Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 01 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cluniel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Scott Hart, and Harold Brose APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Mayor Chmiel wanted to add under Administrative Presentations a discussion of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 5; Councilman Wing wanted to discuss under Council Presentations a toll road for Highway 212 construction, requesting a formal public safety report on the current costs for 1994, and also, a work session item regarding Highway 5 corridor study prior to it's coming to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Resolution g94.12: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 4th Addition, Project 93-22. Resolution g94-13: Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of a Loan Application to the Metropolitan Council's Right-of-way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF); and Authorizing the Purchase of Property in the Highway 212 Corridor, Frank Fox Property. g. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated January 10, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 4, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 14, 1993 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 13, 1994 i. Resolution g94.14: Resolution Adopting Permanent Rules of the Wetland Conservation Act. k. Approve Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract, Carver County, Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. GAMBLING LICENSE REQUEST, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I pulled this for the opportunity to vote against it knowing full well that it will pass and...before when these come forward. I'm not comfortable with our ordinance but before we look at our ordinance. Excuse me. What I'd like to put on one of our work items this year is that we look at our ordinance but I'd like the opportunity to vote against this one. City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Wing: I have supported Colleen in trying to get this ordinance looked at. I think it's from past Public Safety experience. I guess we have an ordinance that somewhat is specific that Scott has worked out but if we're going to approve one of these, I'd like to be more specific. I'd like to know exactly, I'd like to set up specific amounts of money specifically directed and if we're going to approve these, have the function and the focus for the money and then have a strong city or county. I don't, there's a little too much free, although it is for me. Councilman Senn: I was going to ask if we could table this tonight because if you go back several meetings now, we had one of these come up and we talked about it and agreed that we'd let that one go through and that was kind of the basis that that was the only one really coming at us in the foreseeable future. And the whole basis was at that point, in fact I think Scoa wasn't even at that meeting but we asked Roger to go back and draft up an ordinance which eliminated just having 15 people in the city type of thing and went even further to designate that the funds, or at least a large portion of them be used in Chanhassen. And that's supposed to be coming back to us for review and it is an item, I think I saw it on the priority list back under item 5 for Council work sessions but given that direction and where we were at that point in time, I'd really like to see this be tabled and have our work session and decide where we want to go with this thing overall before we proceed with any more of these. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the things I'd just like to point out. From both of the other two participants we have within the community. Specifically the Legion whereby they have provided the city with many, many things over and above what we have presently now. With additional contributions towards public safety to the park and recreation segments. Building different things within the community and I think we have to acknowledge the fact that they're doing a great job with the city. And I think we're looking at the Lions as well. The Lions have done a superb job with us and to me, I don't know ff that's penalizing them or not but I think to a certain point you should be well aware as to the contributions that are made from these organizations over, way over and way above of what their requirements are. And so I just wanted to point that out. Councilman Senn: You know Don I agree with you 100% because those are two of them that go way over and above our very minimum requirements you know. And what we talked about before that I thought we were at least heading for some consensus on is we'd like to establish a much higher standard so for everybody we'd be talking about the same set of rules and they'd be much more substantial. But a number of different things that I've pulled together for some other communities that I really would like to share and talk about on that. Scott Ham Your Honor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Scott Ham I believe this isn't a new permit. This is just a paperwork requirement... Mayor Chmiel: Approved the last time. Yes, I realize that. So that is the portion as to what Scott has indicated. My suggestion at this time would not be to table it because we've already approved it. And I would therefore then look for recommendations but somebody raised their hand from the Legion. Councilman Senn: Point of clarification though. Is this the one then we approved about a month ago? Mayor Chmiel: Correct. City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. So this is the one we said let go and this is for one year and this is the last one we're letting through? Mayor Chmieh That's correct. Councilman Senn: And in one year, here at the bottom it says that the rules are going to 'change. lVlayor Chmieh Yep. Councilman Senn: Okay. So this is the one we made, okay. Alright. Then I agree with you. Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to come forward here. Wayne Blue: Yes I would. Mayor Chmieh Please state your name over at the podium, and who you're representing. Wayne Blue: I'm Wayne Blue. I'm the Gaming Manager for the Disabled American Veterans. What happened here is when I submitted the request...as a matter of fact we took in $10,000.00 from Riveria Club. We hadn't turned over any to the city yet because our bookkeeper was still working the figures out. Anyway, all we're requesting now is my gaming license for the DAV for the State of Minnesota expires on 4/30 of '94. Consequently, when that happens I've got to renew all of our licenses. This one, Chanhassen. Not Chanhassen. Shakopee and...Club. Got to renew them all. Costs us $250.00 a license to renew. If I had known at the time when I asked for permission to come in here in the first place, I would have waited until after I renewed my license. It would save us $1,000.00 overall. We totally agree and intend to comply with all of your rules. Your donation and what have you. However, it takes us a little time to get our feet on the ground because we've got quite an expense to start a gaming operation and get...We're not coming here tonight to ~__alk to you people to try and get an extension. Or get a license for a year now and at the end of that year, and then we'll be able to come before you and at that time we'll have made our donation to the city with_making money for nothing. However, all of our money that we do make, outside of expenses, go to the VA Hospital. We have a number of programs at the VA Hospital. Many, many programs. We have a senior companion program that gets $2,000.00 a month. We have many, many programs that we sponsor. We have a band program we sponsor...to the hospital. If we didn't have these programs in the city, we'd have to come up with some reason, some way in order to get these veterans because after all we are disabled American veterans. And we all fought for the same thing. You people fought and didn't get wounded. People like me that fought and did get wounded. Right now we're trying to keep our VA hospital going and also we know that the percentage has to come here because...split down what might have to come back to the city. We totally intend on doing it just as soon as we get our feet on the ground so we've got the funds to do it. Which is getting close. We have taken in like I said about $10,000.130 to the Riveria, which is a pretty good income. Pretty good income. But I appreciate your consideration to extend our license for at least one more year and let us show you what we can do for the donations to the city. Thank you. Mayor Chmieh Good. Thank you Wayne. Councilman Wing: Usually between the City Manager or Scott, I think as these come before us, if they should happen again, I'd like to know a lot more about the group that's asking for the license. I'd like to know what the word expenses mean so we have a full accounting of exactly where the money,s going, dime for dime. I City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 think to just have a group come in, and I'm certainly familiar with the Disabled American Veterans. It's a name but I have no idea where the money and impact is going. That happened down at the Legion once where we looked into exactly where the money was going and what percent was going where and how it was handled and we wound up fairly comfortable. I guess that's enough. Councilman Senn: Well based on this being the one that we already approved and it's just the paperwork, I'll move approval on it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution g94-15: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Gambling License Request for the Disabled American Veterans. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who abstained and the motion carried. E. APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING VARIANCE NO. 93-9, JEFF PAPKE. Mayor Chmiel: I believe we did receive a letter from our City Attorney in regard to that~ Roger, would you like to make any comment on that? Roger Knutson: I have no comments other than to say, you can adopt these Findings. If you decide not to adopt them, it's not a motion to reconsider because ail you have done, the only motion that you can pass so far is recommending to do this. It's within your discretion as to what you want to do. Councilman Wing: But failure to pass Facts and Findings, that puts us in a very neu~xal area then. Roger Knutson: Well, you have one of two motions available to you tonight. One would be to adopt the Findings of Fact and the Decision as presented. The other would be, potentially to approve the variance subject to conditions outlined by staff. Maybe there's a third motion. Councilman Wing: I guess the only comments I would make then, and put back to Council is, is that this is a lot of record and we argued this and it was a split Council decision on this, And being a lot of record and being the city has known, the Park and Rec has known for years that this is going to go and the Arboretum has complained that this is going to go but no one has stepped forward to do anything about it, somebody else owns the land and wants to do something about it. Roger what, do you have a recommendation on this? As far as I'm concerned, it can stay where it is. On the other hand, I'm willing to reconsider if we found some inappropriate ground here. Roger Knutson: It'd be your judgment call. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's basically Council's call and I think that for us to go with the Findings of Fact puts us probably I think in a better position from a legal aspect. Roger Knutson: Well the Findings of Fact to deny it. It says they don't get the variance. So if you want to approve the Variance, obviously you do it without this. If you move to approve the variance having the conditions listed. Again, it's your. 4 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: And basically the Findings of Fact lead to the conclusion that they can hook up to water and sewer...correct? Roger Knutson: Just sewer. Councilman Senn: Well yeah, sewer. Councilman Wing: I'll just approval of item (e) then. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah and I guess I was willing to consider a reconsideration. And knowing'that we have a very, very difficult lime deciding this issue a couple weeks ago but the decision isn't made any easier this evening so I guess that's all I needed to know. I'll second his motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Don, did you have something? Roger Knutson: It's just, it's academic but technically this is not a reconsideration. If you wanted to approve this, and I'm not suggesting you do, but this would not be a reconsideration to think about it. The motion last time was to direct myself to prepare Findings. That has been accomplished. There's no reason to reconsider that because it's already been accomplished. Councilman Senn: It's really ruling on the appeal which has already been denied by the Board. Roger Knutson: By the Board, correct. So it's not a reconsideration. Councilman Mason: One quick question. Don Ashworth, you put on here approval is recommended. I'm assuming you're saying approval of the Findings of Fact? Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Findings of Fact regarding Variance No. 93-9 for Jeff Papke as presented by the City Attorney. Ali voted in favor except Councilman Mason who abstained and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: I'm abstaining on this one simply because I voted against the denial of the variance in the fa-st place. J. APPROVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, TH $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have anything on this that you want to say? Don Ashworth: To the best of my knowledge the agreement in front of you is similar to the original approval that you gave in actually purchasing the property. It's similar to what you included in the economic development plan because you had to modify that document before we could move ahead with this type of action. Staff believes it's in accordance with everything that we've been doing to date and we would City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 recommend approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: We have two items on this tonight One is the purchase agreement and the second relates to rezoning of the proper~y. I don't see any big problems with the rezoning coming up but from a financial perspective, since that's what the purchase agreement ties into, I have opposed that and I'm going to continue to oppose it. By latest count now, I've got over $4 million in TIF going specifically into this project and I just think that's too much and I remain opposed to that level of city expense through TiF. So I wanted the opportunity to vote no. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'll move approval of the item. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement for the New Elementary School site at Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. AWARD OF BIDS: AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR 1994 EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE PURCHASES. Mayor Chmiel: Charles isn't here. Don, do you want to touch it? Don Ashworth: Yes. Charles caught one of those bugs that have been traveling around and he wasn't here today. I believe that Charles' report is pretty straight forward. Harold Brose is here this evening. Our Shop Foreman and, Shop Superintendent. So if the Council has any specific questions in regards to the equipment, I would turn those over to Harry. Otherwise, approval is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: No, I took a tour of the facility here a little bit ago and Harold took some time to show me some of the problems that are existing and from a personal tour that I had, I did see that there are these needs for what he's saying here. But if there am any questions the Council may have from Harold, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer those questions that you may have. And he's sitting there crossing his fingers. Councilman Mason: Well I just, from rumors I hear about how tight fisted that group of people is, this list seems pretty necessary and okay with me. Councilman Wing: May I address that comment? Mayor Chmiel: Very quickly. Councilman Wing: If I could quote former Councilmembers that I have sat with, I think they would have said, he is serious? Is this for real? This is more equipment than I've seen Harold get in one sitting in 12 years. But City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 I would agree with you. Mayor Chmiel: If you went down and looked at it, you'd know. Unfortunately. Councilman Wing: No, he's been looking for this for years. This isn't an acctunulation...I would move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Councilman Senn: I think we should keep a few of the rusty vehicles Just to keep our inventory. Resolution g93-16: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize staff to advertise for bids for equipment and vehicle purchases as approved with the 1994 budget and that an award of contract for the two (2) dump trucks be approved as per state bid contract All voted in favor and the motion carried unanlrnously. UPDATE ON THE 1994 BOND SALES, DAVE MACGILLIVRARY, SPRINGSTED CORPORATION. Dave MacGillivrary: Good evening. We'd like you to reaffirm your actions of December and formalize again the taking of competitive bids to refund the four issues. That competitive bid sale will be February 28th .... to go with four issues, there's two objectives. One is to reduce future interest costs and the second is to extend the term the City would be eligible to collect future tax increment revenue. There's four issues. The 1994A issue is a GO improvement bond sale of about $6.3. We refunded about $4.3. A net savings of $360,000.00. On the '94B issue, to save some interest cost and also to do this extension...tax increment purposes. There at about 6.6%. We'd refund them to about 4.1%. Extend the term by 2 years and that would be a $65,000.00. The '94C issue is to refund some taxable GO tax increment issues from 1988. They're outstanding at 9.3%. We'd refund those at about 5.8%. Extend the term of all three...with a net savings. And '94D issue, G-O TIF funds from 1988 of about 6.7%. We'd refund those at about 4.3%. Extend the term 2 years and have a net savings of about $24,000.00. This action tonight sets the stage to have competitive bids on the 28th, which we would bring back to you. In general, why we're doing this now rather than last year is, some of the quirks in Federal law about bank qualificafions...Also rates right now in January are, have come back down a little bit. They're the lowest point now that they were in 1993. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with all of the savings we're going to do and extending it 2 years is what you're saying, are we going to save money from what you're doing and what you're going to get paid as to what it's going to cost the city? Dave MacGilliwary: ...Yes. I'll throw that into...is after you pay us and everybody else, there's a nice savings. I think the total net savings, net after all costs is about $500,000.00 a year. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any other questions? Councilman Mason: Yeah I do. Are you really a tag team with Don Ashworth? Dave MacGillivrary: ...I thought that was kind of interesting wording. 7 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: I was going to ask you if you wanted to buy the wrestling ring and pay for it... Don Ashworth: I really have enjoyed working with Dave and yes, the wordage them is accurate because with this County road project, we had to get through some real hurdles on that and I think, I was very happy to have Dave at my side and I think we did do a pretty good job on Ron. Councilman Senn: One question though. Our costs are no higher doing it this way, under two issues than they were doing it under one issue? Dave MacGillivrary: Higher in terms of, you mean because it's multiple issues? The reason for the multiple issues, fa:st the tax increment. The basic answer to that is, there's two different things. First, the tax increments have to be sold separately because they're tax increment versus the improvements. They're two different tax increment issues. One is taxable. One is tax exempt. That goes to why there's more than one issue here. Councilman Senn: So which ones are we doing tonight? Dave MacGilliwary: You're doing, you're setting the stage...A taxable tax increment and a tax exempt tax increment so they're completely separate. The other two improvement issues, okay we did put the improvements together because you only gain on extending on the terms of those on one of those two. The other one you don't and therefore the other, if you don't extend the term on, the savings go up. You get higher savings. Councilman Senn: I thought in December we acted on five though. Dave MacGillivrary: Well I wasn't here in December. Don Ashworth: Six. Dave MacGillivrary: We presented six and we shuffled back through those and now I think four are really viable candidates. Councilman Senn: So of the six, we issued two in December and these are the other four? Don Ashworth: No. That's why Dave started. These are a reaffmnation of your action in December. The only difference is, is we're now reaffirming four of those instead of six. Dave MacGillivrary: You didn't do anything in December. You said there's six possible candidates up to the city to review...gone through some more analysis and of the six, two aren't worth doing anymore. Or aren't worth doing... Four will get the job done...You won't do anything until you actually take bids and award it. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the ones we're doing, two of them are C-O's and two of them are tax increments? Dave MacGilliwary: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: When did you say the bidding is going to? City Council Meeting - lanuary 24, 1994 Dave MacOillivrary: February 28th. Don Ashworth: Regular City Council meeting. Councilman Wing: I might buy one. Mark, do you have any more questions on fids? If-not, I'll move approval of the recommendation of the four bond issues as stated on the last page. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'll second that. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following: Resolution g94-17A: $1,170,000. Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refun_ding Bonds, Series 1994C. Resolution g94-17B: $525,000. General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1994D Resolution g94-17C: $1,665,000. General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994B Resolution g94-17D: $5,570,000. General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: I'm abstaining because I voted no in December. REZONING REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 107,609 SO. Fr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK COMPLEX, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITI LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Mayor Chmiel: Somehow or another I'd like to see us get another name in there but that's going to take place eventually I hope. Councilman Mason: I concur with that comment Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Don, do'you want to? Don Ashworth: I think Paul is going to take this one. Paul Krauss: I can go through my spiel on it but you've already heard it. Mayor Chmiel: Well we've gone through this. Paul Krauss: ...outstanding issues. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That might be a good idea. Paul Krauss: As you're all aware, this has been in the planning stages for quite a long time. Throughout the building has shifted locations as soil problems...The roadway design...We're still trying to resolve some questions 9 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 pertaining to drainage. We think we have the answer at hand. Basically everything is failing into place at this point. The program is designed. The building seems to be meeting the needs. We've asked for some adjustments in some of the building architectural detailing...The landscaping is very well executed. Some of the original landscaping the Planning Commission looked at. ..cut back somewhat and shifted around to make...baiance and site preparations but I think we can be consistent with some of the goais. This will be an extensively landscaped site. Looking at it from Highway 5 you'll see a series of what will look like groves. They increase in height as you go backwards and...One of the outstanding issues here that we're trying to work out at the present lime is to insure that the...design this mad to where the Highway 5 task force anticipated which is an attractively landscaped boulevard street with a trail. So from the plan the Planning Commission looked at the road as being...anywhere from 20 to 30 feet farther north...The landscaping has been modified. We're asked for reforestation to the hill in the southwest comer of the property at Gaipin where it bumps up against Timberwood. We've asked that it has to be reforested. It will be...It's a hill that's basically being farmed right now but we think..~reforestation. One of the things we were looking at was what tree restoration. We had hoped that there might be willing...informafion but has not. However, we've got some other mechanisms to achieve this...100 feet wide to ac, complish that. As I touched on, drainage is an issue that remains as yet unresolved and we think we know the answer. Basically we have a site that's being very intensively used and there isn't a whole lot of room to do the drainage on site without basically giving up something, which we prefer not to do. What we're essentially looking at doing is developing an off site NURP basin as a wetland mitigation over here by putting the road, the storm drainage...That pond is located on somebody else's property and that's all good and well if we can get access to it. We've been in conversations with developers on that property. They're coming through with a proposal that will be tracking through the Planning Commission almost as we speak and we think we can develop a cooperative basin there for very little expense. There is a condition in this thing that basically nothing happens...until the drainage issue is resolved and we have every confidence that it will be shortly. There may be some temporary ponding...Utility work, road design, Galpin Boulevard upgrading, the sig~ali:,afion of Gaipin, are all progressing at their own rate but everything is falling into place on those as well. The Planning Commission reviewed this 2 weeks ago and was feeling very comfortable with the recommendations. They made some modest changes to them but the project was given strong support. With that we do have the architect here tonight...answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Would you like to come up and give us your presentation. Dave Leschek: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I am reaily here to answer any questions that you might have concerning, I think Paul has touched on everything quite well. We could just review briefly the plan, the site plan. Paul has mentioned that we have made a number of changes. As was mentioned in the staff report, there was given a dollar figure for the landscaping work and what you're seeing on this plan does in fact represent that number. With some of the comments that we received from the Planning Commission as well as Paul, we have continued to buffer aiong Highway 5 as