason it's misleading, if I've got it figured out
right is that, isn't it leaving something off here? I mean isn't this the sliding glass doors here? Okay, is
that. Well then, I mean I understand the issue but aren't we leaving a segment of the house off here where
the patio is? In this drawing. This one.
Scott Wirth: That drawing is just... The problem is that there's an easement over in that area...
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, it'd be helpful because then we can get it in the Minutes Scott, etc.
Scott Wirth: The tricky part is staying out of the easement area and I'm looking at a 10 to 12 foot height in
this section. To bring stairs down from that height.., it gets very tricky in that area. Again I would have to
be putting posts through my patio and that section to stay at the same height. It could possibly be done but
it would be extremely tricky and expensive. And again I'm just asking for a foot and a half. What I want
to do is to extend it a foot and a half...back side of the deck.
Mayor Mancino: So go ahead Councilman Senn with your question.
Councilman Senn: Put these out there. That's what we're looking at.
Kate Aanenson: ... won't be able to access that going upstairs to the patio up here.
Councilman Senn: Oh, he wants to access to that? Okay. So effectively the drawing that we have in front
of us leaves that whole segment of the house off.
Mayor Mancino: Well it's not very clear.
Councilman Senn: Okay but go over to the other comer here. Okay. That's the comer we're talking
about, correct. Match the, yeah the inner comer. Not the outer comer.
Mayor Mancino: So you walk out the patio door. There are the stairs. You can go up to the deck.
Kate Aanenson: But he doesn't want to have to do anything with the currently poured concrete patio.
Mayor Mancino: He doesn't want to have to rip it up because that will cost more money. Otherwise he
could bring the stairs in and avoid the variance.
Councilman Senn: Okay. All right.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, correct. You could bring the stairs in. There's the room there. Everything. It
would just, you would have to rip up the existing patio to do it. I mean basically.
Scott Wirth: Conceptually it's possible to be done. It would seem that I would have to have a tremendous
amount of lumber to build all the way around to this area here. And if someone...
19
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: But you could also just build stairs going up where your patio is. To the deck.
Correct?
Scott Wirth: That's what this is designed to do right now. Going down here to this landing, platform and
then down to the steps by the patio. The stairs, the door that I'm concerned about are these here. I don't
want to be walking on immediately to get into the stairs going down. Right now that section, by following
within the variance specs... I would only have about 3 ½ feet. 3 ½ or 4 feet when I walk outside that door
before I hit the stairs going down. It's an 8 foot wide area and I have 42 inch wide stairs going down. Plus
an additional 6 inches of space in this area.
Councilman Senn: But effectively when you come out your door you've got like a 4 foot landing sitting
there.
Scott Wirth: That's right. In this area here.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Scott Wirth: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilman Engel: Can you leave that up.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members at this time? If not we'll go ahead with
comments.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple questions for Kate.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Scott.
Scott Wirth: Again, it's just a foot and a half. It's not a water tower. The thing is here that this property
is different than any other property in my subdivision. Of the 12 homes I'm the only home with the
easement, that I think is critical. Also, it's only 1 of 6 homes that I know of in the Chanhassen that has two
front yards. If I had a back yard, and that front yard by the way. Those two front yards were set by the
City, but I wasn't aware of it when I bought the property. If it was a rear yard I would not be here right
now. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well, when I first looked at this thing I was a little distressed at there being no
compromise sort of situation to put a deck on that the homeowner thought would be an asset. A 500 square
foot deck had to value to him but a 580 square foot deck had value. I found that difficult to comprehend.
To a great degree I still do but having been back there a few times now and also heard another variance
request for that area and gone back there again, the questions that I have concern the decision that
constructs a subdivision with two front yards, more so than this individual application. There are a number
of areas within the city that are defined as having two front yards. Are all of those areas consistent with the
traffic patterns and the traffic loads that flow by them. In this area, the road that flows behind it couldn't
be construed as any shape, way or form as an urban roadway. I mean it's a road that serves a halfa dozen
20
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
homes at the most. And to me it doesn't look like it would ever be widened or extended. I know that this
predates you but.
Kate Aanenson: Do you want me to comment on the subdivision itself?
Councilman Berquist: I want you to comment on the subdivision itself and the decision at the time that the
subdivision was platted that defined the two front yard.
Kate Aanenson: This is through the Sunny Slope. When we first platted... PUD. The area of flexibility
was in the front yard setback.., also a private drive...public street it'd have 30. We had 12,000 square
foot lots... City ordinance does allow for larger lots on... The thought that went into this one is that there's
an open space... That's what they were all given smaller, the benefit of the open space in the center so it
was a compromise when it was...
Councilman Berquist: What did that center common area represent? What's there now and what does it.
Kate Aanenson: Tennis.
Mayor Mancino: Tennis courts and then just an open play area, isn't it? Tennis court and open play area.
It's a greenway.
Councilman Berquist: And that was requested by the developer at that time? That he construct it that way.
Kate Aanenson: Have a private open space. But you know, that's what people bought into that. That type
of a smaller lots but having a larger public.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Does the quantity of traffic enter at all into the definition of two front yards.
Or is it simply the abutment of any road whatsoever?
Kate Aanenson: The way our ordinance reads.
Bob Generous: That's the definition.
Councilman Berquist: Any road whatsoever? As long as it's a public street.
Mayor Mancino: Can I add to your line of reasoning for a minute?
Councilman Berquist: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: And that is, since this is a PUD and it's different and it's got the public open, or the
neighborhood open space in the middle, we may want to look at the setbacks a little differently in those
areas to allow people to put amenities such as decks, etc. on it and maybe there are some setback
differences in that PUD because of that.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why I say, as I indicated the front setback was already given that
flexibility for a 20... because you already can with the ordinance encroach 25 feet. So normally you have a
30 front, 30 back so we're already going 20, 23 now.
21
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: 20 and 23. But we may even want to be a little more flexible as we look at some of
these. As we put different PUD's in these neighborhoods so that people can have decks. Because I
understand the difference between a hallway and a deck, because there is a difference. Once you put your
table and chairs and you get people up on a deck, you could hardly walk by and make it enjoyable and
welcoming for people to be out there.
Councilman Berquist: Where I'm coming from here is that, having been there a couple of times and
looking at what, looking at the views that they enjoy, and the properties that exist within their lines of sight,
restricting them in the size of this particular addition, this deck, and the other individual that came in asking
for a variance when in fact what they're really trying to do is improve the property. Improving the property
in a manner in which they want to and improving the property in a manner in which you have to, or are able
to are different and, in my mind. I'm really off the wall here. I'm not making a lot of sense but I am loathe
to enforce the ordinance that restricts the construction of a deck to something that is less than desirable. I
changed my tune completely from the first time I ever looked at this. Although I would like to find some
other way to do the fairway so we don't even have to talk about the goll dang variance. Pardon me?
Scott Wirth made a comment from the audience.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't think you'd want me out there with a hammer. So that's the extent of
any questions or comments I have right now.
Mayor Mancino: All right, any questions or comments Councilman Engel. On the variance request.
Councilman Engel: I've got to be consistent on these matters, whenever it comes to something like this. I
don't want to design any homeowner's deck or his house or his patio or anything like that. I think that they
always make the best decisions provided they don't encroach too far. And I know that's a relative term.
It's a relative term. One foot to some is 10 to 20 to others but we're sitting here looking at this and I have
a hard time visualizing a severe impact. I say let him do it the way he wants.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm quite honestly wondering why we even both to have ordinances and how
people build and what they can do on a lot. Every time these come up I get told that people know what's
best for their own lot and they will do what's right. Yet we have Oak Ponds. We have all kinds of
problems and there are some of us that don't think there should be any regulations and there are some of us
that think there should be and I don't think anyone would argue that there's too much regulation in a whole
lot of things. The fact remains the Wirth's do have the capability of having a deck here without approving
this variance. I'd like to point out a couple of things in the staff report. The application was unanimously
denied by the Board on the 20th of May. Staff would like to bring to the Council's attention, we have
received a second variance within the same subdivision of the subject property. Approving this application
will create new standards for the subdivision and set the stage for the proliferation of variances within a
neighborhood. And in bold face on the next page, many of the homes in this subdivision have decks and
they all meet ordinance requirements. I have not felt there's been an attempt to compromise. I question
with this Council continuing to grant variances based on the belief that the homeowner always knows
what's best for their property. I do wonder why we have ordinances right now. I don't, I think a deck is
capable without the variance. Very capable without the variance. I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn.
