Loading...
CC Minutes 1997 08 25CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2S, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn. Councilman Mason arrived during the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Resolution #97-64: Accept Street & Utility Improvements in Knob Hill, Project 96-10. f. Approval of Bills. g. City Council Minutes dated August 11, 1997 as amended by Councilman Senn on page 24. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 6, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 29, 1997 h. Resolution #97-65: Resolution Approving Public Action of Tax Forfeited Lands. j. City Code Amendment Requiring Developers to Reimburse the City for Updating City Base Maps, GIS Data Base Files, and Converting Plat and Record Drawings; First Reading. k. Resolution #97-66: Set Assessment Hearing Dates for Capital Improvement Projects. 1. Authorize Advertising for Bids, Holly Lane, Water Quality Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. E. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK. Councilman Senn: Given the new comments that we got in tonight, as well as all the changes basically to the approved draft previously, I guess as we talked about in the brief session, I think it would make sense to probably table this tonight. I don't know, what does that do to you guys from a timing standpoint if it gets moved to the next meeting? Fred Richter: ... we need it to pull the building permit... City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Senn: And what have you got permit wise so far? Fred Richter: Site grading. If we could get the foundation permit it would be okay... As a matter of fact we need the developer contract to... Councilman Senn: Wouldn't foundation allow you to do that anyway? Fred Richter: No. So I'm making myself clear. To our understanding through staff, and City Engineer, the development agreement, final plat recorded to pull a permit and do the public improvements of the contract which is the storm sewer paralleling 82nd. Charles, isn't that correct? Charles Folch: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay Charles, could we simply go ahead and give them a permit to do that on the foundation and act on the agreement next meeting? Charles Folch: I guess I'd refer that to Roger in terms of what our exposure is if we don't have a plat and development contract that's officially recorded. Roger Knutson: I don't have much concern about the foundation. I do have some concern about utilities, public utilities starting to be put in because the development contract spells out how they'd be put in and security and items like that. If we don't have that in place and they decided to do something different, or did something different, it could be. Don Ashworth: Councilman Senn was basically saying, just the foundation. Not anything else. Roger Knutson: I have no problem with the foundation. Councilman Senn: Okay, could you live with that, with the foundation and start the sewer in two weeks? Howard Dahlgren: Mayor, members of Council, I'm Howard Dahlgren. You know the weather's been terrible out there... Mayor Mancino: Too soon. Well I feel very comfortable with the foundation, going ahead with the foundation being put in. I don't know the public utilities and I don't feel comfortable with this contract. There are many changes that have been made and some of them are big issues for me. One is on the parks and that whole area. The other is on the traffic. Not the traffic signals. I understand that that isn't happening on Phase I but the lighting, etc. There are just, and then with the new changes that we just got, that we just received tonight, I don't feel comfortable going ahead with this at this point. Roger Knutson: Mayor, excuse me. Mayor. Just thinking.., all the information. I think what Howard just said, I mean assuming you have a typical builder with the financing. I don't know anything about this but assuming it's a typical builder who needs financing. No one is going to close on financing for a building until there's a deed recorded and a plat, first the plat and then a deed recorded. They're not going to advance funds, they don't want anyone going out and messing on that site until their mortgage is recorded. So I would guess as a practical matter, even if you allow them to go ahead with the foundation, they won't be able to. If I'm wrong. City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well, the only other thing I could suggest is let's move it to the end of the meeting and we're going to go through it in detail but it's going to take a lot of time. I mean I know you have quite a few comments on it. Roger Knutson: Perhaps if you would like, we couldn't work it all out. Mayor Mancino: Or why don't we, we could put it on the workshop, work session for next Monday and in-between the time. Councilman Senn: Can we continue this as kind of an item and then act on it at the work session? Roger Knutson: You can do that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it would be a week? Is there a motion? Or other comments. Fred Richter: While we're all focusing on the issues, we responded with staff comments and.., relatively late and I know.., that was just some legal clarification. Nothing that really altered anything, to our understanding .... give us a little more insight into the issues. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Roger Knutson; If you don't want to take up more meeting time on this, if you wanted to, you briefed Charles and myself on at least most of your concerns. We could go out in the other room now and discuss those concerns with them.., if we can work them out, fine. If not, then you can. Mayor Mancino: Okay. That would be fine with me. Other Council members? Okay. I'm comfortable with that. Councilman Senn: So we just leave that sitting on the agenda for the time being, okay. Mayor Mancino: Right. And you know most of those concerns? Roger Knutson: I know what you said. If you have something else I don't know. Mayor Mancino: Are there any other concerns that Council members had? I know that during our work sessions we reviewed some of them. Councilman Berquist: The questions that I wanted to ask about, I tried to ask about today were lighting, street lighting, and the park dedication and cost. Those seem to be different than what we had originally agreed on. If my memory's faulty, that's fine. And I have not seen the changes that were. Mayor Mancino: I haven't even read the changes so I can't tell you whether I agree with these or not. I mean this is, this is finally at Planning Commission when we had developers come in at the last minute at the meeting and go through 42 new points. Now we just won't do it. It doesn't give us the time to do our City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 due diligence and fulfill our responsibilities. Council members to review development contract which is a very important contract between the City and the developer. Roger Knutson: I haven't seen the changes or know about them until now so I can't comment. Councilman Berquist: Where were the changes generated? At the developers or at the City's behest? Mayor Mancino: The applicant. Councilman Berquist: All right. Fred Richter: ... everything's been mutually agreed upon between ourselves and staff... Mayor Mancino: Well why don't you go ahead and then we'll continue. Thank you. Councilman Mason, did you have, I'm sorry. Did you have any input? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay. I. SIGN PLAN REVIEW FOR A PYLON MONUMENT AND WALL SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 101 AND 212; PAWS, CLAWS AND HOOVES PET BOARDING. Mayor Mancino: Before we go ahead, is the applicant here? Paws, Claws and Hooves. Okay, you are here so we'll go ahead and try and talk about this right now and not wait until later on in the meeting. We can get to it now for you. Staff report please. Or should we have a staff report? Yes. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Just a quick background. On September 23rd of last year you approved a site plan for the construction of a commercial stable and a commercial kennel. One of the conditions of approval at the time was a complete sign plan be submitted to the City for review and approval by Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has submitted plans for their signage and that's what you're taking action on today. They are proposing one monument sign that meets all ordinance requirements. 24 square feet in height, 5 feet. 24 square feet in area, 5 feet tall. Proposed to be located at the entrance of TH 101 into the site. They're also proposing a wall mounted sign. The ordinance permits 234 square feet. The applicant is proposing a sign band with 24 inch illuminated channel letters. Approximately 100 square feet, which meets ordinance requirements. Briefly on the wall mounted signs. One of the issues that was discussed at the Planning Commission was a suggestion by the applicant that they not be locked in to the sign band. For instance if they wanted to stack the letters, they would be permitted to do so. If the City Council wanted to allow that flexibility, then condition 3 on page 4 would need to be changed accordingly. The third sign is a free standing sign. Originally in September of '96 we didn't have a design for the sign. We didn't know what it was going to look like. Staff recommended a 24 square foot sign area, not to exceed 15 feet in height. The applicant has picked out a new design. They are proposing a 69.8 square feet sign area, 16 feet tall. And it's proposed to be located 40 feet from the front property line. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Sharmin. Before the applicant comes up, I just have one question. Do we have a drawing of the wall sign? Or do we have a line drawing or rendering? City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Sharmin A1-Jaff: It is attached to your staff. It is attached to the staff report. It should be 3 or 4 pages from the end. Mayor Mancino: I see the monument sign, thank you. Councilman Senn: But where's the sign? Mayor Mancino: Where it says no wall mounted sign. Sharmin A1-Jaff: It says Paws, Claws and Hooves Boarding. Mayor Mancino: But it doesn't say what side of the building. Councilman Senn: Oh the, oh okay. All right. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Ed Dousette: I'm Ed Dousette .... Sign and I'm the one who's put this package together so I think it's probably best that I be talking because I know what's going on. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Councilman Berquist: I've got a question on the drawing. The wall mounted sign, where we're talking about stacking. I'm assuming Paws, Claws and Hooves Boarding as opposed to one straight line across would be Paws, Claws, Hooves and Boarding. Ed Dousette: There was no creativity done. We did this just to meet the criteria and in terms hold the space. Absolutely no creativity has gone into...the letters yet. I mean this is future, down the road but might as well get the whole criteria approved and we can come back and deal with staff to make sure. Councilman Berquist: There's an eave light that's noted on that sketch. Is that a down light from the eave that would light these letters? I mean there's something in here that says, individual channel letters, illuminated channels. Ed Dousette: Everything submitted and everything according to your codes would be individual channel letters backed up with neon. Councilman Berquist: Is that eave light just a, does that just let light into the barn? Okay. No further questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I just have a couple of staff at this point, just to make sure I've got some things in my head. In the business fringe district, under our ordinance they're allowed one monument sign and one wall mounted sign and that's it. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We... street frontage on the wall mounted sign. City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: So they're allowed one wall mounted sign per street frontage and one monument sign? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And no pylon sign in our business fringe district. Number two. This land use is guided, as we continue to rework on this at the end of last year. The land use for this area is guided for office industrial. Okay. So in the future, down in that area around it, as it develops and changes hands, it will go to an office industrial land use in that area. And there's also, I want to say to the east of it, there will be some area for mixed use. Kind of a mixed use area or is that high density residential? Sharmin A1-Jaff: High density residential. Mayor Mancino: It will be high density residential. So I'm just again saying this so that you know we've got some guidance and some plan here now for this land use, which will change very significantly from what it is today. You can bring that up as we consider this. Any other? Councilman Senn: Sharmin, I just want to, I want to make sure I understand. The proposal that's before us tonight, okay, is basically two wall signs. Sharmin A1-Jaff: One wall sign. Mayor Mancino: One on the stable. Sharmin A1-Jaff: On the kennel. Mayor Mancino: Oh is it on the kennel, not the stable? Stable. Because that's where you can, that's what you can see, it's predominant. There's nothing in front of it. Councilman Senn: So you have one wall mounted on the stable. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And those are the lit, or proposed to be the lit letters. Okay, and then there's also an outside light band above that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's an eave light. Councilman Berquist: But it just lets light into the barn. Councilman Senn: But it just lights? Councilman Berquist: It doesn't light. It's not mechanically lit. Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. So that's not a light. That's a window effectively. Okay. And then there's going to be, so you have one wall mounted sign. On this table we have one monument sign. Sharmin A1-Jaff: At the entrance off of TH 101. City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Senn: At the entrance on TH 101 and you have one pylon sign being requested on 212 then. Okay. And the ordinance allows on pylon, well I mean the ordinance doesn't allow anything on the pylon, correct? And on the monument sign, 24 square feet and they're proposing 24 square feet and on the wall mounted sign, the ordinance allows them? Sharmin A1-Jaff: 224 square feet. They are proposing tee. Councilman Senn: And they're doing tee. Okay. Councilman Berquist: Excuse me. Now I'm confused. We're approving three signs? Councilman Senn: Yes. And if you were, I'm sorry. I need to think faster when I was doing it but now tell me the industrial again. What does the ordinance require under industrial? Or allow under industrial? Sharmin A1-Jaff: 80 square feet. Councilman Senn: On which? Sharmin A1-Jaff: On industrial. Councilman Senn: 80 square feet on the wall sign, is what you're saying. Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, on the pylon sign. Councilman Senn: So 80 square feet on a pylon sign. How much on a monument? If it were I. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I believe it's 64 square feet... Mayor Mancino: I think it's 64 too. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's fine. Close enough. And how about the wall mounted? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Depends on the size of the building. A certain percentage. Councilman Senn: Okay. All right. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here wishing to address the City Council on this issue? Seeing none, comments from commissioners. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well I guess, I mean I don't have a problem with the monument sign as it's proposed. I guess I don't have a problem with the wall sign as it's proposed, with the back lighting, but I do have a problem with, I can't really see any real reason to grant the variance and provide the pylon sign. Basically between the entrance monument and the backlit sign on the side of the stable, it's going to be visible from everywhere so I don't really see a need to vary, or hardship to vary to allow for additional signage. Councilman Mason: I certainly agree with Mark's first two points. Knowing that area, with what you said and rightfully so about how things are going to be changing, I'm a little, I tend to agree with Mark but I City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 guess I'm not quite as convinced as he is yet on that one. So I guess I'd like to hear what you two folks have to say about the pylon sign as well. Mayor Mancino: Well one of the things, do you mind if I just talk for a second? Councilman Berquist: No, go ahead. Mayor Mancino: One of the things that I did on Sunday was I took a trip in this area and you know I came back to see what we had guided it, to check myself, and then I went on Highway 5 and said what do we allow on Highway 5. What's there and what's existing, and you know it's a fairness issue. To make sure that again we treat 212 just like a Highway 5, for a major corridor through the city. And a couple things I found. First in the office industrial, nobody uses a pylon sign. All the business parks, etc. are monument. Now a lot of them are PUDs and so we've had them do monument signs and this is a conditional use, which we could write in as a condition of just a monument sign. The other thing is that the pylon signs that are there which you know are Target, Perkins, the Roman Roos building. I don't know what that is but anything that's been done the last 5 years, it doesn't have the traditional pylon look, you know with the two. It has a base like a base that's made out of material of the building. It will be like a monument base almost. Like brick, etc. It certainly has a more modem, up to date feel of the pylon sign as it's base. So would we see this sign on Highway 5? I don't think so. So I tried to kind of, because this area will develop and it will have a high use. My other concern was having both a wall sign and a pylon sign. I mean I just think that it's either a pylon or a wall sign for 212. And just to have the two signs. Otherwise I think we've done a very good job of making sure that commercial places, I mean this is a destination place. I mean you, in the telephone book, you ask your friends where can I board, etc. You're just not driving by and have impulse buying. I think that the city and the citizens are concerned about aesthetics and what's on their corridors and I think we've done a real good job. So I wouldn't want to deviate from that. When you go down 212 right now, part of the problem with 212 and I mean we have parked cars, we have all sorts of things, were some of the old signage. The old pylon signs. So I kind of, I want to make sure that we treat 212 as we would... That's my over riding concern. Councilman Berquist: Makes sense to me. When I looked at the report I was a little bit confused, as is probably evident. Let me get this straight. We approved a variance when we did the initial plat. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Berquist: For the pylon sign. That was a condition of approval requested by the applicant and we acquiesced. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: But it was a different measurement than this one. When City Council. Councilman Berquist: But wait a minute. We have not seen a, the way I'm understanding this. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We didn't have a design for a sign to review so therefore we used the same dimension as the monument sign permitted in the BF district. We just added height to it. Councilman Berquist: I'm still, I still think that I'm mixed up. I understand the lighting on the stable. I don't have any problem with that. If another sign on Highway 212 goes in. This sign that I'm looking at City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 here, again I was looking at this as being the entrance, the sign that was going on TH 101. So currently there is no sign being proposed for the TH 101 entrance. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There is. Councilman Berquist: There is? Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's this one. Mayor Mancino: So it's the same one except that it's lower. And it doesn't have the H on the top, or I'm sorry, the horseshoe. Councilman Berquist: Horseshoe. That's where I got confused. Okay. All right. And unless I could be convinced that there is an absolutely compelling reason to approve two signs that are visible from Highway 169, I would have a difficult time approving it. Voting for approval. Ed Dousette made a statement that was not picked up on tape. Councilman Berquist: But this one won't be lit, right? This sign. Mayor Mancino: So it will be lit? Councilman Senn: You just think that's wood. It's really plastic, right? Ed Dousette: That is painted. There will be metal poles, lexan facing. What we're doing is we will create.., and make a wood finish. Councilman Senn: Right, it's fox wood. Ed Dousette: It will be translucent. Councilman Berquist: All right. Well now it's becoming clear. So if in fact, if you want, in our infinite wisdom if we say two signs only, it's likely going to be the pylon and the main entrance sign and the other one will go away. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Let me give you my last concerns, or my last comments and then other members can speak up. Number one, on the monument sign on TH 101, I would like to make sure, pulling out of the driveway is not the easiest thing to do on TH 101 because of the sight lines so I would like to make sure and add a condition, and first I'll explain it and then I'll state the condition. That the monument sign be out of way. Not be in that, you know 10 foot setback. That it'd be further removed and I'm sure the applicant and our engineers, staff can work on sight lines because I'm very concerned that that will stick up and people sitting in their cars won't be able to get out of TH 101, and that's for public safety concern. So I would like to say that the street sight triangle regulations shall apply to the monument sign location on the intersection of the private driveway and TH 101. Secondly, the pylon sign, the variance has been granted. I would only, let's see the pylon signs, I would like to have it keep to 15 feet. I would be okay with a 64 square foot signage. It would need to be redesigned for me with a different base using the materials, the brick of the building. Come back for redesign and then I would not approve the wall sign. So I would strike condition 3 and not have a wall sign. It is also going in the drainage ditch or the pond and is that a City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 concern of ours and is there a reason for it? Could the applicant, I'm sorry I didn't ask you this. Why is it going in the. Nancy Lee: ... located in the drainage ditch.., on the edge. Mayor Mancino: On the west edge? Nancy Lee's statement from the audience was not picked up on tape. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and it's not in road right-of-way, correct? Nancy Lee's statement from the audience was not picked up on tape. Mayor Mancino: It is there in that area, just so the Council members know, it's very open. You can see the sign. You can even see the sign, the little Lester sign, Lester Engineering sign that's there right now that's only 4 feet tall so it's not as if there's not a lot of visibility because there is but I'm very concerned about what we start putting in there now. Councilman Mason: Well it's a precedent. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it really is. Can I have other remarks from discussion around that? I wouldn't approve. Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I'm still, I've still got to, I mean I understand that we don't want to set a precedent that we can't live with other projects as 212 develops. And I look at this monument, this pylon sign and I try to envision driving by on 169 and having that thing staring me in the face, and then I also try to envision the back lit letters mounted on the building, looking out on the road and I would think that, if I were the owner of the facility I would feel much more inclined to have my letters on the building and lit, because you've got, I mean you've got a building there. Your identifying a building. The pylon sign is out there closer to the highway but significantly away from the structure itself. And I hate to sound like the taste police but I would think from an aesthetic point of view the sign contractor would be arguing in favor of the building mounted sign as opposed to the pylon mounted sign. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, you can come up Nancy. Nancy Lee: To be quite honest, what we originally were looking at was the entrance sign, monument sign on TH 101 and a pylon sign. The wall mounted sign came up when staff had directed the sign company to put everything together and put it all in one big package so... go through one, and not several times. On 212, if we were to just put letters on the building, the only people that are going to see that are the people coming from Shakopee. The people from Chaska and the people from like the Eden Prairie area, they're coming this way past it. They're not looking back this way at a sign, and if they are.., so for us to put just letters on our building is not going to, it's going to be such limited viewing of our... That's why we originally when we went through the process, went through getting the variance on the pylon sign because we do need it where all people can see it. You know directions. Not just coming from Shakopee. Councilman Berquist: And you don't consider yourself a destination business? In other words, when people are coming to you, they're coming to you. They're not, they're heading for Paws, Claws, and Hooves. They're not heading for the motel and oh gee, I've got to get rid of this dog or whatever. 10 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Nancy Lee: Right. It's not going to be a whim thing usually but also nobody knows about us yet. We're a brand new company. So if I don't get my name out there, I may not be a brand new company for long. I might be a gone company. And that's why we tried to find the best location, being 212 and that's why I applied for the pylon sign because we do want our name seen. And there are other pylon signs along those roadways. Evidently our taste is different than everyone else. We thought we were putting up a very nice, classy sign. Councilman Berquist: Well, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I mean yeah, I think you are and I think the type of sign that you're proposing is in keeping with the business that you're in and so I mean I think that's great. Nancy Lee: That's what we tried to do. Councilman Berquist: Okay. The square footage of this sign currently is 5 ½ by 10 so within that 64 square feet. Mayor Mancino: 69. Councilman Berquist: 69.5. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The area of the logo is included within that. Councilman Berquist: As it should be. Nancy Lee: We also put some thought into that sign in reference to, we first wanted to put our logo up there but felt that it would be too distracting for motorists to try to look at a logo and decide who you are and what you're doing. It was too much. So we went to strictly the name in an effort to not, of trying to be less of a hazard for people. Councilman Berquist: So the top piece to the pylon sign is gone. Nancy Lee: That's our logo. No, that's. Mayor Mancino: That's what they'd like to include. Nancy Lee: We originally looked at the whole sign being the logo but felt that because it would be more distracting to traffic than simply your names. To read Paws, Claws and Hooves Boarding is pretty simplistic and they're not going to be craning their neck to look at it more. So we tried to put as much thought into you know safety and everything else in this sign but yet still have our name out there. We need to get known. Councilman Berquist: And I really don't mean to make as big a deal of this as I am but that is an area that is going to change dramatically within the next 10 to 15 years. Anything we do now gets done later. Nancy Lee: We've had the property for 10 years and we've been trying to build on it for 10 years so I guess we thought we had a good use but, if you're looking at the difference between the signs, we definitely, our pylon is a definite must and that's why we went for the variance before. Thank you. 11 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Berquist: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Sharmin, was the variance predicated on our seeing and approving the design of the sign? Or did we give a variance regardless of, we said these are the measurements you can have. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We didn't have a design... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Boy. Just when you think something's easy. Yeah, because I don't very often find myself sitting kind of right in the middle of the fence. I wish I knew what it was going to look like 10 years from now down there. Or 2 years. I mean. Mayor Mancino: It's going to be gorgeous. Councilman Mason: Well it's going to be very nice and I understand the need for the visibility and I guess I certainly agree with the applicant when they say well yeah, we are a destination but we're also very new and people don't know about us so they want that identification too. I honestly don't know right now. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I told you before what I thought. I haven't changed what I thought. I guess I can tell you what I think reality is. Reality is the number of people on a previous City Council decided to approve a variance without seeing it so I think you're stuck with it. So I think you're stuck with the pylon sign and I think you're pretty much forced to go with the position of the pylon sign and the monument sign and scratch the wall sign. I don't know else you're going to do it, since you've already promised the variance. Or at least a majority of the Council at the time promised the variance. And so I think that kind of becomes the reality you're stuck with at this point so you can pick between giving three signs. You can pick between giving two but if you're going to give two, you pretty much have to give the monument. The only issue becomes do you want to make it so big and do you want to make it so tall. Mayor Mancino: And I would, as I said, I would be in favor of the two signs, the pylon and the monument and then as far as going up in square footage to 64 square feet would be fine. The height being 15 and then just to redesign the base. It doesn't have, in fact our, they call it pole covers in our sign ordinance and they're supposed to aesthetically match the building and the structural support should not be exposed so again building more of a base on this. So for that, for redesign of that I would be fine. But then it does stay more into our sign ordinance. With that may I have a motion. Ed Dousette: Excuse me Your Honor, may I speak? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Ed Dousette: ...talking about... Mayor Mancino: But you also have another building on there. This is the sign for both the kennel and the building. One of them has brick on it. It might be workable to do a brick base, or you could come back and show us some sort of base that would look good. Aesthetically good. 12 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Ed Dousette: I'm just trying to make sure I understand. Mayor Mancino: Most of the time if you go through Park City, if you go you know to Perkins or Target, or Byerly's, etc., they have used the material which is on the building. Now I'm not sure we'd want sheet metal but something that would be an attractive base could be put on this sign. I mean I would be okay with that if the rest of the Council would be. Sure, I understand. That's a good question. Any other discussion from Council members? May I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: ... better than most of us. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I move that the City Council, under the recommendation approve sign plan #97-1 as shown on plans dated July 18, 1997 with the following conditions, and these are from the Planning Commission. Number 1 and 2 stands as is. Number 3 is deleted. There is no wall sign. Number 4 through 13 stands. Number 14 is a new one that says street sight triangle regulations shall apply to the monument sign location on the intersection of the private driveway and TH 101. And number 15. That the pylon sign shall be no more than 15 feet in height. That the signage is 64 square feet and that the base be redesigned so that the structural supports are not exposed. And that the coverage should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the building. Councilman Senn: Does that mean metal's okay then? Mayor Mancino: And that metal is not okay. And I would like to say that the applicant and staff shall work out the design and the use of materials. Councilman Berquist: How about, would you accept a combination of metal and face brick? Isn't there face brick along the perimeter? Mayor Mancino: There's face brick on the kennel. Councilman Senn: Well it's rock face block. It's block. Councilman Berquist: Combination of metal and face brick. Mayor Mancino: Yes, Sharmin. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Can we add another condition of approval, just for clarification for the future that wall mounted signs are not permitted. Mayor Mancino: So number 3 will say wall mounted signs are not permitted. Okay, thank you. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Mancino: All those in favor signify. Councilman Senn: Wait, excuse me. If I could, just a question first. 13 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: You bet. Roger's not here. Don, I don't know, Sharmin, do you know. I mean how many votes does this require on a variance? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The variance has been approved... Councilman Senn: All right. So I assume a simple majority then. Okay. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan #97-1 as shown on plans dated July 18, 1997, with the following conditions: 1. Both buildings (commercial kennel and stable) shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Both buildings (commercial kennel and stable) shall share one pylon sign. One pylon sign per lot. The sign shall be subject to the dimensions and location proposed by the applicant. 3. Wall signs shall not be permitted. 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 6. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section north or west of the site. 8. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted as wall mounted signs as specified on the proposed plans. 9. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. 10. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 11. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. 12. These conditions shall be recorded with Carver County and added as an addendum to the site plan agreement. Staff will prepare the agreement which must be signed by the applicant. 13. Any changes in the sign band must be reviewed by staff. Any significant alteration shall be brought back to the Planning Commission. 14. Street sight triangle regulations shall apply to the monument sign location on the intersection of the private driveway and TH 101. 14 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 15. That the pylon sign shall be no more than 15 feet in height. That the signage is 64 square feet and that the base be redesigned so that the structural supports are not exposed. The coverage should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the building. The applicant and staff shall work out the design and the use of materials. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON REFERENDUM OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION, TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, MIKE MOORE. Mike Moore: Mayor Mancino. Members of the City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll be very brief. This is a quick update to report back on the progress which we have been working toward. Basically as far as acquiring open space for the park system, we have made significant progress. The number one priority parcel of land, the owner of that parcel and the trust for public land have come to an agreement. We're in the process of hashing out and fine tuning the details of that and I am optimistic that very soon we will be able to report to you that we do have control of the site and will be able to proceed to allow the city to acquire it. Of course one of the upcoming steps is obtaining an appraisal and of course we will be sharing the results of that appraisal with you provided with a copy. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Michael? Council members. Councilman Berquist: We're talking about one piece or a series of pieces or? Mike Moore: The City has outlined, or has designated a priority list and we have begun negotiations with the number one parcel and then once we have a good handle on that we will proceed to other parcels. We didn't want to begin negotiating for the other parcels in that we didn't have a good idea of how much of the funds would be available for the second, third, fourth and fifth parcels and so forth. Councilman Berquist: So we're in the appraisal process now? Mike Moore: No. We are on the verge of the appraisal process. Technically the first step is to firm up in writing the agreement which TPL has with the property owner. Then the appraisal will be forth coming and we'll provide copies to City Council. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Michael. Great, wonderful. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A "NO WAKE" ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON LAKES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, FIRST AND SECOND READING. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESTRICT CERTAIN BOATING ACTIVITIES WHEN LAKE LEVELS REACH A SPECIFIED LEVEL. LAKES AFFECTED WOULD BE LOTUS, MINNEWASHTA, LUCY, SUSAN AND RILEY. Phillip Elkin: Thank you Mayor. The ordinance responded to the large amount of rainfall we have gotten this year and the rising water levels on city lakes. What this effectively does, what you're looking at right now is an emergency ordinance that will immediately, if passed tonight, restrict boating activities on lakes in which the water is at a certain level. No wake means you must operate your boat in a manner and speed that's not going to cause any wake or waves that will be damaging to the shoreline. In talking to Roger, this emergency if passed tonight will be in effect for, effective immediately for 45 days. 15 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Roger Knutson: Excuse me, after DNR approval. Phillip Elkin: It would have to have that DNR approval, okay thank you. But we also have the option of using this as a first reading for the regular ordinance, is that? Mayor Mancino: For the permanent. Phillip Elkin: For the permanent ordinance, right. The lake levels are determined by looking at the ordinary high water levels as established by the DNR and also the 100 year flood elevation levels. These are above the ordinary high water level which is the basis for DNR regulation. That's most shoreline, rip rap rock, sand blanket or dock are based on the ordinary high water level and so when it gets above the ordinary high water level, that's when erosion can occur. Any questions? Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple. First of all, what are the lakes at right now? I mean are they 2 inches above this no wake elevation? Are they 10 inches? Phillip Elkin: We don't have an exact way of telling right now. The DNR, what they do is they have a program where they volunteer to take water level readings. They put in a temporary monumentation. The homeowners in their yards, in their lakes and the homeowner calls in every week and gives them a specific, tells them a reading that's on the sign. Then the DNR calculates what the water level is based on this reading. So right now Lotus Lake, the elevation could be at 896.6 feet above sea level but the sign in the lake will read something like 55. Or 56 and that's what the DNR will have to... because they don't have the exact sign or exact measurements for the level. They just have a rough idea of the pattern of movement of the lake. So they don't have, it's not an exact, right now but if we were to pass this ordinance, then we're going to put some permanent monumentation at the public access identifying ordinary high water level. Identifying the no wake level and once it reaches that, then we can put in a no wake, similar to what we have now with the wake sign. Mayor Mancino: And Phil, we're going to do this this fall? Is that when? Phillip Elkin: Yeah, we can get started on it right away. Mayor Mancino: Who is responsible to read it? Phil, okay. Phillip Elkin: No, I would. Councilman Senn: He likes it. Mayor Mancino: Can I go and read the lake? Phillip Elkin: I'd have to get in the water actually to tell how high it was. No. The Carver County Sheriff's Department would be, as they're responsible for all regulatory activity on lakes. Or they could be assigned to monitor the lakes. They're out periodically. Or we could. Mayor Mancino: Let's just make sure that we have a process so that someone from the City is the trigger to start this going and that person knows the roles and responsibilities that they have to enact this. 16 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Phillip Elkin: Yeah, and I think if we get a lot of rain, then you know to go out and check it. Mayor Mancino: That one person has to have it. We've got to have a designated. Councilman Mason: Designated driver so to speak. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments or questions? Councilman Berquist: The concern that I have is that we're creating something that's virtually unenforceable so... being discussed. Phillip Elkin: Right. It's been put into place on Lake Minnetonka. I think it's just, the best enforcement is public awareness of what's going on in the lake and what problems it causes and if we can get a monumentation, get a sign up that identifies cases like Minnewashta, areas where you can resume normal boating activity towards the middle of the lake, I think... Or we can have a policy of calling up the newspaper also. Saying no wake is in effect. Mayor Mancino: ... Councilman Mason, any questions? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: No questions, just as I'm understanding what you're saying, effectively you have to work off of the normal high water mark because otherwise the DNR can't control? Phillip Elkin: The DNR, the ordinary high. There's normal water level, ordinary high water level and 100 year flood high water level. No, underneath the ordinary high water level, that's what the DNR has regulation. The ordinary high water level is what the DNR considers to be under normal circumstances the lake, what they expect the lake to fluctuate between very low and ordinary high water. Councilman Senn: And there's really no way to gauge, I'm going to say where that point is now then in relationship to the lake so. Phillip Elkin: Other than contacting the DNR and they can give an approximate of where it is based on the readings, right. But there's no concrete, we don't have any monumentation that is surveyed and 100% accurate. That's just as to the lake. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't know what the good answer is. I just, one thing that's starting to concern me is not knowing that, I guess what do we accomplish or what don't we accomplish. One of my concerns is, I know erosion's been a real problem for example on the lake that I live on, Lotus, for well over a month, what month and a half. Month, month and a half now. But again at the same time I couldn't tell you from this whether if I go back and talk to the people who complained, whether I've said we've solved their problem or not because I don't know where it hits. Mayor Mancino: But we will be able to after we put the monumentation in. Phillip Elkin: Exactly. Ithink. 17 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Mason: But it's a step in the right direction. I mean I don't think this is going to be fixed overnight but I think we're heading into an area. Phillip Elkin: And that's the, if we had an ordinance in effect prior to this. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, then we would know for sure. Phillip Elkin: Right, and as to what can be accomplished by, from here to the end of the year, you know I think we have to just get the word out. I mean again it's the best we can do but once we have, we have... Councilman Senn: Then we can tell what's too high and what's too low and gauge from there. Phillip Elkin: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Berquist: But do you need an ordinance to do that? Phillip Elkin: Yeah. We would to get the no wake, right. We don't have to put a sign up...but if this is going to be the no wake. And another thing I had talked about in my memo that we may want to enforce or may want to amend this ordinance once it's, we've seen how it works. Lake Minnetonka uses theirs, it has to read a certain elevation for five consecutive days. They have two different elevations. One elevation has to be there for 5 days. Then the minimum wake gets into effect because the water level fluctuates day to day. The second mark is if it gets to the 2/10th of a foot above that, then it's automatic but we may want to, it depends on how we go about it. In looking at Lotus and Susan, we don't have, they don't drain particularly fast. They have large watersheds and they don't have an outlet that allows for, have a large bounce if what we call it. Large broad base... Mayor Mancino: So in effect what is going to happen right now is that when you go out and when you check the measurement tools that we're going to be using on the lake, that the next day this will go into effect or whenever you say that it's above, we're not going to have a lag time if lakes, if the water goes down. Phillip Elkin: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Unless you see after a summer that my gosh, two days later it's down. Phillip Elkin: But I would imagine if we went out and we said no wake, put a no wake sign out on Monday and someone calls on, you know I'm sure they would, call me on Tuesday. Hey, why is there no wake? It's below the water level. Then we'd have to re-evaluate and say hey look, we can't be going out every day on this and have to see, develop a pattern. Don Ashworth: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, this is a public hearing? Don Ashworth: I don't now, is it under public hearing? 18 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Roger Knutson: Yes. Don Ashworth: For the audience, and especially the newspapers so they understand what it is that, what is before the City Council. We're proposing this evening to go through a first and second reading for an emergency ordinance for the no wake. That would be good for a 45 day period if it's passed by the City Council. The Council has already instructed staff that they would like to proceed with a permanent ordinance but only after we have published that in the newspaper, had an opportunity for citizens to help draft that permanent one. After the Council adopts the permanent, it would then go to the State and take approximately 120 days before we would know whether or not it was approved or not. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mr. Ashworth for making that very clear. This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to address the City Council on this new emergency ordinance that will be in effect for 45 days? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearings. May I have a motion please. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion for the ordinance. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the emergency ordinance, first and second reading and I'll move approval of first reading of the permanent ordinance with the stipulation that we ask the newspaper to get an article in before second reading laying out what's there and ask for comment. And also that we initiate an immediate letter to the other two cities affecting, what is it Riley and Christmas I guess is the other one. And advising them of what we're doing and ask them that they take the same action. Councilman Mason: I will second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve first and second reading of the No Wake Emergency Ordinance and first reading of the permanent No Wake Ordinance with the stipulation that the newspapers get an article in before second reading and ask for public comment. And also that the City initiate an immediate letter to the other two cities affecting Lake Riley and Christmas Lake asking them to take the same action. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING, VACATION NO. 97-4. Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is basically a title clean-up. There was found through the searches that there is an easement that was previously encumbered on this particular property. It is no longer of use. In fact there's probably a lot of the new expansion that has been built is probably sitting on that. There's no future plans of ever extending a public street through that segment there so accordingly, staff would recommend that there is no public need to maintain this easement and staff would recommend vacation accordingly to clean up the title for the property. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and we don't need a trail there or a sidewalk or anything? Charles Folch: Not that I'm aware of. 19 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Senn: I assume we didn't pay the landowner for it in the first place then. I was asked that question. Charles Folch: I couldn't tell you, and if it was, I believe it was a previous owner prior to that I would guess. I don't have any ability to determine that. Roger Knutson: We have nothing to sell. Councilman Senn: No, no. I'm just asking whether we paid for it or not. I'm not asking whether we have anything to sell. Well yes and no. I mean if it's under the building. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion to open the public hearing and a second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mayor Mancino: This is open for public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue? On this vacation of the easement. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion from Council please. Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the vacation request. Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution #97-67: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Vacation #97-4 of Roadway Easement, West of Chanhassen Medical Arts and North of West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 22,500 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; LOT 7, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION (7580 QUATTRO DRIVE); PERIPHERAL TECHNOLOGY, EDEN TRACE CORP. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant is requesting a site plan approval for a 22,500 square foot office warehouse facility. The use is a computer operation that deals with software packages. It is a clean operation. It does not require large truck and does not have late night shifts. The zoning of this site is industrial office park. It is bordered by railroad tracks and a residential neighborhood located in Eden Prairie to the noah. An industrial building to the west and south and Dell Road to the east. The building is proposed to utilize rock face concrete masonry units on all four sides accented by columns, windows and pronounced entrances. Parking for vehicles is located along the east portion of the site. It will be screened from views since the applicant intends to preserve existing vegetation as well as add trees and shrubs along the west and southwest portion of the site. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the property. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. 20 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions for staff at this point? Shouldn't this, very quickly, where was the other landscaping on that west side? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are 9 trees added and shrubs. Mayor Mancino: In-between. And how long is that building, that side of the building? How many feet approximately? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I believe it is over... 240 feet. Mayor Mancino: 240 feet. 9 trees, okay. Thank you. And Sharmin, just one other question. On what we received, the elevations didn't say, is this the west elevation? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it is. Mayor Mancino: This is the west elevation, okay. It just has exterior elevation. I couldn't tell if it was west, and I'm assuming this is the east and this is the south. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay, is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council with materials and all sorts of things? Mark Understad: Mark Understad with Eden Trace. I'm developing the project .... working with staff and going through the report. We have gone through everything on there. We're fine with that. There is one item I'd like to discuss tonight which was, I believe it was 16. The color block versus the painted block. The color scheme.., painted block although the paint.., latex house paint or... Originally we weren't under the impression that we needed to go with color block. We knew we... add architectural pazazz to the project out there which we tried to do with a little more of the jogs and the steps and reveals... Recessing back the windows and the offices back here. And in getting the report last week and putting the color block on there, we did some checking right now and to change the program right now with the color block.., problem issues.., cost of the block and materials. Cost of the project. The biggest is the lead time that we've got a 3 to 6 week lead time because of once we've gone into the project and created all these jogs and step backs and things, there's mold charges every time they have to set up each color block.., so we put in a lot of...put a lot of jogs and steps and accent bands in there which... Everything else, and we've worked fine with staff.., as far as what we could put on the site in order to try to preserve some of the trees on the perimeters out there... Mayor Mancino: Thank you. In response to that. Sharmin, I don't believe, I mean this is a standard for everyone in our city who is developing that we don't allow painted block. Not in industrial areas. Councilman Senn: Not true. Not true. I mean most of the rock face block you see colored is not really colored rock face block. Most of it has been painted with the system he described. It's a way of sealing the block as well as providing the color finish to the building. If you use a rock face block with a color already in it, you still have to put the same system effectively over the building but without a color in it. So I mean it really is immaterial and has no effect on the aesthetics one way or the other. Just a matter of what base material you're starting with so. 21 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Mayor Mancino: last four years. Mayor Mancino: Because I didn't think we did allow painting, have for the last four years. Specific PUDs we don't allow it. Okay, and where would that be? I'm thinking about our industrial parks lately for the Councilman Berquist: Lake Drive West. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That is not permitted. In Lake Drive West. Chanhassen Business. Mayor Mancino: So they couldn't do what Councilman Senn was saying. It could not be painted. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's a condition of the planned unit development. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And is that because, I'm assuming there's a reason why that can't and that is because have we had problems with buildings and what happens to them and etc. ? The appearance. Sharmin A1-Jaff: One of the things we wanted to do with the PUD was go for higher quality, materials and it was stated, I went through the staff report repeatedly that if the color was mixed with the grain of the block, that it would be higher material. We do have some buildings in this city that are painted block that are probably 4 or 5 years old that come to mind today, right now. And we haven't had any problems with them. Mayor Mancino: In 4 or 5 years. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this time for the applicant? Councilman Berquist: The only question I've got is, at the Planning Commission there was talk about adding the windows and adding landscaping. The Planning Commission, staff said we want, we'd like some windows... Staff said we'd like some windows. Planning Commission said forget the windows. We'd rather have landscaping. Eventually it came back with both...windows and the landscaping. At what point was the color block brought up? Was that brought up at the Planning Commission? It doesn't really say it in the staff report. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Unfortunately what happened was, we didn't see the materials. Councilman Berquist: He forgot his samples? Mayor Mancino: For the Planning Commission? Sharmin A1-Jaff: And the Planning Commission warned him that they were forgiving. The City Council won't be. That they really needed to see the color samples. Councilman Berquist: But they knew they were dealing with painted material at that point? 22 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. Councilman Berquist: So at what point then was painted block, or dyed block brought in? Sharmin A1-Jaff: When staff was going the update for the City Council, we wanted to bring up this issue. We really had not had an opportunity to look at the materials before the meeting and we only thought it be, to bring it to the City Council's attention and let you know that you have the option to either approve it painted or... Mayor Mancino: And can we see the materials? Councilman Berquist: Sort of a never, if we don't ask we'll never get it so to speak. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Why don't you just pass them up here. Councilman Mason: Can I get a little more? You talked about this process, this process that goes over the paint, elastamer. Mark Understad: It's a new product. Well not new. We've been using it for, I've put it on buildings 7 years ago that still... The manufacturers have, they have 10 year warranties on it as far as fading and. It's not, obviously it's more expensive than plain rock face buildings...through time and the way the blocks are made today, you always have the problem of waterproofing your buildings. The only way to do that is to get a sealer, some sort of waterproof coating on there. These products, the elastameric products do that. They also, obviously the owner is the one... The cost is a little more on these but the problem, when you get into all the color blocks, and I'm sure you guys have all.., have that box of samples and that's your color selection... In the elastameric, we can get a very high quality product on there... Councilman Mason: And typically a manufacturer guarantees that process for 10 years? Mark Understad: They give 5 and 10 year warranties on this. Mayor Mancino: If they put it on. How do you apply it? Councilman Senn: If you apply it as per specifications, actually. Councilman Berquist: Is that colored, is that shadowing or is that colored grout between some of the rock face? Mark Understad: ... shadow on them... Councilman Berquist: Down from the parapet wall. Mark Understad: Yeah. We're stepping those blocks down so they're cantilevered in. You take the top 3 or 4 blocks and you cantilever them out... 23 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Berquist: I've got a related question. Gateway. Have we, is there anything in there regarding colored block? You don't have to answer that. It's just a question I have. If you don't know the answer off the top of your head. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I don't have the answer off the top of my head. Councilman Berquist: That's all right. That's okay. I just didn't want to forget the question. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Anyone here tonight wishing to speak on this issue, come in front of the City Council. Comments from Council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Everything in here looks fine to me. As far as 16 goes, the painted system he's talking about is fine with me. Used it a number of times. It's just nobody really knows how long it's going to last. Kind of like rubber membrane roofs. Mayor Mancino: Well I heard you can't put it on unless it hasn't rained for the last 25 days. Councilman Senn: Well like I say, it has to be applied as per the specifications. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Well it sounds to me like number 16 should be deleted from this. From what I'm hearing from somebody in the business and the applicant. I think that probably would work okay. What he's asking for. Councilman Berquist: I concur with the other two Council members. Mayor Mancino: I have no comments. May I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval deleting item 16. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Mancino: Discussion. Are we going to see signage? Are we approving signage too? Sharmin A1-Jaff: We are putting in signs. It is under elevation. Mayor Mancino: A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. So we haven't seen it and staff is approving it? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. If you don't mind. Mayor Mancino: That's fine. I just wanted to, after dealing with signs tonight, I wanted everybody to be. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan Request #97-10 for a 22,500 sq. ft. building (Peripheral Technology) as shown on the plans dated July 7, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 24 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Plans for trash enclosure and rooftop screening shall be submitted to staff for approval. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and must demonstrate that there is no more than 0.5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. The landscaping plan shall be revised to replace the proposed river birch with an oak tree and replace the proposed crabapple next to the loading dock with an overstory species. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing around all preserved trees before site grading can commence. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conservation easement located on the northerly 20 feet of the property. No trees will be allowed to be removed within the easement. Building Official Recommendations: a. Revise the site plan to include required accessible parking, access aisles, curb ramps, and accessible route. b. Meet with the Inspections Division for a completed copy of Commercial Building Permit Requirements. 8. Fire Inspector Conditions: a. Please provide hydrants as shown on plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991, Section 10.403. A 10' clearance space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. No parking fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. d. Install post indicator valve on the water service coming into the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to, and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991, Section 10.502. 