Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 03 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Sharmin Al-Jarl, Scott Hart, Jean Meuwissen, Tom Chaffee and Betty Eidem APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the addition of comments by Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING. Mayor Chmiel: Next is a public announcement that I'd like to do at this particular time. And I'd like to have Jean please come forward here. Jean Meuwissen is our City Treasurer...but there comes a time when special achievements that have been done and it is a pleasure for me to make this presentation to Jean and her staff, Mr. Tom Chaffee, who is sitting here with his crutches close at hand, and Betty Eidem, who's sitting here in the audience as well. What I'd like to do at this time, and this doesn't happen very often that cities receive such an award and I'd like to just read it. I'm glad to see that you're tan and not blushing. I'd like to read this to you. It's a pleasure for the Council to do this. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting presented to the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota for it's comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers, an association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems who's comprehensive annual financial reports achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. This signed by their President, Arnold G. Halls and Jeffrey .... their Executive Director. It really gives me Jean, great pleasure to present this to you and to hang this in your office so everyone can see it. Congratulations. Jean Meuwissen: Thank you. This is very nice. We work as a team, the four of us...and we feel we deserve it. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution g94-29: Approve Change Order No. 3 for the north side of West 78th Slreet parking lot/City Hall Improvement Project No. 87-17. c. Approval of Bills. d. City Council Minutes dated February 28, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 16, 1994 e. Resolution g94.30: Authorize preparation of Plans and Specifications for Well #7, Project 94-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 F. FINALIZE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Wing: I just want to express my opinion on an issue and I'll vote for this tonight but not without speaking on just a conviction, a personal conviction. One of the items in this pay classification tonight is, and pay compensation involves the City Manager and years ago public safety decided that, just an example of what I want to lead up to here, and I'll apologize. I'm still out at that fire. I want to get my mind clear before I comment, because it's a serious issue with me personally. And I speak only for myself. Years ago several of us took a stand on police in this city and it involved the contract system and we felt it provided a reasonable level of service and was extremely cost effective and through the years that has grown to today. It is now a national model that's gotten national attention and I think it's a system we can be really proud of. Public Safety Commission, and the City Manager from day one felt that the contract system was an effective, efficient way to go and he took a lot of heat through the years holding to his convictions and trying to keep with this system. About 1986 the Public Safety Commission paralleled police costs for both what we were doing and what a department would have cost us by making that clear. You look at our contract costs versus what a department would have cost us and up to the year about 1986 the Public Safety Commission presented to the Council a paper that stated we had saved about $3.2 million by trying to stick with the contract system and it wasn't an easy process through the years. I think today it speaks for itself with Don and the Sheriff and Scot~ and the group. So what I'm trying to say here is that the City Manager has done some good things for this city. Recently we heard an accounting firm come in and talk about our financial status and how it was sound and how the future looked very bright and we almost gave the staff a round of applause and now we have another accolade tonight and I think it all reflects on Don Ashworth and his staff. The point I'm making here is last August he felt he was not up to par with city managers. Not being paid for the work he's doing and he deserved a raise. A 1.5% in August of '93, 3% subsequent in January 1st. Council failed to react and we tonight are approving the raise but spread out over 1994. I don't think he's been recognized. I don't think it's been fair. I think in November he stated he felt he was unfairly paid. Not being paid for the job he's doing and not being recognized for the good job he's done and Don, I don't want to embarrass you tonight. This is my personal convictions. I think what we've done, what we're going to do tonight is fair. It's equitable. However I do want to make the Council aware that in July, as a part of my voting for this, I want to see the mid point pay classification compensation on the first agenda in July and I would intend to ask for a 5% increase for the City Manager at that time to bring us up to par with where I think we should have been last August and November. So again, that's my own personal opinion but I do want to make the Council aware that in July I'll be doing that on the agenda and asking that that raise be notified with a mid-point adjustment. And with that I would move item f. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the f'malized position classifh:ation and pay compensation plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 G. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) FUNDS FOR TH S/AUDUBON ROAD INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 90-17B. Councilman Senn: I don't know if this is Don or Charles but is there a way that we can put some type of benchmark or a cap on that contract rather than just open ended? Charles Folch: ...the amount of information that needs to be accumulated. I would guess that something like this is probably going to take somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30 hours to put together in total time..,and so I would expect that this application process, at least to make the initial application... Councilman Senn: Okay. Well could I move approval and not to exceed 5? Charles Folch: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize Barton-Aschman to prepare the application for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for Trunk Highway S/Audubon Road Intersection Traffic Control Safety Improvements, Project No. 90-17B with a clause of not to exceed. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE REQUEST, BYERLY'S BEVERAGES, INC., 800 WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Douglas B. Clock Charlie James Byerly's Inc, 7171 France Avenue So. Edina, IVlN 55435 TY. James Company Don Ashworth: We have received an application for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license from Byerly's, or at least as a part of their new store. Various background investigations have been completed and no negative comments were received. They meet all portion of our ordinance approval as recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone representing Byerly's this evening?. Would you care to address the Council? Doug Clock: Yes. My name is Doug Clock. I'm the Chief Financial Officer with Byerly's. I'm here to just say that this is a project that we look very positively for. We think that it would add to our store. We think that it would add to the community. If you've all seen the layout of the store, the store's approximately 3,500 square 3 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 feet of which about 2A00 would be retail liquor space. The balance of the space would be storage and back room space. The store will be very similar in concept to our Ridgedale liquor store or to our St. Louis Park liquor store in that it would be contiguous to the grocery store with a mall entrance. It would be very heavy emphasis on wine and liquor and specialty liquors with a very knowledgeable, service oriented staff. We think it would be real positive for that center to have a Byerly's liquor store there. With that I'll conclude. If you have any other questions. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address Council for this public hearing? Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? I should have noted that staff is making that recommendation with the three conditions shown in the report of March 4th. If you'd like for me to read those I could. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would. Don Ashworth: Number 1, submittal of a $3,000.00 surety bond which will expire on April 30, 1995. 2, submittal of liquor liability insurance meeting minimum state requirements expiring April 30, 1995; and payment of the $280.00 liquor license fee. Mayor Chmiel: Alrighty. If seeing none, I would like to close, have a motion to close the public hearing and we could have discussions. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion in regard to our off-sale intoxicating liquor license? Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess I didn't really get as far to decide whether I really liked the idea of the liquor store or the license there one way or another. The place I kept getting hung up with, I kept having a real problem with just an assumption that now liquor stores were going to be classified as specialty retail. It's not specifically called out in there of any types of uses. I'm going to pick gaming, liquor and other types of uses as being ones that I would never want to have fall in general classifications like specialty retail and I'd really like to see us table this item tonight and look specifically, at least on the basis that it's being requested and look specifically at what further definition of what that specialty reta/l should or shouldn't be and maybe even involve the Planning Commission in that. If we set the precedent now and say liquor is specialty retail, it's good in any BG district in the city whereas that has not been the precedent nor the accepted course of doing business thus far. And so I have a problem with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other? Councilman Wing: Thank you Mark. That was my concern, the specialty retail section. I don't like that wording. What we're working on is a new liquor store in town and my first year on the Council the debate was, how many should we have. How many do we need? How many in one area? How much space between. Should they be free standing and we never had some of the answers .that came up in the first place. Just like automotive uses. We sort of say ooh, enough's enough. How many have we got and how many do we want? But if we're going to put it in, I think it ought to be called a liquor store and we ought to deal with it on that basis. I agree. Specialty retail, it's a liquor license. Not a specialty retail. I'd like to see this redefined. 4 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Yeah. Just as a quick fallback. I mean we do have this on our, as I understand it, on our agenda for work sessions to look at the gaming and the liquor aspects and I'd really like the opportunity to kind of mesh that all together before we proceed with any more. This is I think the second or third one now that's come up since we supposedly weren't going to have anymore and we had the opportunity to study this in work session. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to tag onto what they said. I have no problems with Byerly's having a liquor store but my concern again is the specialty retail designation and I just don't want to blanket the city or the BG district with that so I concur. And I wasn't aware that liquor was part of our gaming work session item but it certainly can be. Councilman Senn: Well they were two separate items but we had liquor down as one and gaming down as another. Councilman Mason: I concur with Colleen on that. I don't have any trouble at all with Byerly's having an off- sale intoxicating liquor license but I think that I agree with Mark on that. The specialty retail thing, I think that maybe needs to be redefined. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe what I'd like to do is just ask Roger some clarification in this and I know we did receive correspondence on this, which I have in front of me. But the specialty portion, specialty retail, make some clarification on that Roger. Roger Knutson: The term is not specifically def'med in your zoning ordinance. It says specialty realty and then it gives a bunch of examples. As realty stores that sell retail, one product or a line of products...If you don't think it's appropriate for liquor stores to fall within that, then you're recommending to amend your ordinance to provide that it does not fall within that definition. Specialty realty is a very broad, very broad, ff you want to define it to exclude liquor, you ought to do that now. Councilman Senn: But there are other parts of our ordinance that specifically do include liquor. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and that's where I'm having trouble making the leap. I mean I accepted where it's included but now ail of a sudden we're throwing it into other zones where it's not really specifically mentioned. Roger Knutson: I don't think it'd be probably a good idea for me to get into a lengthy discussion as to how you, courts interpret ordinances but if you would like I can and I would explain I think that' s. ..law. If you don't like that, I think you should immediately move to change that. If you don't like that. Or to call it out specially. Say, first you have to decide you want liquor in that zoning district or not. If the answer is yes, and you don't want...then you can amend, after going through the public hearing process...But if you don't want it, then you can say that as well. Councilwoman Dockendoff: What can we do tonight besides table?. I mean can we say we're going to call it, this site out specifically for a conditional use or does that have to go through the public hearing process? Roger Knutson: You'd have to amend your zoning ordinance if you want to change the zoning ordinance. This is part of the zoning ordinance. That would take a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then it 5 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 comes here. I would say the quickest you could get that done and that process done would be probably 30 to 45 days. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What does that do with development on that particular piece of property? What does it hinge with or what problems could arise from that? I'd like to hear all sides. Charlie James: I guess the biggest problem we've got is we've already, we never anticipated that this was a problem and are in the ordinance, and we've akeady drawn plans and..,foundations and everything are ordered in spancrete. It's already been designed into the building, I think staff and everyone here has been fully cognizant that this is part of our plans from day one. It's been identified on our elevation drawings where it specifically said Wines and Spirits so I guess the thing that's of concern to us is how it affects the schedule and whether or not we should now stop construction until...that this is going to happen. Because we've already programmed space and designed the building around it. Mayor Chmiel: I think you're hearing what Council is basicall.y saying Charlie is that they have some concerns in making sure that we clarify this segment of the ordinance and make those respective changes accordingly. I don't think you're finding anyone here sitting who is basically objecting to what that proposal basically is. But in order to clean this up in house, we would prefer doing it this way and then coming back with that process that you've got to go through. And then move ahead with it, Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: Well I don't know whether you're for or against it. Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm saying that from what I'm hearing here, I don't know of anyone who's really objecting to Bycrly's having a liquor, an off-sale liquor facility at that location. Roger Knutson: If that's the case, one option you have, Someone asked me to list options. One option would be to proceed to approve it tonight and then proceed simultaneously to amend the ordinance to specifically list liquor. If that's where you want it. If you know you want it them. But we want. Councilman Senn: Well I know I don't want it there. I mean just carte blanche I guess is what I'm saying. Roger Knutson: I wasn't trying to..,I don't know what you want. Councilman Senn: I guess I'll tell you where I'm coming from. I don't want it there carte blanche. I mean maybe it's acceptable under conditional use or whatever but I'd really like to look at our zoning districts where it's allowed and see whether that already makes sense before we just jump into changing another district to include it. I mean there was some rationale that goes into our existing ordinance in terms of where liquor was allowed and not allowed, And we haven't even had the opportunity I think to review that, you know given notice of this on Thursday and here we are on Monday. But I'd like to see us look at that. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: I can't disagree with Mark and up to this point I. guess I'm in agreement other than Charlie is, is that appropriate or Mr. James. Charlie James: I've been called worse. 6 City Council Meeting. March 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: it was there. Councilman Senn: Councilman Wing: When this went before us and we approved it, it was drawn up with the liquor store. I mean Oh yeah, the plan. I mean there was no question that we assumed Byerly's would have the Byerly's specialty liquor store. That's a liquor license. That Byerly's would have a liquor store. I guess I never was in doubt of Councilman Senn: Unfortunately we take action tonight Dick and I don't know how we get out of it. Councilman Mason: But our attorney just said, we can simultaneously amend the ordinance. Roger Knutson: There are things you can do. One possibility. Councilman Senn: Simultaneously? Councilman Mason: That's what he said. That's what the man said. Roger Knutson: There are lots of possibilities obviously. One of them would, for example would be, if you don't think it's appropriate. If you think that this site it's appropriate for various reasons, but you don't want to open it up to the BG district, you could, for example. Tell me what to do. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Options. Roger Knutson: You could for example approve it tonight and then simultaneously send it to the Planning Commission to rezone the property to CBDG and then it wouldn't be BG. And it's a permitted use there. Then you don't open it up to the BG and then simultaneously you could amend the BG, and you say specialty retail, you should specifically say which does not include liquor. What you've accomplished there is you've gotten them their liquor but you've kept, for further cases, you've kept liquor out of this zoning district. As an option. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What other areas are under the CBDG? Or CBG. Roger Knutson: That's, if I can, downtown. What I call downtown. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it would still leave it open for other liquor stores in the downtown area? Roger Knutson: Which is apparently allowed right now. Charlie James: ...conditional use permit be a possibility? I mean on the notice that this was a public heating. Would it be possible to get a conditional use...under this to neutralize this existing zoning and have a conditional use permit for a period of time which would give the Council the time that they need, or the Planning Commission to come in behind us and kind of close the door or close the...whatever. Roger Knutson: Speaking tonight, they can't issue a conditional. If you wanted to, you could not issue a conditional use permit tonight because it's not been advertised for that. And it's certainly not a conditional use in the BG district. But this is a liquor license and you can aUach reasonable conditions to a liquor license 7 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 because it is a liquor license. Charlie James: Could the liquor license be made site specific to the Byerly's? Roger Knutson: They always are. Councilman Senn: Well I don't see the real harm in taking at least 2 weeks, you know or whatever, to get this redefined and at least know I think what our best options are and .proceeding if there's another solution because it seems to me we're just band-aiding something together tonight and I don't see the harm in 2 weeks or 30 days or something. I mean this isn't due to open up until October and it sounds like a majority of the Council has already stated their voting preference anyway so the applicant should take some comfort in that but I just, I really don't want to see us act on this because to me it opens Pandora's box and simultaneously, there is no such thing. It takes the Planning Commission 60 days. Anybody you ask .... could come in and f'de for an application and just negate it anyway to exclude liquor on their site. I mean...to a big game and I just don't think we should get into it. Mayor Chmiel: I still don't feel too comfortable in going through that particular process. Some of the things I think that we go back to is for the mere fact that when Byerly's did come in, I knew, because of what was indicated on the plans as well as discussed, that this was going to be part of that project by having off-sale liquor. And I think by holding back the individuals from developing this, could cause a burden back to them but yet I guess I'm trying to be honest and just with what it is but yet to even clarify the aspect of your concerns to bring this back to the Planning Commission and even look at it simultaneously and giving the approval this evening as well as the Planning Commission going through their process and coming back to Council. I guess I think it's going to accomplish the same thing, as I look at it. The only thing we're doing is giving that approval at this time. Councilman Senn: But your assumption in that is that we're going to include liquor in BG. Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. Roger Knutson: You could rezone the property to CBG. Councilman Senn: Then my question is, is then what other uses does that open that site up to that now aren't allowed on it? See I mean this is band-aids. I mean really, now the questions have been raised. It'd be nice to kind of see the answers come in as to what the effects are one way or the other. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I agree with Mark. I'd like to, let's take 2 weeks, Roger if you could list our options. I mean you've just had to brainstorm tonight. I'd like to see a...list of the best options that we have and we take care of it in 2 weeks in the best possible way. Councilman Senn: Well Roger, if the rezoning's the option, again. I'd just like to see what that means. I mean what do we open up down there now other than just liquor store? So it becomes a shell game. Roger Knutson: I was just listing options, I wasn't, Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he wasn't giving direction. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I just want to see a listing of options so we make the best decision. So I would move that we'd table this for 2 weeks. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. Normally we close the public hearing but I will give you the opportunity to come. Doug Clock: I have one more comment Mr. Mayor. Concerning the delay. One of the conchs that we have at Byerly's, if we delay too long. You know and ! understand the concern that you have here, is that the Christmas season is very important to us and we tend to have... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: Charlie. Charlie James: When we're talking about tabling here for 2 weeks, are we talking about coming back to the City Council in 2 weeks? And if one of the solutions is going to be to rezone, are we going to have time to publish, go to the Planning Commission and do all these things? I mean are we kidding ourselves by saying 2 weeks here I guess that's my concern and I can understand what you're saying about not wanting under this zoning district, just to open Pandora's box as someone referred to it. But ff the decision is made that the best way to accomplish this is to rezone, then it's not going to be done in 2 weeks. There's going to be a publication process, a Planning Commission process, the City Council process. So I guess I'm just trying to get some sense of when the motion is made. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me ask a question. Kate, time for this as to what Charlie is saying now. What are we looking at? Kate Aanenson: Well I concur with what Chaflie's saying and I would leave it up to Roger. If you're just looking at some options, then you can put that together in 2 weeks. But if you want to look at rezonings, amending the code, or looking at different types of uses, then you've got to go back to the Planning Commission and back to City Council and that's going to take 2 weeks. The soonest you can get on the Planning commission won't be until April. If you just want to look at what options and give staff direction and say we want to amend the code and we put together a short study for you listing all the uses, what are the uses in those zones, we certainly can have that in 2 weeks but I'm not sure that's. Charlie James: I would note in there that the... Mayor Chmiel: Council understands the position that we're at right now and this is for the option, Roger has indicated in going through that particular process and coming back to Council with staff's suggestions and those changes that necessarily could be made. Councilman Wing: By intending to go along with this tabling would be that we're going to approve it in 2 weeks because it was somewhat assumed when I approved it originally and all we're going to do is have a clear cut option, clear cut list of options that we'll take action on that night to resolve Mark's issue but I wouldn't intend to hold this up beyond 2 weeks, other than to clarify what direction we're going to go in parallel with it. Is that right? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well like I said, I thought I heard a majority of you say you were going to vote for it anyway so I mean that's a given but I just, maybe that can be accomplished without simply blanketing liquor in BG at this point. That's what I'd like to see the options on. I mean and if it is a rezordng process, I'm not going to put words in Roger's mouth or ideas even but I mean if it is a process to rezone, maybe there's a way to state the intention or even grant a temporary license or some such thing that allows us to go through that process and not simply open the district up. That's part of what I'd like to see back under the options. A better way to do it than is before us tonight. Which assumes everything, which is to me a big change in the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: There's only one other problem. If we once tie this down, should we, well I'm just hearing the same thing I'm thinking. Moratorium, exactly what he said. On that for that period of time so we don't get more into that particular location. If this is your real concern. Councilman Senn: But even if we set a moratorium, once we pass on this one in BG tonight, haven't we simply opened the door for people to come in and contend that it's allowed in BG? I'm just asking. Roger Knutson: You're kicking around all sorts of possibilities, which is healthy. One possibility again, one of the options would be to find that it's an allowed use in the BG district. Then upon further finding, that you question whether it's a good idea whether it should be allowed, or at least it should be studied as to whether it should be allowed in the BG district. So you could approve Byerly's, if that were your choice, and then put a moratorium on it simultaneously and any further on-sale liquor in the BG district until the completion of the study. Mayor Chmiel: But we can't put a moratorium on it until we have a public hearing and everything else, can we? Roger Knutson: No you can't. You can't put a moratorium on without a public hearing. Councilman Senn: You can? Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah. Sure. Roger Knutson: I'd attest to that... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to give you 2 weeks to come up with more of these brainstorming ideas and with the hope that in 2 weeks we can resolve the Byerly's issue and look at the bigger issue. Councilman Mason: The only,.,to table this tonight is assuming that we will resolve Byerly's in 2 weeks and it sounds to me like that is easily done, I think there is another issue here that needs to be dealt with but I don't think that Byerly's should or needs to be held hostage to that other issue. Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't disagree with thai position as I stated before. Okay. I still feel a little, I feel like I'm running around with a loose gun here too. Would the moratorium make it that much, it would be better for us as a city until we get that completely resolved, even though...within the 2 weeks. Roger Knutson: If you want to allow liquor, on sale liquor at the Byerly's site but if you're uncertain whether you want to allow on-sale liquor anywhere else in the BG district, that would be one way of allowing Byerly's to proceed. Put a hold on anyone else coming into the BG district while you study it. 10 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well actually then, if we're worried about more liquor stores coming into town, we should put that moratorium on it tonight then. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd still like to see a list of other options that we have. Roger Knutson: And I would have to draft the ordinance. You'd want to do it carefully. I mean if you want it tonight, I can go upstairs and get... Councilman Mason: No, I understand that but there was a concern about if we don't do something that the city's going to be flooded with liquor stores and. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's something I think that we're going to look at as well. Is total numbers. Councilman Wing: I'm amazed that Market Square isn't here tonight. They sure were last time. Councilman Senn: I didn't see them on the notification. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion? So Council's choosing to move in the direction of tabling with or without a moratorium and I would ask the motion again and the second that specific question. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry? We have a motion and a second on the table. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: And I'm asking whether or not you would be amenable to having the moratorium portion on it as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's one of the options, absolutely. Councilman Senn: Well in 2 weeks, nothing else can come before us so I mean I don't think we need the moratorium to get the options... Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, and they can't move on it that quickly. That's true. Good. Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the off-sale intoxicating liquor license request for Byerly's Beverages Inc. for 2 weeks. All voted in favor and' the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: It will be back to us within 2 weeks and hopefully we'll see you back here. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER MODIFICATION NO. 13 TO REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, the City Council at your February 14th meeting authorized staff to hold the public hearing for this evening to consider Modification No. 13 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Under State Statute, City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed changes in the overall plan. Both the Planning Commission and the I-IRA have approved the plan modification. Just to list a 11 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 few of the plan modifications, acquisition of land, pedestrian bridge, roadway upgrades for Lyman Boulevard, a joint county, city joint powers agreement. Use of tax increment dollars for the construction of the pedestrian bridge. Use of tax increment dollars to build parking lots, trails, and landscaping around the Hanus facility and one of the items that I did add onto there was the acquisition of the Willie Klein property, Later on tonight on your agenda you're going to officially map the TH 101 alignment and if you do that, Willie Klein, who is one of the property owners affected by that and the Klein's are in ill health and having a difficult time in selling their property due to the alignment of the road going through their property. So in that the HRA and the City Council would have the option to to in and purchase that property in the near future and hold that land and develop whatever for, until you build the future TH 101 alignment. Aim included in the modifications are the project area boundaries and those are outlined in the Attachment//3. Staff recommends approval of all the modifications and stand ready to answer any questions the Council might have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address Council on this issue? If there is, please come forward and state your name and your address and your concern. Seeing no one coming forward, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any specific questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No questions. Some comments, It sounds like a good deal but. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: A couple questions. Todd, in the previous budget referencing the pedeslrian bridge we showed a total project cost of $402,000.00 but it showed land acquisition cost of $28.6. Are those now up to 57, as indicated in here or what? Todd Gerhardt: These are estimates. The pedestrian bridge pads and the way the wails go..,We've had to expand the square footage on the land acquisition for the ends because of contours underneath...so the land price did increase. Councilman Senn: So the 402 previous cost improved on the fed budget is now 432? Todd Gerhardt: I've got an estimate of $450 for the construction of the pedestrian bridge and that's just an estimate. Whatever the bids come in at. Councilman Senn: Well the number we approved a few 'weeks ago was 402. 12 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: We can modify that number to 402. I just put the plan together several months ago. At that time we wanted to put conservative numbers in of 450 so. That can go for the number that we went. Those are just estimates. They're not actual budgets. We try to come as close as you are on a lot of projects are going to be bid out and so a lot of these are estimates. The same thing with adminislrafion. We just added the public improvement and basically took 6% of the public improvements to come up with the administrative fees. You see all of those when the pedesuian comes in. You know we're not going to spend $450,000.00 on...we're hoping the thing comes in at $350,000.00 so you will see the award of bids, or the I-IRA will see the award of bids on that project. So it's not that you're approving a budget of $450,000.00. We need to give the County and the School District an estimate of what these project costs are so at the time of drafting this we just brought a good estimate... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mark, if I could just answer your one questions. Yes, the land acquisition cost... on the Mortenson piece will... Councilman Senn: Okay. As far as the Hanus building, that you have in there. You have basically $161,000.00 in site improvements and $106,500.00 in building improvements. And I see that there's a roof structure in there and that sort of thing. Now my understanding previously was, the only way any of the building improvements were going forward was if the designated buyer was going to pay for them. Has that been resolved, because these previous correspondence hadn't shown that it had been resolved. Todd Gerhardt: I received a phone call 2 weeks ago from Gary Kin who has the option to purchase the Hanus building and he has agreed to the $50,000.00 for roof repairs. So he will contribute $50,000.00 to the project to put the new roof on. Councilman Senn: So 50 of the 1067 Todd Gerhardt: No. 50, the middle roof structure itself is just a mansard part of the roof. The decorative element that sits on the roof. The $50,000.00 for roof repairs is to put a new roof on the facility. We were not going to put the $71,000.00 decorative element on the roof unless you put a new roof on the facility. So it just didn't make sense to put this decorative element on a roof that was leaking you know pretty good and it just didn't make sense because you'd have to rip it off and you'd have to put a new roof on within 5 years. Councilman Senn: So the 71 here is in addition to. Todd Gerhardt: The 50. Councilman Senn: The 50 and this we're spending then? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. All the cost, the 106 and the $102,000.00 are a cost of the HRA. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'm going to ask the same question I asked before then. I mean there's a set purchase price for this site by the building pad. I mean we don't have a basis to recover any of this. Why are we improving his building? Todd Gerhardt: The reason we are. Councilman Senn: Especially $71,000.00 in decorative improvements. I mean I just don't understand that. 13 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: This was a site plan that was taken through the Planning Commission and City Council. This is what that group came up with on how they wanted to see that facility designed. It's a major attraction along Highway 5 and they wanted to see extensive landscaping and elements added to that facility that would dress it up and add to the downtown. Councilman Senn: That's landscaping. That's not building improvements. I mean I'm not homing in on the landscaping improvements here. We have discussed those. But we've never been privy to or given a breakdown of building improvements. We were told previously that we weren't paying for any building improvements unless he agreed to pay for them. Now I see a list of $106,000.00 that we are paying for and again we have no basis to recapture and he's got a set purchase price regardless of how much money we spend on the building. Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. The HRA and the Planning Commission looked at this...and they were concerned that when you come off the pedestrian bridge that you'd see the top of the roof and the HVA systems on the roof and they wanted to screen those elements. And there are some roof vents. And the best way to do that was to go with the half mansard roof to hide those units. And the owner, there's no way the owner was going to sink $71,000.00 into doing that so there's no question that this is no way going to be an economic return for the future owner of the building. So if the HRA wanted to hide those HVA units and the vents and everything else on the roof, they had to spend the money out of their own pocket to do that and that's what they're proposing to do here. Mayor Chmiel: And I guess some of the things they had looked at at the time mo Todd, if I'm correct, is that they felt that the aesthetics was part of the quality that should be there and if anybody's going to do it, they figured that we'd best get it done and make sure that was accomplished and that is the HRA. Councilman Senn: Well then I think our agreement ought to be modified with the property owner to reflect it. I just have a real hard time where you enter an agreement and give a guy a set purchase price and then we spend the next 5 years sticking money into his building improving it for him. That's not the basis of the agreement. So I mean we can go back to him at this point and say, we're not going to stick in any money unless we get to redo the deal and let's talk about redoing the deal so we can recapture part of our investment. I've just got a real problem with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I'm with Mike and aware of the history down there because we were there when this occurred. I think it goes through the process and this is the result of that process. I don't mind answering Mark's, I guess I don't mind answering Mark's question. It's been an eye sore. Let me just say, Victoria and Waconia, pay attention. Listen up because every time you build a block building and a substandard building along Highway 5, you will in the next few years be dealing with this very issue. Those guys are making the same mistakes we made with that building and now we're stuck with a junker up there. I'm not bright enough on this issues to pick up on these things but I have to agree with Mark here. I'd like to table this only long enough until the next meeting to have that issue discussed and brought back to us and let's get together with this guy. If we're going to pound these enormous dollars into his building, let's start looking at our return and our future because I don't remember the process well enough here to be comfortable with this necessarily. And if you can steer me at all Mike. Councilman Mason: Go ahead. 14 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: I can tell you what his response is. He will say, don't put the decorative element on the roof then because he doesn't care if people see his HVA systems or his smoke stacks. Councilman Wing: Well I know but somehow they I-IRA. Councilman Senn: Couldn't we break his option agreement then? I mean can we invest dollars and then turn around and sell the building for what it's worth rather than a fraction of what it's worth? I mean you know, this doesn't make sense. Councilman Wing: We're involved in here some with that building aren't we? Mayor Chmiel: Aren't we getting back total dollar investment that we're going to be putting into this? Todd Gerhardt: Well we are receiving, I think it's about $26,000.00 or $27,000.00 a year rent off that facility but staff is not wanting to add that as money coming back. That's not our investment money as what I'd like to call it. And we've got to offer...but we will clear approximately $75,000.00 in revenues off the building in the 3 years that we'll have ownership of it. Councilman Senn: That's after all expenses? Todd Gerhardt: After all expenses. Councilman Senn: Taxes? Your time? Todd Gerhardt: Well not my time. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's not in there. That's right. Mayor Chmiel: And he's costly. Councilman Senn: Well he is managing the property and there's no management expense built in so I mean there's. Councilman Mason: Aren't we kind of, you know I recall some discussions about what Highway 5 looks like on the east side and what Highway 5 looks like on the west side and HRA, and I know that there was some concern that some people on Council didn't care what the east side of Highway 5 looked like. And so now we're in a position of HRA saying, and Planning Commission saying, we want to spruce up the east side. So now we want to spruce up the east side and now I'm hearing well, no. We shouldn't do that. Councilman Senn: No, I'm not saying that Michael. I am simply saying that we shouldn't be spending the money necessarily. Maybe this guy should be sprucing up his own property... Councilman Mason: Mark, let me finish will you. Time and time again TIF comes up and you're trying to figure out a way to shoot it down, which is your prerogative. I'm not that, all the more power to you. What I'm saying is, HRA and Planning Commission, I mean this guy owns a building. Could care less what it looks like. HRA, Planning Commission comes along and says, yeah. This guy could care less what it looks like. HRA, which is money in their budget says we want to spruce it up. Planning Commission agrees with it. I 15 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 mean that's what I see the option is fight now. Now you know, yeah. We can table it. We can table it. We can table it or we can take some action on it. Councilman Senn: Or we can go see if there's a way to do it better, and that's all I'm asking. Councilman Wing: What happens ff we get done with the $71,000.00 and we're still going to have this block building with a mansard roof... Mayor Chmiel: See there's no way of making that individual property owner do anything to that existing building. There is no way that you're going to make him do that. And the only way to accomplish this, which was done through the HRA, to get those aesthetics taken care of. Councilman Wing: It's the less of two evils. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we are recovering some. I mean it's not a flat layout of $70,000.00. We have been receiving revenues over the years. Councilman Wing: Is there any credibility to Mark's statement at all? Is there something to look in here in regards to Mark's statement in your opinion? Could we, is there any way to be, for him to be worked with or is it, is that a dead issue in your opinion? Todd Gerhardt: I'll leave that up to Roger. If he wants to go through the purchas~ agreement and dig through there but we promise to make at least $100,000.130 worth of improvements to that building. When we start digging into a building that's going on, I would think at least 12 to 15 years old now and it's poorly constructed and the roof, there's some major leaks in this building. It needs a new roof. And he was even considering not even rarefying and then we told him, we're not going to put the element on. The HRA says they will not put the $71,000.00 element on but he felt that this is the time to do it. To do the roof with the project as it's being bid out. Councilman Senn: Todd I understand that and you've said previously we had a commitment of 100 but up above here I see us submitting to $161,000.00. That's in addition to this $106,000.00 we're t__a!king about on the building. I mean we're adding a parking lot, which is what we've talked about before. Landscaping, irrigation, dumpster screening. Those are all things we've talked about before and I thought that was the $100,000.00 we were going to spend back into the building. Well now the $100,000.00's gone to $160 and we're adding another $106. And you know, there's something wrong with our agreements if this guy just lets the building go to hell and when the roof leaks, he requires us to fix it or when the wall falls down, he requires us to fix it and everything else. Todd Gerhardt: He's paying for the roof. Councilman Mason: He's fixing the roof, fight? Todd Gerhardt: He's fixing the roof. Councilman Senn: Only after how many, a year of debate now. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true but we at least got him to do that. 16 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: Do we own it? Do we have to sell it hack? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. He has a repurchase agreement with us. Councilman Wing: So we can't resolve this. Councilman Senn: And there's no way to effect that agreement based on his care or performance of the building, anything else. I mean there's no clauses in that agreement regarding his upkeep and maintenance of the building or his care of the premises or anything? Wow. Roger Knutson: If you're looking at me. Councilman Senn: I know you don't have the answer but that's what I'd like to hear. Roger Knutson: I don't know what the agreement says. I was involved in it but that was a year or two ago, whenever it was. Councilman Wing: Well given the argument here, and the money involved and the lxominence of that comer and hill, I'd like to know if that agreement would allow us to, are you guys ready? Blow it up. Why not tear it down and start over. Put something of quality up there. I'd rather see the money go into tearing it down and then puuing a quality building up than trying to nurse this thing through. Councilman Senn: Well, I'd like to see what the options are. Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have something? Don Ashworth: One of the issues is that, Mr. Hanus had that propen'y for many years and it was always back to the City Council. I mean we would have that item on the agenda 2 to 3 times a year. The Council wanted to take and see him quit selling Irucks from the hack side. He continued to have, the property was in total disrepair. The signage and whatever and it's my understanding that by going through the purchase agreement, that we could then place certain restrictions back against the property to insure that the berm area that we're going to be building so that you don't even see the building itseff from Highway 5, that the shrubbery and all the rest of that stuff, they can't touch it. They can't put stuff up on the hill like they used to and have for sale on it. Restricting signage. There were a lot of issues that we wanted to originally try to achieve that really weren't just dollar and cent issues. I mean the initial play there was really not one of saying, Don. Go out and find us a building that will make some money. And I would hope that we're moving in that course. In other words to insure that those restrictions are placed against the property before they're resold. That we maintain the easement area over the bermed areas. I can't remember some other portions that we had put in that thing but. Councilman Senn: Then maybe we should look at putting our money into the exterior of the building rather than everything else and just spend our $100,000.00 rather than $260. I mean like we're even paying for their signage. I mean go to the tenants and say, ff you want signage, pay for it. Why are we just paying for signage? I mean it just. Don Ashworth: I don't know how far Todd's gone through this but I mean, there was a $25,000.00 amount put in escrow to pay for really the signage portion and then he's putting up the $50,000.00 for the roof and then the rents are basically to balance the rest of the account. 17 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well this shows we're spending $15,0(10.00 additional for signage. Don Ashworth: Over and above the 25? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: The HRA isn't, Fred put a budget together and they were talking about a signage package...so the $15,000.00 is still on the table because there was a larger, the big entry monument sign in front of the building was a concem of the Planning Commission and HRA. To tear that down and look at other options for redesigning that sign. The building itself was not...but the sign is also...so I think Fred put the $15,000.00 in there as a negotiation to try to do something back but I don't think the HRA has fully decided on the $15,000.00 or not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: On one of the other changes. Why are we running the district north to Town Line Road? That's really, just to pick up TH 101 trail or TH 101 construction or, I mean if we're short of money downtown and we weren't able to do a civic center and we can't do this and can't do that, why are we running this thing all the way to Town Line Road and picking up hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that may exist up there. Don Ashworth: Just to insure that you preserve your option to potentially pick and choose what projects that you may want to carry out if we turn around and get back into a healthier position before the year 2000. Todd Gerhardt: And to add to that. You're not collecting any increment off those homes. This will allow you to spend the dollars up there. You cannot modify ways of collecting... Councilman Wing: I understand that. Councilman Senn: Just for clarification, you aren't going beyond Town Line Road? Todd Gerhardt: It follows the city line up to Town Line Road. Councilman Senn: That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Todd Gerhardt: We're not going to Minnetonka. Councilman Wing: With that, with due respect to Mark's comments, I think we've...fime and effort and energy over the years put into this and I'll move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to approve the 6 conditions that are contained within the TI:F plan. 18 City Council Meeting - Mar~h 14, 1994 Resolution g94-31: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving Modification No. 13 of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan for the Chanhassen Redevelopment Project (See Attachment #5). All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Wing: Just discussion on that. Off the record, off the, on the record. I'm curious as to that agreement. That it kind of looked a little bit and clarified a little bit. I'd like to see a memo in the administration packet covering Mark's comments and concerns because it's an intriguing question and I guess I don't see it affecting anything here but I am curious what role we put him in a little harder maybe. Todd Gerhardt: Remember when we did put the budget together, I mean we purchased the property and it was our best estimate and we felt that we could put $100,000.00 into the thing and you always want to add other things and taking this as an example of the pedestrian bridge. That was...You know you keep wanting to make things a little better and I see that's what happened here...A very sturdy mansard roof on the roof...some other alternatives but it still would have looked the way the Planning Commission felt so we went with the best design we felt the city wanted to pay for. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on to item number 4. PUBLIC HEARING: 1994 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG FUNDS STARTING JULY 1, 1994, ALLOCATION FOR SENIOR CENTER/SENIOR COORDINATION, SOUTH SHORE CENTER CENTER AND ACCESSIBILITY PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY. Public Present: Name Address Ron Block, Senior Community Services Beuy Bragg Hazel C. Johnson Emma St. John 10709 Wayzata Blvd, Mpls 55305 6320 Steller Circle 6231 Cypress Drive 1621 West 63rd Su'eet Mayor Chmiel: This evening we have some of our, some of my constituency. Some of the seniors that are here this evening and it's nice to see you here for this particular presentation. Kate, are you going to do this? Kate Aanenson: Yes, I'll be happy to do this. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. Kate Aanenson: ...Year XX block grant program. As you know it's...and there's a 50% cap as far as the type of expenditures. Typically we...and we need to look at that more carefully. The allocation this year is just over $48,000.00. As the Mayor indicated, it's broken into three categories. Number one is Dawn Lemme, pays for part of her salary which is...senior center, that's $17,000.00...The other expenditures is the South Shore Senior Center. They had requested more than was recommended by staff. As you know Shorewood helped us with rezoning our CDBG program and we certainly support them in their efforts and...The Senior Commission...level of funding for $5,000.00 and had some sfipul_afions. They want to meet with them periodically to discuss the 19 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 operations and programs and also see improved communications. So I think that's just a word that they want to make sure there's better communication...Sojourn was asking for money too but they had moved outside of the city and so their application for our program...The third level is the accessibility improvements for the American Disability, the ADA and again we'll be requiring...the dock pier here at Lake Susan and again we're looking at upgrading some trails and play areas...so as far as the breakdown, we had recommended approval for the Year XX...