22
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Boy. The best way I can describe this one is I'm really torn on it. Our ordinances, in
my mind are guidelines and you know I don't hold hard and fast that this is what is absolute. It's got to
make sense. But at the same time we need to consider all the aspects. You know the PUD's already
effectively lessen the setbacks as it is. You know I can't disagree with Mike. Yes, a deck can be
constructed. In fact a substantial deck can still be constructed but what we're talking about here is the
issue of a staircase and how the staircase lines up with a door. You know 4 foot landing outside the sliding
glass door, well I mean. You know with, I don't know. Regardless, it seems to me you're not going to put
the activity in front of the door anyway. With the size of this deck, the activity's going to be elsewhere on
the deck. So I don't see a problem with the 4 foot landing. I don't see a problem with the deck redesigned
to make it fit. You know and I don't know. I think through all that and I say well yeah, it's a doubled
sided street and you know we ought to be a little more lenient but then I go back to the PUD. I don't know.
Every way I go on this one there's an either or an or that comes back with well which way should it be.
The simple reality in my mind is that there's one issue. Is there something here that constitutes a hardship?
In my mind.
Mayor Mancino: And factually is there?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. In my mind there is. But it has nothing to do with anything other than the
easement line. And I don't think, if we grant an easement here that we are setting a precedent because of
the easement line. To me, if you subscribe to the theory that the 1.6 effectively isn't going to kill the world
except, then we always have to turn around and say but what precedent do we... or do we set. The answer
is none because I don't think we're ever going to see this again with an easement effectively sitting where
this easement sits, which in my mind would be the only reason to justify doing it. The proximity of the
easement line. Because if a person were to put a deck straight off the back of their house, like most of us
do.
Mayor Mancino: There is not going to be an easement line.
Councilman Senn: Well but there is here and it's cutting off use of part of that area effectively straight
back from the house. Even though the lot is plenty big to handle, you know effectively that deck or that
type of a structure without an easement. Okay. So going back to the easement line, and going back to you
know what the applicant would like to do, again the easement line is what's forcing us to you know
effectively depart from what we normally would look at. So I guess bottom line where it comes down to is,
I mean I think 9/10th's of everything we've been talking about and considering on this particular variance is
really kind of meaningless. I think yes, it could have been probably resolved by a little give and take. I
also, I guess I can understand the homeowner's position but I would be very comfortable, at least in my
mind, supporting a foot and a half variance predicated simply on the hardship of that easement line being
there. Because it's cutting off effectively straight out, or a straight out deck type of approach from the
back of the yard there and I don't think we're setting a precedent by doing it. And I'm not going to get into
a big argument over a foot and a half if we're not setting some kind of a precedent that I think we have to
worry about.
Mayor Mancino: Do we have any concern Kate, about the easement? How that can be used and will we
ever need it?
Kate Aanenson: It's a drainage easement...
23
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Any concerns that you see Charles? Okay. I'm in agreement with that. May I have a
motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I will move to approve the 1.6 foot variance for the construction of a deck as
submitted with the staff report for the Wirth's at 361 Deerfoot Trail in Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second it.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor of the motion.
Councilman Senn: Well I would like you to either change your motion or I'm not going to vote for it so.
Councilman Berquist: I'll withdraw.
Councilman Senn: I would like you to restate. I would like you to include in your motion that the hardship
here is the easement line and defining, or make that finding of fact and okay the 1.6 variance based on that.
Councilman Berquist: I'd be happy to restate that as a motion.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a 1.6 foot variance for the
construction of a deck at 361 Deerfoot Trail based on the hardship of the drainage easement running
through the property. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Mancino: And your reason for no Michael. Or you've already given it. Thank you.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWlDE DOCUMENTS {AUAR)
FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT~ INC.~ PROPOSED GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, AND
NORTH OF WEST 82N~ STREET. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.2
MILLION SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA IN A MIX OF OFFICE~ INDUSTRIAL~
COMMERCIAL AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE USES ON APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. An Alternate Urban Areawide Review is a
cross between an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and an Environmental Impact Statement. What
we've done is reviewed all the environmental impacts that the proposed development would have on the site
but we've reduced the time frame on it. The many issues that you look at are habitat, woodlands,
wetlands, wells, utilities, surface water management and.., traffic and air quality, archeological and
architectural resources that the proposed development might impact. What we're requesting tonight is that
the City Council approve the Akemate Urban Areawide Review and incorporate the specific mitigation
plan contained within the development within the AUAR. We believe that this project and the City's
review process will mitigate many or most of the impacts involved and that through the requests that we
24
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
have within the mitigation plan will reduce the impacts for the things that we do not have control of. With
that staff is recommending approval and would be happy to answer any questions you would have.
Mayor Mancino: Bob, can you speak to the DNR letter that you put in front of us at the meeting tonight
and give us a one minute overview of it.
Bob Generous: Basically their only real comment is on the 30 acres of wetlands. The potential impacts
that they have. As part of the wetland alteration permit that's being approved as part of the project. The
developer will be mitigating or creating additional wetlands on the site. We're taking off a little bit of
wetlands for the north/south road and we're consolidating the new wetlands into the existing wetland
complex.
Mayor Mancino: They're approximately 3 acres or 2 point something.
Bob Generous: Yeah total, it's under 3 acres and an acre, 1.8 acres through the Arboretum has created a
wetland so they have credits and then they're creating additional wetlands with the project.
Mayor Mancino: And the ones that we're mitigating are ag urban?
Bob Generous: Urban, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's basically it. Okay.
Bob Generous: In addition to the storm water plan we do provide water quality improvement before it
discharges into the...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions, comments from Council members.
Councilman Mason: Well yes I do as a matter of fact. Reading, well being a bit of an ornithologist I, in
the memorandum you handed out to us about the swamps and the migratory song birds, which any of us
know that do appreciate that kind of thing, they are in decline. How does that stuff get mitigated? The
brush and, I forget what the term was.
Kate Aanenson: Hopefully through the acquisition of the property that was our intent to preserve that.
Bob Generous: We're preserving most of the wetland.., and upland habitat around that.
Kate Aanenson: Around the.., wetland.
Councilman Mason: Okay, okay, cool.
Mayor Mancino: Do you know that that is the biggest recreational activity that has grown in the last 2
years in the United States? Bird watching.
Councilman Mason: Well some of us have been doing it longer than that Mrs. Mancino.
Mayor Mancino: No, it is number one. It is more than biking, hiking, bird watching. Excuse me. You can
tell I just went on vacation.
25
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Mason: And what else did we learn on our trip?
Mayor Mancino: Lots of things.
Councilman Mason: Good. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Michael. Any other questions or comments from Council members on the
report?
Councilman Berquist: Amazing amount of detail.
Mayor Mancino: I know. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-46: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution
that the AgAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in the
staff report, that the revisions to the Traffic Study prepared by SRF outlined in the staff report be
incorporated into the study, and that the revised AgAR be adopted by the City. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS: REVIEW PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION AND
STREETSCAPE.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, I'm just going to ask for a couple days so I can give some comments because I
haven't had a minute to look through this.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. So technically how do you want to handle that?
Mayor Mancino: Well I don't know. We'll talk about that as a condition that I can just off.
Councilman Senn: Well if you really want to do that then we really ought to just table it and put it off until
the next agenda rather than going through this thing.
Mayor Mancino: Well no, I want them to be able to go ahead with the process.
Vernelle Clayton: We do have a technical problem in that we have had to go through simultaneously with
the construction plans because of the need to meet St. Hubert's schedule. Is that familiar? Sounding
familiar.
Kate Aanenson: Plus we also have the agreement that we...joint powers in the city...
Mayor Mancino: So I'm just saying can we just do a general condition that I have some time just to, a little
nit gritty looking at it. It's not big deal.
26
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Vemelle Clayton: Fine.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Senn: You're kinder than the rest of the Council would have been Vemelle.
Mayor Mancino: Hey. I've been working on this project for many, many years with you guys.
Vernelle Clayton: I think then what we'd accept is a motion or approval, if you're so inclined, subject to
review of the Mayor and staff, and if necessary the developer.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do you want to go ahead and staff report.
Bob Generous: This is the hardscape plan for the Villages on the Pond proposed project. We've been
working with the developer to create the public.., envisioning out at the Villages. The City has received
grants from the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Act and the regional transit capital
funds to put in or assist the developer in putting in the improvements with this project for the paving,
sidewalks, street furniture and boulevard trees, as well as trail system and part of the wetland enhancement
for the Villages pond and so we're bringing back, had the developer bring plans back to you for approval.
For review and approval.
Councilman Senn: Okay, would you elaborate on that more.
Bob Generous: On which part? The specific plan?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, okay.
Kate Aanenson: There's the PUD framework in place. This is matching up and setting.., what's happening
out there and.., that we talked about.., outside parameter of the development. Specifically the pond,
lighting...
Bob Generous: Main street, Lake Drive. How the bench systems are going to set up in the landscaping.
Councilman Senn: And what portion of this is the grant taking care of then?
Bob Generous: That will show as part of the... 6 to 8 feet for the concrete... It's all in the grant agreement
and it has those dollars are broken out, which is what we tried to bring together.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, are you asking what we see, is the grant paying 100% of what we're
going to look at? 80%? Is that what you're asking?