25 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #26-1992. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on combination domestic/fire sprinkler line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36-1994. h. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire pre-plans. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Inspections Division Policy regarding water service installation for commercial/industrial buildings. Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. k. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy fire sprinkler systems. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40-1995. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on labeling of rated fire walls. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #44-1997. m. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on fire alarms. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #01-1990. n. Locate existing hydrants on Quattro Drive and provide distances to entrance to the proposed building. o. Note on Sheet A 1.2 a tree that is placed next to hydrant. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant. p. Note on Sheet A 1.2 a clear space needs to be maintained around the fire department connection. Trees and shrubs are currently shown in this area. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 10. The developer shall submit to the City for approval a revised Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan incorporating additional silt fence along the driveway and City of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates for Industrial Driveway (No. 5207), Silt Fence (No. 5300), and Rock Construction Entrance (No. 5301) and additional silt fence parallel to the driveway prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City Engineer. 12. Any retaining walls to be constructed in excess of four feet in height must be engineered and appropriate permits and inspections obtained from the City's Building Inspections Department. 26 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 13. Sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges will be applied to the building permit. The charges shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council. 14. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: The next item is appointment to the Citizen Oversight Committee, Park Open Space and Trail Referendum project. Is there a staff person here that's going to be reporting on this? Councilman Senn: Mayor, maybe if I could ask. That's kind of really just an internal thing, isn't it? Mayor Mancino: Well that's my question. Councilman Senn; Why don't we just jump back to do 1 (e) if we could and then we can kind of do our internal stuff afterwards? Mayor Mancino: Well. Councilman Senn: Does that make any sense? Mayor Mancino: Yes, because it says due to lack of applicants it is recommended that the City Council table this item for 2 weeks so let's make a motion. Councilman Senn: Well I think we should talk, I guess I'd like to at least talk about it for 10 seconds, or 15 seconds or something but I just thought, no sense holding up the other people to do that. Mayor Mancino: We'll do that under administrative presentations. 1E. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT~ ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK. Mayor Mancino: Let's see, Roger or Charles, would you like to present. Would you hold on until, excuse me, I find my l(e) and get it in front of me. I've got it. Charles Folch: I'll try to walk you through from the discussions as we, as they took place to discuss the conditions that were raised by the Council in work session. First off, in your l(e) section. The blue copy. Turning to page SP-4. Section 9C has been deleted in it's entirety as requested by the City Council. Section E, also listed as number 5 on the bottom of the same page, we have re-instated as requested. It should be noted too that it's put back in but all the street lighting that's proposed for this phase is going to be constructed as part of the public improvement project and we will assess those costs so this just confirms that. Councilman Berquist: Whoa, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho. We're deleting 9C in it's entirety? Charles Folch: That's correct. 27 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: 3 is being deleted too. Councilman Berquist: Three is being, yeah. I understand that and I had that one earmarked. And then we were deleting the prorated share of the traffic signal and I looked over here and then I saw C which picked it back up again and now we're deleting it? Charles Folch: That's correct. Basically the applicant has asked to have some language in there to make them feel comfortable that the City is committed to having a traffic signal installed at the intersection of 82nd Street and Trunk Highway 41 in the very near future. They feel it is important to some of their potential clients who may be interested in the property in the development, to be able to convey to them that yes indeed that intersection will be improved and signalized and the City of Chanhassen is committed to that. So they have asked to have some language installed which you've seen two versions here to try and convey that comfort level but in all essence Roger, our City Attorney has included that. What we have here is more of a narrative. It's not really a condition that binds anybody to, binds the City to anything. Mayor Mancino: Did we want to leave the applicant with...two cities were going to split the cost 50/50 and then the development would have some special assessments. Charles Folch: Right. The installation of the traffic signals have been listed in the overall project plan. 82nd Street and TH 41 was shown as a Phase II improvement project and the one at TH 5 and their north/south Century Boulevard as a Phase III and they are listed as to be fully assessed. At this time though with the Phase I improvements, those are the only improvements that have been officially awarded and are now under contract with the City. Those are the only pending assessments to the property. And Phase I does not include any elements related to the traffic signals. That will be a forth coming issue in phases but the developer wanted some additional comfort level that there was a commitment by the City to see that they are installed. That's what we've attempted to do with the language here but again as Roger, as our City Attorney has indicated, what it says here is more of a narrative, for your information only but it doesn't really bind anything. Councilman Berquist: So where then within the context of this document does the, there is no. Charles Folch: There is no. Councilman Berquist: So how does the applicant feel reassured that Chaska and Chanhassen are committed to fulfilling that obligation, or fulfilling that? Charles Folch: I don't want to speak for the applicant. Fred Richter: We have to rely on the documentation for the public improvement project and the documentation that we are, as well as... PUD. I think we're all operating under the assumption the City. Mayor Mancino: It's under a final plat approval. The conditions. Councilman Berquist: Well yeah, I don't disagree but what I'm hearing on the one hand is that you as the applicant wanted some comfort, some assurance that Chanhassen and Chaska were going to work towards the installation of this thing and yet. Mayor Mancino: The cost part of it is not what we agree with. 28 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Berquist: Well that's fine. I understand the cost part of it and that's going into the new phase. Additional phasing. But nowhere are we addressing the commitment and perhaps that's fine. Obviously it is. Councilman Senn: Well in the first place we can't commit Chaska one way or the other. So we can't commit whether there's a 50/50 split and once we don't know that there's 50/50 split, we can't commit what we're going to assess or not assess. Charles Folch: If you would wish me to elaborate. Councilman Berquist: No. I just want to understand why we struck it once, reinserted it and now we're striking it twice and be comfortable with it. And I'm getting there. Councilman Senn: Well except you have to understand that they struck it and re-inserted it. We didn't. Charles Folch: Well as long as everyone's under the same. I mean I fully anticipate that I will be presenting to you a cooperative agreement for that traffic signal in the next 30 to 60 days. I've seen a draft from Chaska. It is forthcoming for your consideration in the next month or two. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Charles Folch: Moving onto the next page, SP-5. The third paragraph down labeled as H, or also 8. The word immediately was previously struck. It's now will be reinstated. That activities shall be, construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulch, etc., etc. So that's been, immediately been reinstated. Moving on to SP-6. Probably the hardest one to wrestle with but I think we've got something to present to you. SP-6, at the very bottom paragraph U. It shall read, ownership of Outlots A and B shall become the City's based on the following. The developer will dedicate 11.73 acres of upland as required by the City. The developer will dedicate 26.13 acres of wetland. The City will purchase 10.5 acres of upland for $200,000.00. Roger Knutson: Charles the only thing, rather than dedicate the 26.3 acres, it should be donate. Charles Folch: Donate, okay. Mayor Mancino: Say that again please. Charles Folch: Okay, the developer will dedicate 11.73 acres of upland. This is required by the City as a part of development requirements. The developer will also, the developer will donate 26.13 acres of wetland, basically which are within the boundaries of Outlots A and B. And then finally, the City will purchase 10.5 acres of upland for $200,000.00. If you add those three parcels, or three areas, it comes up to that total 48.36 acres. We're just defining how the City will acquire the property. That way it's not a 4.59 for the original purchase amount which we talked about earlier. Mayor Mancino: And said $200,000.00 cash payment being derived from tax increment proceeds and paid on a no interest schedule. 29 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Charles Folch: That's all eliminated. The rest of the bold face on, the rest of the paragraph is completely eliminated until we get down to where it's back to the regular type and that's I guess where we have a question. That last sentence of that paragraph discussing if insufficient tax increment proceeds are available during the initial 5 year period, the balance of such $200,000.00 payment will be carried forward and paid in succeeding years until the developer receives the entire $200,000.00. It's basically the developer is saying that if it's not repaid within the 5, a problem for them to have it continue to be paid during the life of the remaining years of the TIF. It appears that it's more to our, the potential, it gives us more flexibility I guess is what I'm understanding. Roger Knutson: The only thing I'd want to add, if that's acceptable to the Council is to make it clear, it carries over and paid in succeeding years from tax increment. Only from tax increment so if there's no tax increment, there's no payment. Mayor Mancino: Yes, that's my concern. Roger Knutson: The tax increment district goes on for 8-9 years, depending on when they build, it might not. Councilman Senn: It won't extend the district? Roger Knutson: No, can't. Mayor Mancino: So there always has to be sufficient tax increment. Roger Knutson: No tax increment, no payment. Mayor Mancino: Exactly, and that's not what this says. Roger Knutson: We'll add some language. That's the intention of it. We'll just add, receive the entire balance of $200,000.00 from tax increment. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Thank you. Councilman Berquist: So in the event the district expires without the proper amount of increment being generated. Roger Knutson: Out of luck. Mayor Mancino: We don't pay. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Heaven forbid but. Roger Knutson: But that luck is dependent upon what they do so. Mayor Mancino: It's an incentive. Charles Folch: Okay, any other questions regarding that Section U? Like I said, that was probably the most challenging one to grapple with. Moving on to page SP-8. 30 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Can I ask one question? SP-7. Why would, Charles, we'd take out a minimum of three bids being received? Under the, in consideration for this trail. Why wouldn't we ask the developer to get three bids? Charles Folch: Let me read, just take a minute to read. Mayor Mancino: The middle of, the paragraph previous before W. Because we want to make sure that we're compensating a developer getting a cheap bid so I would think the cheapest that we would ask for a minimum of three bids. Councilman Berquist: Least expensive. Mayor Mancino: Least expensive, thank you. Charles Folch: Is that fine to leave that back in? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so let's leave that in please. Charles Folch: Okay, any other... ? Mayor Mancino: Yes, I have a question. Back to SP-2, under 7. Security. Roger, this is I think a question for you. To guarantee compliance with the terms of it's contract, payment of special assessments should we not have security for special assessment payments? That's deleted now. Roger Knutson: There's nothing in here, correct me if I'm wrong Charles. There are no special assessments in here. Charles Folch: No. Not with the improvements they're doing under this development contract. Roger Knutson: So there's nothing to guarantee. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Got it. Thank you. Charles Folch: Okay. Moving onto let's see, from SP-7 to SP-8. First paragraph Y. If you'll also pull out your separate handout for tonight you'll see a correction, or not a correction. A modification. Or actually it kind of deals with what you just previously asked about Madam Mayor regarding assessments. Section Y deals with waiving the right of the developer to special assessments with the Phase I improvement project that's been...now currently under contract. There's a clarification sentence added to the bottom which states the assessment interest rate, the bond sale rate plus 1 ½% then rounded to the nearest ½% and the assessment pay back period if not known yet but will be a minimum of 5 years. Basically the developer wanted to know some guidelines or some, they want to strictly waive their right to objection to assessment rate or term so we tried to provide some sort of guideline of how those would be determined in the future. Mayor Mancino: And how do we establish that rate of 1 ½7 I mean how are we rating developers? I mean as a bank, if we're doing bonds we would. 