The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1994 02 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Mason, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Chmiel STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Todd Gerhardt, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda with the following addition under Council Presentation: Councilman Wing wanted to discuss land use prior to the Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carded. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, two public announcements. Number one is Community Values Week. I won't read the rather lengthy proclamation but I would like to state that Chanhasse has been active with community values I know with the Chaska School District and there's going to be something later on talking about joint meetings with the Minnetonka Board so maybe we'll get that going that. way too. The proclamation does, would like the City of Chanhassen to consider proclaiming the week of February 20-26th as Community Values Week. And as Acting Mayor I will so do that Resolution g94-19: Acting Mayor Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to designate the week of February 20-26, 1994 as Community Values Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Mason: The second proclamation is Volunteers of America asking Chanhassen to name March 6- 13th as Volunteers of America Week and assuming that there are no objections from anyone on Council, I would proclaim that also. Resolution g94-20: Acting Mayor Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to designate the week of March 6-13, 1994 as Volunteers of America Week. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of 1994 Contract for Senior Linkage Line. b. Set Date for Board of Eqnalization and Review, April 18, 1994. e. Resolution g94-21: Accept Utility Improvements in Chanhassen Business Center, Project 93-1. f. Resolution g94-22: Accept Utility Improvements in Chart Haven plata 4th Addition, Project 92-16. h. City Code Amendment Concerning Park Dedication Requirements, Final Reading. City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 i. Approve Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Order for Judgment and Judgment and the First Amendment thereto, Lowell and Janet Carlson Property. j. Approval of Accounts, k. City Council Minutes dated January 24, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 5, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 2, 1994 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Mason: Typically we would have item 3(d), well 3(c), 3(d), (1) and (m) at the end of the meeting. We do have an engineer here that wilt answer any questions for, is it north leg? 3(c) or 3(d), Don? Don Ashworth: 3(c). Acting Mayor Mason: So let's do that right now and then we'll put (d), (1) and (m) after Administrative Presentations. C. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO TI-I 101 NORTH LEG PROJECT 88-22B. Acting Mayor Mason: Is anyone from staff going to take that or am I going to wing this? Don Ashworth: I would anticipate, we're ready to respond to questions so. Councilman Senn did have a question. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, and that would pertain to the change order i to Trunk Highway 101, North Leg Project 88-22B. Okay. Councilman Senn: In the staff report it refers to now a total cost of the project for redoing that intersection, the City's portion, what the City is paying for it I believe of $1,586,318.00. Is that correct? Councilman Wing: And 28 cents. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but that's the city portion? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then $97,869.24, which is in this change order, I was really confused because it's termed as Change Order No. 1 and we've had a couple of change orders before us previously on this project. Are they all being wrapped now into one or, you kind of lost me. Don Ashworth: Jon Horn is present with BRW. I'll let him try to respond to that question. Jon Horn: .Councilmember Senn, the Change Order No. i addresses a number of changes to the plans but this is official our first contract amendment to the project. We have not previously presented any change orders to the City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Council. Councilman Senn: The work's done? Jon Horn: It's essentially done. We still have some restoration work and the tennis court to build. Some odds and ends to be done yet this summer but the majority of the work is done. Councilman Senn: Okay, so we're not in effect approving the change order. We're confuming what's already been done? Jon Horn: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. So these are the same change orders that came into us before I believe prior to the work being done asking for our consent to do the work. You just never changed the contract at that point? Jon Horn: Right. This officially changes the contract in order to reflect the changes that were made. Councilman Senn: Okay. In terms of the $97,000.00, nothing we had in our packet really, I don't know what, it wasn't so much the $97,000.00. In the packet basically it showed an original cost of $1,488,000.00 and then there were a whole bunch of adds. $60,000.00. $6,900.00. $15,000.00. $7,000.00. $6,000.00 and $1,000.00. And now $97,000.00. Could you take a quick run down as to what those are all for? Jon Horn: You bet. The total contract...amounts is $97,869.24. What that includes is $60,000.00 for some additional pond grading as a result of the final MnDot approval and a part of the review process..~required some additional ponding on the site. That's the $60,000.00 number. The next item is the $6,985.00. City staff asked us to add an EVP to the signal system at the intersection of TH 101 and West 78th Street. Councilman Senn: That's the emergency? Jon Horn: Right. Item C again is due to some MnDot comments as a result of their fmal...approval project. They asked us to make some changes to our original signal system design so that $15,760.00 is for that. Item D is coordination with the railroad. It's due to the fact that...so that's the $7,033.00 was for the coordination with the railroad... And then E, lighting improvements. Wiring for all the street lighting out there was originally proposed to be installed direct bury rather without conduit. The city staff requested that we change that and add conduit for easier maintenance in the future. Councilman Senn: Okay. The staff report suggested these are all changes that were required by the State. Jon Horn: No, not necessarily. Some of them were State requests and some of them were city staff. And then the final item, the result...contml work and the $1,500.00 is a reflection of that. Councilman Senn: The biggest chunk of this was required though by the State or whatever? Jon Horn: About 85% of the total contract amendment amount was in coordination...with MnDot. Councilman Senn: Okay but the city was trying to upgrade the State's highway and they did these add on's and they don't have any cost...for them at all? The city gets stuck with the bill? Okay. Alright. Okay. But again, City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 just to clarify then, these are the same change orders that we a/ready...? Jon Horn: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. No other questions. Acting Mayor Mason: Does anyone else have any questions on item 3(c)? If not, would anyone like to move approval on it? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move approval. Acting Mayor Mason: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: I'll second it. Acting Mayor Mason: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution g94-23: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Change Order No. 1 to the TH 101 North Leg Project 88-22B. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, we'll do 3(d), (1) and (m) at the end of the meeting, as previously stated. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD (FROM GALPIN BOULEVARD/CSAH 19 TO MCGLYNN ROAD) AND GALPIN BOULEVARD/CSAH 19 (FROM TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 SOUTH TO T1MBERWOOD DRIVE), PROJECT NO. 93-26. Public Present: Name Address James Unruh John Dietrich Dennis Dirlam Liv Homeland Barton-Aschman Associates RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet Hi-Way 5 Parmership, 15241 Creekview Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Bluff Creek Partners, 123 No. 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Don Ashworth: I guess that ! have this one. Charles had minor surgery this past week on a knee and is not, had anticipated being here this evening but it didn't go as well as he had hoped. He's in good shape and it will take a couple more days for him to be able to jump back. In the meantime, Mr. Unmh is here to present the feasibility study for this project, including the proposed assessments. Jim. James Unruh: Thanks Don. Yes, I am James Unmh with Barton-Aschman Associates and we did the feasibility study which I believe all of the Council members have reviewed. It's this sort of peach colored document here City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 and we do have the assessments and the revised cost estimate to hand out to everyone so I'll just take a minute. I just want to, just in case you're not totally...maybe just look at these graphics that I took right out of the feasibility study. The frontage road that we're talking about here is about a quarter mile south of Highway 5 and it runs from Galpin Boulevard almost over to Audubon Road. We're proposing that it connect to the McGlynn Road here right by the McGlynn Bakery site. Another part of the feasibility study was upgrading Galpin Boulevard from Highway 5 to approximately Timberwood Drive. We looked at the design and the costs associated with the feasibility of doing these two projects. The school site, this School District #112, I believe it's an elementary school building, was the driving force for this project. Occupancy of the school is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The location of the roadway by the school site was pretty much dictated by the means of the school property. As we continue over to the west of the school site over to the McGlynn property, we worked with RLK Associates, the engineers working for the property owner that owns this whole big chunk of land here. Included are several property owners in there but we worked with them to come up with a roadway alignment. We have made just a couple of changes from the feasibility study that are very minor but they are highlighted in that memo that you have in front of you. We are, at the time that we did the feasibility study, we were proposing to construct the south frontage road just along the south portion of the school site. It would go from Galpin Blvd to about the west fork of Bluff Creek. And now we are looking at perhaps in the first stage of construction, going all the way over to the McGlynn property. Another thing that we have modified slightly is that in the construction cost estimate, in the feasibility study, we included the trunk utilities that would be installed as part of the frontage road. However, those costs were actually covered in a report done by Bonestroo and Associates a couple of years ago so we didn't want to duplicate those costs. We took the trunk utilities costs out of the feasibility study and that is noted in the memo that you just received as well. In the memo you just got tonight we also came up with assessment costs to landowners. There is a graphic in there that shows 10 different land, I'm sorry. 11 different landowners. I believe that's Figure 1. In the vicinity of the south frontage road. And based on Chanhassen's standard assessment rate for sanitary sewer and watermain, assessments were listed for the various property owners that benefit from the watermain and sanitary sewer improvements. Those assessments are listed on Figure 2 of the little packet that you just got tonight. It's about the third page or the fourth page. But it lists the assessments for the various landowners. And one more thing we want to bring into play here is that we are thinking that the south frontage road will be constructed, at least in part, with State Aid funds. That was not taken into account in the cost estimates. Funding has not been totally determined with the State Aid folks so we just...cost estimate showing that there'd be a cost split between the city and the benefitting landowners. One word about how costs are assessed for the frontage road. We came up with a cost of about $198.00 per foot, frontage foot, that would be assessed to the landowners along the frontage road. When you take out the drainage and the landscaping and sidewalk and the lighting, that is typically not necessarily directly assessed to the property owners, we come up with about $100.00 per foot. Charles Folch and I discussed this, and that's about the standard assessment that Chanhassen charges for it's residential streets. But anyway, that basically is what you're looking at. I apologize that you didn't get the updated cost estimate in your assessment roll prior to tonight, It was delivered to the city last week and there were some things on it and this is the first that you've seen it so certainly take that into account. We took whatever information was available as far as land use, areas of land use, property...to come up with the assessments. They are very preliminary and we think that statement in the memo here that certainly is subject to change based on the actual construction cost and development plans and right-of-way... We are looking at a couple of cost reductions factored in as well. It's been examined to move this roadway about 30 feet north so that we not impact any of the trees along the north side of the Timberwood development. That will potentially eliminate the cost of a retaining wall and we have $150,000.00 in there as the cost for a retaining wall. So it does cramp the school site somewhat by shifting the road into the school site further but we think that that's worth the changes, and consequently $130,000.00 from the cost, We're also looking at a grade...we're able to separate a process at Bluff Creek, an arched culverL..where pedestrians would cross underneath the roadway. 5 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Then we have listed in the cost estimates $300,000.00. We are looking at some alternative designs for that as well to minimize the costs. So basically what I'm saying is the costs that are included in the feasibility study and in this memo that you got tonight are high end costs and we are looking at minimizing those costs as much as we can. So with that, are there any questions that the Council has of this? This is to consider the feasibility study...as I understand it. Acting Mayor Mason: Right. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. Or Acting Mayor. Acting Mayor Mason: Yes. Don Ashworth: I don't think that we have included in here the costs of mass grading which are going to end up being back into the report. There will be a f'mal assessment in that area on the school and city property. I think it's important as a part of the public hearing to note that that cost is not included but will be in the final assessment roll. James Unruh: Yeah, that's a good point Don. The grading for the school site is going to be a shared cost between the city and the School District and the grading for the roadway will be done as part of that as well. Al1 one mass grading contract. The bids for that grading project are due sometime in the next month and I called the engineers working on that grading plan and they do not have a cost estimate fight now. So we're going to wait until there are actual bid numbers in to develop some assessments. That is noted in two places in this little report. It's noted in the text and then it's noted also on Table 2 which discusses, or lists the assessments. Councilman Wing: Can you catch me up on that crossover? James Unruh: This pedestrian crossover? Councilman Wing: Yeah. Point it out there will you? I can't spot it here. James Unruh: It's fight at the Bluff Creek east fork crossing. And I do have some photos of what we're proposing there. Acting Mayor Mason: Well this is consistent with the work we did on the Highway 5 Task Force, fight Jim? James Unruh: Yeah. There are some photos of what we're looking at. However, we've been talking with some folks that would provide metal, an actual metal structure there and we're thinking that that may be an option as a bid item and it may...quite a bit cheaper than the $300,000.00 we have budgeted in there. It's just something that we're looking at to reduce costs. Acting Mayor Mason: Good. James Unruh: Or keep costs reasonable I guess. Any other comments from the Council? Have I missed anything Don? Don Ashworth: I don't think so except that you know we apologize for handing out items like this evening but 6 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 we're talking about a major, major undertaking in terms of the construction of road, utilities. Getting a county road completed. Underpass. The whole mass grading that's really being done by HGA so that this structure, meaning the elementary school, can be opened by the fall of 1995. We've got to move ahead quickly otherwise we'll lose even this construction season and then we're in real trouble. And we've been attempting to do that so Jim brought out that shifting of the roadway 30 feet to the north would preserve the Ixees in Timberwood. The site plan that you saw from a week ago, two weeks ago that was presented by HGA, had that shift in there and I don't know if that was, if Council noted that. But again, we're working very diligently making sure that each one of these consultants knows what the other one is doing but it does come at the expense of not getting some of the materials to you as timely as we would like. James Unruh: Yeah, I want to just make one comment aboat the utilities. There's been quite a few studies done in the city of Chanhassen on trunk utilities in this whole west, you know west area of Chanhassen and we didn't reinvent those utility designs and cost estimates but we merely referred to those trunk utilities costs in both the feasibility study and in this memo that you got tonight. And those costs and the assessments for those costs were included in this report right here. We did take into account 1994 assessment rates. This report had 1992 assessment rates and we did take into account land transactions that have occurred since 1992, which this document obviously didn't take into account. So there are some updates on some previous work but we didn't redesign it or redo the process in this repor~ Councilwoman Dockendorf: On the assessments, talking about the report, for parcels 7, 8 and 9. For the assessment ones. I'm looking at Table 2. I don't see any assessment dollars to those parcels and those are just single family homes. And the reason I'm getting at it is because I recall when that report that you just referenced that they were assessed for utilities with the Stone Creek project. Are you? James Unruh: Yeah, that's what Charles Folch tells us. That they either have been assessed before or are being assessed via another project so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, so they won't be assessed on this one? Or will they be assessed for the frontage as well? James Unruh: No, they will not be assessed for the frontage road because they are not along this...and Galpin Boulevard is not, we're not assessing properties for the construction of Galpin Boulevard. There are some unknowns with the sanitary sewer service to these properties here. When I did the draft of this assessment roll I had the assessments for these properties just for watermain bemuse they are getting water from the south frontage road. There's a 12 inch watermain that goes through there and would service these properties here. There are some unknowns though with serving those properties with sanitary sewer so we decided that rather than to assess them now for a watermain and then again later for sanitary sewer potentially, we'll hold off on the watermain assessments at this time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I thought their sewer assessments were part of that north leg going up Galpin? James Unmh: That hasn't to knowledge, I don't think it's been done. I think you're right but I don't know that they're been assessed for that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And neither do I. I'm just raising the question for staff to make sure that they don't get double assessed. 