Councilman Senn: Well I had assumed when we had talked about the grant and stuff before, that the grant
was going throughout the entire project.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so I'm assuming that the grant plugs into and takes care of a portion of this as
the outer, or as a segment of that that you're now talking about, correct?
27
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So one of the things as we go through and do this that I want to understand
effectively is you know where are we using the grant and for what.
Bob Generous: The phasing plan shows you.
Councilman Senn: The phasing will show us that then. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. You understand that request Vernelle?
Vemelle Clayton: More or less.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. As we move forward we'll be more specific. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. What I think I'd like to have you do is interrupt me as we go through. I think it
will save your time this evening. I was told you wanted to be out of here at 8:30 and I'm always put in this
spot it seems. It's always my fault so I'm going to say very little and you're going to ask questions. To my
right is the overall landscaping plan which you all have. We'll leave that up there in case we need to refer
to it as we page through the various pages. The first section that I have breaks down the phases. The blue
is the first phase and the green is the second phase. I think you have that as well and it doesn't show up
very well. The two colors don't show up very well up there do they. This side is second phase and this
side is second phase. The rest is all first phase. First phase meaning something that we're going to be
doing this year. But I do need to caution you not to expect all of the wetlands to be completely done and
looking beautiful this year. It's a year long process that has to be burned off what the invasive weeds have
to be removed and that takes a little while before the planting can then occur and then of course those
plants have to grow before it looks like all the beautiful colors that you saw that we gave you. So this time
next year it won't be looking like the first year program at whatever it was in your, we handed to you. But
it will eventually. I want to ad lib just a little bit here too and that is I want to say to you that we are now
becoming a little concerned that the pond is a little smaller than we all envisioned and probably will be a
little disappointing to everybody once we're done. I don't think we'll be... as to it's size. I thin we all
envisioned when we approved this project a bigger pond. Particularly a little more visible pond from
Highway 5. This I can tell you we're very pleased with the plan that these experts on wetlands who are
well respected in their field have come up with. I think that will look very nice but I think that we need to,
we all should maybe have been a little more aware of the impact of the wetlands at the time we designed
this pond and the time the pond was approved and looked at it a little more critically as to whether in fact it
really had to be that small. And with that little negative note.
Mayor Mancino: So how can we remedy that?
Vemelle Clayton: Well I think that we could have looked at a little more off site mitigation possibly. I just
don't think we probably spent enough time on it but it really, so I'm saying that to say that sometimes I
think we all need to remember that we have to take a good hard look at what seemed at the time to be
perfectly plausible under sensible rules of not only regarding wetlands but other policies to make sure that
it fits in our overall goals for the City. Speaking of then moving along to the overall goals for the City. As
we talk about how much money we're spending here and the Metropolitan Council in fact is spending and
the State through their funding limits, Council's grant process, I would like to formally request that the
28
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
City take a good hard look at what's across the street. We're going to have something looking very nice
here but every year this side becomes, it looking worse and worse. And soon we're going to have trees that
once started out as little things this high that will now be you know, 10-20 foot trees and suddenly they'll
become viable. We don't won't be able to remove them. In the meantime we've created a situation where a
lot of property owners will have spent a lot of time cleaning up the rest of downtown. I think we need to
think about whether when we drive down this part of TH 5, do we want to be seeing what's on the other
side? Do we want to see a beautiful downtown on both sides? Our answer is yes. We want to see a
beautiful project here and I think your answer should be, yes. We want to see the rest of the beautiful
downtown on the other side. So I've been kind of harping on this lately and so I thought I would bring it to
your attention formally. I think that the HRA or the EDA now and the City needs to get together a plan to
consider what are the sight lines into the rest of downtown and what should be done there. How can it
match maybe...
Kate Aanenson: We are doing the pond. The City is initiating the pond. Applebee's and the third lot, it's
our commitment to buy that property. Move the wetland across. We are working on that.
Vernelle Clayton: Good.
Mayor Mancino: But you're talking about a beautification kind of plan more than anything on the north
side of Highway 5 to echo, reflect what's being done on the south side.
Vernelle Clayton: Exactly.
Mayor Mancino: That's a good reminder. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Does anybody have any other questions? Any questions on the phasing. One of the
reasons we're doing only one side, by the way, is that we will be having buildings right up to the street and
these buildings will all have underground garages. And we just have to... not only will these sidewalks only
be done on this side, they will only be about half the width so that we can do some grading and so to allow
us to do a little more efficient grading without using pilings and so forth to do the construction.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, don't we have to use, or I'm sorry Bob. The money from Metropolitan Council
within so many years too? I mean doesn't it have to be used?
Vemelle Clayton: This year.
Mayor Mancino: This year, '97?
Vernelle Clayton: ... the work that relates to everything except the bus shelter which conceivably could be
used next year. There's a little overlap Mark when we go through this. There's some overlap in what the
monies are dedicated for the bus shelter construction in that there's some streetscape involved in that and
then there's also a lot of streetscape involved in the other one. So we need to divide that out so it all adds
up. What you see on the next phase then is a lot of what the funding, the grant can be used for and this is
a colored version of what you have in your packet. The overall plan that you.., fairly consistent with the...
They will be irrigated. There will be blacktop out in this area, this area, this area. There are various
patterns of the same type of pavers that will be used every.., and then a border separating these and
defining the geometric design of a darker paver. It looks real dark up there. We want a little warmer
looking than that. I'm going to put it down here... Does anybody have any questions on that segment and
29
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
how we will be, we have a couple of inserts on a couple of these areas... This will be the front of the pond
up here and this is where a sign, a large sign will be that we'll show you in a little bit that you also have in
your packet. This is the fountain looking at Highway 5... This is just a little insert showing how the...
This will be lighted. This is the insert. An insert showing a sort of hedge effect behind the bench. Hedges
are one of the things that we want to see a fair amount of in this project. It's part of the neo-traditional
design that we want.
Mayor Mancino: Are there going to be swans in the pond? I want those pink flamingoes you know all
around.
Vemelle Clayton: We thought you know interspersed yeah, we should do that. Our mission tonight is to
show you not only the streetscape... This is the western peripheral area down to where St. Hubert's picks
up. St. Hubert's has their own landscape plan. We've asked that we see it and that we have an
opportunity to coordinate it with our thinking of how that might be but we haven't seen it yet. There is one
change here that a couple trees popped up here. They will not be here, just so you know and the reason is
that a... in front of St. Hubert's and right across the pond and we want a clear shot right through here.
We'll talk about this comer when we pull up a larger version of that. Again we have, as you know,
wetlands and ponds, or I mean ponds. Yeah, ponds and wetlands here. NURP ponds and wetlands.
Mayor Mancino: Vemelle, get back to philosophically what do you mean about not having trees? I mean
St. Hubert's is tall and big and you can't miss that massive, beautiful structure.
Vemelle Clayton: These trees are right in front of this.
Kate Aanenson: For sight of windows.
Bob Generous: Yeah. A view corridor down this boulevard.
Vemelle Clayton: Right here it would be a good time to refer to... and this is the wetland here. There will
be an area between the, these are the retaining walls. The area between will be naturalized plantings. A
variety of other plantings at the top. The front of the first house to the north.., the retaining wall and the
top of the second house, and I missed those last time. I said that was the Anderson house. It's not. That
was down farther. I'm finally learning which is which. That's by the Sinnen house there will be solid
board fence.
Mayor Mancino: Now, is that something the neighbors had input into? They wanted a chain link fence or.
Kate Aanenson: Also for safety.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I know the Planning Commission kind of reviewed this question too. Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: Do you have any questions on that?
Mayor Mancino: Chain link fence doesn't go with the pavers.
Councilman Berquist: Vemelle just a, those folks were in while back and maybe this is something that we
talked about then.., that they were looking for sewer and water.
30
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: We're doing a lot to accommodate their needs for sewer and water... Also having to
move things that... This is also something that will...
Councilman Mason: But where does that sit?
Kate Aanenson: Charles may know. Feasibility of...
Charles Folch: Grandview? That actually has been tabled at this point in time, as I recall, and the
residents were going to discuss with the contractor for this development about contracting themselves with
the improvement project. Next they were going to come back to the Council, come back to staff with
whether or not they want to try a different avenue or whether they still would want to consider the public
petition. We're sort of waiting for them to come back to us.
Mayor Mancino: So you have not heard?
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I'm a little confused because I've heard from several of the people
down there, especially the people down on the end there where that's supposedly that access road or
whatever it is is supposed to go through. And you know one week I talk to them and they said that you
know that they were okay with the access road and this, that and the other thing. Now they say they're
being told that nobody wants these. That nobody wants the access road. Nobody wants anything because
as soon as they raise the issue over you know just not simply giving the easement with no consideration at
all, then everybody says they didn't want the access or the easement. I mean we need definition, it seems to
me we need definition along here before we can approve perimeter treatments and landscaping as to what is
and what isn't going to be the situation. The neighbors, or I mean at least the people affected don't
understand what it is or isn't at this point. At least what they're telling me.