31 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Roger Knutson: Bond rate. Whatever you sold the bonds for. Sell the bonds for 6%. Then you'd collect 7 ½%. Mayor Mancino: Exactly, but don't we give that to, again don't we have the developer be qualified just like if I went in and I might get a percent over... Roger Knutson: No, we sell the bonds. Charles Folch: Yeah, this is for the sale of bonds for the public improvement project. And again, what the intent of this paragraph is to put the developer on notice that as part of this development contract we expect that they will not object to the assessments being levied, assessments associated with the public improvement project that we're doing that is a needed element for the development of the property. We're saying as a part of doing this we expect no objection to the assessments as we have shown with the feasibility report, including the potential interest rate and term. So it's bond that we are actually selling for our public improvement project. Mayor Mancino: To get their project going. Charles Folch: That's an element needed for their project, that's correct. Don Ashworth: That's a standard that is used, has been used for years and it recognizes that the City has costs in the initial sale. Mayor Mancino: That's what I wondered. Don Ashworth: That we then also have costs in administering the special assessments back against individual parcels for whatever the, I mean every year for the next 5 years or 8 years or whatever the term is. Mayor Mancino: You have to do recounting and everything else? Don Ashworth: We did review the, it's been probably 4-5 years ago. Maybe longer. At that point in time, it was the same wordage only it was at 1%. It's kind on that analysis, but up to the 1 ½, rounded up type of thing. And I think that it fairly assures that we get our money back. I don't know that it answers your question in terms of it's still a pretty good deal for them because they're probably going to be looking at 7- 7 ½, 8 at the very worst. You know is low in today's private financing standards. I don't know, I guess it's really more back for a question for Roger and that is, in some areas licensing, permits, what not, and the City can't really charge more than a cost to them type of thing. Roger Knutson: Correct. Don Ashworth: I don't know if this falls into the same standard or not. But again this is what it's been for... Roger Knutson: That's a traditional amount which we always charge everyone. Point and a half rounded. Mayor Mancino: Get financing for them, okay. Pretty good rate. 32 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Charles Folch: Moving to the bottom of that SP-8 page. Section Z-4. If you look at the abbreviated handout which I just passed out tonight, there's actually a correction to that. It should go back. That sentence that was in your original packet item so it should read as follows, Z-4. There have been no statutory changes that make the tax increment payment unlawful or less advantageous to the City. That less advantageous somehow got missed from the abbreviated handout tonight. It should be... statement which was included in the original staff report. Councilman Berquist: Where was the change on Z? Wasn't there any change on Z? ... insertion of the language? Charles Folch: Well, what I just read now is how it's read with your staff report. The mini report that revised that page for the item above in Section Y, lost that somewhere along the line we lost that sentence in there. At the end of that sentence so we want to make sure that you understand that your abbreviated, minor handout tonight has that language put back in under that page under SP-8. Councilman Berquist: So from the original SP-8 that I had in my staff report, that's the correct one. Charles Folch: For Section Z-4. That's the correct one. Councilman Berquist: So Z actually has no changes from my original staff report? Charles Folch: That's correct, yeah. That's correct. We're getting close here. Moving on to general conditions. Page GC-5. Section 16, under Street Lighting. You can put this back in. It's basically standard language that we put in all development contracts. Typically where a developer is putting in a public street at their own cost, we require that street lighting be put in and basically a language applies. In this case here, this development, in this phase of this development it's not putting in any public streets. The public streets being constructed to the City's building, so we can leave 16 in there. It's redundant. That's fine. We don't have a problem. They don't have a problem. The applicant doesn't have a problem leaving it in. I just wanted to make that a point of clarification. And the same thing applies to the next paragraph, 17 under signage where street name and traffic signs have been deleted as being a requirement of the developer. Again, we're putting it in under the public contract. We're going to assess the cost back. They're not putting any public streets in which would require additional street signage and things like that so we can leave it in. Mayor Mancino: Says it clearly, okay. Charles Folch: Then moving on to GC-10 which has been modified with your mini handout tonight. Basically under Paragraph P. In the first sentence it shall read, the developer shall be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system. And the addition to that sentence is clarifying it as saying, installed under Plan "C". In addition to that so it's just clarifying it. As you see later on down in that section, it has the same wordage installed under Plan "C". Then moving on through your staff report to the, getting close to the back. Page 3. Under Ancillary Uses, in conjunction with and integral to the primary use of the property. Point 4, addressing telecommunication towers and antennas shall be Conditional Use, by Conditional Use Permit only as requested by City Council during the work session. And the applicant does not have a problem with that. Then moving down to the very back page. Page 8. The very back of your packet. And then comparing that to your mini handout, which references the change to page 8, Section H-1. Deleted the discussion, or the reference to the plans which do not provide for street lighting.., as we previously talked about, they're not putting in any public streets which would require street 33 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 lighting which they would be required to put to our standards so that's why that's been struck from there. It really doesn't apply to this type of a development for this phase. That's basically addressing that lighting interior to the business center to be consistent throughout the development and consistent with the approved lighting standards for the PUD ordinance. Councilman Berquist: We will see some lighting on the additional phases? Lighting that will take place in the additional phases. Charles Folch: There is a potential at possibly a later phase 4, I'm guessing it may be 4 or 5, which could be the extension of the east/west street between Century Boulevard and TH 41. That still right now is an open discussion as to, as lot of factors will probably be used to decide a few years down the road whether or not that piece is built publicly or built privately by the development. That's not a decision that... That may or may not be, but if it is, then that would be applicable. That would be language applicable at that time. Councilman Berquist: So really to get where you were going with this, you could have actually struck 2, 3, and 2 and 3 as well, right? It doesn't matter but.., understanding the intent. Charles Folch: Well that I'd have to ask for Sharmin's opinion on that. Basically one, the sentence that's been struck from H-1 basically addresses lighting along the public streets. Now are they being required to also have lighting in the private development area, the light parking lot to be consistent with our. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Typically there is a criteria they would have to use. Mayor Mancino: Such as? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well it's, if you look under that same section, points 2, 3 and 4 really spelled it out what they are permitted. Charles Folch: And that would address their parking lot. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Decorative shoe box. Mayor Mancino: So we'd want to keep that in. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Under H-1. Charles Folch: Under H 2, 3, and 4, yeah. Basically what's been struck from H-1 is addressing what they would be required to do if they built a public street. Which they're not doing. Other than that, that's basically from what we, the Attorney and I recall as items of concern from the work session. If there are others, we can certainly try to address those. Mayor Mancino: I just had a question for Councilman Senn on permitted uses. B. Permitted Uses. Did you, and I just want to, I'm just doing a double check. I'm pretty sure that you said during the work session that you had gotten your visual to tell which lot and which block and then reviewed that. 34 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Charles Folch: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. If you'll just give us a few more minutes to digest what we've just gone over. GC-6. We're starting to use the word reasonable cost. What does that mean? I would just think that the, in the addition to the administrative fees, the developer shall reimburse the City for all out of pocket costs incurred by the City for providing resident, construction inspections. Why are we leaving it open to negotiation for reasonable out of pocket costs? Don't we just have out of pocket costs that they have to pay us? Roger Knutson: Mayor, some folks look at this, want to insert that in every paragraph that they do. I don't really have a real problem with it. I mean if for example you hired an inspector to inspect their project and you billed them out at $500.00 a hour and said here. That you have to pay it and they'd say that's nuts. Inspectors are billed at a tenth that cost. That's the sort of thing that we want to guard themselves against. In reality, if you tried to bill that and you went at $500.00 an hour for an inspector and you went to Court, the Court wouldn't find that very funny but you wouldn't get your $500.00 anyway. So I don't have a problem. Councilman Senn: Charles, I had one quick question that I forgot to ask earlier on the utility services... Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1 and that's 1, 2 and 3, Block 4 and the Wrase property. Why did we have so many listed under there? If it was just the Wrase property I thought is where we're going to put it. Charles Folch: Well I think at the time we were putting this together, over the past 2 months, we did not during this time process officially have a signed purchase agreement with the Wrase's... rather presumptuous of us to only site that location as the only location on the development so we wanted to keep it. Councilman Senn: You have that now though, right? Charles Folch: We do have. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Mancino: No. Councilman Senn: Oh we don't? Charles Folch: We do not have a signed, maybe I should let Don comment on the status of it. Councilman Senn: Well you don't have to. That's fine. If it's still in negotiation, that's all I needed to know. That's fine. That's all. That answers the question. Charles Folch: It appears as though we're very close. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions from Council members? May I have a motion then please? Councilman Senn: Move approval with those changes. 35 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the amendment to the Development Contract for Arboretum Business Park as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Howard Dahlgren: Thank you very much for doing it tonight. We really... Councilman Senn: Careful now, you say too much, it's going to get too late. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, PARK, OPEN SPACE & TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECTS. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; PARK, OPEN SPACE & TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECTS. Mayor Mancino: Now Todd isn't here. Is there anybody in particular at staff that's handling this? Or is it Mr. Ashworth? I think it is. Don Ashworth: I think it may be. I'm trying to remember what we had talked about at the last staff meeting. I know that he had, you had not gotten. Mayor Mancino: We have now. We do have applicants. Councilman Senn: How many do we have? Mayor Mancino: No, several applicants. Councilman Senn: Several meaning? Mayor Mancino: Sorry, I don't know that but I do know that. Councilman Mason: There's more than one. Mayor Mancino: There's more than one. There are quite a few. Councilman Senn: There are quite a few? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well if we're going to go ahead and do this, I guess the only thing I would like to make sure is that before we interview and decide on those people or whatever, that we develop effectively a clear charge of what the committee is and give it to them so they know what they're signing onto if the interest is still there. And then going ahead and doing it. I don't think we need another study group undefined. Councilman Mason: That is an excellent idea. 36 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: And if you read, actually I left a message from what Councilman Senn said. If you do read the article in the Villager, it pretty concisely, although I do think that there should be a very explicit list of roles and responsibilities for this particular task force. But it says the committee will meet quarterly commencing the fall of 1997 until such time that referendum projects are complete. Maximum of three years. The role of the committee is to track investment schedules and contract payments. Project design and development are not under the purview of this committee. The oversight committee will administer the completion of an independent public audit and annual reports of all bond referendums and bond expenditures. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I read that and I understand that. That I think is probably your definition. I'm not sure I agree with it. I don't think the Council should be giving the role away to track investments or and contract payments. I mean that's effectively Council's right to approve and I don't think that's something that should be given away. Mayor Mancino: And maybe it's a recommendation instead of a. Councilman Mason: Well I see, I agree with Mark. What I'm reading this is they're not approving or denying. It seems to me that when this came up the intent was to make sure that park referendum money was only being spent for park referendum issues. And so with that, what I see the committee doing is simply that. I mean I agree with what you're saying. Councilman Senn: And Mike, Mike and I understand that but if that in fact is all the committee is doing, why are we having the committee because we haven't ever for any other referendum and there was really no need for it. Why can't we just do that ourselves? Councilman Mason: I kind of asked that in the first place. Councilman Senn: I mean I just, I honestly don't see a need for this thing. And I haven't seen a good definition of a reason why we do need it. And it's just one more thing for us to keep track of and keep up with and I'm sure it will end up I'll say necessitating some additional meetings for us. Mayor Mancino: Well we have it in as part of the referendum so we'll just make sure that their roles and responsibilities are well defined. Next item. Councilman Senn: Well again, Mayor Mancino. You know I'm sorry. I think either we set this up or we don't set it up and either we set it up with a charge or we don't set it up with a charge. I don't want to gloss over it and just think that somebody's going to go away tonight, create a charge on their own, and establish a committee. That's Council's function and I think the Council should do that and just because it was mentioned as a possibility in the referendum, like a number of other things were mentioned as a possibility in the referendum, or the sale of it, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to go ahead and do it that way. So I just, no reason to let it just happen for the sake of letting it happen. Mayor Mancino: Well I think when it was involved in the referendum. It was involved in the literature that was handed out, having an independent audit task force that's making sure. If we didn't want that, we shouldn't have put it in. Councilman Berquist: ...public criticism. 