7 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 James Unruh: Well that's the point. It's so the assessments for sanitary sewer...and watermain are combined in one and not taken separately. Watermain now and then sanitary sewer later. Am I correct in that Don? Don Ashworth: Well there may also be some confusion as it deals with the trunk sewer assessment versus like a lateral sewer. So anyways, we'll check on it. Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have any other questions before I open the public hearing? Councilman Senn: This isn't part of this project, right? Acting Mayor Mason: No, that's off Highway 5 but those are some options we looked at for under, you know roadway. Councilman Senn: Farther east but that's not part of this particular project? Councilman Wing: There is a crossover. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, there's a crossover that, the crossover underneath Highway 5 is part of this project' right? James Unruh: No. That is Bluff Creek... Acting Mayor Mason: Oh right. Right. James Unruh: We're proposing a similar type of structure. We're thinking maybe we can reduce the cost and we maybe don't need the big concrete structure like we have on Highway 5. Councilman Senn: So this is the option here is suggesting...part of the crossing of the service road and Bluff Creek? James Unruh: Yes, right. But we're looking at options to that to decrease the cost. Now this is a typical section for the frontage road and I guess you've seen this before but what I wanted to point out is that previously we had shown the frontage road right-of-way right up against the Timberwood Estates property line and there are some trees about like they're shown there along that property line and we would have had to take potentially a few trees. We don't know for sure how many because we don't have a detailed survey in that area but we are moving the frontage road further away, now 30 feet...not impact any of the trees. It is possible that those trees would be within the city's right-of-way but even so it was, it's being looked upon as favorable to not touch any of the trees in that area. And it does save us a possible retaining wall. At least most of the... Councilman Senn: A question for Don. Don, back where you said that, on Table 2 there where it said $366,000.00 for the city and $495,000.00 for the school district. Now those figures you said did not include the grading. Don Ashworth: Right. Councilman Senn: Do we have any ballpark on what that's going to be? City Council Meeting - February' 14, 1994 Don Ashworth: We did have, and this goes back to a telephone conversation that you and I had had from I would say a month to two months ago and I know that we had thrown a figure out at that point in time and I'm trying to recall. My recollection, do we have a guess on that at this point Jim? James Unmh: I called the fellow at HGA ancL..on their grading plan and he just didn't know what the dollar amount was going to be. I tried to get it today and I just couldn't. I really don't know what that dollar amount is. It might be worth to note on this graphic here that included in the frontage road cost is the grading for the south half of the frontage road and then the grading costs for the north half of the frontage road. Those were attributed to the school plan. That's what we're talking about when we divide it up between the school and the city. Councilman Senn: And it's only for that segment of the frontage road that abuts this? James Unruh: It's only for that segment. That's why that cost is not included in the total cost estimates which is Table 1. Table 1 is the cost that will be assessed back to all of the property owners along there. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's going to be added and assessed back at a later date? James Unruh: That's going to be added and assessed back only to the city and the school district. Not to all of the other landowners abutting. That school site really doesn't necessarily benefit all of the... Councilman Senn: Is the 495 and the grading then paid by the school district or is that part of what we're paying? Don Ashworth: The 495 would be part of the special assessment reduction as it would apply to the school district. So it says school district. When they carry out the assessment hearings, it will say school district. There will be a card created. It will say school district and then it will end up with that being crossed out and economic development district written across the top of it. So in essence we are paying that 495. As it deals with the grading, and my recollection is it was $300,500.00 total, or 3 and 2 and again I may be wrong in that. I should run upstairs and see if I can fred my notes but that cost was included as a part of the referendum. It is not proposed to be reduced through the economic development district. So that would be a cost that the school district has a choice. They can write out a check when they receive the assessment for that amount or they can carry it over the same number years as other property owners. Councilman Senn: For their half basically you mean? Don Ashworth: Yeah. Well, their half is a little bigger than half. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I mean their portion of. Acting Mayor Mason: Any other questions Council? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just one. On the schematic drawing of where the frontage road will go, you've got a couple future roadways lined out and I just want for the record to show that those are not any roadways that we've approved. They're just ideas of where future roadways may go. James Unruh: That's right and I think those of you...developers will put those in. 9 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: Just to follow up then with Colleen. As we went into Hans Hagen's operation down there, and there was an east exit. In other words we approved a really unusual cul-de-sac situation with one entry but there was to be an east exit. And that exit is in fact that road so we're not going to map it or it hasn't been mapped or why aren't we mapping it at this point then? I mean it's on them. It's a nice idea but how are we going to go about actually mapping this road? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think currently there's something in Planning Commission about, or in the planning department for proposals for that area so I would assume it would happen when that area gets developed. Councilman Wing: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Put my Paul hat on. Acting Mayor Mason: Thanks for the report. This is a public heating. Please understand that any comments, we are accepting a feasibility report. If we choose to accept it at this point. This does not mean anything is necessarily being done and there certainly may be some changes but at this time, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone that would like to comment on the proposed project, now is the time. Please state your name and address. John Dietrich: Good evening Council. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. 922 Main Street, Hopkins, Minnesota. We are the civil engineers and landscape architects representing Heritage Development and the Highway 5 Partnership. And we'd like to go on record as saying we are in favor of the plans that are being generated here in terms of the feasibility and location of the proposed roadways as they are being drawn and that this project is finally moving forward. It's been a long process with city staff and James and the other consultants and them has been a Itt of joint communication amongst the various consultants for the city and private developers. We've been very pleased with that...we do have a few concerns though in regards to the feasibility report and I think they would best be said with the cost estimates in the assessment roll. That was just made available basically today. My client, Heritage Development has not had an opportunity to actually see the costs estimates on the assessment roll and we are concerned that we have not had an opportunity really to look at it and discuss the ramifications of the trunk line and sanitary sewer assessments and the watermain assessments. So I think in terms of the east/west frontage road between Galpin and Audubon, we are concerned with the amount of costs that are being put together and how that process is being established at this time without the use of MSA funds at this time to build that into the entire cost assessment and want to split it for that roadway. So with that basic information, we are, we'd like to say we're very much in favor of the project. However, we have some questions about the cost estimates and the cost allocations at this time. We would like to ask that this be postponed or tabled...next Council meeting so that we would have an opportunity to really look at these issues... study the cost issues, assessment rolls and...staff and consultants to make sure that we're clear on that. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, I may have misstated earlier that this is more than a feasibility, accepting the feasibility report. Yeah. We certainly would consider that. We've just had a chance to see it too. Councilman Senn: That's what I was going to ask. Acting Mayor Mason: So yeah. 10 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: So it's not just accepting a feasibility report tonight? This is a public hearing on setting the assessments and everything? Don Ashworth: No. It's a public hearing on the project. If there were no concerns, what your typical action would be to close the public hearing and to order the project. In ordering the project, it's really based on these numbers. So I mean when we would finally get to the assessment hearing, the Council could sure change certain things but you're much better off having told everybody well in advance the methodology you're going to use in the assessment process. Councilman Senn: Just changing one is going to affect everybody? Don Ashworth: Sure. I mean if we've gone through this process. Told people how they're going to be assessed and then a year later we change the rules, you know they become quite upset. In light of the fact that RLK really hasn't had a chance to see these, staff would have no problem with continuing the public hearing for an additional 2 weeks to allow them to go through those numbers and to make a, and I think the Council might appreciate that as well. You get a chance to look at it. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think that would be really fair. Because there's other people here tonight... Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this project? Well, I'm not going to make a motion to, ask for a motion to close the public hearing then. What I will ask for. Councilman Senn: You mean continue the public hearing for 2 weeks? Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah. I'd like a motion to. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the feasibility report for Trunk Highway 5 South Frontage Road from Galpin Boulevard/CSAH 19 to McGlynn Road and Galpin Boulevard/CSAH 19 (from Trunk Highway 5 south to Timberwood Drive), Project No. 93-26 until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SET 1994/95 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES. Don Ashworth: Typically the City Council considers setting the liquor license fees in advance of our sending out application. That assures that when the applications do get back in, that the applicants have included a check for 1/2 of the license fee. That work has to be completed prior to April 1st so as to allow the State 30 days to issue the license itself. We did notify liquor license holders that the City Council would be considering this item this evening and we did inform them that staff would be recommending a, what kind of an increase did I propose? 4%. Acting Mayor Mason: 4% I believe. 11 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Don Ashworth: I did incorrectly state that it had been several years since it has been modified. That was my recollection. We looked back today and found that they were increased by 5% in 1991 so that's been 3 years ago instead of I think I reported 4 or 5. Again, we really did not want to see a raise in the fees but if the Council will recall we had, it was a difficult process balancing the 1994 budget and when we got into the final cuts, we were looking to 1, 2, 3, $4,000.00 increases to revenue or 2-$3,000.00 cuts in expenditures and that's how we raised the or balanced the final touches of the budget. We're still out of balance because we received the notice from the State of the $72,000.00 additional costs. Later this evening we'll be discussing potentially making part of that up with the reserve that the City Council had put into place as a part of that 1994 budget. But we're still going to be short anywhere from $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 and again, the necessity for increasing items such as this one really is mandatory. So with that staff would recommend approval of the increase in liquor license fees. Oh I should also note. Not all fees can be increased by the City Council. There's a number of them that were included in your packet that are set by the State of Minnesota and you cannot modify those. Acting Mayor Mason: Anyone on Council have any comment? Councilman Senn: I've got a couple questions. Don, I know we went through this I think last year. I honestly forget the answer but in terms of our licenses, how many of them fall in the small versus the large category? Aren't a majority of our's in the large category? Don Ashworth: That's correct. I know both the bowling center and the Dinner Theatre are in the large category. I believe that the Riveria falls into the small and Pauly's falls into the middle. I can verify that very quickly though. Councilman Senn: I thought I remembered it was leaning towards the top. Anyway, we figured out that this rate structure was better than a flat fee on the basis of the sizes, if I remember right. Don Ashworth: Right. Right. That is correct. Councilman Senn: Why on the on-sale non-intoxicating and the wine and beer are we so Iow in comparison to the rest of the world? ...suggesting kind of an up at this point. Don Ashworth: That is one that is within the Council's discretion. You could make an increase there. Staff kind of lives with some of our business people in terms of knowing their business and quite truthfully people like an Ahn Lee would have a very difficult time if we raised this to like $700.00. I mean they just don't make that many sales. Similarly Prairie House. Guy's. I can't remember if we've got Frankie's in there but most of these head into what I'I1 call the smaller businesses and it's tough going for them you know. I had a real difficult time recommending that and I sincerely believe that if we make a relatively big jump, and there may be some social purposes to do that but you may be defeating your purpose because I'm guessing that at least 2 or 3 of those would drop back out of there. In other words they'd quit selling. There's just not enough money in it. Councilman Senn: Shouldn't we try to keep you know I mean at least raising them in par. I think we're raising everything else 4%. Shouldn't we be raising them something...? Otherwise we're inviting everybody to do that anyway. By raising them 1%, we'll have to drop back and enjoy the benefits. Don Ashworth: Right. The Council could, may very well consider that and $50.00, I don't know that that would push Ahn Lee one way or the other. You know but I'm saying if we went up to some of these other averages of $600.00 or $700.00, they'd just, most of those businesses would not continue selling wine. 12 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean other than a couple cities, we're way, at least the wine and beer sniff in the other cities is many times what we're charging in most cases. There's a little more... Acting Mayor Mason: They're also, the 2 or 3 that I see axe much larger communities too Mark. Councilman Senn; Well, Chaska's 3 times almost and Hopkins. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, but look at, I mean you've got Minnetonka and Eden Prairie that are considerably larger. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm not looking at those though. I'm looking at more the, I think most of them are otherwise they're right around that $750.00-$800.00 range. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And on the other hand I see the liquor license for the on sale intoxicating, we're much higher than other communities. I guess we have to look at our own community and say it's right for us as opposed to comparing ourselves to other ones and I think there's legitimate reasons for keeping the beer and wine fairly low. Councilman Senn: How many do we have in each? Don Ashworth: Well again, Ahn Lee's, Franlde's, Guy's, Prairie House, and the Chinese restaurant up at TH 7 and 41. To the best of my knowledge, that's it. Councilman Senn: They're all wine and beer or they're? Don Ashworth: Right. Councilman Senn: How many of the on-sale non-intoxicating? Don Ashworth: Just one which is Bluff Creek Goff Course. Acting Mayor Mason: Any other comments? Councilman Wing: Let's go with the 4% on everybody. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that because I know it doesn't help them but at the same time, if we sit and wait 3 years and then we have to raise it a big chunk, I mean that's when the screaming really occurs. I mean it seems to me ff we're saying we need to raise it 4%, we ought to do it across the board. Acting Mayor Mason: Well 4% of, I guess I would think that 4% of 270 would be tolerable to those people. For the wine and beer license. Don Ashworth: Right. You're talking about $28.00. Councilman Senn: Not big bucks. 13 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, so you're talking, you'd like to see the motion be 4% across the board? Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think it should be, again I'm assuming that staff's looked at that and I'm just saying there should be some increase that goes in parity with the other increases. The other thing I'd really like to see us do is again go back in one of our work sessions or something and examine and look at the issue of how many of these we want in town and looking at limits on it. We talked about that before and we talked about that last year when this came up too. Acting Mayor Mason: Item 7 for prioritize City Council work sessions. Maybe we can throw that in the hopper. Well I'd like someone to make a motion then on setting the 1994/95 liquor license fees, Councilman Senn: I'll move it with 4% across the board. Councilman Wing: Second. Acting Mayor Mason: It's been moved and seconded to set 1994 liquor license fees at 4% for intoxicating liquor on-sale, on-sale non-intoxicating and wine and beer licenses. Is there any other discussion? Resolution g94.24: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to set the 1994/95 liquor fees with a 4% increase for intoxicating liquor on-sale, on-sale non-intoxicating and wine and beer licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRESENTATION ON ADA ACCESSIBILITY STUDY, JULEE QUARVE-PETERSON. Acting Mayor Mason: I'm somewhat familiar with this stuff being a school teacher but we need to get this all on the record. Is someone from staff doing anything first? Todd Gerhardt: ...where we've been and Julee and Jack are going to talk about where we're going. Just one point I would like to make before Julee starts is that tomorrow night is the public hearing where we'll be getting citizen comments regarding proposed changes in the self evaluation and also the on site survey... Julee Quarve-Peterson: City Council and Chanhassen staff. Happy Valentine's Day and thanks for the opportunity to come and share with you what Todd is talking about. Where you've been and how you got there and where you're going with regards to the Americans with Disability Act. It was mentioned that I have had the opportunity, I've been working with Todd Gerhardt as well as the architect here in the audience, Jack Anderson, in my efforts of doing the accessibility audit for your community here. I'm a private consultant. I have done accessibility audits for numerous communities in Minnesota as well as all over the country. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights law that applies to you in Chanhassen as well as several others throughout the country here. What I'd like to do is give you a brief overview of why the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to you. How it applies to you and then again, an overview of what the preliminary findings are and where you need to go from here. To begin with the Americans with Disabilities Act is indeed a civil rights law as of July of 1990. It's the most recent in a series that applies to the city of Chanhassen. In 1973 was the Rehabilitation Act, which has almost identical language. Talking about those who receive government dollars must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. So the ADA, Title II is echoing that and that has caused much media and discussion and activities surrounding it so the last couple of years have been real a hey day for individuals who are involved with accessibility like myself. What it says within the law is that entities such as the city of Chanhassen, in the way that they offer their programs, services, benefits and employment 14 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 opportunities cannot discriminate against individuals with disabilities. It does not say, and that's one of the unique things that we've done here. It does not say that you must make all old buildings new, and I want to clarify that statement because there's been much confusion in other parts of the community.., regarding what the ADA means. Indeed we did go out and we looked at all of your doors and counted your steps and checked the handrails, etc..report and you received the executive summary. I have the comprehensive report in two volumes. Or one report. You will receive two when it gets in it's f'mal form. I tried to give you some guidance of what you need to do. Another misconception is that all of the solutions and all of the activities that a city such as Chanhassen must do as part of the ADA involves...Obviously my area of expertise is far more in the area of buildings, as with Jack. However, the ADA addresses all disabilities. So it's dealing with individuals with vision impairments, hard of hearing, deaf, learning disabilities, etc which may mean that there's some activities, some programs, some phrases that need to be added to city publications. I addressed that within my report. Such things as having availability to sign language interpreter at a meeting such as this so the city will know how to advertise that. Where to go to get one. How much do they cost and all of the details associated with that. Assisted listening system kits...braille or large print materials should someone request that. Those items as well are covered within the report that I have provided for you. So even though much of the work at this point has involved looking at the facility, we did want to make sure that you were aware that there are other components to the ADA...in the report as well. The actual process that was used is, ! personally spent hours and hours opening doors, measuring doors, counting stairs, handrails of all city owned and leased facilities and buildings. Fire stations. Public works as well as the park and recreation areas. The Americans with Disabilities Act talks about all sorts of activities. It's not just the office space and sort of the national trend has been that there have been a number of complaints fried. There have been 1,700 and some odd number of complaints fried in the area of Title II, which is the section that primarily affects you here in the city of Chanhassen. Of those, the ones that would pertain to a city such as your's, the majority of them have been in the outdoor recreation area. If you sit back and think the likelihood of a member of the community of Chanhassen frequenting their city park is probably greater than going to the public works building or going to the f'tre department or the police station. So in other words, what you're taking a look at is what is the exposure that your community has to the potential of an individual with a disability not being able to equally participate. So we indeed did look at your parks. We took a look at parking, curb cuts, sidewalks, adapted play equipment, recreation structures, trails, benches, signage. All sons of different items and have been working with your park and recreation people to assist them in coming up with incorporating many of these features into their future plans and...future remodelings. The process that is called out for a community such as your's to do is entitled self evaluation and that is what we have been doing for you here. Self evaluation is indeed taldng a look at your programming and services. What do you do here within the city of Chanhassen. Whether it be park and rec, public works, water treatment, City Council, all sons of administrative activities. The second item is to take a look at your facilities and sites. That is the bulk of the report that I have provided for you in the two binders. The third gives the opportunity for the public to have input. It ac,~ally states within the law that members of the community, individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to assist you in determining what your priorities are. As Todd mentioned, tomorrow night is a public meeting. You of course would all be welcome to attend. Often times what happens at these meetings is members of the community come and some examples, we've had individuals show up and say, I live across the street from the neighborhood park. My child has a disability. I would really like to see a curb cut and a hard surface path or I'd like to see an adapted swing provided. Or I frequently attend a Planning Commission meeting. It's difficult for me to read the materials in advance because of my poor vision. If it could provided either on cassette tape or large print. These are the types of things that are often times coming forward from these public meetings. The fourth activity of self evaluation involves...forms and paperwork. I will provide that information to Todd. These include a public notification. In other words, your public must be alerted that the city of Chanhassen is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A second form is public participation which has already been taken care of which is inviting people to tomorrow 15 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 night's meeting. And thirdly, there is a formal grievance procedure which is necessary and should anyone in your community or somebody trying to access services have a complaint because they're unable to participate, there's an actual process that needs to be set forth. Who they send the complaint to and the turn around time, etc that's been provided to you. In addition I recently developed sort of a pre-form I would like to call it, which is a combination request form. In doing this on a full time basis over the last 14 years of accessibility, if nothing else the word grievance is somewhat scary so a combination request form is a more proactive, friendly sounding document which hopefully can do the same thing which says, anyone has the opportunity to fill out the form. Please tell us what it is and a group within the city here can take a look and act upon that request. Finally we're going to need the support of you, the City Council and staff in priority setting. Jack Anderson has set forth some probable costs associated with the fkst phase of implementation. Within my report I have gone through and broken different things into categories of proactive, short term and long range. Proactive items are those that we felt could be easily accomplished in your community that are consistent with the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act covering a variety of the different disabilities groups. And the short term typically having higher costs associated with them. May involve more planning...and finally the long range. I have often called that, when it falls, I'll fix it right category but we wanted to be on record indicating that what we viewed when we were on site did not fully comply with the new construction design guideline. Yet it did not pose a significant safety hazard or access risk. The example would be a handrail on a stairwell. The new design guidelines indicate that it should extend 12 inches horizontal past the bottom stair. State of Minnesota and several other communities, up until now has said 6 inch extension is acceptable. If the handrail is there with safe, and met all other safety criteria, we would probably put that fix into the long range category. The other thing is we need to remember that it says that program services and benefits when viewed in their entirety cannot discriminate. So for instance in your park and recreation facilities you've got a variety of locations that all offer swings, slides, trails, etc so it's not saying that you must upgrade every one of those sites right now to comply with the minimum requirements. You should have a long range goal and if it takes you until the year 2050, that's great. You continue to do access on an ongoing basis. We wanted to let you know at a minimum what we felt should be done so we were looking at the locations with higher amenities. Where are more activities located. We suggested that they be the fkst phase of implementation under proactive and a neighborhood totlot might go a few years. Might go 10 years. ...Once all of this information is in hand, the costing that that...provided, the public input, the forms, the review by staff, taking a look at the executive summary gives you some real good guidance as far as what you need to do and when you need to do it. The addition of self evaluation process, there is the language called transition plan and this is, for lack of a better word, your implementation plan. Okay, what are we going to do. We decided that the community came forward and set this particular location would be high priority for individual parking stalls or an additional toilet room facility and we've decided that we're going to go with that. What the transition plan is, is what is your plan of attack. It specifically states within that law that there are 5 elements that must be provided in this transition plan, including what is the issue. What's the location. Probable cost. Time frame for completion and who's the person responsible. Those five things need to be documented. So this is where the city of Chanhassen needs to go after the public meeting and for additional time on the part of staff. But this door needs to be completed. It is not something that is chiseled in stone. In other words, if you were to identify 99 items that you were going to address under proactive, it does not say that you must do those all in order because you would start working on them this year, next year and future years. Somebody could move into your community and move in across the street from a different park and say I'd like some things modified. You've got the opportunity to move item number 98 up to 44 ff you chose to do so. The point is that if you don't know where you're at and you don't know where you're going, you're never going to be able to budget and plan so this document allows you to track, among other things...done at a certain point in time. So you're well on your way to self evaluation and you've got the tools at hand. Public meeting is tomorrow night. What then needs to be done is the transition plan so you can compile all this informafion...Are there any questions? 16 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: I guess just a question for staff. I mean is the intent tonight to deal with specific questions on specific issues or is it just to accept the report and we're going to study it later? Todd Gerhardt: This item will be back on your February 28th meeting and there's no crucial date here to be met. I would hold...or pass it on tonight and...Tomorrow night's fairly important to get really the citizen comment on it too. So yeah, we'd really like your comments tonight but you're not taking any specification action on this tonight. Councilman Senn: Well a number of these things I'd just like to understand more. I mean is that appropriate? Councilman Wing: Yeah, I had a question too. Councilman Senn: Well for example it says like add a curb cut outside the senior center. Is that a curb cut basically to provide some type of wheelchair access where the curb is or are you talking about a big curb cut for cars to pull into and drop off of or what? Julee Quarve-Peterson: The curb cut is defined as pedestrian path of travel from the curb to the accessible route of traffic. So there's not necessarily a drop off zone but it is indeed just a 36 inch wide curb cut. Councilman Senn: Okay. When you talk about modifying floor mats to eliminate tripping, I mean there's only one way I know to modify floor mats and that's to go into settings and that's. Julee Quarve-Peterson: Not necessarily. What we have found in some locations was a floor mat that was coming...and did not have a beveled edge around it where it actually was a tripping ha?,rd. Councilman Senn: So what you're talking about is you want the rubber beveled edge mat. Julee Quarve-Peterson: Rubber beveled edge. Get rid of it. Put it in a recessed. Keep it down...but I've seen people address it. The issue is, we want to make sure it's not a tripping hazard. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well like coming, this up here. I mean is that something you need to do now or is that something you do if the situation presents itself?. Julee Quarve-Peterson: Rampingor providing access to your raised area there, if nothing else I think would be seen as a very proactive item because of the image that it sets forward. Because the potential of other people other than yourselves being up there. Whether it's a Planning Commission meeting, whether it's students were coming here and used this. The cost associated with doing it is relatively inexpensive and again the image that it sets forth is that anyone is welcome. You could have a temporary disability. I would encourage people to do it. Councilman Senn: How far would a ramp like that have to shoot back into the room? Julee Quarve-Peterson: 1 in 12. So for every 1 foot of rise, or 1 inch of rise, 12 inches in nm. Councilman Senn: So about 8 feet that way? Julee Quarve-Peterson: A little past the column. 