Kate Aanenson: We're not doing anything. We're providing a second alternative for them to get out of the
subdivision.
Mayor Mancino: And we always have.
Charles Folch: Right. To my knowledge we haven't been contacted by any of the folks out there with any
questions or concerns for the last month, month and a half.
Kate Aanenson: It's just to give them the most flexibility into the subdivision.
Councilman Senn: So who have they been talking to?
Charles Folch: They haven't been talking to us.
Councilman Senn: Who went in and effectively graded on their property without their permission?
Vernelle Clayton: ... if I'm not speaking out of turn because they have said...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so they haven't been talking to us, they've been talking to you?
Vernelle Clayton: ... I think they've been talking to Dave Hempel.
31
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Charles Folch: Not regarding any questions or concerns of issues. Not that we have heard.
Kate Aanenson: Not about an easement. We have talked about the retaining walls...
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'll just you know plain and simply you've got people down here very
confused. They don't know what's going on as of a couple of days ago and they're real concerned with
what is and what isn't going to be down there.
Mayor Mancino: Then maybe we should have a neighborhood meeting.
Councilman Senn: And you know I have a real hard time just kind of broadly saying we're going to
approve all this perimeter stuff tonight with that big question mark existing down there. I mean that to me
is fairly significant. That's part of the perimeter.
Vemelle Clayton: ... That's already been approved. That's an engineering plan that's already been
approved by the City. We're not dealing with that. We're dealing with the landscaping.
Councilman Senn: Well Vernelle I'm going to disagree with you because what we do there is going to
affect the perimeter landscaping of those properties that border this project, okay.
Vernelle Clayton: ... St. Hubert's landscaping plan.
Mayor Mancino: Which we have not seen yet.
Vernelle Clayton: I don't think you've seen and I haven't.
Bob Generous: You've seen but not the revisions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But aren't we looking at the eastern side which abuts the neighborhood right now
Vemelle?
Vernelle Clayton: It basically goes down to that easement.
Mayor Mancino: Which goes down to the easement but doesn't encroach on the easement at all. Okay.
Councilman Senn: But in your staff report or recommendations, you're asking us to approve things like a
50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern property line adjacent to the residential property.
They assume you're asking that for the entire, or at least the way this is worded, for the entire eastern edge
of the property. You're also asking us to you know looking at lighting for parking areas shall minimize the
use of lights on pole standards in the parking areas. I mean given a 50 foot proximity to residential
properties.
Bob Generous: This was in response to... The PUD required a 50 foot setback. Their plan showed a 30
foot...
Mayor Mancino: But won't we see a site plan or talk about that as far as, we've already seen St. Hubert's.
Won't we see every single lot as it abuts the eastern neighborhood?
32
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Vemelle Clayton: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And we'll be able to make comments then on the setback and on the lighting in the
parking lots so we're sure that it doesn't glare into the neighborhood. Are those your concerns Mark?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and the landscaping treatments and the issue of this easement and whether there's
going to be an easement through there or not through there.
Mayor Mancino: But what we're saying is, if we go ahead and give conceptual approval to this overall, as
we see the individual site plans and they abut the neighborhood, we can go in and make some revisions, I'm
assuming to those site plans, landscaping plans.
Vernelle Clayton: Well let me, yes. The answer is yes. This is not an overall landscaping plan. It's
guidelines. We ask for a couple things with respect to the lighting and so forth.., what guides the overall
development. But the developer is responsible for this.., as a part of the original PUD approval to see the
peripheral landscaping.., tonight are conditions that have already been imposed upon us as part of the PUD
approval.
Councilman Senn: But you're landscaping the eastern edge of St. Hubert's parking lot and then their
landscaping plan is taking over and landscaping the rest of their property?
Vemelle Clayton: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And the people who live adjacent to their parking area, or the people who live
adjacent to St. Hubert's parking area.
Mayor Mancino: On the north side of St. Hubert's church.
Councilman Senn: On the north side of St. Hubert's church, okay. They're in sync with what lighting's
going to be out there and what they're going to be looking at in relationship to lighting and pole lighting and
all that?
Vernelle Clayton: I can't answer that because we're not doing the lighting tonight. St. Hubert's is doing
the lighting.
Mayor Mancino: And so we're going to see that to approve it. Are we going to see that yet?
Councilman Senn: Okay, but we are approving the landscaping tonight.
Mayor Mancino: The perimeter. The perimeter.
Councilman Senn: Correct, which is the landscaping there. I mean I'm not trying to drive a point home
but come on. If we approve the landscaping tonight, the only way to solve the problems are going to be in
dealing with the lighting, not the landscaping.
Kate Aanenson: Let's go back to what the problem is. I'm not sure that we're...that the City has any
control over whatever problems are out there. That's what, I don't.
33
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well evidently the neighbors think there's some Kate because they don't, I mean from
what they're saying, they're not comfortable with what's going to be there. That's what they're calling and
saying so I mean they're uncomfortable with something. The people on the south end, they're very
uncomfortable given the fact that somebody came in and started grading their property and they didn't even
know about it. Then there was going to be an easement. Now there's not going to be an easement. The
City was the one, they were told that wanted the easement. They don't want the easement. The neighbors
don't. They don't. They were willing to go along with it, well I'm just saying. The access easement.
Vemelle Clayton: ...the easements for this road...
Charles Folch: I'm guessing it's probably a temporary easement for the grading to match or whatever in
the grade. Obviously that got missed or forgotten.
Councilman Senn: Well somebody came out and told them that St. Hubert's or the City in relationship to
the St. Hubert's project for fire and other purposes wanted an access easement from their neighborhood
through there which could be some kind of a breakdown deal or lock gate or whatever type of thing, but
they wanted the easement, okay. Well then they said okay. Well we really don't want to do that but we'll
work with you on doing it. Well then they started working with them and say well that's fine. We'll do it
but we'd like a few things in return and everybody says no. The City doesn't want an easement. St.
Hubert's doesn't want an easement. Well I mean like I say, people don't know what's going on so I'm just
asking.
Charles Folch: ... unless it was a requirement by the Fire Marshal or Public Safety.
Bob Generous: Just to provide that as part of the PUD. The developer had to grant the neighborhood.
Kate Aanenson: But it worked the other way. So they could come out this way if there was a problem. We
never tried to acquire anything.
Mayor Mancino: It sounds like we need to do something.., informational meeting, etc. Were they notified
of the meeting, do you know?
Bob Generous: Not specifically. Just in the advertisement.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. It sounds like we need to get together. Why don't you...
Vemelle Clayton: Does anybody have any questions then on, from here to here? That's essentially what
we're talking about tonight.
Mayor Mancino: No.
Vemelle Clayton: ... was the northwest comer, which is the AmericInn comer and I think you have this in
your packet too. We have a cross section that shows what you can or more to the point I guess, we want to
see what you can't see from Highway 5. And you can see from that, the berming is I think almost too
effective out there. I don't think you're seeing much in there at all. And the berming is down through here.
We've worked with staff, first of all to get it to meander instead of go straight. Secondly to break up the
berming just a little bit so it's not like running around along side it or running around on the top of it but to
make it interesting and in and out, a little undulation here with a berm here, here and here. Then the other
34
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
thing that has occurred is that we have not been able to change NSP's mind about the height of trees that
can be underneath their easement and their easement lies in here. This will be more or less naturalized to
blend in with the pond landscaping around here and becoming less and less naturalized as you come up
here. We were asked by staff to stagger these trees and to put the evergreen trees in this area and that plan
is all right with Americlnn and I should say that there is a representative from Americlnn here this evening,
Willie Anderson. I should also apologize to the rest of the people that are patiently listening to me explain
their plan. Tim O'Brien who has worked with us on the plans for the bus shelter and the signs and Dean
Olson who has created these landscaping plans.
Mayor Mancino: Vemelle... I know the west side of Americlnn, that southwest comer area is
architecturally more plain than on the east side. Is there going to be additional landscaping in, not on the
perimeter but closer to the building also? I can't remember.
Vemelle Clayton: Yes there is.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: They've got maples along here and down. This... haven't changed it to... the base of the
building here... Does anyone have any questions on this comer? Then the bus shelter and the warming
house.
Mayor Mancino: Are there going to be any kind of open air concession stands around the pond?
Vemelle Clayton: I guess that would have to be the association that would have to decide what they would
want to do.
Kate Aanenson: Opening like kiosks or something.
Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, you know in the summertime that'd be great. This doesn't show up any better. In
fact it looks better up there. This is, I'll just pass this around. This is the blue that we have chosen for the
color for the sign and it's... Again I'm not going to say more about this unless you have some questions
about it. The blue that's coming around is also the blue for the sign. This was mentioned a while ago that
this was the particular location for the sign. This is the Village sign. The one that will be at the pond.