well as Gaipin. Moving some of the Uet, s that we had aiong the southern portion of the site and getting more of an effect, buffering of the site from two larger...that go along the perimeter of the site .... the soccer fields. This happens to be the school district soccer field. We have also rotated another soccer field here and...to 180 feet so we can create that corridor aiong Bluff Creek .... so those are really at this time the amount of changes that have taken place to the plan. We have scaled hack some of the courtyards or exterior courtyards that were a part of the original design for the project but we feel that the conceptual nature of the plan has remained intact with the orchard effect aiong Highway 5 and then creating these open spaces by using what we consider a wind row effect with the plantings in the north/south direction. Any questions concerning the plan? I know I reviewed it real quickly but Paul and his people have done such a fine job. 10 City Cotmcil Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: I have one question in terms of the plan. The only part that really disturbs me or bothers me about the plan is the availability and proximity of parking to the community facility and the vehicle side. I'd really like to see that lot on the east side of the building extended and expanded to the north there so there's more convenient and accessible parking to the community facilities, as well as the bail diamonds. I mean if you look at the way this is laid out right now, there's wonderfully convenient, accessible parking for the school use but it's a pretty good jaunt, especially on cold winter nights, to the community part of the facility. I'd really like to see that corrected. Dave Leschek: The consideration given to the parking lot here on the east side was that we wanted to leave this area open for winter activities where they would maybe have theft open si~afi~g or just the regular skating rink. In this area here, they've got their two hockey rinks in lifts location here with the provisions for a future out building that would also be the wanning house and so that is the reason why this community parking has occurred mostly to the south end of the facility. We have added a drop off area and that came up as a result of dealing with the task force and their need to get, for instance parents coming in, dropping off their participants or children to go out and get them to different activities and then they would then park the vehicle. With just the time constraint of people picking up their kids after work and getting them to the playing site but that's how that decision came about. I'm only explaining how we arrived at the plan that we have currently. Your comment is well taken though. Councilwoman Dockendoff: How many feet, like if I'm in the middle of that parking lot, how many feet would it take? Mayor Chmiel: Distance. Dave Leschek: This is probably about 120 feet. Councilman Senn: What, from the middle of the parking lot? No way. Dave Leschek: From this center island here. One inch equals 60 feet. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah and you've got to the end. Dave Leschek: The community entrance is located in this area here. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and what's that distance to you? That's I would say about 4 inches. So unless I'm miscalculating, you're talking more than 200, 240 feet. I understand your point about the surface skating rinks but I think the surface skating finks could go in a multitude of places in that park. I'm going to stand strong on wanting to see that lot expanded over to the north there. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I agree with Mark. I'd like to see a turn around at that proposed house, or the drop- off point. Just take out the t~ees and run it straight north. So you get parking and access to the central area. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and ff you run it straight north you can move some of that landscaping to both sides of the lot there if you want. Mayor Chmiel: On either side or yeah. 11 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Wing: Or even delete it if you had to. That's a central area. Councilman Senn: It's just if they're trying to meet a requirement. Councilman Wing: This is a real major project and we're looking at it off blueprints again. I only want to back up on that because you came in with the Rapid Oil off a blueprint and I'm not aware of anybody who didn't think we made a mistake there. The elevations and the whole sight line of the thing and the landscaping and we were going to try and learn our lesson. Then Bill Morrish came out and showed us one of the major rooms or impact areas to the city is the hill behind Byerly's and that hill should be protected. It's kind of an entry monument, ff you would. The trees up on top and I worked off that one again. A major project that had HRA funding and they took a lot of HRA dollars and worked off a blueprint and suddenly it's not what I thought it was off the blueprints. I was convinced it was back where those apartments are running west. Well it's not. It's taking up the hill. The impact on the city. It's destroyed that room that Bill Morrish said should be protected. I'm really frustrated by that and every time I pull in there I just agonize over what we did. We did it off a blueprint. And here we have a major project and then we talk about landscaping and so on and so forth, and I can't picture this except I'm learning enough to know that in the Target store out in Seattle, Sunday afternoon along one side I counted 36 maple trees on one side of the Target alone in a teaxaced situation and that wasn't saturated with trees. So we're not asking for too much. At any rate, to move ahead on this. If we're going to spend this kind of money and with computer imaging available, I think we ought to be having some sketches of the actual train with these things drawn in so we can see elevations and we can see what this means. And Paul I think we've got to start doing that. When we're spending this kind of money and like Mark pointed out, there's a tremendous amount of city funding going into there and major decisions. I think we have to have more visual acuity to make decisions but maybe that's neither here nor there at this point but I want that to get, to have more credibility. I want staff to start reacting to that a little more. I want people coming in to start using the technology that's available so we can make better decisions. One comment I've got that is different from Mark's here. I had hoped that Highway 5 to, as much as possible, would tend to be a parkway experience and I know from the last 3 or 4 projects we did, I don't like anything dwarf. I hate crab apples. I mean that's a fact. I don't think they're attractive trees. I don't like their height. I don't like the way they spread out. I don't like the colors in the fall. I don't like anything about them. And there's thousands of them along, well several hundred, maybe 40. Well, there's a bunch of them, on the north side of this property. I don't care if we want to blend, and I'm glad to see the pine trees up here but if our Highway 5, I want to see some quality specimen shade trees going in along there so that we have a landscaping plan for this corridor that's going to have some reforestation. Crab apple trees don't do it for me so I would want to see a majority of these crab apples placed into, I think spelled it out. 33% sugar, 33% northwood red, oak, red. Whatever you want to do I don't care. I don't care if it's linden or hackmores or aspens or ash but I want overstory shade trees along the north side of this property. Not crab apples. And I would make that, somebody bail me out quick. Councilwoman Dockendorf: A requirement? Councilman Wing: A requirement for approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks for pointing out the two issues that I wanted to... Number one, the artistic impressions for a project like this I think is mandatory. You know, it's way too hard to envision what this is going to look like from blueprints. And particularly the building, there's absolutely no detail on the elevations... Regarding crab apples. You know I said it 6 months ago. I can see kids picking them up and throwing them at cars so, aesthetically I don't have a problem with them. Realistically I think we may have a problem with them. My other big concern is the mass grading of the site. I know when we initially talked about this project we 12 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 ~_alked about perhaps stepping some of it. You know I realize it's a cornfield now but it is growing and I have some concern about how these elevations are going to work and again it's very hard for me to tell from this elevations, you know numbers on a blueprint what exactly is going to happen. As stated, if you could kind of explain. Dave Leschek: Well first of all I'd like to apologize. When we were before the Planning Commission we did have a number of additional boards that we had for it. It just so happens that tonight there's another School District meeting going on as we're speaking here and that is in fact where the boards are. We do realize that