37 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: ... and have had people apply for it. Councilman Senn: Well I'll be honest with you. I don't know why it was put in. I mean I didn't get a chance to even review or approve that before it went out and again, I don't know why this referendum is being treated differently than any other referendum that has ever been done by this city in it's history, and why this requirement is being set up or put in. Now if somebody knows an agenda I don't know about, I'd love to hear it but I don't see the need for it. Mayor Mancino: ... I don't think there's any agenda. Councilman Berquist: One of the reasons that it was discussed about is, discussed and being on the literature and part of the question, question and answer poll that was taken was simply the method of insuring the veracity... As I recall there were discussions that occurred and people that had questioned the various task force members as to the fear that if in fact the referendum passed, how could they be assured that the monies that were generated for park acquisition. Park improvements and not to go into.., fund for the enlargement of City Hall or construction of a car wash for the City Manager, something like that. Councilman Senn: He's already got one. He doesn't need a second one. Mayor Mancino: I think the intent was. Councilman Berquist: The intent was to give some concrete assurance to the citizens of the community that the funds, if in fact it passed, would be used for the betterment and enhancement of the park system. That was really the only. Mayor Mancino: Hopefully it wasn't an intent to say anything about the City Council so. Councilman Mason: No, no. I think whether, and I basically disagree with this but we're in a time that apparently clamors for incredible scrutiny for every penny that's spent, whether elected officials seem to have any common sense or not. And that's what I got out of that too is what Steve got out of it. And I see this clearly as a group that looks at how much money there is. Looks at the cost of the project and says yep. That money was spent that way. Boom. That's it. No more. No less. I mean is that pretty much, yeah. Councilman Berquist: I think that's true. And in looking at it from a practically political perspective, it doesn't hurt. I mean you've got four more people out there, or however many people out there that are talking to, or hopefully talking to about the fact that they're doing this. It's happening... Councilman Mason: So that's how I see that. Mayor Mancino: Okay, moving forward. Don Ashworth: May I ask for clarification. I don't know what you just did. Councilman Berquist: We talked a lot. Mayor Mancino: We just went over the citizens oversight committee and we all talked about whether we thought it... we thought it should go on and I think the consensus is, is that it should. And that there are, we 38 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 will be looking at applicants and interviewing applicants that want to be on it. We want to make sure that if there's established roles and responsibilities for that particular oversight committee. They know exactly what. Councilman Senn: Which will be developed and brought back to us before they're put in place. Don Ashworth: So for either upcoming work session or September 8th regular, this item should return with the recommendation like from Todd as to what the role of this committee is going to be. Mayor Mancino: And their responsibility. Don Ashworth: And the latest listing of people who have applied. You will then agree to that, disagree to it. Modify it and determine. Mayor Mancino: When we're going to interview applicants. Councilman Senn: You might want to listen to the Minutes and just steal Councilman Mason's words. The definition. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR. Phillip Elkin: Basically what I put together, I brought this up a couple weeks ago about the, looking for some definition or some guidance, the City's policy in contributing for the control of Eurasian Water Milfoil in various lakes associated and at that meeting I was given the direction of finding how much we've spent so far. In the past on milfoil control and also what the surface water management plan had, what projects for various lakes, or that directly impact the various lakes. How much we spent on those and I've presented the cost on this sheet here. If you look at prior to 1995, milfoil control was managed by the Department of Natural Resources. Either Todd Hoffman in Park or Public Safety would get a call. Residents complaining of milfoil. They would in turn forward the call to the DNR and the DNR would send someone out and perform or give an herbicide treatment similar to what's being used today on the various lakes. And then bill the City. There was still a, each lake was assigned a certain dollar amount and once that dollar amount was passed up, then the additional funds used towards treatment would be passed on and billed to the City so there wasn't, it was just in response to calls. The City didn't keep track of what lakes got how much money. It was just calls passed onto the DNR and then the DNR would respond to them as needed. Councilman Berquist: And bill the City. Phillip Elkin: And then bill the City for what they spent. So the City began budgeting in 1990 for specific milfoil funds. Then in 1995 the milfoil fund was reallocated into the lake management, a separate lake management fund and this fund was set up to establish lake management plans for each of the lakes to deal with the milfoil. The money was used for milfoil. There was no specific category for setting aside, money aside for milfoil on this lake. It was just under one large, out of the budget so. And in 1995-1996 the only lakes at that time that requested money and received money were Lake Minnewashta because they had formed an organization, or formed an association with the specific intent of managing milfoil on the lake. Treating with an herbicide so that is the money the City has spent specifically on milfoil. The other surface water management, SWMP project summary. These are projects that I could trace that were directly 39 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 within the lakes watershed providing a direct benefit to the lakes. Some of the projects, the costs vary. Some of the projects we've hired a consultant to do the engineering and the public works staff would perform the work. Others, engineering costs, their design was put in place but the project was, didn't get built for some reason or another. Several projects are still ongoing. The Holly Lane project you see on here is still going. The lake management plans for Susan and Lake Lucy are still going. Lake Riley wetland plan is still in progress. Any other questions? Mayor Mancino: Phillip under Christmas Lake, when you add up all those numbers, I get $144,380.00. Phillip Elkin: Yeah, the Holly Lane, that's an estimate on the construction costs. I mean that's based, we've basically spent right around 22 on survey work and design work. Mayor Mancino: So that's to complete it, the $82,000.00? Phillip Elkin: That was the, the $82,000.00 was the original cost estimate on that project. Mayor Mancino: And when you have the line item lake management plan, is that just to write the plan is $2,500.00 or $3,500.00? Phillip Elkin: That's to write the plan and produce 25 copies. 25-50 copies. I'm not sure. Mayor Mancino: And how can some of these lakes cost, the lake management plan cost so much more than others? Phillip Elkin: The Lake Ann and Lake Lucy are being done together. It's just not, it depends on how much information they have and how much, the other Lake Riley and some of the larger lakes did extend the surveys and public hearings where we got residents together and so that costs money. But Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and also Lake Susan, the number of residents are very small. Mayor Mancino: Are there any other SWMP projects that are on our long, long term planning that aren't here where we've got monies or? Phillip Elkin: Well there's. Mayor Mancino: We've got programs. Phillip Elkin: Yeah, there's a huge list of, right. There's a huge list. We have, but water quality, water quantity on both the wetland restoration used and the storage ponds and several projects that going back and putting some sort of water treatment in areas where we have a pipe going directly into the lake so there's plenty of, these are all.., been initiated but again there are some projects on here that are not directly linked to a lake that we've worked on such as a wetland restoration. These are, as best I could tell or best determine that these were directly as a result or as an intent to provide water quality to a specific lake... Mayor Mancino: And how do we prioritize the future list? Phillip Elkin: That was done as part of the Surface Water Management Plan. They looked at the size of the watershed, the amount of nutrients, how much of the area was developed, how much, the amount of, they estimated the amount of nutrients that that residential neighborhood, say 75% impervious would 40 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 generate. Looked at how much is being trapped by existing storm water ponds and estimated the nutrient loading from that sub watershed and put that on a priority. Mayor Mancino: So which one was of the highest need, more than anything? Phillip Elkin: Well they didn't rank them 1. There's probably 25 to 30 in level one, level two. So it's not that, there's no 1. I guess if you look at Christmas Lake, because it's such a small watershed, the Curry Farms pond for that particular, I know that particular lake was number one in Chanhassen. We don't know with Shorewood but in Chanhassen that was the number one cause for nutrient loading in Christmas Lake that we've compared... Councilman Senn: When I talked to Phillip today, what I asked him to do kind of in preparation for getting into budget and next year's SWMP expenditures and stuff is kind of give us a breakdown of what's left to be done in each so we can kind of get a picture of what's left to be done and how practical it is to do it because he did mention that some of the places aren't practical to view as I mean more or less we have a pipe running directly in but if we're going to do anything else we're going to have to acquire a residential property or something to you know put in a retaining on or something to do it or whatever so, and then that would give us the information I think that we need you know, to actually sit there and evaluate this, prioritize it and program it in coming years, you know and not be caught like we were this year just kind of saying you know, $129,000.00's going into Lake Minnewashta so. Mayor Mancino: You're going to take all the projects that... Phillip Elkin: Well I, the projects, the area in the SWMP plan are laid out but as you get further into them and you see the point sources, one of the, you know as an example. One of the point sources identified was on the north end of Lake Minnewashta. It was on a, there was approximately 2 to 3 acre site that's undeveloped right now. A large water flow that flows through that site into the lake untreated. We looked at, that was there, we were going to look at putting a pond there to get some sort of treatment in conjunction in working with the developer but as we found, such a large watershed goes through there to get the treatment that reaches the goals that we set forth, we'd have to build a 2 ½ acre pond. And you've got to look at that and that's not realistic. We can't, I mean I don't think it's the purpose of this plan is to acquire the most of the watershed comes from Shorewood also so to just take on the responsibility and condemn that property and use it for that, it may be hard to swallow for some people. I stopped it right there as soon as we found out that so. But that's, I mean you have to look at the, they've done the engineering on these projects and that's great. We know estimates. We know where they are but how they fit in with the rest of the city is more difficult question you know, as to whether they're feasible or not. Another was a site on the end of Camp Tanadoona. By Camp Tanadoona. The pond recommended for that site to treat that area would take out 4 ½ acres of wooded area that's in. Again, we don't want, we didn't want this water quality project to promote development or be a catalyst for development in that area where it's unserviced. So I mean projects like that will come as that area develops and they can, you know we can push that off to the developer to get those in. So it's difficult to say what remains to be done just from looking at the recommendations. And that's why, as you remember, bidding for the 1997 water quality projects I didn't, I wanted it very flexible. I wanted to keep, I had a feeling something like this was going to happen so we had to be able to write it in such a way that we could drop some project and pick up another without having to go through a new contract so. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions. We look forward to your 1998. 41 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Phillip Elkin: Yeah great. But as far as a lot of these projects are being done as this area gets developed SO. Mayor Mancino: And that will help us. Phillip Elkin: Right, and so that helps us in the long run as far as the cost of this project so. Mayor Mancino: Well thank you for your thoroughness and comprehensiveness. Councilman Berquist: I have one quick question. On the second page of the memo you make, you say I've listed several concerns about continuing to operate in the current manner. As DNR's contribution declines, lake associations will look to the City to make up the difference. And from what I understand though, the DNR's contributions are funded, not solely but significantly from a percentage of the boat licenses, right? Phillip Elkin: Right. Councilman Berquist: Why are the DNR contributions for milfoil declining then? Councilman Senn: The same way highway dollars... You know they take licenses off of cars. Phillip Elkin: No, as more lakes become infested, the amount of money. Mayor Mancino: Is spread around more. Phillip Elkin: I don't think you were here at the last meeting but that brings up a good point. But as more lakes are infested, the contribution is based on size of the water body infested and so as more lakes come in, your boating licenses are not keeping up with the cost of the management. And it isn't specifically for treatment, just herbicide treatment. It's for, it is put for public use as far as management ofmilfoil. Lotus Lake last year spent their money to have a separate milfoil management plan drafted with their $4,500.00. But most lakes. Councilman Berquist: Is that done? I think in here it says it's on working. Phillip Elkin: Yeah, I've got a copy of it. It's done now so. Councilman Berquist: It probably reiterates what our standard stuff is that nobody's doing anyway. Phillip Elkin: Well it was worse than that. Basically it said you should all get together and hire the same contractor so you can get a better price basically. I mean I don't know how Mark feels about it. He's seen it but. Councilman Senn: I thought it was ridiculous but I thought it was ridiculous we let them do in the first place. Phillip Elkin: No. I mean we had no choice. We had to come up with a piece of the money to circumvent that and it was just spending money to spend money. Don't get me started. But anyway, let's get back to what I originally brought this up for was just to, should we keep funding milfoil? I mean for the lake. I mean should we keep funding, I mean this year we had Minnewashta, Riley, and Christmas Lake, coming 42 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 to us to match these DNR funds. I think that's our main point is if you saw it before in 1990 that the dollar amounts going up, Bill Hoff from the association say that $150,000.00 a year and you're not making a dent...becomes an annual thing. It's my I just, if we want to do it that's fine but I think we should look at the City's responsibility