These are the, we have been permitted to have three monument signs so these would be the monument
signs. This is the cross section of the signage involved and this is a cross enlargement here of the
construction of this steel structure... Village on the Ponds sign and this... We wanted it to look a little
festive. This sign is more traditional and these will be the signs that will be the directional signs around the
project telling people what... This is also the logo for the project.
Mayor Mancino: How tall is that sign?
Vemelle Clayton: This is 20 feet. The top is 20 feet.
Kate Aanenson: ...under the PUD.
Mayor Mancino: But we also said we wanted to see the sign before we actually said yes to 20 feet.
Councilman Berquist: 20 feet?
35
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Kate Aanenson: Well the 20 feet came from, that's what we allow for highway signs. That's a pylon sign
so we kind of used that as a point to begin.
Mayor Mancino: And this is going to have neon on the arch.
Vemelle Clayton: These are stripes of neon.
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission spent a lot of time on whether or not they liked the sign.
Vemelle Clayton: And we explained to them that we had had little lights around...
Mayor Mancino: And where is this going to go? Exactly where is this going to go?
Kate Aanenson: Behind the pond.
Mayor Mancino: So you're going to walk underneath it to get to the pond? Or through it.
Councilman Mason: Probably through it.
Councilman Berquist: This is a hanging pendant sort of a sign?
Mayor Mancino: So Vernelle, I'm having problems with the location. If people are going to want to come
down this wonderful main street and go to the pond and you might have some concession stands around.
People want to, there's some benches there and everything. There's going to be these golden arches right in
the middle?
Vernelle Clayton: No. This gives you some sense of the relationship of the sign. This is all walkway
around it and then through.
Mayor Mancino: And where is the sign? It spans.
Vernelle Clayton: These are the two footings.
Mayor Mancino: Show me that again. Where?
Vemelle Clayton: Here and here with.., all around it. The pond is out here.., where it's always been.
Kate Aanenson: It's always been in the visual.
Mayor Mancino: Well, and we weren't particularly positive on where it was at the very beginning.
Councilman Berquist: I'm a little bit taken aback. I looked at the plans and the renderings and I see
somewhat of a kind of a neoclassical architectural theme on public areas. And then.
Vemelle Clayton: They just don't get it.
Mayor Mancino: I've been to a lot of neoclassical areas and.
36
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Kate Aanenson: ... as far as the person putting it together and the Planning Commission saying when
you're trying to create something festive, how do you make it festive without to garish and how do you...
Councilman Berquist: I'm sure it will be wonderful. It just was a surprise.
Kate Aanenson: Well we kind of acquiesced and said we're not experts on it either. They hired
professionals to do that. There was some concern about the neon and what that looks like and I'm not sure
the Planning Commission was.., or how that would be.
Mayor Mancino: Well I don't have a problem with the neon. I'm just functionally, everything, walking
underneath it and I've been to a lot of places in the last two weeks with pavers and wonderful festive public
spaces.
Councilman Berquist:
Mayor Mancino: No.
Did they have this type of sign?
No. They didn't have this sign. You didn't need it.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and their sense of place.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand the Highway 5 frontage. I'm just.
Vemelle Clayton: A proposal that had an arch with a sign on it spanning these two buildings. We all kind
of said no. Let's go back to where we had it out front here and keep the arches reoccur from time to time
throughout the project and they seem to be working well here. Some of the architectural elements here, and
we've been talking about it so long we've gotten used to it I guess.
Councilman Berquist: As I suppose I will.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'm just not at all.
Vernelle Clayton: ... articulately than I can. I think the idea of walking around...
Councilman Mason: ... but there's this anti immediately. I mean let's just.
Mayor Mancino: Hey.
Councilman Mason: Well.
Mayor Mancino: Well. Okay, go ahead... Okay, well the sign's going to take me a while but.
Kate Aanenson: Part of the problem that the Planning Commission had too is they didn't go through the
evolution to get sold on that. All we're being told on this one. We didn't get to the say the other ones now
to say okay, we've arrived at that same point.
Mayor Mancino: But we saw the original.
Kate Aanenson: This was the arch though. The original but we never got to say.
37
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: But that still doesn't mean it's good.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'm saying I agree with you. The Planning Commission said the same thing. How
do we, how can we be sold on this when you're giving us one option. No other options to choose from.
... they went through that process.
Mayor Mancino: Maybe I'll need to be educated on those different options then to see .... no, I understand
that as a layout artist. I mean I can understand going through the options but somebody would have to
yeah, work me through it. How you got here. Go ahead.
Tim O'Brien: ... but it was an evolutionary design that tried to tie in some visual elements. A little bit of
elements in the arch design as well as the festive while trying to keep it transparent and eye catching. We
did look at a number of alternatives...
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: Any other questions on any of this?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members? Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: Mark, I didn't really talk as I went through, as you asked, of which things are a part of
the grant. I started out saying that some of this was and what I should have said when we got to the
wetlands is a lot of that is also. As is this walkway through here. This is a sort of boardwalk. The trail
system is, there will be some benches. Some of the benches, right.
Bob Generous: Street lights.
Vemelle Clayton: Up to a certain maximum number and then we'd pay, the project pays.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to address
the Council on this issue? Comments from Council members. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm going to say the only thing I'm really uncomfortable with right now is the
east side. And maybe part of the problem there is the fact that we've got kind of two different people
handling the same thing. I don't know but I mean I think we need to get a handle on that and we need to get
a handle on that quickly. Because I think it's going to be real hard down the road to, how do I say,
unmarry the elements as we go between the lighting and the parking and the landscaping and everything
else, and the accesses and through there to the neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: And your solution?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess I'm a little disappointed in
what's happened so far so I think maybe the way to fix that is I'll get back to the people out there and I'll
have them contact Charles and Charles you can be the point man, how's that? So I mean at least somebody
with the City is being a point main on what's happening with those issues, unless it should be Kate or
whatever but it doesn't sound like we're being, it doesn't sound like we're managing that portion of the
project right now and it seems to me we should be. Somewhat.
38
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Maybe there can be some discussion at the staff meeting tomorrow deciding on who
should decide and maybe get the neighborhood together.
Charles Folch: The issue with the neighborhood, just for my clarification is related to?
Councilman Senn: Well you have different issues with different neighbors out there but I mean overall
there's just neighborhood issues like the roads going through. How are they going to go through. If there's
going to be access. Accesses or easements. What are they going to be. How are they going to be
configured. You know, who's easements are they going to be. Issues you know over effectively then
depending on what happens with all that, depending on what's going to happen with the landscaping. I
mean the one neighbor has an issue with just replacement at this point because they've lost a lot of mature
vegetation simply by somebody grading in areas that wasn't supposed to be graded that's on their property.
You know issues like that.
Charles Folch: That obviously was a mistake... I mean all of these are things that you've already approved
and we can certainly convey that information again if it wasn't conveyed originally but I mean it's all,
you've approved the plan that everything's in place in terms of utilities and road systems and easements
that are associated with the plat and everything so we can certainly pass the information along to whomever
has a question or would like it. That's not a problem at all.
Councilman Senn: No, but I think.
Charles Folch: The issues are outstanding, they're defined. Maybe they just.
Kate Aanenson: The only thing that's still outstanding that was given back to them to try to find an
alternative...
Charles Folch: Right, if they're interested in a public improvement project, right. The ball is in their court
as to whether they want to do it themselves or.
Mayor Mancino: They need to be more proactive in giving information.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think they just need the information on that as well as, I mean one of the issues
in relationship to that, if I understood it was possibly bringing the sewer through this access easement. You
know and then all of a sudden the access easement wasn't going to be an easement or an access easement
anymore so I don't know. Somebody's got to get their hands on that or the neighbors are going to, I think
at some point erupt or whatever but I mean they seem to be rather concerned at this point. I can give you
the names of the people who have called and stuff. That's not a problem and you can get back to them.
You know other than that, basically it seems to me what we're dealing with is more I'm going to say
concept and overview of kind of where we're at I think. There's some detail types of concern. You know
whether.., again, I understand that. We are approving that. I don't know. As significant as this stuff is, I
guess I can't say right now whether I'm comfortable with doing all that or not. Just effectively starting to
see it and understand it tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
39
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Mason: Clearly there are issues that still need to be addressed but I certainly think that things
are on the right track.
Mayor Mancino: And what things do you think need to be addressed?
Councilman Mason: Well I'm a little confused with what all the confusion is in this one comer, quite
honestly. I don't get it. I mean they're not talking to the City. They're not asking questions apparently. I
clearly remember that discussion about if they don't want to be part of the feasibility project, and I saw
them nodding heads of that group. They were going to get together and discuss some things and there's
been nothing. Well, you know we had the discussion. Councilman Engel and I are having kind of this
ongoing discussion about rights of society and rights of individuals and you know I think along with
individual rights does come some individual responsibility so I mean I'm not, if there are issues out there,
certainly we need to address them but I think this plan, I think we're headed in the right direction. I like
what I'm seeing so far.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, Mike and I like to exercise our minds between breaks here. Test each other.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's kind of scary to the rest of us.