$17,000.00 for Dawn Lemme's salary, the South Shore Senior Center for $5,000.00 and the accessibility improvements would be the balance which is $25,000.00. $26,544.00. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address us at this time? If so, please state your name and your address and who you may be representing. Ron Block: I'd like to. Mayor Chmiel: Please, step forward. Ron Block: My name is Ron Block. I'm with Senior Community Services. First I'd like to thank you for your past and current support of the South Shore Senior Center. As you mentioned, I'm joined this evening by three residents of Chanhassen and participants in the South Shore Center. Betty Bragg, Hazel Johnson and Emma St. John, whom you probably do know better than me. We have, Senior Community Services had requested allocation in the Year XX of CDBG funds...of Chanhassen of $6,000.00 and I guess that's indeed what I am here before you this evening requesting. That is I guess a $1,000.00 more than what was recommended by the Senior Commission. That figure, I don't know whether you have a copy of the letter that we had sent. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Ron Block: Basically it's based on the population of seniors and indeed the usage of Chanhassen residents of the South Shore Center. As you mentioned...15% cap of social service usage of the funds. That really has to do with the county wide usage. Whatever, whether an individual city excludes or doesn't exceed that unit, it all winds up balanced at the county and the county sorts it out and if it's above 15%, we'll go and get back to individuals at least for above that level and in effect you'll have to negotiate and at that point, might have to reduce allocations...I guess I also want to reiterate the one point that Paul K_muss in a memo he sent to the Chanhassen Senior Commission and that is that, I think quoting from the memo. When we almost lost all our CDBG funding last year, it was only through the assistance of the city of Shorewood that we were able to keep it. Shorewood helped us out because we have always funded projects like South Shore, that were also used by their residents. If there are questions pertaining to the usage, participation of Chanhassen residents...be happy to try and answer those. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Seeing none, I'd ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any specific questions of Mr. Block in regard to his presentation? I think all of you know the amount of time that we spent trying to make sure that we save these CDBG funds. It took a lot of effort between the city and Shorewood to come up with that agreement and I still say thank you to the City of Shorewood for going through that process with us. And I know that they too are happy that we're able to make 2O City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 these additional contributions because it does lessen that for the other communities as well in and adjacent to it. I think it so much clarifies the percentages that we go through with South Shore and the participation that we have by our own citizens from Chanhassen participating there. So with that I would, there's no other discussion, I'd like a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple questions. If we approve the $26,000.00 for the accessibility improvements, does that mean we are specifically authorizing undertaking specific ADA projects or are we going to. Kate Aanenson: Correct. There was a study done identifying in the parks and they were targeted for those. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that part of what we, I mean because we've been looking at the ADA as a larger issue and we decided to have a work, or not a work session but a report come back listing the priorities and I'm concerned that we're authorizing projects without doing that stuff first. Councilman Senn: Yeah Kale, I don't know if you were. Kate Aanenson: Yes I was. Councilman Senn: Yeah see, when we adopted the ADA thing at our last meeting, we were kind of basically promised that we'd come back with a specific approval of items by priority and all we did was accept the report. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's my concern. That we're authorizing projects without that check list. Todd Gerhardt: You haven't accepted the ADA report yet so what staff was directed to do was go to our training session to get a better handle of some of the situations out there that we would go ahead and bring it back to the City Council for your approval. But what these dollars that are outlined in here are, came from the ADA on a specific project that Todd Hoffman has established his goals of his Park and Rec Commission and upgrading the trails and park equipment so handicapped individuals can use those. So he just took those segments out of the ADA manual and put those in here. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we say yeah, take $26,000.00 and throw it in the pot without specifically designating it to specific projects? Kate Aanenson: Well I asked them to identify which projects. He put in here trails...I'm not sure he's identified ones that were outlined in the report.. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they're not specific here? Kate Aanenson: No. But they're specific to study. I don't have that study in front of me so I can't answer that question but the projects that were identified in the ADA study for park issues... Councilman Senn: But Don there's no reason we can't allocate the funds to this type of a use and then specifically approve the expenses later, is there? Don Ashworth: That's my recollection. In previous years we've had issues such as...well, no but I mean a more generalized category without specifically saying here are the individual projects that we're going to be doing 21 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 within there. Kate Aanenson: But we don't know the dollar mounts as far as the bid and that sort of thing. We tried to get a list oL..saying these are the categories we'll be looking aL Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's fine as long as we're not authorizing specific projects and that was my general question. So we're just throwing $26,000.00 into the pot to use on ADA projects. Kate Aanenson: For parks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: For parks, and that's frae. I'm fine with that. And regarding the South Shore Senior Center, I don't propose to know more about the issue than the Senior Commission does by any means so I guess I would go along with their recommendations. There are obviously some communication problems there so, whatever they think is best. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: I think Mark, do you have a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Alright, excuse me. When the ADA was presented to us, the first thing I thought of, and I'm not going to say I don't agree if it isn't necessary. It just seemed to me that every federal bureaucracy existing in our known world was rolled up into three letters, ADA. And I kind of sat back and I related to our fire station. I'd rather close it than comply. It wouldn't be worth it. I'm looking at realistically what we do out there. At any rate, we've always spent this money locally on our people and suddenly we're spending a majority of it on some federal act that we're not even sure what it means and what we should do with it, It spreads out over a tong time and we don't have to comply with it necessarily and I can't get a taxi cab in Chanhassen. It just doesn't exist. I can call Suburban or Town Taxi and they may or may not show up and it may or may not be available but one thing that has saved our, saved us with our foster child we have is Dial-a-Ride. And boy, first I've said that is an expenditure I don't like until I started using it and realized it was the only choice I had in driving specific was to call Dial-a-Ride and I'd rather spend that on our, and that's kind of getting back to our seniors again. That's the only way they have to be mobile if you will and here's this wonderful service that's available. I'd rather see some money go into Dial-a-Ride to put on a second vehicle and a little less into this Act right now until we get a feel for what we have to do and what we have to comply with and perhaps put more on the taxi, I don't know, It seems like a lot of money. I remember having a terrible time several years ago when we spent $8,000.00 to put in a fishing pier and then we spent $16,000.00 to make it handicapped accessible for less than 1% of it's use. And I guess my position was, let's take it out. It became really not very practical to do it and let's treat everybody the same and let's get rid of it. Is that a pretty conservative approach, Mr. Liberal? Let me hold...Mike was there. I was just kind of looking to Mike for. Councilman Mason: I think yeah, but if you're talking about denying accessibility to people Richard, you're talking to the wrong person. Councilman Wing: No, I understand that, I understand that. I don't see that we're denying accessibility and I'm more concerned about some specific issues right now that deal with our people today, now that maybe could be handled better with this money. So I guess that accessibility, I cringe with this as much as I did with the 22 City Council Meeting - lVla~ch 14, 1994 $16,000.00 for the dock. It seems that we have more important issues like Sojourn which is gone now. What a, I mean how those ladies could handle that. And even the group over here. We still haven't conquered our senior citizens. Senior citizen issues and we're branching out here all of a sudden. Well, I'm not decisive in my thinking so I stop right now. I'm not comfortable with what we're doing but other than the only thing that I can come up with that I'd like to see some money go to is Dial-a-Ride. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: The expenditure for accessibility I would really like to see I guess stay in accessibility. Like you say, I think we have a lot of need there but at the same time I really don't want it allocated to parks or anything else at this point. I want it allocated to accessibility and I'd like to see then us follow through on what we were told at the last Council meeting, which means a specific list of priorities coming back in with specific costs attached and everything else before we start making expenditures. I'm not going to say that the parks are a priority over other access issues at this point but again, I think we need to look at the overall issues and decide what the priorities are and what the best way to spend the $26,000.00 is and I don't think CDBG requires us to get into that level of detail at this point. I mean if we just allocate it to accessibility or ADA issues, it seems to me we've got it. But at the same time, I go back to that ADA report and there were a lot of things in there that were just ridiculous. But at the same time, there were many things that were very valuable and very necessary and very needed and I think we don't have an open puree siring on simply doing everything in that ADA report so I'd really like to see the Council set a specific set of priorities by project item so I'd like to see that general allocation rather than even ear marked for anything specific. On the South Shore Center thing, I'd like to just go with what the Senior Commission has recommended but I'd really like to ask the Senior Commission now to address the issue of, and maybe get a dialogue going with Council in terms of what should happen in the future years. So is this just a recurring issue? My understanding there was a fair amount of discussion over long term, you know what should our position be on that given our own senior center and everything else. And I'd really like to see that discussion followed through with at this point in lime and again dialogue and discussion come back to the Council rather than be faced with it again next year when we're supposed to be adopting another allocation of the CDBG. I'd like to see that happen...but that's my comments. Mayor Chmiel: You're referencing some of the things that we're making the allocations to the center itself. That's something that we, as you well know, made arrangements with the City of Shorewood and indicated at that time that we would support that center for a number of years. And that was a commitment that we made making that exchange back and forth. So with that there should be support still rendered towards the South Shore Center. Councilman Senn: Don I'm not saying there shouldn't be. I'm simply saying that I'd like to see the Senior Commission follow through on their discussion of what level of commitment there should be and over what period of time because there was a fair amount of discussion about phasing out of it over some period and allocating the funds instead to our own senior center and other things like that. I'd simply like to see that followed through and see the discussion brought back to the Council. So again, so we're not just in a react position when we've got a CDBG budget before us next year. Mayor Chmiel: The other thing I think that Todd made those allocations. Now was there or not a federal requirement in regard to the handicap within the parks per se and is this what he was not looking at? Kate Aanenson: Well actually you do your best kind of in a good faith effort to try to attempt to resolve this, is my understanding. 23 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Chmiel: Councilman Mason: Kate, what about Dial-a-Ride? past? Kate Aanenson: Sharmin Al-Jaff: Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but there is no specific criteria you're saying that you have to comply with and that it be son of unusual as far as the feds are concerned because they normally tie things down pretty tight no matter what you're doing with dollar allocation. Councilman Senn: We have to comply with all ADA guidelines by a certain date, not just parks. That's right. It's a good faith effort to... Good. With that in mind, any other discussion? Michael. Haven't they received some CDBG grants from us in the Yeah, but it was Sojourn. Okay, no they haven't. Actually all the money that they received is from property taxes... Councilwoman Dockendorf: But couldn't, since they have handicap accessible vehicles, couldn't we include that as part of the accessibility improvements? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The fleet that they are buying is money that should be handicap accessible and I don't believe that we have been using our entire money. The money that the RTD has. We haven't been spending all of that amount. Therefore that money can be used towards the Dial-a-Ride. Making the Dial-a-Ride handicap accessible. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you sure we haven't been using all the RTD's budget? Okay. Councilman Senn: Colleen, what I'm suggesting is if you just call it accessibility, I mean those. Councilwoman Dockendoff: It's broad enough so we could. Councilman Senn: We can make, because under ADA issues, that is one of the ADA issues likewise. So I mean we can come back and address that if we do that in a broad manner. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I have one other comment that has nothing to do with CDBG but ff Councilman Wing wouldn't care to debate liberal and conservative at some other point. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If hearing none, can I have a.motion? Councilman Senn: Can I move approval that the city adopt a resolution allocating Year XX CDBG funding as follows: Chanhassen Senior Center Operations, $17,000.00; South Shore Senior Center, $5,000.00; and ADA or accessibility issues, $26,544.00. 24 City Council Meeting - March 14. 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94-32: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve that the city adopt a resolution allocating Year XX CDBG funding as follows: Chanhassen Senior Center Operations, $17,000.00; South Shore Senior Center, $5,000.00; and ADA accessibility issues, $26,544.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 VEHICLE AND EOUIPMENT PURCHASE. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council...equipment approved for acquisition as a part of the 1994 budget. The staff report,..I outlined each piece of equipment which we sent out for bidding. The company... The low bidder and bid for each item are indicated in bold face in the outline. Wherever possible...price for the application. The total amount of bids received...tolal of approximately 5% below that which was approved...successful bidding process that we were able to go through again this year is directly related to the efforts put out by the public works staff and the equipment superintendent. They've done a very good job of how they propose to make these budgetary predictions back in July for purchase acquisitions in March...nnd what they think the costs will be. So therefore my recommendation to the City Council is to award the low bid for each of the vehicles and equipment listed in the 1994 public works acquisition as highlighted in Harold Brose's memo dated March 8, 1994. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Charles. Any questions? Councilman Senn: I had one question. Charles, are any of these companies on here, whether accepting or rejecting the bids local companies? Charles Folch: I'm sorry. Councilman Senn: Are any of the companies listed here or bidders listed here, whether we've accepted or rejected them, local? Mayor Chmiel: That's something I think that staff goes through the process of looking for within the community, just seeing if there are people who have these kinds of equipment and to request that they do make those kinds of bids because we've gone through this for many years of making sure that we utilize the people within our community that are also here supporting us with their taxes as well. But I don't think there's any of these in here that I look at. Councilman Senn: Yeah, Charles really I'm asking, I mean in some of the bids here I mean we're literally a few dollars apart and you know just, to me it's not always important to go with just the low bid when you're a few dollars apart. That's why I'm asking the question. Some of these companies, you know... Charles Folch: I certainly concur with the Mayor's previous statements. But going through with the type of equipment that we're purchasing, at least for this type of an acquisition, we really won't have any suppliers within Chanhassen that supply...but in terms of the day to day operations, tool acquisitions, things like that that we do, we certainly... Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are a couple here. I mean you've got Lano and Waconia Farm Supply. 25 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Charles Folch: Right, out of Shakopee. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I think too Mark, just too the low bidder sometimes, I sort of question that. But according to State law, I think you have to accept low bidder bids on items of such. So with that, can I have a motion? If no other discussion. Councilman Wing: I'll move Public Works Bid No. 1 thru 10 as recommended by staff. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Resolution g94-33: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the low bid for each of the vehicles and equipment listed in the 1994 public works acquisition as highlighted in Harold Brose's memo dated March 8, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING EXPIRED VARIANCE g89-1 FOR JAMES JESSUP, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Lucille Remus Don & Kitty Sitter 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, this item appeared before you 2 weeks ago. At that time we explained that, staff...that the variance had expired. The applicant had excavated a foundation hole and left it basically open. More than a year has passed and substantial development did not take place. Four extensions had been given to the applicant. We came before the City Council for direction and we asked that the City Council find this variance expired. The Council directed the City Attorney to draft an agreement that would either, to ensure that construction take place and if it doesn't by a certain time, then the City would be able to go in to basically restore the site to the way it was 5 years ago. Well over the past 2 weeks the applicant filled the excavated foundation and we were out there this morning and we also spoke to the applicant. The applicant intends to reseed this site and that was the last telephone conversation agreement that we had with them. The erosion control needs to be maintained on the site. It's on the site right now. However, there are a few places where it needs to be placed and maintained. So if you say there is no need for the agreement any longer because the... reseed the site when weather permits, but until then he has done all that would have been requested from him by the agreement. We are recommending that you find the variance expired and this would give the applicant still a chance to reapply for a variance. The City would, staff would still recommend approval of a variance but...basically taking a fresh look as to their needs. Roger Knutson: After the last Council meeting and per your direction I prepared the agreement and sent it over by fax to his attorney. Before I heard anything else, I got a call from Sharmin saying the hole's filled in. I said well, what does this mean? So I talked to his attorney and his attorney said, he didn't think it was practical for him to proceed at this time under the direction given at your last meeting. So he filled in the hole. He's going 26 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 to do his erosion control and as I understand, when he gets his money from the PETRA fund, which he's supposed to get, then he will be reapplying, or may be reapplying for a variance and proceed at that time. Until then, it's off. The building construction is off. Councilman Senn: And the variance is off?. Roger Knutson: ...recommendation, if you find that it's been expired, and I assume that's what he understands you'll be doing tonight. I assume they know that. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what Sharmin indicated is that that would allow them to come back in again for a variance if they so choose. Roger Knutson: You're funding the obvious at this point ff there's no hole. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple questions. You were out there this morning. What does it look like? Your report says it was 80% filled. Sharmin AI-Jaff: When I wrote the report it was 80%. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And this morning? Shurmin AI-Jaff: This morning it was completely filled. It needs to be reseeded, def'mitely. I mean there's no question about that. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Is there any trash? I mean what's your general impression of how it looks? Sharmin AI-Jaff: It doesn't look good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't. Sharmin AI-Jaff: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And so besides the hole being filled in and needing reseeding. Sharmin A1-Jaff: If we had 2 rains, I'm positive that everything would wash out into the lake. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And would erosion fences help that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. There is a Type 1II erosion fence up there right now but. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Is it sufficient? Sharmin Al4aff: It has fallen in so many different areas, and we took pictures of that. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So in addition to denying the variance tonight, we need to put a couple other conditions on that the site be fixed up. 27 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Yeah because we're going to have a big hole as soon as the ground thaws and the rain comes. I mean it's filled with frozen ground. So I mean we're going to have another sink hole very shortly. mean what options do we have in terms of assuring that. Roger Knutson: None of this has to do with the variance. Councilman Senn: No, I understand. Roger Knutson: Because the variance I think you'll fred is gone. So then we have just our erosion control measures required by City Code and city staff will look at it and make sure they're enforced. Councilman Senn: And the nuisance ordinance and all that stuff. Councilman Mason: And trash. Roger Knutson: My impression is he intends to, again in talking to his lawyer, that he intends to cooperate to get this problem solved. I told him I think the obvious, that if he does that, when he comes back it will be good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we don't need to take any specific measures because city ordinances akeacly take care of what the site looks like? Roger Knutson: We will enforce city code and remind him of his obligations. You can't attach conditions to the variance because there isn't a variance. Councilman Mason: We just got a note from the Sitter's and the Remus' talking about grading the property to pm-construction condition. Clean up property. Erosion control and a deadline for these items to be completed. And from what I'm heating here, you're comfortable that city ordinances will and can take care of all of that? Sharrnin A1-Jaff: Can we make them reseed the site? Roger Knutson: I think we can, yes. Let me get something clear. The obvious. If he doesn't, and they told me that they will. But he doesn't, it isn't a matter of us being able to just walk on the site and do it ourselves. We have to go through a process and unfortunately that process is not nearly as quickly as any of us would like it to be. Could there be a potential problem, yes. If it got bad, we could go in and get a temporary restraining order authorizing us to go onto the property to do the work. We don't want to do that. We want someone else to do their own work... Councilman Senn: I'd like to really see us make a statement and maybe the rest of the Council doesn't want to go along with it. But to me Mr. Jessup has really treated his neighbors unfairly. I mean if he couldn't go ahead with this site until he got the Petra fund, then that's what should have been said months ago rather than. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Years. Councilman Senn: Years ago rather than putting his neighbors through what they've had to go through. And I think Mr. Jessup needs to realize that if he is going to build on this site, he's got to be back in here and when he comes back in, you know and we grant variances, the variances can also reflect you know the deskes of the 28 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 neighborhood. And he really ought to do something to start treating his neighbors with a little more, I'm not sure what. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's one thing I don't think we like to get into. Those kinds of mas but. Roger Knutson: Excuse me, I'll just add, I made that very, very clear. To his lawyer. Councilman Senn: You did. Okay, good. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come up and state your name and your address. Don Sitter: Excuse me, I'll make this real brief. My name is Don sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I guess what I would like to ask is that you make the, well F~t of all, thank you for ~_aking the action you did a couple weeks ago. Obviously we've got a problem nearly resolved, But I'd just like to ask you to make sure that the rules are clear. I know you can't force him to grade or whatever but if he is saying that he's going to cooperate, make it clear what is required of him. Right now they did put in more dirt than was ever there before and it's got kind of a crown and a sloping pile of dirt towards the lake. There are still blocks and wads of trash all over which he was directed to clean up last September, which he still hasn't done in a letter from Steve Winters in the Public Safety. So I guess if I could just ask you to set the expectations that you think is a reasonable timeframe, that will give him a chance to cooperate and show that he's really trying to do a good thing...so rather than just hoping the city ordinances take care of it, if you could just make the direction clear. We still have a drainage problem. He's got it piled so high that the water's still not going to go through his property. It will go through our's and the Remus property and we think because he did that to begin with, that you should ask him to take that drainage and maybe put in the drainage swales that are part of his building plan. I know the city had looked at that and said that these swales would have to be put in. Maybe you could ask him to put those in now. At the time he final grades. I guess let him know what the expectations are to cover the drainage and the trash removal and the seeding and then let him have a chance to cooperate, and I think that would be all we'd ask at this time. Anyway, thank you for your support. We really appreciate it. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: So isn't action necessary tonight or has it simply expired by? Mayor Chmiel: You might want to just adopt a motion fmding that, so that the record's clear, that the variance has expired. So it's laid to rest. Based upon the staff reports and..xepresentafives. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. As per discussion of the City Attorney. Councilman Mason: Is then, can we then direct staff to send a letter, confirming that the variance has expired and these are the things that need to happen on the site? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. 29 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Mason: And that would I think then take care of the expectations you folks are looking for. Mayor Chmiel: The Sitter's, yeah. Councilman Senn: And maybe ask the building department to make it a priority to keep an eye on it. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Councilman Wing: Well can I word that officially to your motion that staff be instructed to enforce all city ordinances to the maximum? Give this full attention. Councilman Senn: Accepted. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that accepted by the motionee and the second? Okay. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council concurs with staff that Variance 4~q19-1 has expired and to direct city staff to enforce city ordinance to their fullest extent and send a letter to the applicant outlining what is expected of him in the form of compliance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3,800 SO. FY. CHURCH TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN 87,113 SO. FT. PARCEL, LOT 1, BLOCK I, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, CHANHASSEN KINGDOM HALL. Public Present: Name ~tephen Kern John ? Address 6540 Devonshire Drive 3113 Groveland Road, Wayzata Kate Aanenson: The proposed building is located on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Business Center. As you recall, this was given final approval by the City Council back in February of 1993. You amended a PUD to allow for a church use on the property. Jehovah Witness has now come back for site plan approval. This lot, as you recall is triangular in shape and was a little bit larger. We envisioned this as being appropriate for an office use based on the fact that it's the only front facing lot that has direct access onto Audubon...we thought a church use makes good sense here...Iraffic with the rest of the industrial park at the peak hours. The church itself, we have color renderings but the church itself is very...and it's only 19 feet in the highest point of the roof. 5,000 square feet and maximum seating of 208 and the brick building we feel blends in very well with the existing residential across the street..The landscaping along Audubon as shown on the site plan, the city did put street trees in along Audubon. There is a berm that's required as part of the PUD agreement... This went to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission asked, this plan that you have before you has been modified since it went to Planning Commission. The plan that you have has additional landscaping. That was one of the concerns the Planning Commission had and there are even more than is shown on the site plan, which I'll talk about in a minute. Park and Recreation Department recommended that they fulfill the requirement of the PUD which is a requirement that they pay full park and trail fees upon building permit application. They do have a sign permit which...wall sign. As I indicated, the Planning Commission reviewed this site plan and wanted some additional landscaping. You have the revised since it went to the Planning Commission but since that time the 3O City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 applicants have provided additional 14 trees, which axe right in through here, along the parking perimeter, we're asking for overstory trees...staff report and recommendation that you add number 8, and that you add additional 14 overstory trees along the perimeter of the parking lot be provided. Other than that, as far as the complying with the PUD standards, the setbacks, the type of architecture, the parking, the lighting, all those comply with the PUD. So staff would recommend approval with the 8 conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything that you'd care to say in regards to this? Please come forward then and state your name and your address and who you're representing. Stephen Kern: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Stephen Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen. I believe Kate mentioned that you have the photographs that we were using... except the wing. A 30 x 20 wing....flipped over so it is on the Audubon side...Also in the photographs, just to show that we have a roof line here on the southeast view and that although this photograph is about haft the distance that driver's driving by will see on Audubon Road. It's twice that distance to the road. That roof line is very similar to what will be happening to that as all the break-ups with the overhang and so on and the drive thru. And then we're trying to show the...where it says the northeast view, is that...coming over the bridge and going south and it's got a high elevation. We have the...and origination be 8 feet tall and then we have, the 3 maple trees there. So the view would be a little bit through the trees and then...We have all the landscaping along the northeast side to break up that wall so there's more than just the one line there. We've got about 3 different sets of trees...across the building to break up that setting quite a bit. Just to mention too that we're going to stick real close to the photograph as fax as having the most quality brick material available. That light brown color that you see with almost a scattered darker color scattered in there a little bit. And just to touch briefly then. ! think the Planning staff is, we're involved with architect to make sure we've got a good flow through the parking lot. The 73 spaces that are there are more than adequate because the...show actually a 165 seats is what would be in there under normal conditions. Because our attendance averages 100 right now and 35 cars coming in. The parking meets those chairs plus if we do have something like a wedding or something to put up the chairs, these back two sections and you can put some up in front here by the stage. You might end up with a mass possibility of 200...still within the parking needs there for the 73 parking spaces. And then just to make note so we're all on the same basis about the signage. Just that we're a.qking for a sign on the southeast wall there along with, and those are 9 inch letters. Then the siguage for the monument is a brick structure with the two colors. The prepared 20 gauge and the...added to what the Planning Commission wanted. They wanted shrubbery all the way around the sides..,-md I guess Kate touched on the berm. For a while we were just a little concerned but I think...the developers will require to develop the site and grade it to the site plan before we bought the land. There's all kinds oL..and so we had our surveyors out there to make sure that things, as you see now, is where that berm's going to be as far as height and they'll...average is about 8 feet so it does cover the parked cars real well. The purpose of the berm. And then lastly, just briefly touching the landscaping..,and a real nice site that we're going to be proud of. So along with the 11 trees that were planted by the city last fall, they're kind of circled close to the boulevard...ll trees on our site which we appreciate. And then up to this point, before the additional markings, there were 24 ornamental trees on the site listed. And 15 of our 11 shade trees originally...and then the addition of the 15. And 64 shrubs. So concerning the large shade tree...as to the 8 conditions listed. So along with the 11 shade trees that are on this, in your drawing, and we're working along with this to put in 15 more in these areas. It's going to be...points mentioned and have those in there and we're agreeable to that. Obviously the conditions...so we appreciate everyone's help on this, although we thought we'd be in front of you this time last year. Not knowing that the developing process with the development contract would take so long but we'd like to get rolling on this. Appreciate it and I can answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? I guess not. 31 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Thanks. Any discussion? Any concerns? I guess I only have one question. In the event that the congregation grows, and you may have to have expansion on your existing facility, what considerations have you given it at this time? Stephen Kern: This was also brought up in the past and what we do, we don't, we would never add onto the building. What we do is fLrSt contract the 6 or 8 congregations surrounding us to see ff they'd like to take on some...change our territory borders. And secondly, with all the development going out west, we could easily have a Chanhassen-Victoria congregation... Third, we would add a congregation number 2 and they would meet something like Monday-Wednesday nights and Sunday afternoons... Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate, the trees that were drawn in there on the southwest, right across from the entry way. Between the driveway and the parking lot. I think that median needs to be wide enough for survivability so I think as part of that planning requirement, I don't know if, I can't tell if that's 2 feet or 8 feet or 10 feet on that width but either they have to have a planter type box or that median expanded wide enough to survivable. And other that that, I'm sort of in a state of shock. These are the nicest, most cooperative people and the most quality proposal that's come before us and when a large grocery store came before us and there was 9 trees in a parking lot 4 times the size of this whole project and we asked for 5 or 6 more trees and the guy almost came over the podium and wanted to know who I dared thought I was. And I just make a suggestion to put in more trees and these people come back and put in more than I even suggested and I applaud them. I'm totally in support of this project. They're the nicest people I've ever worked with. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there any other discussion? If not, I'il entertain a motion. Councilman Wing: So moved. I move approval of, I don't even have it in front of me. Site Plan review for Jehovah Witness congregation building, conditions 1 thru 8. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Doekendorf seconded that the City Council approve the site plan for the Jehovah Witness congregation SPR g92.5 as shown on the plans dated February 25, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: B612 or equivalent concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in all parking lot and driveway areas with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the northwesterly portions of the parking areas adjacent to the railroad tracks. The parking lots shall be designed to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot areas. Depending on the side slopes of the drainageway, rip rap may or may not be required, ff rip rap is not required, then the drainage swale shall be sodded. Final determination will be made by the City Engineer after review and approval of the site grading plan. 2. The driveway curb cut on Audubon Road shall be constructed with a concrete driveway apron in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207 (Attachment No. 1). The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site plan with the pre and post site contours across the lot. The parking lot shall be designed so it drains in three directions with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and the easterly and southerly parking lots. 32 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 4. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook. Access points to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cut on Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance shall be provided and maintained until the parking lots and driveway have been paved. 5. Payment of full park and trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. 6. A separate permit is required for the sign. 7. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994. 8. An additional 14 overstory trees along the perimeter of the parking lot be provided. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SELECT AND OFFICIALLY MAP THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAY 101 BETWEEN HIGHWAY 5 AND LYMAN BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Jim Ostenson Al Klingelhutz 7808 Creekridge Circle, #310, Bloomington 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Fred Hoisington: There are not many people here this evening who haven't seen this presentation before so I don't know if you want me to go into just a very brief overview. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you just give a, yeah. Thank you. Fred Hoisington: ...study done in 1989 for the corridor, the Highway 101 corridor. At that time there were a lot of things that weren't known and there were a lot of things that were kind of put on the city. We really didn't have a lot of choice for example about the alignment of the interchange of 212. In fact we thought it was going to be built fairly soon and all of you know what's happened to the schedule for Highway 212. We're not well into the next century before that will be built. But a lot of things have changed since 1989 when the first study was done as well. Wetlands are treated differently today than they were in 1989. Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990, you have to address wetlands much more carefully than we ever did before. And then of course whenever you do a State trunk highway, which this sort of is. It's a temporary State trunk highway. You have to be concerned about cultural resources and there are some within this corridor, which we've spelled out in the plan...it's more than anything else a junk yard but it does date back quite some time. We found some interesting things there. Since we have started this process we've conducted two neighborhood meetings. One on May 17th and and one on November 17th of '93. In both cases we had neighbors speaking generally in support of alternatives 2 and 3 and we've had the land owners speaking in support of Alternative 3. They want alternative 3 in that case. A couple things to remember is this road will carry 15,000 vehicles probably as early as the year 2005. And the original intent is that it would be built when the Highway 212 was built. But since Highway 212 is pushed back as far as it's been pushed back, there may in fact be a need to build a temporary roadway within this corridor, or at least for part of it, to accommodate the growth that you're regularly approving south of 33 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Highway 212. Now hopefully that wouldn't happen. That may be necessary just to keep growth... Let me tell you just briefly about the alternatives. Alternative 1 was to use the present alignment of 101 and alternative 1 would have about 100 to 120 foot of right-of-way. It would have no extraordinary cuts or fills. In other words, you'd have it pretty much at the same grade that it is except we wouldn't go up and down quite as much as it currently does. You would have the most significant encroachment or damage you could cause the property would be the two houses on the east side where you're cutting into their front yards and so there would be some detrimental affects of that but not nearly so much as the other alternatives. And it would be a traffic nightmare because at 15,000 vehicles per day, and driveways coming directly onto it, that is not a palatable alternative for the city to consider. It would be cheaper however to build that alternative than any of the others. Alternative 2 was the alignment that was approved in 1989. 200 feet of right-of-way, 4 lanes divided. There would be significant tree loss. Cultural resource impacts and it would leave a strip of unusable land between the two right-of-ways that either would have to be used for single family purlx~es or simply be excess land and the city would have a concern about what happens to that in the future. Alternative 2 leaves the two houses however on the east side. Alternative 3 is a westerly shift of alternative 2 and is the preferred alignment and it has all the same characteristics as the former or alternative 2. Hardly any difference in terms of impacts and about the same price. Substantial cuts. A lot of tree loss and cultural resource impacts and so forth. One of the alternatives that we did not intend to evaluate early on was alternative 4. It uses part of the current temporary connection up at the north. But what it does is it requires a little bit more right-of-way than just using the present alignment. 120 to 150 feet of right-of-way. Lesser cuts and fills but many of the same impacts as the other two alternatives 2 and 3 have on the environment. Now it's important to remember that no matter which alternative you select, there will be an impact and you cannot avoid the neck that exists here between the hill to the east and the existing roadway. There's no way you can avoid that corridor. That's where the road has to go. It's only a matter of how wide the road is and how high it is. The higher the road is elevated, the more fill it takes and therefore the more wetland impacts there are there. But when you will, you do a couple of things. You end up...vertical grades to 4% maximum and if you try to depress it all the way down the hole, you'll end up with some grades that are generally not considered to be acceptable for a State Trunk Highway. So there are trade-offs all the way, no matter which alternatives you may wish to consider. Now let me just touch briefly on, as you know we scored the alternatives and we provided you with that and alternative 3 scores the highest. Now let me tell you a little bit about the roadway itself. It is designed for the speed of 49 mph. If it's designed for 49, that means that it should be signed at about 40. I have a feeling that it may actually carry traffic at somewhat higher speeds than that and it may be more in the area of 45. In which case there might need to be some super elevations introduced to this roadway. It's minor but it may...to be sure that people stay on the roadway when they take these curves. The curves will accommodate reasonable speeds for the traffic that would occur within this corridor. If you look at Figure 5 you'll note that some of the grading limits actually go outside of the proposed right-of-way. You'd have to take some conslruction easements and so forth outside of that and this roadway would be 100 feet back to back. We'd have a depressed median. We'd have curb and gutters so it would be sort of a mixture of urban and rural section with a landscaping scheme that would tend to be more native plant materials. Minimum upkeep and minimum maintenance...75 foot excess right-of-way into roadway alignment. Within that area you could create an 8 foot berm. Landscaping on top and the grade also works for us. So you can literally eliminate the effects of the roadway at that location. If it gets a liule closer at Section B but we'd still have plenty of room to get an 8 foot berm and landscaping on top of the deck...Lake Susan. And then of course when you get down to Section C, the furthest one to the south, you have a considerable distance between the houses there and the roadway itself. So space itself creates it's own buffer in that regards. As far as trails are concerned, we're talking about a recreational trail on the east side or between the two a more leisurely, winding kind of recreational trail and with commuter trails on both sides, or actually striped on the shoulder. We think that if we're committed in the future to alternative modes of transit, that is a viable alternative and if this is to be funded in any part with ISTEA dollars, we also need to have to show or 34 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 demonstrate a high degree of intermode or multimode of transit in this corridor. So that means the transit hub is also up here. There is some, Southwest Metro is thinking that this may be more important than we think this particular transit hub may be but nonetheless a park and ride lot will be important for it will primarily serve Chaska. Not necessarily the city of Chanhassen because people will tend not to flow back against the flow of traffic...to Eden Prairie to get picked up there. So that's the trail system. I'm just going to summarize funding because we think that's a critical part of this. There's been a number of meetings that Don and Todd and Charles have convened with all of the players in how a roadway such as this would be funded and these are the things we've kind of concluded. That the right-of-way acquisition probably will need to be the responsibility of the city. MnDot is saying that that's the case and remember, this is a temporary State trunk highway. Not a roadway that MnDot has any great interest in spending dollars on for any purpose, except they would like to get rid of it. That's one of the advantages we have is they do want to get rid of it. So we see the city as funding the road and protecting the right-of-way and then purchasing it as it is available over a number of years and I understand you talked about Willie Klein's property earlier... RALF funds may come into play here. But again because it's a temporary State trunk highway, they may not. Nobody can really say for sure that they will or will not. We think there ought to be a limit to the amount of land owner dedication, although we understand some of the land owners don't necessarily agree with that and we think ISTEA would be appropriate for the enhancement aspects of this project. Cooperative agreement funding through MnDot is a program where you can actually design your own roadway improvements and generally provide the safety. And of course turn back funding is also...as well as County State Aid funding. And then special assessments. We don't think we can avoid specials. We think that there may need to be some drainage improvements and perhaps landscaping that would be funded in that fashion as well. So we look at it as a blended way to be deal with the funding of this roadway and we think it could all be put together and made to work. What the Council needs to do is to authorize to do really three things. The first thing is to select an alternative. The second is to authorize the preparation of an official map and that will require the staking of the center line that's a creation of legal descriptions...The City actually took a proposal from BRW I think 6 years ago and 4 years ago and it was kind of put on hold until there was a need and I believe the need is upon us now...And the third thing is to finish the EAW. The EAW is essentially part of a lot completed. Because the cultural resources study, inventory and the wetland delineation so we....need action on all three items to get this, or keep this body... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does Council have any questions at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ah yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: If we take care of it tonight, the decision making, when is your best guess of when this road will be built? Fred Hoisington: Well I think, of course we've always said that it wouldn't be built until Highway 212 was built. But now with...212 and the roadway needs increasingly important, our feeling is that perhaps '97-98 would be the soonest you could get this done but it will need to be done probably... Kate Aanenson: We're also t_alking...they're ready to move forward .and if we can get the right-of-way...They just want to reiterate that there are people that...there's people that want to make some life decisions here and we keep putting it off as far as whether they're going to be here for another year or whether they're going to be bought out so again, kind of they're looking for some decisions made so they can make some life decisions. Where they're going to be. 35 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Roger Knutson: Kate Aanenson: Fred Hoisington: Roger Knutson: process. Kate Aanenson: Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Is there anyone else that would like to address anything in regard to this project? Okay. I think Al had some questions previously. Al Klingelhutz: I guess it, Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here. Come on Al, I like to see you here. Councilman Wing: Our concem A1 is that the first time in 35 years you hadn't chosen to speak and I thought maybe something had happened. Al Klingelhutz: Well I figured you were going to approve the alignment and the rest of the problems would be discussed at a later time when.,.l guess the biggest question is, if I wouldn't have looked in the paper, I wouldn't have even known this was on the agenda tonight. It does concern a considerable amount of my land. It just kind of bothers me ff I would have missed it, I just came up here to see what's going on.,.City of Chanhassen has been..,hearings that come up before the Council, giving notice of it and I would appreciate that in the future. Roger Knutson: Mayor, could I make just one brief comment? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger. Roger Knutson: What the Council, if you do authorize it, would be to begin that process of officially mapping the road. Before they can do that there has to be a public hearing on this subject and that has to be before the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: We did hold the public hearing. That was noticed and they were told that this would be on this Council meeting, The Planning Commission's already held the public hearing on the official mapping? Well, just on the alternatives. No Roger's right. There's going to be a public hearing on the official mapping as such. And that comes hack here so you're not officially mapping anything tonight. You're starting a But there was notice given of the three alternatives at the Planning Commission...nofified that that discussion would be carried forward to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: So my concerns are that... Al Klingelhutz: It was to be carded forward to the February 28th meeting... Mayor Chmiel: My concerns are, is that it goes through the public hearing, all adjacent property owners will be notified and at that time to come in and make those kinds of presentations. A1 Klingelhutz: We were all notified of the previous, with the two neighborhood meetings... 36 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks for bringing that up Al. Okay so what we have to do is authorize this for a public hearing. To come up with one, the recommended alternative. Two, the authorization for completion of the EAW. And also the official mapping of the roadway. Is that correct Fred? Okay. Councilman Mason: Now are we also looking to choose, is Council choosing an alternative tonight also? Roger Knutson: You're choosing an alternative to hold a hearing on. But bear in mind it's going to cost you a lot of money to stake it. It isn't like holding a hearing that's going to cost you publication notice. I assume you're going to have, are you going to stake that before the hearing? Or not. Fred Hoisington: We're not, but I mean...staked before the hearing. We've already held the public hearing before the Planning Commission on alternatives. We've held neighborhood meetings. We have every reason to believe that the altemative selected, alternative 3, is a pretty safe thing to move ahead with and get the official mapping done. Then we'll come back to the public hearing when that time comes. Al Klingelhutz: Mayor Chmiel: just like me. Al Klingelhutz: Can I ask one more question? Certainly. Come on up here so we can get it on tape Al. I know that you need the exercise, You say you're going to stake it and the land is still being fanned. What happens to the stakes when you cultivate the corn and columbine your beans and things like that without the city actually owning the land? Mayor Chmiel: Fred. Fred Hoisington: Al, what they will do is they will monument the line also so if it happens to occur when the stakes will be lost, at least they'll be replaced. The purpose of the stakes as much as anything is so people can see where it is but if they monument the line, then you can also go back and redo it. That's not a problem Al. Al Klingelhutz: Okay. So I won't get sued if I knock down the stakes? Councilman Senn: Watch out for those monuments so they don't chew up your machine though. That could be the end of that cultivator real quick. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everybody understands the situation. Any other questions? If not, then can I have a motion to proceed with a public hearing for the items that I've indicated previously. Councilman Mason: So moved. Those items being Alternative #3, continuation of the EAW and. Mayor Chmiel: Official mapping.. Councilman Mason: Official mapping. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? 37 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Resolution g94-34: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize a public hearing on the preferred Alternative/13 for Highway 101 between Highway 5 and Lyman Boulevard; the authorization for completion of the EAW; and the official mapping. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Fred along with that, hopefully some of the costs that are going to be entailed with this, I'd like to at least have some kind of a ballpark figure. Fred Hoisington: Your Honor, I can give you a little bit, I'm not sure what, BRW submitted a proposal in 1990 with a ballpark is $19,000.00 roughly. That's the cost for the official mapping. The staking, the monumentation...probably to complete the EAW is, I'm going to say another 6. Somewhere in that area. Mayor Chmiel: Now if it was $19,000.00 in 1990 and this is 4 years later, Are there any escalation costs? Fred Hoisington: Hopefully not, Mayor Chmiel: And 6 was the other part you said. Fred Hoisington: Yeah, Mayor Chmiel: So we're looking roughly at $25,000.00. Okay, Jim Ostenson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir, Jim Ostenson: I'm Jim Ostenson with Tandem Properties involved with the Mission Hills project. I'm just wondering what the time would be of this,.,I received concept approval and are anxious to move ahead. We're wondering at what point will we be able to continue on without,.. Mayor Chmiel: Fred, do you know how long this process may take? Jim Ostenson: At what point, how far do you have to go before we can come in and resume our process? Fred Hoisington: Fred, I can't answer that. Kate would have an answer to that. Kate Aanenson: Well we certainly have to have it officially mapped, And then we also have to evaluate whether or not... Mayor Chmiel: What's the time frame basically? If it were to go through. Fred Hoisington: I think all of that probably could be completed in the next couple of months. But let me check, if you want BRW...we can ask and find out if that's really.... Mayor Chmiel: Well either BRW or should we put it out on a bid? And what would be the objection if we did go out on bid? If any? 38 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: I don't care. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles. Charles Folch: Survey, that could be done to verify. I would probably guess that BRW, given their history and how much they've done in this area in the past would probably give us the most favorable cost estimate...but we can certainly put it out just to get an indicator if you so desire. Mayor Chmiel: What's the Council's pleasure? Remain with BRW or go out on a bid basis? Being that they have background information which would be a benefit probably to the city and not having to go out and get that additional. Councilman Senn: We don't have to gather additional, we've already paid for the information haven't we? I mean that's available to whoever does the job, correct? Charles Folch: Well their having the history and some...already done, the process of transferring information from their files to another consultant...it's our's. We've paid for it but... Mayor Chmiel: There could be some time consumption is I guess what you're saying too. On this particular one I would probably say let's go out for a bid and see what happens. How much more is that going to delay? Charles Folch: Well actually we estimate the work if less than $25,000.00 can act, ally basically solicit quotes. We don't have to actually go through a formal bidding process but I think we could shorten the timeframe and maybe just solicit 2 or 3 quotes. Mayor Chmiel: Let's go through that process. Okay? Alright. Okay, we'll move on to item number 10. ADOPT RESOLUTION DEFINING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA REVIEW (AUAR) FOR OPUS/GATEWAY PROPOSAL LOCATED AT HIGHWAYS $ AND 41. Kate Aanenson: This request was brought to you by, when we met with Opus and we required that...and in a discussion with them, they were wondering, we also concurred that the issue that would be addressed would be addressed in the EAW and that be further addressed in the EIS. All we're doing is stating a time frame. They have to give us another mechanism...He recommended the area wide review process. We did speak with Barton Aschman who's done a lot of work with us and asked what they felt was adequate too as far as the level of review. They certainly concur...felt this was more than an adequate way to review their environmental features. So what we've attached is basically everything that they have to be doing and they're responsible...the document. We require that they pay us for the traffic...issues we want investigated so they're doing that portion of it. We would be the responsible governmental unit so we'll be running and holding the public hearings. So what we're recommending is that you use the area wide review process for the alternative...We're not short circuiting anything as far as the issues that need to be addressed. All we're doing is shortening up the time frame...issues would be resolved...and that's kind of what the starting point to this process. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does coUncil have any questions? Councilman Senn: Just one. 39 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Senn: If we use the abbreviated process, can we still be required to perform the EIS later? Kate Aanenson: I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure. You can ask what issues you want to be in the review process. What we did is we went through all the requirements of the EIS and basically that's, obviously what you do under the EA..holding additional commentary on it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We... Councilman Senn: Well I mean, that's part of my question. I mean could some group, I mean let's say there's a concerned group out there about what's being impacted in the environment and they come in and say we want an EIS. I mean can we be required on top of this to basically duplicate and do an EIS? Mayor Chmiel: Well, Roger? Roger Knutson: At an administrative level you make the decision on that issue, Are you subject to challenge? Yes. I'm not addressing this one in particular because I know nothing about this one. But there have been challenges saying no, this is inadequate. You have to do an EIS. They're rare. They involve things like 35W where you get a big one like that where you've got everyone nit picking it and picking it with a microscope. And no matter what you do, you're going to get challenged on that, right. This, yes you can do it. Challenges are very infrequent but it's possible. Councilman Senn: I just wanted to know but that is a risk. Roger Knutson: It's a possibility. Mayor Chmiel: Oh it always, yeah. Kate Aanenson: It's a risk for the applicant. Roger Knutson: It's the applicant that pays the bill and the applicant gets delayed if anyone gets delayed. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Kate Aanenson: The risk to the city, that's how we felt about it, I wasn't at the meeting but... Mayor Chmiel: It's their risk. Kate Aanenson: ...if you feel we need more identification or some of the... Councilman Senn: Okay. Who would do this? Kate Aanenson: DSU. Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban...They've done, had Schoell and Madsen do a portion of it. The first stage of the... Councilman Mason DSU does the AUAR EA? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: And they're employed by Opus. Mayor Chmiel: They're employed by the applicant. Councilman Mason: But, isn't that kind of cozy? Kate Aanenson: That's like RLK did. They did the Chanhassen Business Center...engineering finn to do the EAW, and they sub out what they can't do. That's why we subbed out specifically to our consultants Strgar Roscoe on the traffic element. We wanted to make sure. But the rest of the stuff is the environmental survey and what not. We can go over that. Charles will...and Dave. We all review our specific elements so. Councilman Mason: Alright. Well everyone seems to think it's a good idea. Mayor Chmiel: So with that. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's moved and seconded that staff's recommending the City Council adopt a resolution recommending an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) be completed for the property known as the Gateway development as identified on Attachment #2 with the issues addressed and identified in Attachment #3. Resolution g94-35: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council adopt a resolution recommending an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) be completed for the property known as the Gateway development as identified on Attachment g2 with the issues addressed and identified in Attachment g'3. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I'd just like to ask the Council's alertness and assistance in being organized and informed and I would urge a vision to the future on an issue coming before us on a forth coming Council agenda. Recently at an HRA meeting I chose to offer my opinion on an issue regarding Market Square. I named no names but at that meeting I was singled out by a developer and I was named as being out of order and if I had more experience I might understand the procedure that these issues go through and I found myself standing in front of a freight train waving a little hanky. The corner of Market Square and 78th Street recently went through the Planning Commission. I would just ask the Council to pay careful attention to the Minutes of the Planning Commission from the past meeting and the meeting before the 14th. We have the Minutes of the 14th. And specifically to the comments of Jeff Farmakes who in a very articulate and emotional manner clearly expressed my opinion on this issue. Second item that I would draw your attention to is the commission's motion of the last meeting denying Lotus/Bloomberg proposal for that corner based on traffic flow. But the real issues were brought in on a friendly motion, although it was denied under traffic. I want to point out that the real issues identified as an addendum to that motion were the, passed onto Council, that it needs to have the land use studied before we do anything. The number of buildings looked at before we make any decisions. Do we want fast food in that location? What's the quality of the building? And again, Jeff Farmakes I think addressed these issues and feels that to put a building that looks like an army barracks is probably not the best use of the city. Thirdly then that it would be leadership time and decision time on our part and I'd just ask 41 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 that we all play a real decisive role in that because I feel the future of our central city is at stake on this issue and words such as prime and focal point and my word pivot, until I found I couldn't pronounce it, pivotal. And the options. What options do we have? Can we buy it? Can we hold it? Do we have to let it go? Do we have to let it go to today's retail market of $13.00 a square foot just because that's the way it is or can we wait for that market to grow and should it be a 5 story building versus a 1 story pitched roof?. I have a whole lot of questions and I'm really scared that this particular center of our city has a substandard proposal before us. That bothers me greatly. And if we can own that property, I want to know that. If we can force better qtm_!ity there. Enough. Jeff Farmakes has spoken for me. I'm just urging you to read Jeff Farmakes' minutes in the last two Planning Commissions and his comments on the motion directing us to study some major issues that they were not allowed to or did not have an opportunity to and I'll end it at that. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: Last meeting I brought it up and I haven't really seen anything done about it so I guess I wanted to bring it up again. Downtown clean-up. Again, we spend all this money. We're doing all this stuff and it really tee's me off when I drive through downtown and see trailers, construction trailers all over the place. Boats being stored in parking lots that have been sitting out there now for at least 6 months that I know of. I mean come on. Don't we have ordinances against this stuff?. We do in the neighborhoods. I'm assuming we put the same standard to our downtown area. Can we do something? Please? I think I counted 6 or 7 construction trailers on main street and I think I counted.., Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we talked about that about prior to my going on vacation. Councilman Senn: No, well we talked about it last meeting. It came up again. It's been twice now. I mean what enforcement options do we have and what can we do? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Why does that trailer remain where it's at over in Market Square? Councilman Senn: Well Market's only one, in fact one of the less obtrusive ones. Charles Folch: We have two construction trailers basically down here off of just west of Kerber. Those basically are still there because there's some work left to do on the project and that's basically the home base for the contractor, the inspector, the testing representatives. When they're out there at the job. I would suspect that that would be gone by probably July. Sometime in late June, early July when they finish up with the project. There was a trailer over here on that lot next to the Riveria. That was removed. We had that moved out of there... Mayor Chmiel: I think I asked you the question just today, what was going to happen with that existing piece of property with everything that's there and that's going to be cleaned within, what was the time frame? Charles Folch: Well I would suspect that we're going to have the contractor back to you within probably, by the middle to the late part of April...so at that point in time they're certainly, they're going to be, that will be part of their clean up process. Taking care of that area there. Councilman Senn: Well you said until July. I mean can't, if it's the city's project I understand it but can't we put it in a better place than sitting right on main street? I mean is it essential that the contractors all have their trailers lining main street like their building? I mean I just don't understand that. 42 City Council Meeting. March 14, 1994 Charles Folch: See actually there's the trailers that we have there west of Kerber, when the project was started that site was shut down. Basically that was...now the street's open so it looks like yeah, now it's right underneath the street. We've got no longer is it a torn up roadway. Where's a better spot for it? I don't know at this point. Councilman Mason: Chaska. Councilman Senn: Behind their buildings. Charles Folch: Unless they would get permission from the private land owner...right-of-way or public land to be able to have these trailers placed. Councilman Senn: Okay, how about our property on Market Square? I mean what is that trailer still doing there? I mean he complains about a Wendy's. I mean let's talk about the wailer that's been sitting there. Councilman Mason: The Amcon trailer? Councilman Senn: Amcon. Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure that they were hoping to get Wendy's approved and they can move right in. Councilman Mason: Well they guessed wrong. Councilman Senn: Yeah but that was a long time ago guys. The trailer was done being used. How about the boat storage? I mean do you guys realize there's been a boat parked right on main street for, ever since last summer? Right out in front of, not the hotel. It's actually in front of no man's land is what I call it~ Councilman Mason: Well they're just waiting for the flood. Charles Folch: That's been there that long? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Charles Folch: Why did I just notice it this morning? Councilman Senn: You woke up on your way to work. Charles Folch: I would think the winter would be a tough time to sell a boat. Councilman Senn: There aren't even for sale signs on it that I saw. Whatever. It'd be nice to maybe do something about it...bring it up for the third lime. Councilman Mason: Three's the charm Mark. Councilman Senn: Is it? Councilman Mason: Oh sure. 43 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: I asked for a report back on hours related to trash and construction and stuff. I got my update through our city newsletter. It was absolutely wonderful because the newsletter has all the different requirements and the times in it, whether you know it or not. They aren't consistent. Can we do something to make them consistent? Roger Knutson: The trash ordinance, after your last meeting I mended the trash ordinance and sent it in to City Hall to be processed. Councilman Senn: ...construction to be consistent then or? Roger Knutson: I don't remember now. Was it 7:00? Councilwoman Dockendorf: It was 7:00. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Roger Knutson: When you wanted it to start? That's when it starts. If you pass the ordinance, that's when it starts. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the newsletter was just printed already. Councilman Senn: No, well the newsletter states what it is now and I think it's correct. Yeah, 6:30 on the trash and 7:00 on the ~onstmction and I think there was even a different time line in there for something else but I can't remember. I didn't get my newsletter...The last thing is, could we move, I don't know. Is there a way we can accelerate moving along the hauling issue? I think, how would I say this? I think the fact that it's not moving very quickly is turning around and causing problems. I've had a couple of people call me this week that were basically complaining about one of the companies basically now going out and, you all know what you pay for trash per month so one of the companies is now going out and buying every household they can for $7.00 per month to build their base to plug into our formula that we've talking about in terms of this consortium approach. And I really have a hard time be a party to that type of business building or that type of situation. I mean we've tried to have an open discussion with the haulers and we've tried to have an open way to basically come to a solution here and when I found out that one of the haulers was out there doing precisely that, I mean that's great for the consumer and don't get me wrong. I want to see competitiveness and stuff but right now to go out and implement that policy, which we all know is far below any industry standard at $7.00 a month, I think turns around and puts us at an awkward position because they're one of the strong supporters of the consortium method at the same time which advocates that they be, you know business now be distributed on the basis of their existing contract load or maybe ff nothing else, ff we could simply say that any decision we make is going to be based on their load on December 31, 1993 or something. Councilman Mason: That would kind of take care of that wouldn't it. Councilman Senn: Could we do that as a Council, Roger? I mean I don't know. Roger Knutson: You haven't made a decision but you could get the word out that that's how you're going to make a decision. Mayor Chmiel: Have staff make a phone call and indicate some of those concerns. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well I suggest you call Aagard and let them know. Councilman Mason: Gee, am I surprised to hear that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mayor, could I add one more thing because Mark triggered something. Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought the city's newsletter was absolutely fantastic. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, so did I. Councilman Mason: It's getting better and better. Mayor Chmiel: I was going to make that comment. I'm glad you did because I brought it along to remind myself. Councilman Mason: Well done. Very well done. Mayor Chmiel: It's someone new that put it together as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who did it? Mayor Chmiel: Well staff basically puts it together but... Councilman Mason: But the new newsletter service. Councilman Senn: But the old person did a good job too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes they did. Excellent. Very well done. Thank you for that good comment. Councilman Mason: Motion to adjourn? Mayor Chmiel: I certainly would. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Oh jeepers. Oh jeepers. Look at the back. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: RESIDENTIAL SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM, CITY ENGINEER (VERBAL). Mayor Chmiel: Seeing that he's not here this evening, we'll carry it. Councilman Senn: So now he's walking. Charles Folch: This here is an information packet. We've had a couple neighborhood meetings with Chart Estates through the construction project. There's still appears to be some confusion in terms of what the project will involve and what some of the options are and such so I've asked the project engineer. 45 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: We're all confused. We thought we were talking about sump pumps. Charles Folch: We will be getting to that. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Charles Folch: ...get that in your hands. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just as long as you have the floor, right. Charles Folch: ...project engineer put together a survey and a little information packet. As it turned out would be quite more extensive than I anticipated but I think the engineer did an excellent job of explaining all the issues and.., (There were a number of conversations going on at the same time during the city engineers presentation.) Charles Folch: ...study melxo wide of all communities which was completed in '92. They basically sent us letters...confirming what we pretty much already knew. We're one of the communities that had a problem. For basically 5 years, but this will be our fifth year now into the sewer rehab program which we've been doing to try and repair leaking, broken sanitary sewer which...One of the elements, there are basically two parts, two elements of...which is typically what we get in broken sewer pipes. There's also what is called...which we can get through manhole covers in the streets. We get through probably sump pump connections into the system. And from what we can tell, we probably have fairly significant share in terms of cost dollars of sump pump I & I that's getting into the system. This is backed up by the fact that every time one of our utility operators goes in to read a meter or the utility inspectors go in to do a building permit, basement refinishing inspection, they typically at this point have been for about 2 years now, they'll make a note to go and check to see if there is a direct sump pump connection and over the past year we've probably had 3 dozen violations that have been followed up on with the btfilding inspector. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are those knowing violations or is it just? Charles Folch: Well, that's hard to know. Councilman Senn: If you ask them, no. Charles Folch: I would say it's probably ignorance. I don't know that that many people know that it's code, in the State Building Code, Pumping Code violation to have that. So I would think to a greater share it's probably ignorance...and I think the Council has made it clear to us, especially this past fall, that they wanted to see something, at least the staff look into developing some sort of program to deal with this problem. So over the past couple months we've had a number of meetings, inner department meetings if you will, between the building department, the public works department representatives, utility and finance, planning brainstorm all to be involved in putting a program like this together. We thought what we'd do tonight is at least outline some of the key points in terms of what we think need to be done as pan of .the program or could be done and nm that by you. Get your feedback. Get your input before we proceed too far into this thing. If we're going in the wrong track or...things into consideration. What we know to date is number one, fa'st of all we're going to have to establish in order to be able to conduct this program, establish a city ordinance that basically outlines that number one, it is unlawful to have a connection...to put any new connections in. Basically there would be 46 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 implications for requiring the disconnect. There would also be provisions in that ordinance dealing with the inspection program that would be conducted by the city. And probably, Roger would probably add some more elements that would cover the bases on it but we'd also probably have to have some sort of lang,a£e in there regarding the surcharge type of situation for properties that would either not comply or not allow city inspection on the property. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, what would be the cost per an individual property owner putting a flow out into the yard? Charles Folch: From what I can tell, in talking to the building department, it depends on the situation in terms of how much work would need to be redone to make, to rectify the system correctly. In most cases, from what I understand, it would be less than $100.00 probably to make the corrections, at least internally with the plumbing work getting the discharge outside. Now different properties may have different work. You know outside of the building or outside of the home structure they may have to do some extra work in terms of making sure that the system is extended far enough out so it gets away from the house or if they want to try to get it to the street. They may have to do some digging and do some trench work and things like that in order to get the drainage to a point where they can feel comfortable in their yard. But internally in most cases it should be less than $100.00. Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say that with something like that, to have maybe some kind of an incentive because of the flow not going into the metropolitan waste system, it will probably lower the cost for the city as well. Over the long nm. So maybe if we look at something from that standpoint. Charles Folch: A Chan Business Center type option. Mayor Chmieh Yeah. Charles Folch: In fact that's one of the tough things to determine now. I mean we've been 5 years now we did the sewer rehab program. We've taken care of a lot of bad, broken sewer pipe but you know our flow keeps going up each year because our population base keeps going up and until we would take the time to go back and do a detailed study and analysis again in terms of how many households we have and how much flow is coming and really at that point determine the benefit. But I do believe these sewer rehab programs have benefitted the city and will continue in the future each year with not having some of that excess flow going through the system. Regarding the inspection program itself. We tried to determine you know basically think about what would be a convenient time or a time when most people would be home. Typically I think what we're assuming is most people, there'd be a better chance of catching them at home on the weekend type situation. Not necessarily during the day or the evenings. During the week. We would probably want to get the information out as soon as we can prior to doing something like this. Newspaper. Quarterly newsletter. We'd probably put some sort of flyer into the utility, monthly utility bill or quarterly utility bill I should say. Getting the word out that the city is going to move towards a program like this and that basically there's going to be a city official coming around during a given time period of a couple months that we'd be making the inspections. In terms of help or who would conduct the inspections, in talking with the building department, they realistically, they're putting in a lot of overtime right now. Just re_king care of the normal duties that they have and they've indicated that it would be more than ddficult for them to try to take on something like this so more than likely we would probably have to hire some temporary help from the outside. On a part time basis, maybe Saturday and Sunday type situation for however many weeks it takes to accomplish the project. But it more than likely would involve hiring some outside help. Now these outside help people we would propose they would have to go through 47 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 some, at least a preliminary training program with some of the, the plumbing inspector bring them up to date on what we're;..to the people. We'd also, I would propose we put some sort of drawing and instructions together basically in the form...with the ordinance. Whether they do it themselves or hire a plumber to take care of it. Councilman Senn: Could we set up a summer internship program or something to accomplish it? Since those are the months we're really talking about. Charles Folch: We could do something like that. But in terms of just looking at what it's going to involve, just in rough numbers. Let's say for example that you have 4,000 homes to visit with in the city. We operate between the hours of 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday and noon to 5:00 on Sunday. That roughly gives us 13 hours per work person per weekend. If we assume that basically an average home may take a half hour worth of time because there might be additional inspection, a follow up inspection, and maybe some administrative work, but just kind of ballpark. What might be involved. You're really looking at about 2,000 hours, person hours of inspection time and ff you're coveting only 13 hours per person per weekend, you're looking at, to accomplish this task in 6 months would take roughly 6 people operating for 6 months worth of weekends. If you try to accomplish it in 3 months, a shorter period, you need roughly a dozen people out there on inspections. Councilman Senn: You could get a dozen summer interns in and do it in the 3 months then. That wouldn't be a bad way to do it. Charles Folch: In terms of cost, I would think that we'd probably be paying this type of position, somewhere in the neighborhood of $10.00 an hour, give or take you know anywhere ballpark to do something. Councilman Senn: Boy, the cost of living just went up. Charles Folch: Again, I'm just kind of throwing out ballpark... Councilman Senn: We're only paying interns about $6.00-$7.00 an hour, just so you know. Mayor Chmiel: Stock market is doing very well. I'll be the fa:st one. Councilman Senn: Hey with all the pay we get up here, one weekend I could beat my monthly Council salary... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that it Charles? Charles Folch: Well, in closing I mean realistically we're probably, you're looking at a good $20,000.00 investment to do this program initially. Councilman Senn: Have you got the money in order? Charles Folch: The funding would be the next question, We would dedicate those dollars from the sewer rehab program we had budgeted for this year, 1994. Councilman Senn: How about water resources? Does that have any? Charles Folch: Well I think water resources is so limiWxl as it is, I think it would be... some of the goals we're trying to accomplish with sewer rehab so maybe it would be more appropriate to take it from that budget. I 48 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1994 think it could sustain that kind of a dedication from that budget more so than water resources could. We are going to run into some problems. Councilman Senn: How about a grant from the sewer board? Charles Folch: A grant from the sewer board? Councilman Senn: I thought they had some stuff like that that you could. Charles Folch: Last year we obtained a $10,000.00 grant to do the sewer rehab work. That was a one time, one year thing. I don't believe, we could certainly investigate to see ff that's something that they're looking at renewing for '94. That may be a good option. Councilman Senn: Well and if you tell them summer interns, they usually really turn onto that too because they like to see the internship stuff. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure staff will come up with something. Anything else? Charles Folch: We'll get into this program. Be aware, we are going to get, we are going to receive some negative complaints. People feeling this is unduly burden on them. People feeling that I don't want to let anybody in my house. This is my business. People are going to have wet, in some cases, wet yards or areas of their yard in making these provisions for compliance. People who will drain out their front maybe to the curb. It won't be so much of a problem in the summer time but during the winter time we could have some curbing icing up problems. These are things that we're probably going to have to look at. How we do it long term, I'm not sure exactly how we do it now. But the bottom line is, I guess heating all of this, I mean is this the direction we want to go? Do we take on the comments. Mayor Chmiel: I think we have to look at it. Councilman Senn: I think we have to. Don't need any more of it going to the lakes. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 49