17 City Council Meeth~g - February 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: You say this is federal law that requires that ramp? Julee Quarve-Peterson: There is a combination of federal and state laws and a State Building Code, Chapter 1340 is interpreted to say any level other than the level of access. For instance here, must be ramp, lift or elevator to provide access. So technically this should have been made accessible at the time it was constructed. However, interpretations have changed over the years. There's restaurants all over Minnesota that have multiple levels. In new construction they are not allowed to have those multiple levels unless they have ramps. There's been some pretty significant court rulings regarding this element. Councilman Senn: But I thought, I mean 99% of the room is. I mean I thought that didn't make any. Julee Quarve-Peterson: No, that rule, it's the rulings that have come forward that have said any level other than the main level must be made accessible. And because of the fact that you're government and you're open to the public and many of you are typically, you know you have other public life besides full time jobs here. The one place that they're doing a lot of debate is for a judge's raised area in the courtroom because almost always only the judge is there. It's one person. He's assigned a courtroom... Councilman Wing: As long as you've got me started. I just remember a place I spent many years in a neighboring county and they were required to put in an elevator because that was cheaper than changing the lunchroom. And that was 12 years ago and it has not once been used because there's never, ever. I mean nice in theory but when it came down to push and shove, boy what a terrible travesty. It was really a travesty. Councilman Senn: Well we could saw this area off and bring it down to the rest I suppose. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, that's true. Richard, you could get into a long and drawn out philosophical discussion about that too and I don't think that's the case in point here. I mean it's here and we have to deal with it and hopefully it's what, the things that will come out of it will be for the better. I think that's. Councilman Senn: ...TV's for example, do those need to go? Julee Quarve-Peterson: No. The television, the issue there is that it is technically a protruding hazard because it is hanging down lower than 80 inches so a visually impaired person, even using proper cane techniques, could bump into it. Right now you've got chairs underneath it so that. Acting Mayor Mason: Well we've had people coming close to hitting it so I've often wondered about that. Councilman Senn: Just move all the chairs over here and not have that as an aisle, does that solve the problem? Julee Quarve-Peterson: That solves the problem. Again, see there's a whole variety of solutions to the problems and I think that's one of the things that we wanted to point out you know with the floor mat. You get rid of them. You recess them. You tape them down. You get the beveled. With the TV, you can't really raise it. Again, you could put padded edges if you wanted to on it. I don't think that would totally solve the problem. You could position different furnishings underneath like chairs. Bottom line is what you have is exposure. There's no person like OSHA. There's no person like a cop that's going to come around and check your ADA. What you have is the potential for a person with a disability coming in and they could come in with a request. They could say boy, you know, I got 3 stitches on my forehead from doing tlmt...have to take care of it. You may never have anybody come in and say I need to get access up to the Council. These are decisions that you 18 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 get to make. What we were trying to do as far as set you up and let you know what the rest of the country's doing and what schools and other places are doing to give you a baseline for starting. Councilman Senn: What's upgrade the alarm system? Julee Quarve-Peterson: The alarm system needs to be visual as well as audio so you're dealing with the hearing impaired as well as the visual impaired. So rather than just going buzz, buzz, buzz, they have to blink. A strobe light has to blink so that a deaf person would know that the fire alarm's going off. Councilman Senn: We don't? Todd Gerhardt: We have an exterior light on the outside that shows that the Mann's on. Nothing interior with the exception of if electricity goes out, we have the lights. They don't blink. It's just. Julee Quarve-Peterson: That's not linked to the same thing... Acting Mayor Mason: My guess is you'll be here 2 weeks from tonight also. Julee Quarve-Peterson: I'm going to be cutting it close. I've got a flight that gets in at 6:30... Acting Mayor Mason: Because we may in fact have more questions, although I bet by that point Todd could answer just about any question we have too. Councilman Senn: One quick one on bathrooms though. We don't need to upgrade every bathroom in City Hall. Don't you need to upgrade bathrooms on each level to be accessible? Julee Quarve-Peterson: Oh, it's not even that. What you need to do is, our recommendation is you're looking at some pretty massive additions and remodeling to your sUucture here and include new toilet rooms and the new toilet rooms will fully comply. Therefore we're proposing that you hold off on your existing toilet rooms. If you're doing new construction, if you're doing new construction, anything that...if you're doing new construction, all toilet rooms need to be accessible. Acting Mayor Mason: Well good. Unless there are any other questions here. Councilman Senn: We can save the rest for 2 weeks but again that's the sorts of things I think we should have the opportunity to at least understand. Julee Quarve-Peterson: Absolutely and that's kind of what I wanted you to just kind of get the ball rolling and let you know that I am a resource and we can sit down and talk and also to let you know there's no enforcement out there other than persons with disabilities and you get to make the decisions on, there's a variety of options of almost all of these issues. Todd Gerhardt: If you want to do it on a more informal basis, you know tomorrow night at 7:30 both Julee and Jack will be here. And we have received at least one phone call from the public from our ad. We've also been displaying a notice on the cable network, on public access. So tonight is another option. Acting Mayor Mason: Good. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. 19 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Julee Quarve-Peterson: I think Jack wants to share some information as well. Jack Anderson: Good evening. I'm Jack Anderson with/IEA Architects. When Todd, Julee and myself first sat down and went over the, this particular project we divided it up into three phases. The f'~t phase that Julee had really the main charge of, and that was the self evaluation phase. And then the second part of it would be coming up with the estimate, cost estimates for the proactive type areas that we had to deal with. Third would be, as it would go in the construction documents, or if that was necessary, basically implementation. And just briefly, I think that your packet is, Julee's executive summary was the, this is a real good guide to follow along with. That's Attachment #2 and Attachment #3 is the estimate that basically I worked out and we follow along with the proactive items and in coming up with this estimate and then beyond that Julee has categorized those into priorities. So within the proactive area we have three priorities. So we indicate that on the table in the estimate evaluation. Now one thing on the first sheet we start going through the buildings on this attachment and under City Hall where we note that a number of items, especially the restroom and that drop off area outside the senior center. A lot of things will be worked in as you, down the road. If you're planning a City Hall update, we can talk about that. It would be better to hold off on some of this stuff for the time being until you firm up...and work on, for that matter any of your facilities, parks, so you aren't doing something now and then doing it later. So the estimate goes through the buildings and then it goes through a building summary which again divides it into the priorities. If you run into budgetary problems, that will help you guide as to what things should be done first, second and third and then I've also split out the additional building cost savings and that's these items that involve City Hall and then there's the one item at the Old Village Hall. That does become a factor. There was an item there at the Old Village Hall, which is a historic building that, ff you start updating with the restroom...may be involved with some building code updates...So we've kind of got that covered and it may not be an issue but it is in there as a cost item. In the parks, moving onto the parks, really there's, I think there was, let's see. The main things there were accessible portable res~xooms was a big item that came up time and time again on a number of the parks. The restrooms. The portable restroom facilities that are out there are the non-accessible kind so that would be, the requirement would be to have a handicap accessible site which in essence works out to be about $100.00 a month extra and would be about $500.00 per season. And then there was a number of parks that had some parking lot updating and what that boils down to is the new law is such that it basically doubles the number of handicapped stalls necessary and requires, like for instance 1. It requires to...accessible, there has to be signage and the size has to be appropriate for that. There were some trails updating and then one of the major areas was Lake Ann, which had a bit of facility updating there with railings and...also. So with the...going through that quickly. We also brought that through to a priority summary and then on the final page of that estimate, took the combined building and parks. Added it up to the subtotals and various priorities, came up with a grand total of $80,200.00. And the cost range of about $75,000.00 to $85,000.00 depending upon, you may get a lot of...on this kind of work because it's much of it you may be able to work in as your upgrading, especially some of the parks. Todd Hoffman has been very aware of this and has been proactive in fixing some of these things...last year. And then as we talked about, well getting onto additional costs. Again, much of that is going to probably occur as you update with some of these buildings you're going to wrap that in and in fact it may not be that high that you're able to upgrade into a new addition let's say and then you won't have to go back into the existing building and upgrade to the extent that you would if you didn't have the addition. So I guess in a quick nutshell that's the nm through on the estimating... Just a comment as facilities. Really the overall was lower I think than we all expected. Comparable cities you know are generally higher. A lot of your facilities have been done recently and you know staff has been keeping up with...Any questions? Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you very much. No action is required on this. Thank you folks for the time spent on the study. We have some more reading to do here. I'd like to move on if I could to item number 6. 20 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Acting Mayor Mason: I'd like to take them one at a time. We did have a work session on the 31st of January where we conducted interviews. And at this point we need to formalize any discussions we had in the guise of naming new people and appointing new people on the commissions. Let's do them one at a time. Planning Commission. There are two vacancies. One of them is Jeff Farmakes who is seeking reappoinUnent. Councilman Senn: Do you want motions on these or do you want discussion? Acting Mayor Mason: Sure. Well, let's talk about it first and then make a motion. Councilman Senn: Should I make a motion first or do you want to discuss it first? Acting Mayor Mason: Let's discuss it first. Maybe we can do away with a little bit of the. Councilman Senn: Well it seems repetitive to do it from the work session. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, Councilman Wing wasn't here. I mean we need to remember that that was a work session and this is a formal setting here so. Councilman Wing: Well and the only comments I have, so I think you should proceed, for those who were at the work session is the incumbents. I support reappointment. Other than that I did not interview and I don't have an opinion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm going to preface all of our appointments this evening by saying I was very impressed with all the applicants and really appreciated their time and commitment to the city. But with that on the Planning Commission I believe we discussed, or agreed to reappoint Jeff and to also appoint Ronald Nutting to the commission. Is that your recollection as well? Councilman Senn: I think that's pretty much the opinion everybody had. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So I would move that we appoint Ronald Nutting and Jeff Farmakes to the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to appoint Ronald Nutting and Jeff Farmakes to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Acting Mayor Mason: I assume that everyone gets a letter, including people that don't get appointed. Okay, good enough. Let's move on to Park and Rec. There are two vacancies. One of them is Jane Meger who is seeking reappointment as an incumbent. Councilman Wing has already stated his preference for all incumbents being reappointed. The other three were J. Christopher Sones, is that? I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing. Todd Hoffman: Sones. 21 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Sones. Clark Cummings and Dave Huffman. Park and Rec recommended Dave Huffman and Jane Meger to be the new, the appointees. I know we had some discussion about that. I have talked with some people on Park and Rec and I'm at this point more inclined to go with whom they recommended which was Jane Meger and Dave Huffman. I would guess there might be a little discussion on that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As I recall it was a very difficult decision for us and all the candidates that I believe that we had decided at our work session, that it would be Jane and Clark. I'm still comfortable with that position. Again, it was very difficult and I usually defer to the commissions to see who they want to work with but I really felt that Clark was a good candidate and I appreciated him coming back for a second time to seek appointment and I thought he had the qualifications and dedication to serve on that commission. Also noting that Dave Huffman is very active in our community in other avenues and could probably, will probably continue to be active in our community in other areas and this would open the opportunity for another citizen to be just as active on this commission. Whereas he may not have the opportunities and other avenues in other areas that Mr. Huffman has. Councilman Senn: I guess having gone through, Clark was my number one choice. I said I was willing to go with Clark and Jane on the basis that she was an incumbent. If that doesn't fly, I may reconsider my number two choice I think. Acting Mayor Mason: The reason I had, certainly at the work session I was thinking along the same lines as Colleen and Mark. In thinking longer about it, I've always felt that I think part of my responsibility as a council person is to delegate authority and after thinking about it, Park and Rec people are the people that have to work with the people that they appoint and that's essentially why I changed my mind between Dave and Clark. And I do agree with Colleen. I think they both will do a very fmc job. I think whoever we choose but I do think we need to consider the ramifications as to why the Park and Rec Commission took the time. Talked with those people and made those recommendations and I guess, I think if in fact we choose to do it differently than they recommended, we should be able to offer them some reasons up for that. Councilman Wing: And I think the only time Council, in my opinion, should interfere with that choice is if there's not a balance being provided or if there's some political ramifications that we can spot. Districting that we don't like. I guess I'm not picking up on any of that. I guess this is sensitive to me because on Public Safety we looked at demographics and we looked at personalities and we looked at background and we picked the person that best felt, we felt balanced out our commission and when it went to the Council, suddenly it became personal friends and politics and they didn't have the interview time that we had had and I'm not saying it didn't work out for the best. Didn't say it wasn't a bad deal. Anyway. I support Mike's position just because I think if the commission has a strong feeling, that should have some weight to it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, let me ask you Todd. Does the commission have a strong feeling on this? On their recommendations or was it a tough choice? Todd Hoffman: No, they did have a s~ong feeling. In fact they kept on asking, did they make the appointment. Did they make the appointment yet and I said no. I said they reinstated that they wanted to make their choice...their top choices. Councilman Senn: Well maybe we have to lay this one over. It sounds like we've got a hung jury so to speak. 22 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Well, we certainly could do that. I guess I'd like to see if anyone wants to entertain a motion. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, let me clarify my feelings on this. I feel strongly about the people that I'm recommending and I have absolutely no personal bias. I don't know any of the four candidates that well. But I think it is the Council's responsibility to make the final decision otherwise these appointments would be at the Commission level. And as ! said, I think the choice that we have between I think what we're coming down to is Clark and Dave, I feel that Mr. Huffman has other opportunities in this community to serve and seeing that they're both, in my mind...candidates, I'd really like to see Clark on the commission so I think we probably do have a 2-2 tie. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, Todd. When's the next Park and Rec meeting? Todd Hoffman: Coming up in February 22nd. A week. Next Tuesday. Acting Mayor Mason: Jane, regardless of what we do or don't do tonight would continue to serve, right? She'd still be there? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mark, would it be possible to take it off the record if this is something that's you know, Todd if you can give us some of the commissioners reasonings and if you feel more comfortable doing that off the record. I don't know if that's possible. It's not possible Elliott? Elliott Knetsch: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, scratch that. Todd Hoffman: If I could perhaps clarify. Clark was a candidate the last time the city made an appointment was last July. Dave Koubsky left and moved out of the city and needed to replaced. There were 10 candidates for that one position at that time. Jane Meger was successful out of those 10. Clark Cummings was in the running out of the top 3 so Clark was interviewed by the City Council at that time as well. Clark was out of town the night the commission went through this last group of candidates. I believe there were 8 candidates. 8 or 9 candidates and so he was scheduled a couple days later. When the commission went through their interviews they were impressed with Chris Sones, Dave Huffman but they didn't have a third out of their selection of 9 so they said to call Clark. We remember Clark from last time. He was a fmaliSt then and inform Clark that we would like him to interview with the City Council for a second time. So that is how the three candidates came to the City Council. Councilman Senn: So they didn't interview him? They didn't interview him this time? Todd Hoffman: No. (There was a tape change at this point during the discussion.) Councilman Senn: ...well again, I think he's the best of all the candidates myself. I'm not going to change on that one. I might change on the second but not on the f~t. 23 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Well, what do we do next? I mean if no one, this clearly does appear like it will be a fie. If no one's willing to make a motion, then I guess we have to lay this over until the 28th. Don Ashworth: I really think you should have a motion and that it should be turned into a tie. Councilman Senn: I'll make a motion that we appoint Jane and Clark. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Jane Meger and Clark Cummings to the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf vote in favor. Councilman Wing and Acting Mayor Mason voted in opposition, The vote was a tie 2 to 2. Councilman Wing: And I'm going to stick with that because then the Mayor will be here on the 28th and he was at the interviews and if he has an opinion, it'd be a real good issue then. Don Ashworth: So then a motion to table this until the 28th? Councilman Wing: I move we table to the 28th on this one. Acting Mayor Mason: On Park and Rec Commission. Councilman Wing: On Park and Rec. Acting Mayor Mason: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Doekendorf seconded to table action on the appointments to the Park and Recreation Commission until the next City Council meeting on February 28, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, I don't think we should have quite as much trouble with the Senior Commission. There are 3 vacancies and there are 3 names up here, 2 of which are seeking reappointment and some of us had the pleasure of chatting with Barb Headla. I personally would, unless there's any discussion on this. Councilman Wing: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Barbara Headla, Jane Kubitz and Sherol Howard to the Senior Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Acting Mayor Mason: Moving right along here. Public Safety Commission. There are 3 vacancies. 2 people are choosing to seek reappointment. Those are Eldon Berkland and Dave Johnson. Any discussion on these? We also have Greg Weber and Kerri Nolden. 24 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Don, I have two contradictory things in my notes. In terms of the overall make-up. Not now just the candidates that we're picking here tonight but the overall make-up of the Public Safety Commission okay. What is the breakdown in terms of people involved in public safety versus not involved in public safety? In other words, how many people are deliverers of service and how many are not? Don Ashworth: Councilman Wing, you and I had both been active back at the point in time when we kind of set up rules as to who might serve on that and I'm wondering, did we do that by resolution? I mean that goes back many, many years. Can you, do you know how to respond to Councilman Seun's question? Councilman Wing: We wanted the demographics of the city covered and we wanted public input. And there was always an endless supply of firemen and policemen applying and a terribly weak supply of the public applying. And that was really the point of the public to have input. The local community to come in and I'm not aware. Councilman Senn: That's what my question is coming back to. What is there now, is my question. There's nothing in the, at least that I saw in the ordinance and stuff that governs that. Okay, what I'm saying is, of the current membership. Total membership on the commission, how does that breakdown between people involved in public safety who deliver services and those who are not. Councilman Wing: Two are not connected. Dave Johnson is not connected. He's the Chairman. He's just a citizen at large that came forth. Dave Dummer is not public safety related. There's a police chief from Edina. A fireman. Policeman from Plymouth. Councilman Senn: Well how many are there on the commission? Don Ashworth: Seven. Councilman Senn: Seven. So 2 out of 7 are citizens? Councilman Wing: At this point. And of those... Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, non-public safety employee citizens. Councilman Wing: Of the applicants? All are public safety related. Councilman Senn: Yes. And that was something that bothered me as we went through the interviews and when I asked that question tonight, we just talked about, my notes show is all we talked about was the applicants. We didn't talk about specifically or the overall. Councilman Wing: And I think it's a good point Mark. This is being weighted heavily towards police, policemen, professionals and I'd like to see the community involved. Unfortunately the commtmity isn't applying. I'd like to see you or, I'd like to see somebody that doesn't know much about it in here helping to balance and govern these issues. And I think they'd be the workaholics of the group...short of reviewing this entire commission and simply setting the balance and then going out and advertising, soliciting for that balance, which I would approve and support. I'll pick one person on here. Crreg Weber is an excellent candidate. I just happen to know him and he's very pro city. He's just an excellent applicant but he is a police officer and we've got at least 3 on there now. So your point's well taken and I would like to see the public enjoined on this 25 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 commission. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know basically after going away and looking back at the notes and thinking about it, I'd really like to see us make some kind of concerted effort to go get additional applicants who aren't. Or if that's not an alternative, then I'd really like to rather see somebody else from the Council or something appointed to that because I think we need to get more non-public safety. It's getting very weighted is my concern. Acting Mayor Mason: It sounds to me like if we want an ordinance change or if we want the make-up of the commission changed, that's something we should consider in the future. And I think that's a good point. I think for right now though we can't really make those kinds of changes. The process has been gone through and I think we need to make some decisions tonight and then maybe it's another work session item. You raised, I think you raised some issues that need discussing but I don't think we can change the rules on these people now. Councilman Wing: I don't think we're changing the rules. We're only saying that the commission is so weighted, we fmd it unacceptable. Eldon Berkland, if we reappoint him, he is with an ambulance service. Well that's a little. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Quasi. Councilman Wing: Yeah but it comes from a different angle. Then Dave Johnson, of course is independent. Then the other three are police officers. I don't know how you would ever advertise or solicit commission openings and exclude professional people, if that's what your interest is. How can we get you, your wife, how can we get your families to apply for this commission? Take an interest in public safety. Don Ashworth: Well it should be kept in mind that commissioners continue to serve until they've been replaced. So I mean if you wanted to carry out a series of advertisements, you could do that. I mean it's not as though the commission is going to fold down or stop doing business. Councilman Senn: I suppose the incumbents would continue correct? Don Ashworth: Right. All the incumbents would continue until a replacement was selected. Councilman Senn: Has the third person resigned and left or just resigned awaiting replacement? Because wasn't there a position of resignation? Don Ashworth: I don't recall. Councilman Wing: There was one resign. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I agree with you Mike that the process has been gone through and these people have been told that they'll be up for consideration so for this year's appointments, I'm comfortable in picking from these 4 people but I think it is something that maybe we do need an ordinance about. I mean I don't want to see all developers on the Planning Commission. You know, that type of thing so. Councilman Senn: I'm surprised we don't have one that I know of. 26 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: No we don't but we do have a similar problem on this commission so it's something that we should look at in the future and look at ways to fix that problem. But for this year I think we've made a commitment to pick from these 4 people and we should do that. With that in mind I would move that we approve or appoint Gregory Weber, Eldon Berkland and Dave Johnson. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Gregory Weber, Eldon Berkland and Dave Johnson to the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: Clarification? That was Weber, Eldon Berldand and the third was Dave Johnson. Acting Mayor Mason: That's correct. And I would just, I certainly again concur with Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think if you change the rules, you have to change it far enough in advance so everyone knows that the rules have been changed. Okay, we have one more thing to do here under commission appointments. That's Board of Adjustment and Appeals. There are two vacancies. Is that really tree or are there three? The reason I say that is because we need to appoint someone from Council also don't we? Unless of course Councilman Senn really wants to do it again. Councilman Senn: Does it have to be somebody from Council? I mean this whole issue is the fu'st time I've seen it tonight. I mean this didn't come up at our work session. It didn't come up. Acting Mayor Mason: Whoa. Mark, this comes. Councilman Senn: All that came up was Carol. Acting Mayor Mason: Well yeah but this also came up last year when you were on the City Council too. I mean this is a yearly deal. Councilman Senn: No, no. I understand that but I mean yeah. Yeah, I think I was in the door one month. Or not even one month when it was on last year. I'm just saying what, is there a requirement that one of the people be from the Council on this or what? What's the ground rules on it? Acting Mayor Mason: As a matter of fact. Councilman Wing: I believe there's one Council representative, since I've been here. Acting Mayor Mason: Section 2028, Board of Adjustment and Appeals. You mean this right here? The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall consist of 3 regular members and 1 alternate of whom shall be appointed by the City Council. Three members shall constitute a quorum. It does not say, at least in here whether it has to be from City Council or not. It certainly has been. Now yeah, please. I don't know what the next page says either on that but. Councilman Senn: Well I'm just curious because having sat in the position, you take the action there and then it comes to Council and you take the action there. I mean it seems kind of repetitive for me. I'd rather see another citizen involved in something like that than just see a Council person put on it if there's no real reason 27 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 for it. And that's why I'm asking. Acting Mayor Mason: I would guess, playing devil's advocate, the argument that would be to have someone on Council is that then there is some carry over when it does come to Council and then the rest of Council can get input from the person who was serving on the Board. Councilman Senn: Well to be honest with you, during the year, I think that in my opinion it provides a bias because when I sat on the Board of Adjustments and formed an opinion, and then that opinion came to Council. I mean I was arguing that opinion. Coming to the Council rather than from kind of 2 independent groups up there and it just seems... Councilman Wing: Then let's back up further. If they approve it, everybody's happy and they go home smiling. If they fail to approve it, it comes to the Council and we get it and most of them come to the Council. Why don't we just go direct to the Council on these and hear the appeal and get it over with in one swoop. I've always wondered why am I sitting here being we're going to reject it and it's going to go to the Council and they're going to approve it anyway or whatever you know. I hated to hear it twice and I hate to be in your position having denied it and then have the Council...or wonder what's. Who is this group? Acting Mayor Mason: An opinion on that Elliott? Elliott Knetsch: From what you have there, there's nothing that requires it be a Council member. I think the best we. can determine is it's been past practice and probably for the reason that you pointed out Mike that now the Council members go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting and then they want to know what happened or what was the thinking of the Board. If you have a Council member, they can convey that to the full Council. That's a bit of a guess as to why it's that way. There may have been other reasons. Councilman Senn: So do you want to do it again? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there any requirement that we have this Board of Adjustments and Appeals? Elliott Knetsch: If there's nothing else in our ordinances, there's nothing in State law that says it has to be composed of Council members, but yes. State law does require a Board of Appeals. Councilman Senn: Which could be City Council. Elliott Knetsch: It could be the Council. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I would hope nobody on Council wants that to happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah but if we hear them anyway. Acting Mayor Mason: But we don't hear them anyway. We only hear ones that there's a. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but what I'm hearing from Mark is that we've heard them all. Councilman Senn: You've heard everyone that's been denied. 28 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Precisely. And that's the point I made. I would hope that Council in it's wisdom would not choose to also be Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Don Ashworth: Mr. Chair? Acting Mayor Mason: Yes sir. Don Ashworth: Elliott's right that this just traditionally has been a Council member but if you think about it, there probably would be a good basis to see a Planning Commission member sit on this board. I mean a lot of the issues are overlapping and the thought processes and how it affects planning. No one has ever presented it back to that group to say to them, would anybody here be interested in serving buL Nancy is here. Councilman Wing: Yeah, Nancy's here. Maybe she would apply. Councilman Senn: Do you want to leave quick? Acting Mayor Mason: Well that's an interesting point. It certainly would make some sense to have a member of the Planning Commission be on there as opposed to someone on City Council. I mean I certainly see some merit to that argument. Councilman Senn: Well you guys have sat on it too. I mean say something but to me, I have felt very awkward when it comes into Council and the reason I have felt awkward is I'm almost in a position where I'm supposed to argue the position of the commission. And I don't like being up here starting from that position. I like to start from the position that I've got people out there telling their sides of the story and you listen to both sides and you say yes or no. Councilman Wing: Well it has been consistently awkward and that's one of the complaints. I would move approval of the two incumbents and the third position, and that excludes the third position. And whether we put that on a work session or the next Council meeting. I would move the appointment of the two incumbents and the third one, I guess I would like see go to the Planning Commission and I would like to carry that to the Planning Commission Wednesday night and see if someone would be willing to serve as such. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second the motion. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Before we, I don't know if this is appropriate or not but I'll do it anyway. I'm the Acting Mayor, I can do this. I do, maybe I won't because I just completely lost my train of thought~ I do think we need to act on this very quickly because I don't know, we haven't had a Board of Adjustments and Appeals yet this year, have we Mark? Councilman Senn: No but again, I can keep serving until. Councilman Wing: I can't. Councilman Senn: Well I am now so. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, and the Mayor is an alternate so I guess one thing we will need to then choose, my guess is the Mayor will want to continue to be an alternate which we certainly would discuss I guess then at 29 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 the meeting on the 28th. Councilman Senn: He took it last year because none of you guys would so maybe a Planning Commissioner. Maybe we should look at that. Acting Mayor Mason: Alright. Well it's been moved and seconded to appoint Willard Johnson and Carol Watson on Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Senn has agreed to serve on it until it can go before the Planning Commission and they will either volunteer to do it-or perhaps City Council again in it's wisdom will appoint someone from the Planning Commission to do it but we will see how that goes later I guess. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Willard Johnson and Carol Watson to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Senn will serve in the third position until the issue can be brought before the Planning Commission to fill the third vacancy. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRIORITIZE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ITEMS. Acting Mayor Mason: I have some things that I will already, March 7th is our next work session. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Acting Mayor Mason: And what do we have on the 7th so far? Don Ashworth: Comparable worth, 1994 goals and. Councilman Senn: You have on the chart that organized collection be put on the 7th. Don Ashworth: Oh that's correct too. Oh, we just didn't fill in a date there. That will fill that. Acting Mayor Mason: That will take up the 7th pretty clearly I would think. Councilman Wing: Which ones again? Acting Mayor Mason: Comparable worth. Don Ashworth: 1994 departmental goals and organized collection. Councilman Wing: And just let me clarify, not having been there. The Highway 5 corridor, are we still on line? Is it still moving? Is the Council still in full support? Are we. Acting Mayor Mason: Well Council hasn't taken a position one way or another yet. But it will be, when is that on our agenda. Is it the, I believe it's sometime in March. Councilman Wing: So it's not necessary that that item be on another work session. Acting Mayor Mason: No. 30 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: My understanding from last work session is we want to have the public heating and do the input before we, and then have another work session after that. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. At some recent or obviously it won't be the 7th. Perhaps the next work session after that. I'd like to see senior housing and affordable housing on there. Councilwoman Dockendoff: We have senior on here. Do we have affordable on anywhere? Acting Mayor Mason: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we need to add it. And what did you say earlier in the evening Mark? Councilman Senn: The liquor license. Don Ashworth: So you've got affordable housing. Acting Mayor Mason: Well maybe we could do senior housing/affordable housing there, I don't know. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is it the same issue? Acting Mayor Mason: Well I know they're separate issues but. Don Ashworth: I don't know that staff is really ready for a presentation on affordable housing. I mean we've been looking at a lot of alternatives and getting ready to draft a report back to you but. Councilman Wing: But allow just enough time for Mike to get his statement on the table. Formally on the record and then go from there. Define it and... Acting Mayor Mason: Then maybe we can get some kind of update on where that is. Maybe not a report but what's been done and what's coming down the pike maybe bemuse I do, I've been hammering on that one and I'll keep hammering on it. Councilman Senn: No, I think those are important. I'd like to see those on too. I also want to see gambling get addressed pretty soon because we keep geuing hit with them even though we're not supposed to be. Acting Mayor Mason: We also need to ~talk about the auditor's selection process. And maybe we could even take care of that tonight. I personally am in favor of opening up, having staff go through the steps necessary. That's not saying we wouldn't consider our current auditor but it appears to me, in chatting with the City Manager, that we need to see who else is out there and who might be interested in working with the city. Councilman Senn: I agree 100% but again, I'd like to see this carded on so each year we pick one of these major ones and we do it because I think every few years we should really take a hard look at them versus just renewing the contract. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I think we should take a look at them. That may or may not mean we're doing the contract, absolutely. Yeah. 31 City Council Meeting - February t4, 1994 Councilman Senn: But I mean I think we should go to the point of getting proposals and bids and that sort of thing. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well, can we make this decision tonighi without it being on the agenda? Don Ashworth: Well it is on the agendm You're prioritizing your. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but ff we say tonight. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh no, no. Well let's get, let's consider auditor's selection process on the next work session. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah, okay. That's what I'm saying. I thought you were proposing that we make a decision. Acting Mayor Mason: We can't make a decision on that tonight can we because it's not on the agenda? Councilman Senn: Well we can direct staff to request proposals and select proposals and bids. That doesn't require. Don Ashworth: Well, maybe to insure. If I'm hearing the majority would like to take and see us move ahead with this process, why not simply put it onto the next consent agenda that would formally acknowledge that we're going to do it. Councilman Senn: Is that necessary? Elliott Knetsch: Not strictly necessary, no. You could do it tonight if that's what the majority wants to do. Councilman Senn: Does that cause any timing problems for you? Don Ashworth: The only timing problems would be if we waited until like June to make this decision. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well let's...and put it on the consent agenda. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, that's pretty much been our policy to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we'll just take it off this list. Acting Mayor Mason: Anything else? That's a lot for the next couple of months. Don Ashworth: So did we set a date though for this, the housing, senior housing? I mean we've got March 7th and so that's flied. Councilman Senn: What's our next available date? The 7th is full. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, it'd be the 21st wouldn't it? 32 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Acting Mayor Mason: Don Ashworth: Right. Acting Mayor Mason: What is the next date? It'd be the 21st. Right? That's the first day of spring. I don't know if we want to tackle it on the vernal equinox. Don Ashworth: It'd be the 21st. Do you want to set those three for the 27th? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which three? Don Ashworth: Senior housing, update on affordable housing and gambling. Councilman Senn: For the 21st? Acting Mayor Mason: 21st, yeah. Councilman Senn: Okay, sure. Councilman Wing: Can't we put liquor and gambling synonymous there for discussion? Acting Mayor Mason: Not in 2 hours we can't. Now with the other stuff on the agenda. I mean it needs to come up but I don't think there will be time that night. Because I do want, I think we all are in agreement that we want to end those meetings on time. Councilman Wing: What time? Acting Mayor Mason: 7:30. Don Ashworth: Do I understand liquor license? Is the only issue the number of licenses or are we back with this issue of proximity to churches and that type of thing? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have an issue. Councilman Senn: No, I think we pretty well resolved the proximity with the ordinance changes but when we did that, we said we'd like to come back and talk about and address the issue of do we want limitations on. the types of licenses in terms of numbers, how many and that sort of thing because right now there seems to be a number of them coming in in a short period of time. Don Ashworth: So it's solely limitations? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Don Ashworth: Okay, got it. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Can we move on here? 33 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Don Ashworth: Mr. Chair? Acting Mayor Mason: Yes sir. Don Ashworth: What did you think of staff recommendation regarding leaving, if we've got two open Monday nights in a month, to take one of those two and assign it to one of these commission meetings? And I don't know if the Council has a ranking there. I know the commissions really enjoy being able to chat with the City Council. Acting Mayor Mason: No, we need to do that. Have we done it on off Monday nights in the past or have we done it in conjunction with regular commission meetings? Don Ashworth: Both. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the purpose of it is to? Don Ashworth: Generally they have, we've adopted the goals associated with whatever commission and then it's just kind of a walk thru as to how we're doing in that area and what some of the commission members concerns are. Todd, help me a little bit. I know Park Commission is one of them that's always enjoyed that. Todd Hoffman: Opportunity to talk about goals and some areas of concern. Maybe some projects that have been on the table for a number of years that aren't going anywhere and just a chance to sit down with City Council... Councilman Senn: Wouldn't it make sense though from the City Council's perspective, if the commissions have goals, you know all made up and set and packaged and sent into us, I mean wouldn't it make sense for us to have a work session to review those goals rather than departmental goals? Or maybe in unison with the departmental goals to talk about them before we meet with the commissions to see ff there's any? Don Ashworth: Of course that's the purpose of our March whatever meeting. Because staff submits what we see as potential goals to each one of the commissions but I mean those are adopted by the commissions. Councilman Senn: So you're saying they're one in the same. Don Ashworth: They're one in the same. Councilman Senn: Okay. Don Ashworth: And when we meet on that item on March 7th, you'll see those. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright, so we'll do that before hand. Don Ashworth: Right. Acting Mayor Mason: Well what's the Council's pleasure? Do we want to do that on off Monday's or meet on nights that they have commission meetings? 34 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: Commission nights because I can't make Mondays. Councilman Senn: Well it depends on the nights. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know in deference to the commission members, they've set aside those evenings. I guess I'd be willing. Acting Mayor Mason: So you're saying you'd just as soon do it those evenings? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Councilman Senn: ! don't mind doing it those evenings. I'm just saying... Acting Mayor Mason: Well I think that's understood that we may not be able to make all the meetings. Don Ashworth: So then pick, I mean we've got Wednesday, Thursday, Tuesday. And would you like us to pick those later in the year or do you want to find dates? Do you want us to suggest dates? Maybe at our next work session we put in suggested dates and try to stay away from summer. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Councilman Senn: Well why don't we just try to, I mean why don't you just try to pull it off like in April or something. I mean rather than schedule any Council work sessions in April, let's just schedule the commission meetings in April and try to knock them ali off in April. Councilman Wing: I could make April so that would be wonderful. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh that's a good idea. Just not have, so Mark you're saying not have any work sessions that month. Just go with meeting with the commissions? Councilman Senn: Just go to the commission meetings and go. Don Ashworth: So we've got the four. I had a question whether or not you wanted to add Senior Commission? Acting Mayor Mason: Yes. Yes. I would like to. Well we should have somewhere in one of our packets we got the dates of all that they meet in the beginning of the year. We got that big schedule of when all they. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's in this packet actually. Acting Mayor Mason: No, that's just Council and HRA isn't it? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh you're right. Don Ashworth: We may want to go back to each commission because they may have certain items set up for certain agendas. 35 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: So maybe it can go to the commission that we would like to shoot for April and pick some dates out of that month. Then if that doesn't fly, we'll take it from there. Don Ashworth: Okay, I've got it. Councilman Wing: Are they going to supply dessert and... Acting Mayor Mason: I believe in the past dinner has been provided. Councilman Senn: Only one question then as it relates to priorities. You had said previously that that cable TV franchise agreement thing was of some urgency. Don Ashworth: That's tree and now there's been another extension and I just received a letter today and I can't understand from the letter if he's telling me to slow down or speed up. But they've moved it to, they've moved it now into May and there are new federal regulations coming and the way he phrased it, you may want to walt to see what those regulations are before filing for re-regulations but I didn't fully. Councilman Senn: I have no problems with that but I heard a lot of discussions about starting to change who was responsible for putting in cable and stuff and I want to talk about that before that happens. I mean if you're talking about implementing that this construction season. I'm just saying we're running out of time if that is in fact an issue. I thought it was. Acting Mayor Mason: Can you maybe find out if it would be to our advantage to wait or not? Don Ashworth: Sure. I know the Mayor would like to take and move forward on this item. He would like to file for re-regulation, which I don't know that that is the issue that Councilman Senn brought up. I didn't quite understand that one. Councilman Senn: I thought that was all part of what we were going to address under the table. I thought we were talking about changing the agreement with the cable companies too. Don Ashworth: Okay. That is tree as far as. Councilman Senn: That was going to be discussed at the same time. Don AShworth: I don't know what to do though because we've already picked out March and we've already said no meetings in April. I think I'll be forced to place this item onto just a regular City Council agenda. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Acting Mayor Mason: So be it. Let's move on to Council Presentations. Item number 8. Councilman Wing. I believe you wanted to chat about land use for a brief moment. Councilman Wing: I've been really concerned about how to approach this. We've talked about the automotive uses and...and prior to automotive uses I supported Mark's position on, we talked in past Council's a lot about fast food and where are they going and where are we going to put them and where do they belong and where don't they belong. And how are we going to zone for it. And the general theory was that they were going to be 36 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 clustered and they're going to be restricted to kind of pretty much one area. Not just spread all over town and not dominating the scene. So coming to the Planning Commission on Wednesday night is an issue that I'm very much opposed to and I would like to request the I-IRA to reconsider their agreement to sell this property. I'm opposed to that sale. I don't know how this has gotten this far without the Council's being more involved but it has to do with a fast food franchise going in right in the middle of the Market Square parking lot. Now as I see it, along West 78th Street and Market there will be an F_.dina Realty. South of that there will be a free standing fast food restaurant and I think that's an inappropriate land use and I don't support that and I'm going to do whatever I can...to suggest that maybe that isn't an appropriate land use. I don't know where the Council stands on ~his but I'd like it placed on the next Council agenda and have the Council educatecL..on this issue and at least discuss it so that this doesn't just simply happen and suddenly Market Square is kind...That isn't what I intended down there. The other big concern for this, and the reason I brought it up was as we toured the Highway 4 corridor, back and forth and up and down over the last 2 years, Bill Morrish pointed out the importance of the gateway affect from the highway to the City Hall. From the City Hall out and we're looking at a million dollar city park directly in front of City Hall, and although this doesn't necessarily relate because there's going to be an Edina Realty, it just doesn't seem to mix with my vision for this city and I think there's more appropriate places to put this. Not flee standing in the middle of our primary shopping center. So I'll leave it at that. Until I get more information, and it may be appropriate to pull it from the agenda next time. Until I can get more information and up to date on this and the Council gets more informed on what's occurring, and I want to discuss the fast food issue and land use and if there's more support for this, then I would leave it out of the agenda and I would request the I-IRA to reconsider their sale of that land. But I think I said that right. Is there anything I need to clarify or any issues here that I kind of stepped? Don Ashworth: No. I think the reconsideration is really going to be one of whether or not they should be allowed to further subdivide the property over there and further intensify Market Square other than the office complex so. Councilman Senn: So it's not a real given. I mean I thought we asked this question at a previous meeting. I thought I asked the question, is it given that it has to be there and I thought the response was that it's already been authorized to be there. I came with this letter. I don't know if the rest of you guys got this letter or not but this letter raises some real interesting points because...land transfers we've negated what we agreed to in the fa'st place. Now I don't know whether that's true or not but that's what this letter is contending. I'm just saying, I think everybody received the letter. In the first place, ff you haven't gotten it... Acting Mayor Mason: You know I wish, I wish through all of this, some good points are being raised and I'm not in a position to go one way or the other on them right now but I hear a lot of talk at Council meetings about what HRA is or isn't doing but yet when it comes to HRA meetings, no one is there to give their opinions to I-IRA. So I think, with the exception of Councilman Wing. And I need to back track because obviously there are people expressing concerns but these things come up at Council meetings but as I sit on HRA with 3 other, 4 other people, those concerns don't come up at I-IRA meetings. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which I think highlights a basic structural problem in our city. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, that's not an issue. We're talking about land use that Councilman Wing brought up and if that's another issue to get put on a future agenda, that's fine but I think it's incumbent upon people, if they have a complaint or a concern about something, they need to go to the appropriate body. Not just talk about it amongst themselves but to go to the appropriate body and state your opinions and your concerns. And from my standpoint on HRA, that's not being done. And I think Dick's raising some excellent issues. 37 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Why isn't it though Mike? I mean this happens time and time again where the people come to the Council and they don't go to the HRA so there must be some type of a perception or some type of a problem there. I don't know. I mean I just, it's a little baffling but it keeps happening. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I'm specifically talking about Councilmembers, rightly or wrongly, that have trouble with what HRA is doing, I don't have any trouble with someone liking or not liking what another body's doing but I have yet to see that at an I-IRA meeting and what I'm saying is, let's get everything out in the open here and discuss and talk about and try to reach agreement with what's going on in the city. Maybe I will go off on a tangent here but HRA is only involved in a small part of the development of the whole city of Chanhassen. Now yes, it is an important part of the city but if we talk square feet, miles that I-IRA represents, it is not tike some people have said. HRA is not running the city. I serve on both of those committees, commissions and I strongly disagree with that. I-IRA is supposed to help develop the central business district and people that don't like, or do like what's being developed in the central business district need to come before HRA and state their opinions and that's not being done. Don Ashworth: May I respond to Councilman Senn's points? Acting Mayor Mason: Please. Don Ashworth: Or at least his question. Conceptual plan was presented to the I-IRA which showed both the office complex and Wendy's. That was approved. There is no development contract that exists between, or for that office complex and Wendy's, although I think one is currently being drafted, correct or not? Todd Gerhardt: No. Don Ashworth: No. The authority to plat or further subdivide property rests with the City Council so that the issue is to whether or not they should be able to get an additional lot there rests with this body. And that's basically Councilman Wing's question. Should we allow that to happen. Your decision to say no, we will not allow that to happen rests with the City Council. The fourth factual point is, is that the HRA went in and purchased that property in an effort to make Market Square happen and in the process of doing that, there were various discussions at the City Council level that the city may wish to see something happen with that property, meaning a library, senior, park, etc. The HRA built into the purchase agreement the option for the city to do whatever it wishes. So in other words it purchased the property. It paid $2.50 a square foot. It then entered into a repurchase agreement with Bloomberg Companies allowing them to repurchase that for that $2,50. But an exception clause was put in there that said that if the city wants that property for a purpose that the city determines, that Bloomberg does not have a right to repurchase. The property is retained by the city. Bloomberg receives an additional $1.00 a square foot in lieu of his ability to be able to repurchase it. So I think those are four salient points that hopefully add to this. Enlightening a little. Councilman Senn: So we purchased it. How much did we purchase it for? Don Ashworth: HRA purchased it for $2.50 a square foot, which Bloomberg thought was way too low, They again, they really didn't want to sell it to us but to make Market Square happen they needed to infuse cash into that deal. Our purchasing and temporarily holding it until they could make the center happen and therefore remarket this remaining part of the parcel was their primary objective. They really didn't want us to have a long term ownership. We went back and said, the City Council has looked at a number of uses for that property and so we'll purchase it for the $2.50. We'll provide the money to infuse into the Market Square thing and we will 38 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 enter into a repurchase agreement allowing you to, at a future point in time, to buy that back. Except if the City decides that it really wants to keep it. If we figure out a use that we really want to keep it for, then we'll pay you a $1.00 a square foot difference. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're really paying $3.50 a square foot? Don Ashworth: Well, if we resell it back to them for the office complex. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then we won't. Councilman Senn: For the office complex. Acting Mayor Mason: I guess I think we're, I mean Richard wants land use put on an agenda and clearly by the discussion this is generating, that should be done. I guess I'm not quite sure what the point is of pursuing this any further at this point. Councilman Wing: Because there's some clarification issues. Mark brought some up. I hear you loud and clear and I am totally empathetic to your position and I think your statement was very valid as to where the HRA lacks some input sometimes. On the other hand, it seems to me that the 4 years I've sat here, 90% of the big, major issues in this city have suddenly come to the Council with designs and plans and architectural...and I sit at those meetings night after night. The ones I've made. What are these models, all these plans and color schemes doing here? If you're going to provide the money and do it, fine but let's get all of this stuff out of here and to the Planning Commission and the City Council. And then if you want to see what they've decided on, before you spend your money on it, then...do we own that property? In theory. That entire comer. Including. Don Ashworth: Not in theory. I mean it is filed under our name. Councilman Wing: All I want to say on that land use for that entire section, that is a pivotable comer. Pivotable comer. Councilman Senn: I mean let's define who owns it. Is it the HRA that owns it or the City that owns it? Don Ashworth: It varies. In most of the acquisitions we've actually filed those under the name of the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Senn: So why is the HRA considering something, or have they been considering or planning something on that parcel, without coming and talking to us £~t if we own the property? See that's where I keep running. Acting Mayor M_~on: Again, I think that this is a hot enough topic that it should be put on an agenda and discussed. I don't, quite honestly I don't see the point of talking about it any further. Councilman Wing: Okay Mike I'll go along with that and move along on my presentation. Then if, not on a work session. In a near work session we put the I-IRA issue on it. I'm not saying I want Council to take it over but I do want to del'me the HRA and goals and direction so I think it's imperative that this is a hot issue and it should be on a work session and in the very near future. I don't want to see it go too long. 39 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well we should talk about it under departmental goals. I mean that's coming up on the next agenda, and the HRA is one of them. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm concerned about this specific issue going to the Planning Commission on Wednesday night and we need some kind of response because the question's going to come up. Councilman Wing: Okay, and my concern is that that comer, being a pivotable comer, is extremely critical to our appearance and City Hall and the park. The view to the highway. The view from the highway. Locating our City Hall. Enjoying our park and I'm not so sure an office building that's going to be 3 stories or 2 stories or 106 feet, whatever. That is a major decision on that comer that I think should start at the City Council and then filter back to HRA for dissemination. And I don't think any action should be taken on that comer, at all. Acting Mayor Mason: But don't things start at the Planning Commission first? Right? I mean they do and then they come to us. See. Councilman Senn: Well wait Michael. Wait now. I agree with you. They start with the Planning Commission but we are talking about a city owned piece of land, Before the Planning Commission considers plans on what happens on a city owned piece of land, the City Council or the City, should be making some policy determinations in terms of what they want to see happen on that piece of ground. Okay? I mean to me it's going through the process and it's coming into us, it's going to be... Acting Mayor Mason: No. I strongly. I do not think this City Council rubber stamps anything. Councilman Wing: Oh no, no. But it's going to have gone through HRA and the Planning Commission. They're going to spend their time and all the development plans. Councilman Senn: And they're going to say, all the commissions passed it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah and we're going to say, plate it in gold and we still won't approve it. Acting Mayor Mason: What now? I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, you know. Forget it. It's not worth the comment. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, as long as we've opened up this can of worms, which I will still maintain is not appropriate at this time, but go ahead Nancy. We have a member from the Planning Commission, If the camera would turn over tx) Ms. Mancino please. Nancy Mancino: Well the only thing I was going to remind the City Council is that the Vision 2002 task force ad hoc committee is working with Hoisington Group and looking at the downtown and coming forth to probably the City Council and Planning Commission, different site plan analysis for the downtown and doing an overall planning. And that is made up of Hoisington. It's made up of citizens from the community. Something like the Highway 5 task force so I think we need to listen to them...their concems also on the land use for the central business district...Whether it's this comer or any other comer, but this one in particular. Acting Mayor Mason: It sounds to me like maybe there should be some people at the Planning Commission meeting on the 16th. 4O City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Wing: I would, I guess under Council Presentations I don't know if it's appropriate to move that be stricken from the Planning Commission agenda. I see no reason to discuss it. Or ff they do, I'm going to be there and ask them not to discuss it because I plan on doing the opposite of what they may consider. Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Wing: I don't know if it's appropriate for a motion at this point. It's Council Presentation. Councilman Senn: ...direction to the Planning Commission. (There were a couple different conversations going on at the same time at this point.) Acting Mayor Mason: We can't do that. We don't set agendas for Planning Commission. We can't tell them to delete something from the agenda. Don Ashworth: I think it goes a little further and State law allowing a person to make an application. Councilman Senn: Let's do this then. Why don't I make a motion that fight now the City Council determines that this property is not for sale for the time being. It's owned by the City of Chanhassen and then, to me you figure the applicant, why would you pursue it until the City Council makes a decision. I mean it seems to me like we're just spinning wheels and wasting people's time. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I guess I personally kind of think that's what we're doing fight now. To tell you the auth. I mean that's an item that is on the Planning Commission agenda and those meetings are open to the public and it seems to me, if there's that strong a feeling about it, you know have any of us talked with the Planning Commission about what we think should be done for the city of Chanhassen? Has anyone talked with HRA about what should be done with the city of Chanhassen? No. To my knowledge. Councilman Senn: Last year we did in our goal sessions. We haven't had them yet this year Mike. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, have you talked to anyone on t-IRA or Planning Commission about what you want to see going on in the city? Councilman Senn: Well I did a number of times at HRA. When I appeared at meetings. It was before you were on but. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Well, since I've been on, I've seen you there once. Councilman Wing: ...who's doing whac I'm wonSed about that parcel of land. Acting Mayor Mason: Well if we're all that worded about it, I would suggest that you go to the Planning Commission meeting and either ask them to table it or let people know that there are a number of people that are unhappy or are questioning what's going on in that comer of land fight now. To tell people that want to put a presentation, that they can't do it. Well (a), we can't do it and Co), I think that's, I personally thing that's really out of line. 41 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I ask a question just to finish off this conversation? Who is the applicant on Wednesday night, if not the city of Chanhassen? Don Ashworth: Bloomberg Companies, as far as I know. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they're presenting it with the hopes that they'll buy that land back? Don Ashworth: That was what I was just discussing with Elliott. I mean the repurchase agreement gives Bloomberg the right to repurchase that property unless we tell him that we are going to retain it. And I think where Elliott's saying we're on thin ground is we have, the City Council has not made that decision. So as far as he knows, he does have a right to repurchase. Elliott Knetsch: I think that's accurate. I think that we have to notify him that we are going through a selection process to determine what our needs are. If it's going to be a city use such as a library, etc. We've given him no notice. I don't have that contract in front of us but I think that he's within his rights to come forth with an application at this time, given that the city has not notified him of our interest in repurchasing at this time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And is there any time limit on that? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Senn: We can determine to repurchase at any time can we not? Or I mean we can determine not to sell it at any time? Don Ashworth: I guess Elliott's point, I would interpret Elliott's point is that we have to notify him that it is our intent to keep that property, and I'm pretty sure that it's for public purpose. Which brings out another point which is that, at least originally talking with Councilman Wing. I had the thought or the belief that the office complex was okay. It was simply the Wendy's that was probably bad and you know if we're looking at some park part but that purchase repurchase deals with the whole site. Not just some part of it which is something that would require re-negotiation then of that purchase repurchase agreement. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I suggest we put something together for Bloomberg saying that we retain the right to make a decision for city owned uses pending the outcome of the Vision 2002 meetings. We're just simply not, it's the same thing with the Highway 5. We're just simply not ready to make a decision on that pan:el. Don Ashworth: May I suggest that we put this item on for our next agenda with the intent being one of having the City Attorney outline what actions you might take that would be legal versus you know. His best position see because I feel comfortable that the decision as to whether or not you should allow further subdivision of that property rests with the City Council. So if you say no on that, you kill it. Councilman Senn: Would subdivision be required if they owned it and just leased out the different elements? Don Ashworth: The current applicant is to have Wendy's own that portion of the property. Councilman Senn: I understand that but you just simply, you can still get around what you're saying by basically leaving it in the same ownership and not doing a subdivision so I mean, I think. 42 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Don Ashworth: But it would require a new submittal through the Planning Commission process because at the current point in time it's shown as separate ownership. Councilman Senn: I understand but that takes it out of the Council right? By your statement. Todd Oerhardt: Well no, Wendy's...Outlot A. Councilman Senn: Well if the attorney's going to look at that, I'd also like him to address the issue, from the tenants perspective, if the questions been raised that the lease provisions would not permit the building of a Wendy's in the shopping center parking lot. Under the current terms and under, once it's sold back, then what is permitted because it's not under the I-IRA ownership. I guess I'd like an answer to that. That seems to be a fairly pivotable question in the whole thing. Don Ashworth: I should also check on, who has the underlying ownership. I said city. That's been typical in most of them. ! don't know that. ' Councilman Wing: Is there anything that can be done then with Planning Commission on Wednesday night? Don Ashworth: I will relay this conversation to Paul and again Nancy is present. But again, everything I see, they have proceeded. Under State Statute they have a right to present their thing to the Planning Commission. I guess that's, is that not the position of your office? Elliott Knetsch: Yes it is. They do and they set their agendas and again I don't have that particular contract here but typically those provisions revolve around notice. If we're going to not allow them to have the right of repurchase, we have to notify them that that's our intention and then follow whatever is set forth in the contract and we have not taken those steps. Councilman Senn: Allowing this to go forward by no means roms it around and precludes then...on the city's part? Elliott Knetsch: That's correct. That's correct. Don is entirely accurate there. I mean ultimately, whatever the Planning Commission does on Wednesday, the decision is at this table as to whether that project is going to be finally approved or not. Acting Mayor Mason: You know I guess maybe this discussion seems to come up any time any major development is proposed and I guess maybe it behooves all of us, particularly those of us on Council, to try and look ahead a little farther than we're looking. Had this, well. I think we should move on with that because we always seem to get into this problem but. Are you done with land use Councilman? Councilman Wing: Yes sir. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OFFICIALS AND MINNETONKA BOARD OF EDUCATION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: I think they're primarily inviting Mayors and City Managers. However they've opened this to say any City Council member, at least that the way I read the thing and I just wanted the Council to be aware of 43 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 it. If you were thinking of attending, I'll be sending in my reservation and I don't know if Don will be here or not. Acting Mayor Mason: Is that an HRA night? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. Acting Mayor Mason: I bet you it is. 24th. Because I would like to go to that. Don Ashworth: 24th is an HRA meeting. Councilman Senn: I'd like to go Don. Don Ashworth: Okay. Anyone else? Acting Mayor Mason: Well I want to but both Don and I can't go if there's HRA that night. Todd Gerhardt: You have an I-IRA meeting next week. You can try to reschedule that for March. Acting Mayor Mason: I'd like that on the agenda. I would like to reschednie that because I would like to go to that meeting. I mean let's see how that goes. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES, LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: The legislative conference, also March 24th. Okay. Acting Mayor Mason: Well maybe we can get Mr. Dmayer to change nights. Don Ashworth: This is one that typically we have taken our legislators out to eat afterwards. It's generally a good conference. Any Council members who would like to take and attend that are welcome to. Or I mean should let me know if you're thinking about it. I should also let you know that the Association, the AMM is proposing to do a very similar type of thing with the league and their's is set for March 24th. Couldn't help that. It was too tempting. Tbeir's is set for March 2nd and we could do a similar type of thing. Oh their's is earlier. Their's is from 5:00 until 7:00. Opportunity to kind of tell legislators some of the problems that we're having. The AMM one is usually draws about 150 elected officials, both City Councils as well as State Representatives. Councilman Senn: And that's when? Don Ashworth: That's March 2nd from 5:00 until 7:00 p.m, and that's going to be at the Kelly Inn. In St. Paul. And again, in some of the years we've used that as an opportunity to start meeting there and then have dinner somewhere downtown and what not. Kind of have an evening... Councilman Senn: The one on the 2nd or the one on the 24th? Don Ashworth: Both. Well I mean we haven't done both in the same year but I mean it's, one or the other we typically have. Meeting with legislators afterwards. Legislators will be at both meetings. City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: If we're going to do the 24th, could we reschedule the school thing because of the HRA conflict and everything else or is that? Don Ashworth: Well the school thing is. Acting Mayor Mason: The school thing is being set by Minnetonka. I mean he's invited a number of other cities so I don't think that one will change. I think if we can get the HRA meeting changed, that might be the thing to do, which I would like to pursue. Don Ashworth: And then potentially try for March 2nd as far as trying to get Council members together with our whatever. Okay, good. I'll put a copy of this in our next packet. Acting Mayor Mason: Please do. Okay, let's move on. I forgot. We still have some consent stuff to deal with. CONSENT AGENDA: D. APPROVAL OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS HIGHWAY 5. Councilman Senn: I guess Don, what is this? I mean is this our one shot at the pedestrian bridge or what's the process? Don Ashworth: Well I got the impression lhe City Council wanted to be updated as to you know, what does this thing look like and what is it we're proposing to do and so yeah. We're putting it onto this agenda as an opportunity for the City Council to look at it and say you agree or disagree. Do we have the colored ones to hand out or show around? I mean these are terrible copies. Todd Gerhardt: I don't have it. We handed out the pictures at the last meeting and I've got... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are the vines included in the bid? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. It's part of landscaping. Don Ashworth: The HRA had initially looked at this with, they could reduce costs ff they reduced the pillar sections on either side. Reduce the landscaping, etc and it went back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission said gee. You know this thing really should, this should represent something coming into our community. The original plan should really be relooked at and so they wanted to see this in, what I'll cal it the more massive form. It went back to the I-IRA. HRA said, okay. We'll agree with Planning Commission so they put back in the whole pillar snmcture. The vining. The kind of, the central collection spot in the center. They did delete some miscellaneous areas that potentially could save some dollars and like there's a 4 inch what, decking thing that the architect thought was important but nobody could see it and it was $40,000.00. So they junked that. Todd Gerhardt: It made a shadow between the deck of the bridge and the I-beams so to speak... Councilman Senn: Well is there, I mean does the Council have an oppommity to really sit and look at this design and decide where they want to gO or not? I guess the big question I have is in the administrative packet tonight it says the HRA has already made the decision and they've already given the go ahead for the plans and 45 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 specifications based on that approval. I mean do we have input to it or don't we? Don Ashworth: We've been trying to keep ali of the groups informed here and at the same point in time we're under a real stringent deadline by the State. I think that again it's gone back to the HRA twice and that was to consider Planning Commission comments, We were kind of in hopes that the Council would look at the recommendations of the Planning Commission and HRA and say yeah. This looks good. But if you wanted to put it to a work session, wow. We should then somehow try to pick out some immediate type of date. Otherwise we will forego the grant because we will not meet the, when does this have to be completed Todd? By this next fall? Todd Gerhardt: It has to be completed by fall. Don Ashworth: Of 90, of this fall. This fall. Todd Gerhardt: We have to start construction as soon as the road restrictions come off. Councilman Senn: One of my problems is I guess real simply, here we are at the last minute again. No real chance to look at it. I have, I see that their recommendation says let's go with the large pier and stuff which is a more weighty structure and...design and do final plans and specs so...The other issue I have, these questions I have related to it, relate effectively to the project costs. When the City Council is asked to go ahead and support this application, earlier in, well basically in 1993 we were given application and the date in front of us and we were told that the total project cost was going to be $400,000.00, of which a federal amount was to be $280,000.00 and there was to be a local amount of $120,000.00. Now, depending on which scheme you look at, we're looking at a total project cost of $628,000.00 and $598,000.00 respectively. The federal portion's still the same, 280 but the City's portion is now up to $402,000.00 or $318,000.00, depending on which alternative you take. I mean that's 333% in one case and about 250-260% in the other case increase in terms of overall project cost. And I think that's something we really have to look at. I keep getting told on other issues that we have no money for these types of things but yikes, it seems like we just credit a few hundred thousand dollars here but I'm told on other things we can't do that. And I guess I'd like to understand why all of a sudden we have instead of $120,000.00, $400,000.00 of city money or money to go towards this project. I guess I really want to get into this issue a little bit more other than just have it glanced through on a consent agenda. Todd Gerhardt: ...why there was a dollar change on that. Basically it came from the bridge itself. When we put the proposal together over to the ISTEA application we were hoping that we would get by with using what is sort of a pre-fab type bridge that Paul had looked at and some of the consultants had felt it was appropriate for how this area would lay out. And MnDot again would not consider that. So from that we had to go into more of a beefed up bridge with concrete decking and the I-beams and so that's the difference in those dollars. Councilman Senn: Well with that increased cost, all I can tell you is that I for one as a council person would like an opportunity to consider the decision as to whether this project should even go forward or not, federal money or no federal money. It's considerably different than what we, you know the premise we entered it on. By 300% in local money. Don Ashworth: There is no question but thc cost of this structure has continued to increase. Councilman Senn: And we have a lot of other priorities that aren't being met in this city. The fact, just by the 46 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 trail plan and the park plans and everything else, higher priorities than this. $400,000.00 could go a long way in solving some of those priorities versus building a bridge, which...a liule bit to nowhere at this point because I'm not sure what trail it even hooks into. Acting Mayor Mason: Well at those Vision 2000 meetings Mark a whole lot of people thought that bridge to connect the north side and south side of Chanhassen was pretty important. Now I do not, I do not begrudge what you're saying about the money but there were a whole lot of people that want a connection between and over Highway 5 in this city. Councilman Senn: At this time is the question. Is this the appropriate time is what I said. It more or less comes back to right now in terms of priorities. What should the priorities be? What should go fa, st in line in terms of the priorities? And 2002 isn't all done either and there were also a lot of other people there with varying opinions on a lot of different things. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if we wait 5 years or 10 years, it's going to cost twice as much if you don't have the ISTEA funds for it. Councilman Wing: And I'd like to see more than one going in downtown area. I think we're fortunate to get this one. The only thing that stopped me here, precipitates the same discussion and it may be foolish because we have to discuss this but design was taken to the I-IRA. They approved this and then it was taken to the I-IRA and then went to Planning and back. I don't care what, with all due respect. I don't care what the HRA things of any design. If they're going to build it and fund it, that's wonderful but I'd like to see those decisions kind of out here with the Planning Commission and then, I just. I get lost on how these big projects occur and frankly, every time I talk to anybody on these issues that somebody gets upset about. Whether it's West 78th Street or anything else I say look it. I've only got a several million dollar budget and I'm just the elected official. If you really want to have some input into this city, go to the HRA. Talk to them. Work with them because that's where all the big projects are and I don't feel the I-IRA or the Council members on the I-IRA are communicating with the rest of us very well in presenting issues and making sure we're all involved. And then these things happen and we get to this point and we're sort of stunned and. Acting Mayor Mason: I think Dick, from now on when you say HRA, when you say that. If you don't preface it with HRA and City Center and I'm going to call you on it because HRA's purview is not Carver Beach. It's not Minnewashta. It's not. Councilman Wing: Oh I concur with that. I'm ~__alking the central business district. Acting Mayor Mason: Well alright but then I think, you know it sounds to me like what we need to do is have some sort of work session and establish a flow chart, whatever you want to call it. Because these arguments keep coming up and nothing's getting done with it. But again we're off task and dog gone it, let's get on task. We're on item 3(d) I believe. Councilman Senn: Don, where's the funding for this? Is this funding through the Economic Development District or through the downtown district? Don Ashworth: Downtown district. Councilman Senn: Okay. And which district was amended with the new boundaries? The downtown district or City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 the economic development district? Don Ashworth: The downtown district. Councilman Wing: Well I'm going to move, I'm going to be comfortable supporting this. I'm assuming Mike you're comfortable with this. You haven't spoken but this is not a new issue. It has been discussed. The cost. The...been discussed. I was aware of that. I have some comments on the design. It's I think too late. I think~ it's been said and done and approved and I think we have to move on it. But there's a crux problem here that really, really troubles me deeply and I think we, as you suggested, simply have to get together on that item. So I'm going to move approval of 3(d). Acting Mayor Mason: I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a comment that I don't like how we got here but I do like the design. That's why I'll approve it. Councilman Wing moved, Acting Mayor Mason seconded to approve the Pedestrian Bridge across Highway 5 as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Acting Mayor Mason: Do you want to say why Mark, or I think we have a pretty good idea why. Okay 3(1) is your's also. L. CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO REZONE 42 ACRES FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL, CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, TH 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, FINAL READING. Councilman Senn: On 3(I). This is the rezoning now that we talked about at the last meeting but weren't considering at the last meeting, or what? Don Ashworth: 1-24, City Council approved first reading of the rezoning of the school site. Exhibit A will be attached prior to publication. Second and final reading is recommended. Acting Mayor Mason: We approved that. What we didn't approve was the site plan review, which we then did approve at the work session. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then this is the second and final reading then of the rezoning? Acting Mayor Mason: That's correct. Don Ashworth: Right. It requires two readings on a rezoning. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. And then the site plan though. Don Ashworth: You approved that. Councilman Senn: We approved that now at the work session with some modifications. 48 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yep. Councilman Senn: Okay. So the same modifications then become part of what this...whatever? Don Ashworth: Well, underlying zoning. That will be the governing document in their development, in the development of that site. This simple sets the proper zoning. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the other one will be protector or guard against the other issues then? Don Ashworth: Correct. Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. Acting Mayor Mason: Are you going to move 3(1) or not Mark? Councilman Senn: Sure. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the second and f'mai reading of City Code Amendment to Rezone 42 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate to O1, Office and Institutional, Chanhassen Elementary School Site, TH 5 and Gaipin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. M. REALLOCATE 1994 CONTINGENCY FUND TO FUND REDUCED REVENUES. Councilman Senn: Don, if I'm understanding this right now. What I want to make sure of okay was the $33,000.00 is now going to go to reduce the shortfall? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. So we have no other options in terms of contingency or reallocating that money as we talked about before? This takes the entire contingency? Don Ashworth: As this is worded, it's really taking the $33,000.00. There also is an additional $15,000.00 that was allocated for additional neighborhood patrols and that remains intact but in the process of uying to come up with solving this deficit problem, we anticipate lhat we're going to come back to City Council saying we're really not going to be able to implement that $15,000.00, But you'll get a chance to see. The action this evening only pertains to the 33. Councilman Senn: Okay. Because when we set the 33 aside I thought we set like two or three different pots aside. The 15. We talked about the 33 and then for some reason I was thinking there was another one but maybe we already have it. Don Ashworth: All of the combinations revolved around $48,000.00. $48,000.00 in tax cuts. $48,000.00 that would be the $33,000.00 for parks plus $15,000.00 for neighborhood patrols. And there was some other option that equaled $48,000.00. 49 City Council Meeting - February 14, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. And so the 40's the difference here that you have to come up with? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution g94-25: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to reallocate the 1994 contingency fund to fund reduced revenues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 5O