Councilman Engel: ... we're both wrong.
Councilman Mason: Or we're both right.
Councilman Engel: We're both right.
Mayor Mancino: The rest of us will tell you're both wrong.
Councilman Engel: Well, and I mean with issues like this and the design and how we're going to decorate
using neon and what not.
Mayor Mancino: Hold on.
Councilman Engel: So I mean as I'm constantly reminded by my wife, I don't even have good enough taste
to decorate my own home, let alone set the standards for.
Mayor Mancino: It's a good thing we have some visual people on this Council.
Councilman Engel: We'll leave that to the professionals in the group like Vemelle and if it's wrong, we'll
replace it. That's the way I do it to my house.
Mayor Mancino: We'll never live together.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm simply going to repeat some of what Mark says. I think I'm concerned
the people that live on Grandview are going to be affected the greatest by this project and if I were living
there or if I was on Frontier Trail and not involved in city business and I had something like this coming
before me, I really wouldn't know which direction to begin to go in to try to get the questions that I had
40
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
answered. And I know how fast time goes and how fast the days go by and I truly do think that a contact
by someone at the department head level, whether it be Charles or Kate or Dave Hempel or someone can
attempt to bring them together. Maybe establish a threesome. Three of the neighbors that explain to the
rest of them what's going on and what they can and they cannot do. What's been approved and what
hasn't been approved. What they may be able to affect. What they may not be able to affect. It would
certainly be in their and the City's best interest. I mean we approve projects all the time and try as we
might, we quite often forget the people that are fundamentally affected by those projects and these folks are
fundamentally affected.
Mayor Mancino: Every day. 12 hours a day.
Councilman Berquist: So I'd like to see them apprised.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments on what you saw landscaped, etc.?
Councilman Berquist: With your expertise and with.., expertise and Vernelle's expertise and her team's
expertise, there is little that I could say that would be of any value.
Mayor Mancino: Very diplomatic, okay. My few comments, and I said this at the beginning. I just saw
the plans for a little bit this afternoon, for half an hour and that's because I've been on vacation so I would
like some time to review them. I do have very big concerns. No question about the sign. Mostly because I
think that everything about Villages on the Ponds conceptually is festive. The pavers. Everything about it.
The buildings will be. The architecture. The pond. Everything about it has a festive. I think one can
overboard with being festive and I'm concerned about the sign being that way so I would like to have a
condition that I can review these. Have a few days just to review them and add some suggestions with staff
and with the applicant on this. And I also agree with the neighborhood to the east and I will certainly, as
Mayor of this city be communicator with the neighborhood and be a co-point person with a couple
department heads to meet with the neighborhood because all they want to know is what's going on and the
facts and have some input. With that may I have a motion.
Councilman Mason: Quick question first. I need to get this straight here. We approve this, if the vote
goes for approval. You get your time to go over it. I'm having a little trouble understanding what changes
you're going to be making after we've approved that.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sure I won't be making any big changes. I'll just be adding my little things to it.
Councilman Engel: Total veto power.
Mayor Mancino: You know I'm talking about you guys can we change this tree or put a tree here or.
Councilman Mason: Well that's fine but I think we need, I mean not that I think you're going to abuse
your role as Mayor or anything like that. Planner maybe but certainly, but I think we need to be careful
how we.
Mayor Mancino: Would you rather table this?
Councilman Mason: Well no. I have no need to table it tonight. I'm all set to vote for approval and there
are minor suggestions that are made, I think that's fine but I think we need to be a little careful.
41
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: If there are any major suggestions we'll bring those back to the Council. Does that feel
comfortable?
Kate Aanenson: How about as part of the interest of check and balances that if we feel there's significant,
we'll bring it back.., at that time.
Councilman Mason: That's fine. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: You're welcome. Boy they keep me on a tight leash here, geez.
Councilman Mason: Well somebody's got to.
Mayor Mancino: With that may I have a motion please.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of the proposed wetland restoration and streetscape, Village on the
Ponds with the caveat that Mayor, in her time and wisdom in the next few days will make only minor
suggestions and that will be the end of it.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a second please?
Councilman Berquist: Second with a modification. The only modification I would make is that I'd like it
included in the motion that contact with the neighborhood be initiated and followed up on.
Councilman Mason: I have no trouble with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a second to that amendment.
Councilman Engel: Second that amendment.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Can we vote on the whole motion? No, we have to vote on the amendment.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded an amendment to the motion to include
that contact with the neighborhood on Grandview Road be initiated and followed up on. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Villages on the Ponds
Hardscape, Landscape, Buffer Yard, and Wetland Enhancement/Mitigation Plan prepared by BRW,
Inc., dated May 9, 1997, subject to the following conditions:
1. The overstory tree proposed at the driveway entrance across Lake Drive from Grandview Road shall
be relocated adjacent to Grandview Road.
2. The plan should note that there is a 50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern property
line adjacent to the residential properties.
3. The most southerly three flowering crabs west of Americlnn shall be replaced with Scotch Pine.
42
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
4. The flowering crabs west of AmericInn shall be staggered rather than being paired.
The City and developer shall acknowledge in promotional materials, press releases, reports and
publications relating to the project that this project is funded in part with a grant from the
Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Fund.
Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area.
Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to
buildings.
All site plans shall include the locations of utility boxes together with a landscaping plan providing
screening from primary views. Landscaping materials used for such screening shall be species which
can be pruned to maintain appropriate height.
The City shall initiate contact with the neighborhood to the east regarding questions about the
project.
Mayor Mancino shall be given an opportunity to review the plan and provide input. If there are any
major changes, the item will be brought back in front of the City Council for review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
B. LETTER REGARDING ISTEA FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY 212, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Hopefully the letter is self explanatory and represents the action that Council directed staff
to take.
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council members?
Councilman Senn: The letter seemed very good. I'd just like to see it directed beyond just the Federal
legislators. I'd like to see it directed to the people involved in the review and the decision process from the
Department of Transportation and I'm assuming in the State because they pass the recommendations on
and I think you know also the Federal Department and that sort of thing so they know our position.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other suggestions? Move and approve. Do we need to approve this?
Don Ashworth: I don't think so. I mean it was kind of a common direction from City Council so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Let's go back to the Consent Agenda items.
Don Ashworth: Can I take that back because in here we clearly are saying TH 101 is a priority over 212,
in case anybody came back and said the City Council actually, is this from the City Council?
Councilman Mason: With that I'll move approval of the letter regarding ISTEA funding for Highway 212.
43
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council approve a letter
addressed to the federal and state legislators regarding 1STEA funding for Highway 212. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA CON'T.
D. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUND CLOSINGS & TRANSFERS.
Don Ashworth: This item was tabled at a previous City Council meeting. A couple of items that come out
really was the funding associated with Chanhassen Estates. We did some background checks as to how the
deficit in that fund actually occurred. The bottom line was really the same. How we got there was a little
bit different and I tried to take and show what those dollars were spent for and how that deficit existed.
The second one, that was really it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions from Council members. Any Council member have a question on these
transfers? Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: This is not my area of expertise obviously and I was looking at these numbers trying
to make sense of them. To me they didn't all add up. And they're all negative numbers. They're all
expenditures that are over and above. Taking $94,000.00 out of the City Hall expansion account.
Finishing off the Chan Estates sewer and water. $170,000.00 comes out of sewer and water expansion
fund. $40,000.00 comes out storm water expansion. The charging of the overage of $110,000.00 that
happened on the Nez Perce extension which closed the Beddor deal. City Hall expansion fund. The
reason I, the biggest reason I pulled it though was just because the numbers didn't seem to add up. I really
wanted a little bit of a...
Don Ashworth: If I may just real quickly. She started out, when looking at that Pam and I going through
the individual funds, we looked at it and this particular fund had a deficit of $305,000.00. So we went
back and we tried to figure out really what was occurring in here and the first time around we had believed
that this $137,000.00, which was Charles' estimate is what should have been used for sewer and water.
When you asked us to recheck, we found in the bonding resolution.
Mayor Mancino: We had under bonded.
Don Ashworth: Well no, that we had planned at the time that we sold bonds for Chan Estates, the
$170,000.00, of those project costs were to be paid from sewer and water expansion. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So they've always been planned to come from there?
Don Ashworth: It always had been planned for that. So you take the 170 away from the 305. So if the
day that we got those proceeds we would have put 170 over there, we instead now would have ended up
with a deficit of $135,000.00. Now, how did we get the 1307 What composed the $135,000.007 Well.