we were reacting to the Planning Commission report and we are intending to be back in from of the Council I believe sometime in February. Is that correct? And at which time we would then bring those boards back with us. For us to produce two sets of boards, and the number of boards that we're producing, it's just... Paul Krauss: Yeah...you should be done. Unless you want to come back. Dave Leschek: We'd really like to get, I guess maybe get the boards out to you. We have those boards and they are colored. They do show you the types of materials. We were just in this situation where we had two meetings occurring at one time. . Paul Krauss: There's also a model of the building that shows the massing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what I'd like tO see then is the model. Dave Leschek: Yeah, we have that as well and again, that is at the District tonight and Bob Rothman, who you met once before when we were here, they are there at the School District tonight. Councilman Wing: And you're not going anywhere without our approval and maybe we ought to approve it first before they look at it so I guess...here tonight. Dave Leschek: We've mn into that situation a number of times. Colleen, to address your concern. We have, obviously the natural grade or slope of the site is towards Bluff Creek and we have taken this site, and you're right. We have mass graded a significant portion of it. As we come across the site we do begin to step back down so that we get back down to Bluff Creek. We step down along this point here as well as up on top of that. We do not have as much relief as we once thought we were going to have. At one time we were going to be able to get a significant amount of fill off of Galpin. We were counting on that. we do not have that availability now because the County has decided to extend their portion of work in the future and...they want lhat fill for their future road work. So we have had to grade the site a little bit more significantly to provide for all our project because if we do some of that terracing that we would have liked to have had, which is also the trademark here for the Chanhassen parks and rec program_Lake Ann. We have maintained a significant portion of that. Maybe not to the extent that we first thought but we still have terraced as we begin to drop to the creek. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So right in the very middle of the project on Highway 5, there's fight now a really large...will that be maintained? Paul Krauss: In the future Highway 5...yeah. Highway 5 fight now follows a contour. It dips down to the creek and then it goes up high. The future Highway 5 stays high. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that's more a function of how MnDot's going to build it than what we're doing 13 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 here? Paul Kmuss: Right. And that's one of the reasons why we're able to put a bridge structure underneath Highway 5 at Bluff Creek. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That swamping area right now, and I only know from chasing my dog down there, that's not on this property? And if it is, it's not a designated wetland? Paul Kmuss: This was a real important part of this review. There are several areas of potential wetlands: The one you're talking about Colleen is the large one that kind of backs up into here. There's another smaller one over here and there's a couple of ditch sections and then there's the creek. What we found is that everything that's on this 137 acres, the original 137 acres...has been actively cultivated for 60 years. And it's called prior convened wetlands in the new ordinance and therefore functionally does not exist. The cutoff line is right about through here. It's basically the...tree line. There's an outlot...that comes back in here and...by .Wally Otto. That is wetland. It's never been, not recently been farmed. That is totally protected. So this is flood plain down in here but it's not protected wetland and this is why we want to use...to build our NURP basin. And then maybe actually expand this wetland into the rest of the area. We're having that design done right now. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay, goo(L As long as it's not going to be still protected. We need it for the drainage. Okay. ! just wanted to verify that there's no lighting on these outdoor facilities. Dave Leschek: There, at this time there is lighting at the. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Ice rinks. Dave Leschek: Ice finks as well as the tennis courts and of course all the parking lots. Councilwoman Dockendoff: How do we regulate when those get turned off type things? Is that a Park and Rec regulation'?. Paul Krauss: Well, you know that...facility and essentially you can do whatever you want. If you'd like to establish some guidelines for that now, you could... Councilman Senn: Excelsior's got a good system. Their's is just coin operated. Councilman Wing: This is a real issue here. We're moving into a significant neighborhood and residential area and I think the size of lighting, intensity of lighting, hours of lighting, all big issues. Paul Krauss: ...parking lot is regulated by city ordinance. That's the half foot candle and it's...from anything. Councilman Wing: But we could have 50 foot. Paul Krauss: The height of poles has been an issue on other sites and we haven't regulated that here but you may want to. Say no poles higher than :25 feet or something. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Sounds good. 14 Ciiy Council M~gng - J~nuary ~, 199~ Paul Krauss: As far as the tennis court goes and the...goes, they are set well back behind pretty significant landscaping. Now I'm not certain whether that means, they're probably going to need some... Councilwoman Dockendoff: Why are we have lighting on, I understanding the lighting for the ice rink. It gets dark at 4:30 but on the tennis courts. I mean it stays light until 9:00. Paul Krauss: Well I'd be speaking for Todd Hoffman but I, one time he told me that they get some of their most intense use in the evening when people are off from work. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So how late would those be lit? Any idea? Don Ashworth: The ones up at the elementary school, I'm pretty sure that's 11:00. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay. I guess I'd like the issue addressed. Paul Krauss: Well again, ff you'd like to establish a condition on that now. Come up with a time, that's fine. You may want to... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well see and again. It's hard to envision, I mean because we're going to have where the road sits, we've got a retaining wall and I don't know if that's going to, how big the retaining wall's going to be. Where the oaks will be. The Timberwood oaks and how that relates to, I mean I'm having a very difficult time seeing. Paul Krauss: Yeah, and all the cross sections...You're basically looking down the hill through the trees. Councilwoman Doekendoff: That's what I figured so would we really see those lights? Paul Krauss: Well due to the fact, I mean the tennis courts are used when the trees are leafed out. The hockey... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't have a problem with the hockey lights. I understand that. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there'd be as much spillover back into your area ff you keep your standards at a minimal height like 25 feet. Councilman Wing: I agree. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I'd like to have that as a condition. Councilman Mason: Well I know you're going to get opposition from people that play tennis to have a light pole 25 feet high. Councilman Wing: I assume your court lighting is going to have to be a regulation height, size and. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Parking lot. Mayor Chmiel: Right, those are for the parking lot more than anything else. 15 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Mason: Right, okay sure. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And the ice rink ones don't need to be... Roger Knutson: Maybe I could make a suggestion. This facility you will own and you will operate so rather, you might consider that with experience you might want to change your mind. And so you might not want to completely tie your own hands by your approval tonight as part of the site plan but as part of your responsibilities for operating the facility, decide as you go or in conjunction with Todd Hoffman or whoever to make those decisions and change them as experience dictates. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would agree on the ice rink and tennis courts but the parking lot I would still like to put a regulation of 25 feet Councilman Wing: I guess the number escapes me. Maybe it should be 15 or 30. I mean do we know? Although the issue here is we want lighting addressed. Aggressively. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Councilman Senn: Maybe say less than 30 feet Councilwoman Dockendorf: Another issue, just because it's related and Charles isn't here and he's answered these questions before but the semaphores at Galpin and TH 5, I really want to see them before this project goes through. And what I heard last time is that we don't have those lights that were downtown. The temporaries so that's, what I'm understanding... Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. MnDot took them back. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the need is more immediate and I don't know how to address that except by saying, I want them in by this summer. Who takes the ball and runs with that I don't know but that's my decree. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that still will be determined by MnDot themselves as to when those will be in. With a little persuasion from the city and the utilization of that facility and having kids there, I think that's our push to tell them we want it there soon. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well even prior to that. I read some concerns about the I-IVAC screening on the roof but I understand that is being addressed. Paul Krauss: That's a condition that we've got in there and yeah... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the...out to Galpin, the widening of Galpin. Does that go, where does it...but aren't we talking about just to the frontage road. Paul Krauss: North to Highway 5. Councilwoman Dockendorf: North to Highway 5. Is that 4 lane or just 2 lane? 16 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Paul Krauss: Four. And then there's another project that the County is working on to finish Galpin to the south. It's not directly related to this and I'm not certain... Councilwoman Dockendoff: Will they jive as far as timing? Paul Krauss: The County project may track a little bit behind our's. Mayor Chmiel: One of the things I might add on that light, it's the resolution we adopted about 3-4 months ago requesting that that light be in that intersection. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And have we heard anything back? Mayor Chmiel: Well now we haven't. I think that's what we have to do is just check it out to see where that's aL Councilwoman Dockendoff: We'll follow up on that. I don't have any other comments on the site. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Mason: Couple of questions. Not too much. What happens if the, it says here said development is focused around what has become known as the south access boulevard on the Highway 5 plan. That hasn't been approved yet right? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Mason: I mean what happens if that all gets shifted around? I see that.as kind of potentially a significant problem. I mean if we go ahead and approve this, and then we decide ah, I mean by approving this that kind of says where the south access boulevard has to be, doesn't it? Paul Krauss: It does and it's in the same place here as it's in the plan. It's an alignment that's been worked out~ There's not a whole lot of choice. There is only one alternative. There no alternatives on Highway 5. This is the Highway 5 plan. There's only one. Councilman Senn: This isn't a location with two alternatives. Paul Krauss: No, and as far as where it comes off of Oalpin and that's why traffic safety and the need to preserve the school site. As far as working with it on the east side, there may be a little bit of flexibility. We've got that project coming in but it's got to hook up to the south loop...so there's not a whole lot of choice. Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. I'm wondering with, you know as I read through this report and talk about Bluff Creek...on the bottom of the page 2. City plans call for...recreational and environmental corridors along the creek. Does any plan or thought been given to having some kind of trail head in this area? Paul Krauss: Yeah. There is a trail component of this going to be built with this. It's going to be...connecfion will be done but it's going to link up with a trail that's going to be on the east/west collector and that's also, what's going to happen is the trail section will come down here and basically be terminated. Down here it will hook up to the on-street trail that will be moving out to Galpin which wiil...and come over here to the other 17 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 branch of Bluff Creek because that's got a more defined channel so it will actually come down and go under there and then continue on south through the creek corridor. Since that other project, the other land masses coming in right now, we have an expectation of being able to. get that trail through here in the next year or two so down south... Councilman Mason: This might be worth pursuing as long as that is an educational facility, if we can and the parking will be there and what not, if we can figure out some kind of trail head or you know, x marks the spot. Trail starts here kind of deal. Paul Kranss: One of the things we're proposing. I know that the School District has talked briefly about this, especially, an original plan had the school closer to the creek and it didn't work there for mils. In this grant application now...one of the things we're proposing to do is have an educational component between the District and the Arboretum to use that area. Councilman Mason: Right. I hope that happens. I'd really like to see something like that there. My only other comment is, I concur with staff I think more than I do with the esteemed Councilman Wing on ornamental trees. I kind of like them. And you know I understand, well yeah kids can throw apples but you know, if a kid wants to throw something, they're going to fred it. And I don't know, something I do agree with staff about. I don't think every tree in town has to be an overstory tree. Mayor Chmiel: Some other people were tempted by apples as well. Councilman Mason: And Dick, don't get me wrong. You know we need lots of overstory gees. I'm not belittling that at all but I think every once in a while we can throw something new into the pot too and I don't know, I think that would look kind of sharp when they're blossoming. So that's my counter point for the crab apples. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if I could interject. There is a chain link fence that separates? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, 6 foot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And on a related issue, is that going to be visible? Paul Krauss: We talked about that some. We should t_olk a little bit more to refine that but we talked about nlnning... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to get that one foot of barb removed though. Paul Krauss: As far as those trees go, I mean there was a lot of discussion on those things and there is kind of a design coming through in, you know what do you want to achieve in your corridor. What...by moving trees and specific trees to identify...but it also tied in to the fact that the first thing you see at the Arboretum is a bunch of apple trees. And with the f~st tier of this you do have a lot of overstory trees going into the site. It's really more of a design element. If this was somebody's parking lot...but it's not. I mean here we clearly have a design...whether you like it or not is for you to decide but it's something different than what we've done in the past. Councilman Wing: To be looking at a blueprint without elevations, etc, etc, means nothing. To just counter 18 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 with my esteem colleague Councilman Mason. I don't disagree with that and I'm happy with this but I think my vision of the corridor, that there be a certain amount of parkway effect. That parkway isn't mated of flowering dwarf Austrian something or other. Mayor Chmiel: In your opinion. In your opinion. Councilman Wing: In my opinion fully. I don't mind you leaving this element but I think there could be a smattering of some forest style trees along Highway 5. This is a long stretch and it's a major sUexch and it's one of our windows and I don't, I think this is too much of one and leave exactly what you've got but I could easily put in some overstory trees in the background to supplement. Paul IG-auss: It will be in the background. What you've got here Dick is you've got the crabs in here but once you're down here, the other side of the ravine...The other thing too is, keep in mind that the Bluff Creek corridor is coming through over here and restoration efforts for that, which is one of those...and that's going to come across the corridor with either... Councilman Wing: Well having driven this a lot and looked at this at length, I think it's an architectural dream and an architectural theory. I don't think that if implement it's going to be real attractive here because I don't think these are going to be high enough to hide any of this to offset any of it. Councilman Mason: Just two more quick comments. I agree with the distance to the parking lot. To the door there to the community facilities. I think that, I think back to what it was like a week ago tonight and that's going to be a pretty windy, cold stretch. The other thing I'm really in favor of, and I like to see was the reforestation of the Bluff Creek as opposed to the landscaping. I think that's a really good idea, Paul Krauss: Yeah, we sure wouM love to, you know ff the budget would allow it, to get that rolling now, It doesn't appear as though we can mix the two but we've got other ways of approaching that. Councilman Mason: I think this has been very well thought out and I know it's gone through a lot of changes and I suspect it will go through a few more before we're done with it but looks good. I think we're definitely headed in the right direction. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess really other than the redesign on the parking, I agree 100% on the elevations. I guess that was another ...that I'd really like to see something. And I guess one other question. Do you have a floor plan there? David Leschek: Yes sir I do. Councilman Senn: Could you show me on there where the community facility is? David Leschek: The community facility, we have actually 3 doors here. The community facility actually comes up. Follows a movable partition along that divides both the gyms and then extends up basically so this portion of the building, this community portion. After school hours the community then absorbs the other half of the gymnasium. But during school hours, the community has one gym available to itself. Two 3/4 court basketball courts. 19 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: How many community rooms are going to be there? David Leschek: We have 4 community meeting rooms, a fitness room and aerobics room as well. Locker rooms, toilet facilities, some general storage, a control point as well as an office and then the lobby waiting area as part of the community portion of the building. Councilman Senn: And the gym? David Leschek: And of course the gym. Yes sir. Councilman Senn: Okay, and so that's the two, that's kind of where our $22 million portion or whatever. David Leschek: Well that's you know, yes. You've got a significant amount of site work that's in that $2.2 million as well. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Just for keeping things even. I noticed on, just a minor thing. On page 6 you come up with a $115 and $157 per stall and $26 which is $298 but on your compliance table it shows it at $296 just to be consistent, Two stalls...so ff that can just show a correction on it, I think that a lot of the questions have been answered. More specifically the one Paul brought up as far as the contours of...flow of some of those things because of that f~rst floor elevation being at 958, which is a little lower than some of the portions of the other parts of that site close to this. Even with the grading being done, and I just hope that we have the proper kinds of swales and things as such too to keep that flow going. Paul Kmuss: There is a series of storm sewer and catch basins on the site... Mayor Chmiel: Right. And hopefully when they put those in, it will be large enough to accommodate it so. we're not running into any given problems later on. I guess really a lot of the things have already been discussed by Council and some of the concerns. Councilman Senn: I have a question. Is this it tonight? Councilman Mason: It's preliminary. Mayor Chmiel: Well this is purely for the proposal of rezoning the acreage. Paul Kranss: It is also a site plan. Councilman Senn: The only thing that's preliminary tonight is the plat as I understand it. Am I correct? Paul Krauss: The plat is preliminary and...you won't see the site plan again. Mayor Chmiel: Well the site plan I don't think we, I don't have much problem with. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do. Councilman Senn: Well can we put off the site plan to the second reading and stuff and get the elevations and 20 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 stuff so we can get a better look at this thing before we start okaying on the site plan. Plus I would really like to see the redesign on that parking and stuff anyway before we do something. Paul Krauss: We've been fighting a clock on this and that's why. Councilman Senn: Well but you have to come in for second reading on this stuff anyway, right? Paul Krauss: Yeah, but the...plan says, ready to go out to bids. So Dave, what's your? David Leschek: Well, I mean I have no problem bringing the building back. If you could feel comfortable in your decision this evening to allow staff for instance, given your considerations for the parking lot and we would certainly work with staff as we have done at the beginning of this process. For us we are trying to issue an early site package. We need to get the site work started as quickly as possible. I think we're looking to issue documents on the site, I think February, towards the end of February. Which means we need to really get going. We could certainly bring the building back. Councilman Senn: And that doesn't delay you? David Leschek: There's going to be, the building's going to be a whole other package. The building itseff and that, what we're looking to do with the early site work package is to get an earth work contractor started. Get the building pad coustructed for the building and that would be the extent of that first package. The second package would include the actual building itself. And that package we're looking to issue anywhere around April nth. Councilman Senn: That bothers me because I mean, what you're saying is let's go ahead and let the bids and then we're going to get killed on change orders if the Council wants to make some changes as a result of elevations we haven't even seen. David Leschek: Well, I guess I'm relying upon the fact, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project. Feels relatively comfortable with it. Has made a recommendation to the Council. Paul Krauss: Well in site work too, it's clear from what Dave is saying that the building details for that...and all that, that doesn't slow anything down. But things like the parking lot. We've approved that so hopefully you can go forward with it...a condition that those plans would be changed to incorporate that. Because that's got to be...site work. Councilman Senn: Paul but the site work includes the setting and setting the building footprint and so I mean really any decisions over elevations of the building, site angles, all those decisions are tied to what you're talking about tonight in the site plan. David Leschek: Well, if we were to make significant changes to the elevation of the first floor...to the entire scope of the project. Councilman Senn: Well let's say you're not going to change the first floor elevations but you're going to change other treatments around the building in terms of the site plan to address it. David Leschek: Such as? 21 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: I don't know. Show me an elevation and I'll tell you, Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah, I'm not comfortable approving this without seeing the elevations, And you know I'm willing to come back... Mayor Chmiel: What's your time frame on this that you have to have drop dead time? Is it within 2 weeks? David Leschek: Yes. We have to have a number of packages put together, ready for bid, out to the contractors towards the end of February. I think we set a date in the office of February 23rd roughly, as I recall Allow a month for bids. It comes back in March, Depending upon what the spring is like, these soils are...and the contractor would actually like to get out on the site while there still remains some frost in the ground. There's an advantage to bid it became of the soils that we have on the site. The building package, again we're looking to issue that April 4th. Councilman Senn: So the 2 weeks wouldn't hurt it doesn't sound like. Councilwoman Dockendoff: For the building. Councilman Senn: No, 2 weeks for the site plan review. It sounds like to me that still leaves you plenty of time. David Leschek: If you would like us to come back in 2 weeks, we could do that. I'm concerned that we'd be out a month. Councilman Senn: We meet again in 2 weeks? Mayor Chmiel: We meet the second Monday of February. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's 3. Mayor Chmiel: Which is the 14th. David Leschek: Yeah I mean we're talking a week later I'm supposed to actually have a package that's ready to go out of the office. Don Ashworth: You'll have a work session February 7th. Mayor Chmiel; That's right we will. Don Ashworth: I don't know what the Council's priorities are. That's the next item we're going to m!k about. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe what we could do then is rather than bring it the 14th, to just table this until the 7th and look at it then and then come back with a vote at that particular time to proceed. Councilman Senn: Well Don d I could suggest, why don't we approve in'st reading because that's all that we're doing on the zoning is first reading. We still have second coming back to us right? 