towards water quality rather than just making sure that we have a lake that you're able to water-ski on. But that's why I brought this up in the first place is to. Councilman Berquist: I want to understand how water quality, you can have pristine quality water and still have Eurasian Water Milfoil. Councilman Senn: In fact it actually helps. Councilman Berquist: I'm sure it does. So as a matter of fact.., remark by Lotus. So I mean the goals that are outlined in the storm water management plan are all well and good but they do nothing to combat the spread of milfoil. Phillip Elkin: Right. There was nothing. Councilman Mason: There's nothing you essentially can do. Councilman Berquist: ...herbicide or something... Councilman Senn: No but Steve that honestly doesn't do any good either. It's very temporary see and I think that's one of the points that Phillip brings. I mean we can go eradicate milfoil out of Lotus Lake, you know if we use a method to do it tomorrow. The problem is as long as we have 7 storm sewer pipes still running into, directly into Lotus Lake, I mean it's just going to be back the next year because milfoil through those one way or another is going to find it's way directly into the lake and there's no way you can stop it and then once it's there, it's just going to grow like crazy. I don't care whether you're talking Lotus or Minnewashta. Every one of our lakes has these problems and that's why I think the sound approach is to get what's not done yet and look at it and start setting some priorities in terms of how we feel we can best deal with the overall lake quality, which I think is going to be some bigger issues than we think it is, and I don't think there's any immediate need to jump on a decision what to do with milfoil you know one way or the other. I mean we're past this season. We've got until next season and I assume that we will have this information put together you know prior to budget consideration and we can kind of talk about it all then. Councilman Berquist: Well the reason I bring it up I guess is, one or the other is not going to solve the problem.., storm water management plan is more of a long term sort of addressing of the reoccurrence of the problem if in fact it were able to be eradicated. So then the question that comes to my mind is that the DNR is being, their programs are being funded through boat licenses. The transmission of this stuff, the proliferation of this stuff is directly.., boat activity. Would there be any reasonable course of action on the City's part to charge at our public landings or add to the State's boat license fees or are those sorts of things prohibited? In other words, how do you generate some cash? How do you generate a revenue stream from the users? Councilman Senn: I think I asked the question once before. Can we charge at the landings and we were told we can't. I mean they're public landings and we can't charge at them. 43 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Berquist: Even for the betterment of the lake? You may not be able to charge for the general fund purposes but can we charge for the betterment of the lake? Councilman Senn: I believe the answer I got was no. Now that doesn't mean you couldn't go to the legislature and get something changed to do that possibly but I'm just saying under current legislation I believe you can't do it. Mayor Mancino: Phil, can you check on that and see if there's anywhere we can? Phillip Elkin: Sure. Roger, can we do that? Roger Knutson: I can double check myself. I'm almost 99% sure the answer is no. A public access is a real big thing in this state. Mayor Mancino: So I think we're. Councilman Berquist: Let me ask you a question. On a state trail system, you pay a fee. Part of that fee is for the maintenance and, the maintenance of that trail system. Right. Mayor Mancino: So if it's a public lake, why can't we charge for the public use of that lake in maintaining the lake? Councilman Mason: For the same reason that if you go to Montana, you can't ride a mountain bike in certain areas because of erosion but you can take a horse. Roger Knutson: Some groups have better lobbyists than others. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's yeah. Councilman Senn: But the other part of your question is Steve, and I've gone, I can't tell you specifically on this fund but I mean I've gone through it with some other funds. The problem is none of these are dedicated funds so when somebody pays that, it just goes into the State's general fund. It doesn't go into a special fund for maintenance of the trails in the State. The legislature just simply puts it in a general fund and tums around and hands out a budgeted amount for maintenance of the trails. Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't it be a city fund? Roger Knutson: Again, I believe the answer is no but I can double check myself. Councilman Berquist: Well I don't like that answer. Roger Knutson: On the other hand, I retract that and say whatever you said is right. Councilman Senn: Councilman Berquist we could go to the legislature though and ask for legislation which would allow us to initiate a charge at our lakes for milfoil. Councilman Berquist: ... that was an advantageous way to pursue the problem. 44 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Councilman Mason: I don't think you're ever going to get rid of milfoil in this state. Mayor Mancino: So Phillip I think we'll wait until we've gone through the budget and we get the big picture answer.., where we certainly have a lot of homeowners on the lake that care very, very much about it so. Councilman Senn: I think the best thing we could do is take Orlin on a trip around Lotus Lake every year. It's probably have the greatest impact. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions that you have? And you have a direction. Phillip Elkin: Yes I have, yes. I understand. Mayor Mancino: You're going to show us all the projects that are slated to happen and how much they cost and give us some methodology for deciding which ones. Councilman Berquist: There's a lot of good reasons to move to the desert. Mayor Mancino: Are you going to take us all, pack us all? Councilman Senn: The problem is water becomes a different kind of issue. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Phillip very much. Are all Council members done with asking questions? ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION. Mayor Mancino: Okay, on the Admin Section. Any questions on what was in the Admin Section? Councilman Senn: Don, ifI could start with the Parks. Well let's see, which item. It's hard to keep track of these because they're not numbered but the memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 14th I think is the one, which would be the one, two, third item. Mayor Mancino: Request for qualifications? Councilman Senn: Yeah. When the team puts together their recommendations, would you please have them prioritize rather than just simply send us one thing. Mayor Mancino: Oh, one, two, three. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you know pick a one, two and a three or something and send it to us rather than just a one. And the other part was from the list of selected bidders was very, very narrow and I just wanted to know what I guess, I don't know. Maybe you already slated it from 12 down to 4 but I guess I'd like to know that because if you started with 4 and that's where we're going, I don't think we're really going broad enough. I mean I can see a lot of names that I know missing from here that I think would be all very qualified to at least asked to bid it. 45 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Don Ashworth: I know that Todd was looking for names. Had gone through, as far as staff meeting, a number of names. Several of which that I felt that is based on City Council comments over the last couple years. That's how some of them were knocked out of there. Councilman Senn: Okay. So you have gone through some type of a process already to get down to this? Don Ashworth: Correct. And if you'd like to see the full number of names. This item's going to appear probably either.., the stuff for next week's work session.., file to send out to you so hopefully we can bring it up again next week. Mayor Mancino: I have another suggestion Councilman Senn. There was quite a list and there was talk about you know this supplier always go over, whatever. But if there's a list that you have that might be good to fax that to Todd and then he can see if there's anyone he hasn't thought of. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions in the Admin Section? Councilman Berquist: I was wondering about the response from the August 15th date to the Halla's. ... must be removed from the site and disposed of properly no later than August 15th. Don Ashworth: This is the letter to Halla? Councilman Berquist: Right. Don Ashworth: So you'll be getting the response from Halla. That again will be in this next week's agenda. I think there's a secondary letter also there from engineering. Councilman Berquist: Did we premise approval of that entry on this being taken care of? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Two things. First of all, Dave Hempel and Sharmin and I met with the Halla's on Friday and after that meeting Sharmin went back and made sure that the items in the stipulation agreement had all been signed. And then adhered to by the Halla's so we can go ahead with the front entry. We had stipulated.., agenda that if there is adherence of the stipulation from the Halla's that we would go ahead with that consent agenda item so she checked everything on Friday and will be writing a letter and letting us know that they're adhering to the stipulation. We also talked about the ravine and they are, they have stopped dumping in it and they do have to go back and compact the soil and do what engineering has asked them to do in there and... The only agreement that we did not reach was where to do above ground composting which will come to the... So and what I heard from Sharmin, they are in compliance with the stipulation 100% at this date. Except for the above ground composting. Councilman Berquist: Do you mind if I jump right in here Mark? Councilman Senn: Go right ahead. Jump away. Jump back in, whatever. Councilman Berquist: The letter dated August 11 from Elliott to our building official. Reaffirming a new court date of October 15th. Something change that I'm not aware of in my absence? 46 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: The homeowners association, the Oak Hills Homeowners Association asked that we delay the trial date and we did and it was postponed until this date. Councilman Berquist: Is this after the date of the civil? Don Ashworth: They wanted to be able to have time to work on the civil side. We did get one complaint from one of the homeowners that felt that that didn't represent all of the homeowners position and I responded to that saying, word we got was from the President and you'll have to talk to the President. Councilman Berquist: And then, go ahead Mark. I had one other thing I wanted to talk about. Councilman Senn: Let's see I talked to Scott on most of his stuff. Let's see here, what was it. Bond sale I just asked that Pam get the info together and I think you all got a copy of that tonight so we have a chance to kind of start looking at that ahead of time. Let's see here. Oh, I know one. Someone referenced of the, I think it's from the Parks and Rec one. A reference that they were going to go ahead and include a skate park layout and design in the comprehensive plan for Central Park. I don't know how the rest of Council feels about that but I would like to see the skids put on that one immediately until we have some chance to review what we're talking about. I wasn't even aware that we were talking about building a skate park. And before we start beginning a planning task to include it. Councilman Berquist: Skateboarding and inline are the, I remember seeing something about. Councilman Senn: Well our inline is all developed out at the Rec Center. Well I don't know. Don Ashworth: I'll include information on that. I can't respond to that right now. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: But that was in their Minutes. Councilman Senn: Okay. In the B & R's. Mayor Mancino: In the what? I'm sorry. What'd you say? Councilman Senn: Well Pam and I call them the B & B's but the B & R's, you know. In the B & R's, Don could we get, back on page 7 of the B & R's. There's a $58,595.00 expense to date out of the CATV revenues. Pam said most of that related to the improvements here in the Council chambers and stuff. Nothing else, that just simply reminds me, could we please sometime, somewhere get a total list of all the expenses and charges going into the City Hall remodeling because this is another new one now. Mayor Mancino: Oh, just get a printout? Councilman Senn: Well or I mean get it all together in one place. Not a printout. I mean regardless of what fund it is or what funds it's coming out of basically, where we are on that. Because when we talked before about the improvements at City Hall here, I thought that was coming out of, at least in what we approved, was the money we set aside in contingency for the City Council chambers. Now from what you tell me, we've spent that but we spent that on other things and this is now coming out of CATV where 47 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 we're spending almost another amount. The same coming out of CATV for the electronic improvements in here. I mean I don't know. I'd just like to get, I'd like to get a handle on it. Don Ashworth: Her answer to you is correct. About $10,000.00 was over into attorney services for the KMC and negotiations so far on cable TV... $40,000.00 went for the electronics down here. The screen, the projection, the upgrades over by Nann. Councilman Senn: Okay. And I think that was it. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Steve, did you have? Councilman Berquist: I want to call and get, it looks like I missed an interesting EDA meeting. I want to find out what's going on with the bowling center. Mayor Mancino: Well you haven't missed at all. There's a lot more to do, and Councilman Mason missed it too. Councilman Senn: You did miss an interesting EDA meeting though, to answer your question. Councilman Berquist: Did I? Councilman Senn: Oh yes. Mayor Mancino: Very much so. So who is accepting my challenge for the golf tournament on Thursday, September 4th? Councilman Berquist: I will. I will. Mayor Mancino: Good. Good. Councilman Mason, are you going to be in school? Councilman Senn: All I want to know is how much per hole. Mayor Mancino: Lots. Big bucks. Councilman Senn: Well you challenged me Mancino. Come on. How much per hole? Mayor Mancino: If I challenge anybody in golf, yeah. I don't even know what. Councilman Senn: Yeah I think I'll do it too. Mayor Mancino: You're going to go too? Good, great. Okay, so we've got three of us. Councilman Berquist: Is this a city deal? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Or is this the Herman Mancino Tournament? 48 City Council Meeting - August 25, 1997 Mayor Mancino: This is the City of Chanhassen deal. Also, just to let you know that Councilman Senn and I are going to call transportation issues. Have level of service F becomes.., from a sensible land use coalition on Wednesday at noon at the Sheraton Park Place. If anyone else would like to go. Councilman Berquist: Give me the name of the seminar again? Mayor Mancino: It's a sensible land use coalition and it's called Transportation Issues. There you go. So if anybody else, just to let you know about it. I think that's it. Any other questions, concerns? Councilman Berquist: Yeah, has level of service F become a passing grade? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Then this meeting is adjourned. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 49