44
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well wait a minute. Just curiously. So you transferred $170,000.00 from the Chan
Estates project to the sewer and water expansion. Last year's fund transfers, you did not do the
$137,000.007
Don Ashworth: No. I mean you had pulled this item and had us go back and check and see where all these
things came from. That's when we went back and checked. Found that the correct number from sewer and
water expansion to pay for sewer and water improvements in Chan Estates should have been $170,000.00.
Okay. So now that leaves us $135,000.00 to account for. This makes the assumption that the project
itself was $720,000.00 and spent $305,000.00 more than the $720 so now you're trying to account for
what? Why did that occur? Okay, so now we're down to 135. Halfway through the project, partial way
through the project it was determined that we should take and do a storm water management project and the
City Council authorized $45,000.00 to be paid from storm water management account to carry out the
construction of this pond. Subtract away that $45,000.00 and we're now down to $90,000.00 to account
for. Of the $90,000.00, $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 of that is directly related to engineering fees.
Councilman Berquist: Well excuse me for a moment. Storm water expansion. We transfer $40,692.00 in
there.
Don Ashworth: $40,692.00, correct.
Councilman Berquist: And yet you're using the number 45.
Don Ashworth: I sure am, aren't I. I think I just rounded it. But Charles, Pam, I mean the $40,692.
Charles Folch: It was an exact number. I can't recall exactly what, it was 40 something.
Don Ashworth: So we kept project costs associated with the construction of that pond and probably the
$40,692.00 is from those records versus my 45.
Charles Folch: It was 40 something. I can't remember exactly. I can check for sure.
Don Ashworth: Then 60-70,000 was again associated with engineering costs. About halfway through
the thing Council made a decision at the very last minute to basically throw away the plans and
specifications and all the rest of the stuff that had gone along with actually constructing the west half of
Chan Estates neighborhood. And the last 20,000 is just because we didn't get money in here on time. We
were in a deficit financing for basically the last 2-3 years.
Councilman Berquist: So those two numbers make up the 94?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well let's see. Yeah, Steve hit most of them. I'm just trying to. Okay, and the 109 out
of the City Hall expansion fund and Nez Perce extension. Is effectively then to pay those legal costs? Is
that what that is?
45
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Don Ashworth: Legal costs and expert testimony so you had Bill Engelhardt did a lot of the design work
associated with the roadway. There was a lot of contention as to the number of trees that were being taken
out of there. We paid more than attorney fees out of that $40,692.00. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute.
Mayor Mancino: 109.
Don Ashworth: $109,811.00.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and so the Nez Perce and the Chanhassen Estates money then coming out of the
City Hall expansion, I mean that's out of that original. I mean that's not the project fund that we've been
dealing with. That's out of the original funds where you were setting aside the money.
Don Ashworth: That was the total project. The project at one point in time had been considered as $2.2
million. We spent $1.2, which is what you've authorized which means we've got a balance in there of
about a million dollars.
Councilman Senn: Let's see, Nez Perce. Okay, and then the Highway 5 corridor and the Highway 101
realignments were simply, those were just transfers that were supposed to take place anyway. They just
haven't occurred yet, correct?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute. One more question. Now from a bookkeeping point of view, sorry
but I want...
Mayor Mancino: That's fine.
Councilman Berquist: From a bookkeeping point of view and we're looking at the City Hall expansion
fund, when these two line items show up, will they be defined?
Don Ashworth: Where you see a definition of them will be in next year's audit review. These cannot get in
for this year's audit. But what you will see this next year is you will see accounts as City Hall expansion,
balance forward $2.3 million. Expanded project, well that would have been. This year you will see the
$1.2 million and you'll see a fund balance there of about, I think $900,000.00. Next year you would see
that $980 coming forward and then you'd probably see down below transfers in and out and along with that
would be the total of these two numbers, assuming that you don't do any other form of enter.
Mayor Mancino: Have we transferred any other money out of that fund?
Don Ashworth: No, but I think it was fairly clear from one of the Council meetings that Councilmember
Senn would like to, and I think it was in the form of a motion. I don't remember. Wanted to see the excess
dollars from City Hall expansion moved up, set, put over into some other type of a fund with a different
name. Don't call it public works expansion. Don't call it fire station. Some capital account and then don't
spend any money out of it.
46
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I think you have the words verbatim.
Don Ashworth: And I think I cautioned Council that I would need, I can go up to what the City Council's
authorized which is the $1,230,000.00, which then right now has a balance of about $50,000.00. So I do
all those things, that account would still have a balance of about $50,000.00 and as soon as we are totally
complete with everything associated with City Hall, our intent is to come back and say okay. You want us
to now move that remaining balance over to this other account.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Can we have a motion then?
Councilman Mason: Move approval of item 1 (d).
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Resolution #97-47: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
Additional Fund Closings & Transfers. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
G. LETTER IN SUPPORT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY APPLICATION FOR ISTEA FUNDING
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 101 FROM HIGHWAY 5 TO
CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY 62.
Mayor Mancino: Questions from Council members on the letter. Councilman Senn. Is that something that
you pulled?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I pulled that. What, let's see here. What year's ISTEA are we talking about
now? 2001 or what?
Mayor Mancino: I thought it was 2000.
Charles Folch: I believe the deadline is July 30th. Either '99 or 2000. The fiscal years go up that year...
with actual funding of July of '98. So it's either '99 or 2000. I can't.
Mayor Mancino: Do you have any concerns with the content of the letter?
Councilman Senn: My basic problem with the letter is the whole thing at this point lacks definition, at
least in my mind as a Council person. You know we talk about that there's an application going in for, but
my question is for what? I mean I've seen absolutely no plans. No concept. No nothing on TH 101 for a
lot of you know kind of little discussions around the edges but I mean we've seen nothing. We talk about in
the letter here we talk about having a neighborhood meeting. Well before we go to a neighborhood meeting
I guess as a Council person I'd at least like to see what the concepts or the plans are that they're going to
show, you know at a neighborhood meeting are. You know so I'd like them to come and show us first and I
guess I'd like to have a discussion on our end before we go have a discussion effectively out with other
people or neighborhood groups or make an application, I mean you know you're kind of saying let's buy
out from the letter to the application but the problem is is I can't tell you what the application's for.
47
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Don Ashworth: I don't see a problem with that. In fact I can amend the letter, I think that Eden Prairie
would appreciate their... I don't think the group would have any problem doing that. I could amend my
letter and say exactly that. I'll first check with Carl and make sure.
Councilman Senn: Has Eden Prairie seen plans? Oh okay.
Don Ashworth: There is no such thing.
Mayor Mancino: There is not a plan.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean there's no, but if there's an application going in, there has to be some kind
of a concept plan.
Don Ashworth: The reason I threw that in there is, in the application section, my concern was that I
wanted to make sure that everyone knew that nobody has approved that particular section. So I mean
they're going to make the application. You've got this typical section in there and I want...to allow them to
make the application. And after using the Eden Prairie City Council... when you get to the point where you
say absolutely not.
Charles Folch: Right. Right around October.
Mayor Mancino: Because it has to be in by June 3rd. I mean.
Charles Folch: July 30th.
Mayor Mancino: July 30th. The application has to be.
Don Ashworth: ... determination we have up through October to say we're withdrawing our application.
We're withdrawing our support. We withdraw our support, we kill the project. All four entities have to
agree.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I think again, if you alter that so effectively we can see it first, and you
know we effectively go out to the neighborhoods afterwards, I think that would make some sense and the
fact that should we, how would I say it. If that could be enjoyed with the other people that have to approve
the same concept, I think that would be good. Because I think we need to reach some meetings of the minds
on that before we go out and talk to neighborhood groups. Otherwise we're going to have different
neighborhood groups getting different, how would you say it, different messages.
Don Ashworth: I went to ask Charles a question.., pose my question publicly and that is, Charles, it was
my belief actually writing that letter, even though knowing that the actual... 1999 or 2000, that our ability
to get early funding for that back through the County... If we advance funded it for construction 1998...
we would be assured that we would get our money back.
Charles Folch: I believe that is correct. I believe there is a provision for advance funding as long as there's
certain criteria that are met. I believe the Fed's will allow that but I can certainly check with Jim to at least
get an idea of the time line, whether it was 1999 or 2000.
48
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Don Ashworth: During all the discussions.., believe that.., and construction in 1998. It would not be
severely impacted. Maybe we have to move off some but we don't have to wait until the year 2000... I
was trying to do was to keep this thing on an early...
Councilman Senn: No, that's fine. I think let's get together with Grube and get through that so I mean he
understands our messages and we understand his so. I just think that's important before we're endorsing
an application.
Charles Folch: Right. That's why the letter is written to kind of keep it open ended from that standpoint.
Councilman Senn: All right.
Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion then, unless there are other Council members. Councilman Senn, do
you want to make the motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution/t97-48: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the letter in
support of Hennepin County Application for ISTEA funding for the Reconstruction of Highway 101
from Highway 5 to Crosstown Highway 62. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO WELL NO. 7~ PROJECT 94-3.
Councilman Berquist: I pulled it and here's why. There's no way I can vote for it. I mean I don't know
how long this well, how long has this well been in operation?
Charles Folch: Well, we've had it on line for probably 2 ½, almost 3 months now.
Councilman Berquist: And now we're going, I mean this change order. Has the work been completed?
Charles Folch: No.
Councilman Berquist: Administrative only. 3 months later we're going in and making some corrections.
We have electrical devices that are in the building that are protected by many different controls. We have a
concrete block building with a concrete floor, concrete walls and a concrete roof that we previously
approved spending $2,500.00 to sprinkle. I can't approve another $2,600.00 on it. I mean I pulled it
because I don't agree with it. It's codes run wild and it's ridiculous.
Mayor Mancino: Any other concerns from Council members? Any questions? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Charles, where's the funding coming from for the change order?
Charles Folch: I believe, in review of the numbers, we still will be under what we had estimated from a
project standpoint. From bonding we still will be within our regional funding amount for the project.
49
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay, because I mean it didn't show that one way or the other. But we're still within,
we're still under budget on the change order?
Charles Folch: The only change, the project is 95% complete. 98% complete and this is the only change
order I've got on the project. On a $700,000.00 project you've got $2,000.00 change order so we're well
within the contingency we had figured.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What's our long term liability as a result of this? I mean it's one thing to say
we're going to install this equipment. Now what's it going to cost us per month to monitor it?
Charles Folch: Probably you've got some you know, minimal probably electrical costs in terms of the
computer time monitoring things like that but that's probably pretty minimal in the big scheme of things.
Councilman Senn: So we're going to monitor it ourselves effectively then?
Charles Folch: This system will be hooked up to our overall city SCADA, the telemetry system. So
basically the same controller that goes and checks the status of all our lift stations and all our wells and
such will also be making a check periodically, about every 10 minutes on the status of this supervisory
control valve to make sure, so that if it's activated, the sprinkler heads, if the temperature in the roof, the
average is a certain temperature and the sprinkler heads go off, then it will send a signal, an alarm signal
basically through the SCADA system to page one of the utility operators saying that the sprinkling system
has gone off.
Mayor Mancino: So why would we need an external building alarm system also? To wake up the
neighbors?
Charles Folch: That was an issue that was greatly debated.
Mayor Mancino: And am I a neighbor? I don't want it.
Councilman Senn: Can we undo the debate and just get rid of it?
Charles Folch: That's your decision. And I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Delete the external building alarm system. I mean seriously. Why would we need
it?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's why I asked. I'm kind of wondering. It sounds like you were hooking up
to some kind of an alarm service.
Charles Folch: That was a concern of ours and I guess the compromise was that if we start getting false
alarms in that external alarm system, that it would probably be disconnected real quickly. We don't want
to bother the residents up there. But like I said.
Councilman Berquist: Well if you have a fire, the place will burn down. They've got to know about it.
Councilman Senn: So they can run over with their bucket right?
50
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion on this please and a second.
Councilman Senn: How about move approval of the change order with the condition that the outside alarm
system be deleted.
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-49: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Change
Order No. 2 to Well No. 7, Project 94-3 with the condition that the outside alarm system be deleted.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
Mayor Mancino: We have nothing else on the agenda tonight...
Councilman Senn: We've got the Admin Section.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from the Admin Section?
Councilman Senn: A few. Charles. On the Sheriffs Office thing with the weight patrol seems to be
working out real well. What's the, how would I say it. What's the probability that we'll collect what
percentage of those fines? I assume history has told us something.
Charles Folch: Yeah, I could go back and pull up like last year's. What we had assigned out in fines and
actually, what were actually levied by the judges. I'll find that information for you. It will give us a rough
representation of what we could probably expect for this year again.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the $15,000 that we've got in revenue I mean is a great offset to the $3,800.00
in staff time.
Charles Folch: Actually it's higher than that, isn't it? When you add the two up.
Councilman Senn: Well I was just dealing with the City portion because I assumed we didn't share in the
County portion. Or do we?
Charles Folch: Right. Okay, right.
Councilman Senn: Or do we share in the County portion?
Charles Folch: Yeah we do.
Councilman Senn: I suppose because we brought the equipment or whatever.
Charles Folch: Actually no. These are fines levied so what they're showing is the breakdown in the
amount of tickets and fines levied with the County program which is standard every year and then the
51
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
additional amount which is the Chanhassen that we've hired above and beyond the basic hours that they
would allot to us. We've been allotted a certain amount of hours to us each year on a normal basis and
then we've hired the $3,800.00 that we spent was above and beyond that for additional patrol. Additional
enforcement. So actually the two, the $27,000.00 is what's been levied for Chanhassen. In Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: In fines.
Charles Folch: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But the next time you put a report together, could you put it together with all of
the expenses against it though. I mean including also you know some kind of, on the equipment, that sort
of thing. I mean we want the, remember when we approved the equipment you were going to kind of bring
back to us some kind of an ongoing thing showing how the equipment was going to pay for itself. Now I
assume that equipment has a useful life and has to be replaced at a certain point and that sort of thing so
could you include that in there?
Charles Folch: Sure. Yeah we paid for that last year alone. That was like a $5,000.00 investment that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. No, I remember it was pretty good but I mean that would kind of help put it in
perspective.
Charles Folch: Sure. Yeah, I wasn't aware that this was going in the admin section. I think this came
from the Public Safety Director once he had the information here so, we'll certainly add to it to be able to
give you an idea of what we can expect to receive in revenue based on judgments.
Councilman Senn: Oops, Don left. I saw the letter in here on Kerry which was kind of nice. That she
passed her exam but now does that mean we lose her?
Mayor Mancino: No, she just. Well, that isn't how I read it but I don't know that.
Councilman Berquist: She's marketable.
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean we don't have a position as a police. I mean I assume she doesn't
want to be a community service officer anymore, right? I mean once she's licensed.
Mayor Mancino: I mean I can't answer that.
Councilman Senn: I was just curious if that's what it meant, I don't know. In our schedule on scheduling
there for July 7th we had something for Peter Olin and staff to give us a presentation. What's that on?
Mayor Mancino: On what the Arboretum is doing. On next Monday at our work session, we'll have the
rest of July filled in and August on some of the strategic areas that we're going to start talking about. So
that hasn't been.., those will be filled in.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then let's see here. On the Todd Christopherson memorandum, again
Don's not here but I, the memorandum seems to be asking us to approve a change order. I mean is that
going to come in separately? I assume the change order isn't being requested to be approved as a part of
the administrative packet.
52
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: I figured that was a contingency expense. I didn't ask him about it. I asked him
about a couple of the subs that looked like they were getting replaced. He wasn't really...
Mayor Mancino: He's coming in now. Don, Councilman Senn asked a question...
Councilman Senn: Two things Don, just real quick. Terry's thing. It was great she passed and she's a
licensed, or going to be a licensed peace officer. Now does that mean we lose her? I was just curious how
that works.
Don Ashworth: Well she has that much more of an opportunity to be employed by other departments.
Councilman Senn: Because now she can be, rather than a community service officer she can be a full
police officer or whatever.
Don Ashworth: Sure. She can take and move from $8.00 or $9.00 an hour up to $35,000.00. An hour.
Councilman Senn: The last thing from Todd Christopherson, he used a memo or whatever. He's asking
for a change order for changes as it relates to the budget and stuff. I assume that's, I mean is that
something that's coming in to us as a separate action or what?
Don Ashworth: No. As far as I was concerned, that was something that was needed to be done. I haven't
signed anything but I guess I was intending once he sends over the amendment, I was just going to sign it. I
can't remember the details.
Mayor Mancino: Well when it's sod, an extra, what is it? $30,000.00 worth of sod or.
Don Ashworth: I think they miscalculated the square footage associated with that. That's the way I read
it.
Mayor Mancino: It was a lot of sod.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, there was $3,800.00 in sod. $1,600.00 for something else and 205 on the
retaining wall. But the retaining wall I thought had already come in.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, the retaining wall we had already said yes to.
Councilman Berquist: And we budgeted for 15 as I recall.
Don Ashworth: I had put it in at 15. In fact the number we were looking back at that time I think was
closer to 12.5 but I think now we've lost the first bidder on that and so Todd's going back to the second
and third and so maybe my number isn't going to be all that bad. I'd still like to do it for.
Councilman Berquist: Well I was hoping that was the 15 for the retaining wall budget. 12.5 plus sod...
Don Ashworth: Well hopefully we'll achieve that too.
Mayor Mancino: And we're still within budget.
53
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okey doke.
Mayor Mancino: Feel comfortable with that Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No, but it's immaterial. We're not being asked to approve it so.
Mayor Mancino: That's it. See you next Monday night.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to adjourn the meeting.
adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
The meeting was
54