22 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: And then as far as the preliminary plat goes, that's preliminary so let's approve that tonight but as far as the site plan review goes, let's do what you said. Table that and go off until the 7th and review just really that issue on the 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I think we could do that without much problem. Councilman Senn: Can we pass on a site plan in a work session? Don Ashworth: I was just going to state that. If you announce at a regular meeting that you are going to take action on February 7th. The press is invited to attend. It is a legal session at that point. Roger Knutson: What you're doing is you're adjourning this meeting to February 7th. Councilman Mason: For that one item? Roger Knutson: One item, right Councilman Mason: You know, at the risk of belaboring what everyone else has said, had we some elevations and some, and I know they're at other meetings but we're kind of put in a rock and a hard place here. David Lescheck: I understand. I understand, I mean I am as well. Councilman Mason: Sure. Oh understood. You're in more of a hard place than we are. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think Richard's point was well taken. Nothing gets through... Councilman Mason: Well I'm real comfortable with what's going on here. Tabling the one action until the 7th and moving on the other stuff. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, then can I have a motion to accept the rezoning from A2 to OI, Office and Institutional District and the preliminary plat approval. And with the site plan be reviewed on February the 7th and final action taken at that time. Councilman Mason: I'll move that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the Site Plan Review g93-6 until the City Council work session on February 7, 1994 at which time f'mal action will be taken, and to approve the Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the Chaska School Dislrict #112/City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop I-IVAC equipment is concealed from Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staff's proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed Wash enclosure as outlined in the staff report. 23 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest comer of the site. b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields. d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for tree species and green space. e. Address concerns on landscaping plan to insure that materials located near road surfaces are tolerant to salt spray. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at Soccer Field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard, Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from Soccer Field #2. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and stay out of the floodplain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. Revise the plat to describe the right-of-way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outiot and the future right-of-way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Highway 5 right-of-way and Galpin Boulevard right-of-way and maintain a minimum 35' setback from Galpin Boulevard. 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50' setback. 8. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop-off, pick-up and mm around elements to accommodate public transit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: Can we see the redesign on the 7th with the parking too please? David Lescheclc Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I think we can. We also have some of those additional conditions Paul that were brought up regarding the heights of standards. Councilman Senn: I assume a lot of that's going to come out in the elevations, that's why I didn't. Mayor ChmieI: Yeah, right. Well, that's something that I want to make sure staff looks at. Councilman Wing: And I still stand...fu'm on the northern boundary landscaping. Not that I'm opposed to the crabs or am I saying that we ought to have overstory shade trees but I'm dissatisfied with the northern 24 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 landscaping. Am I in the strong minority here, now that we've dropped that issue? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can't make a decision... David Lescheck: You will when we come back...that will give you ideas as to how tall those are...we will have those...To get an idea how tall those light poles are, or how tall the plantings are along the north side. I mean you'll have site sections showing the for instance where Tamberwood Estates is in relationship to the site and to the building but those are pretty small scale. I mean to traverse that sort of a distance and keep it all on one board, it's. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And you're talking a flat board. David Lescheck: Yeah. We will have a model of the building and it's just a massing model that will show you some of the forms of the building. But we do not have for instance a presentation type site model for this project. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And there isn't uny kind of artistic impression of this is what it will look like from Highway 5? David Lescheclc No. Councilman Senn: Well that's what Dick was asking for. Computer imaging. I mean it'd be really nice to take some different angles from this project, whether it's Highway 5 or whether it's your neighborhood or whatever and give us a view of it. I mean we require that. We do require that in other cases. Councilman Wing: Yeah, that's got to be in an ordinance as a requirement to bring a proposal before us. It's available and there's no excuse for not having a picture with a sketch included. It costs a little bit of money but this is a, we're not putting up pole sheds anymore. This is big time stuff. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. This is a $42 million referendum. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Did we vote on this? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Did we vote on this? Mayor Chmiel: With the two as we had and to be brought back and I called the question and everybody voted. CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, FIRST READING. Don Ashworth: I guess I get this one. Again I will simply refer to Todd's memorandum. The Council has seen this before. I think that this is, conforms to what you were talking about. And approval is recommended. Councilman Senn: So this is step one in approving the temporary rates we set? Don Ashworth: Right. 25 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Wing: We don't have agreement yet. Councilman Senn: No, this is just first reading of temporary rates and we were going to. Don Ashworth: Have a work session and talk about it. Councilman Senn: ...work session and change it or do it, whatever from there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Any questions? ff none, I'll call a question. Councilman Senn: How about move approval. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do that. We're moving too quick. I'm trying to hit that 9:00 deadline and we're not going to do it. I have a motion. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve first reading of the City Code amendment to Chapter 18, Subdivision ordinance, concerning park dedication requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRIORTIZE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ITEMS FOR 1994. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have an opportunity to review it? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any problems with it? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hold on. Councilman Senn: Ooops. I thought We were. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I thought we were going to pfiortize them. Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to set dates. Mayor Chmiel: That's already set here. Councilwoman Dockendoff: So this is the suggested priority? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. I'm looking at the wrong sheet here. Councilman Mason: Can we legally have a work session on the 21st of February? It being a National holiday. Don Ashworth: Karen was not to have included any holidays. 26 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well you have a work session down on February 21st. Don Ashworth: Well then it shouldn't be. Councilman Senn: Now very many of us get it as a holiday. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have a holiday until Memorial Day. Councilman Mason: Some of us do. Councilman Wing: Who is it? Councilman Mason: People in the public employ of the fine state of Minnesota. Councilman Wing: No, no, no. Which President is it? Councilman Mason: It's both. Lincoln and Washington. They rolled them all into one. Mayor Chmiel: Is that a day off for you? Councilman Mason: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Now if you people want to meet. I'll be in town. I'm just not sure if that's legal or not. Roger Knutson: You cannot conduct public business on a holiday. Councilman Mason: I rest my case. Don Ashworth: You added on February 7th. You've got your review school site. Councilman Mason: That shouldn't take. I would hope that wouldn't take too long. Of course I've said that before. Don Ashworth: The next question would be what else you might want to do on the 7th. Councilman Wing: Well my only concerns, one that I talked to Paul about, is that Planning Commission has expedited the Highway 5 corridor and I think we've got to be up to speed, up to date and informed on that. At a point in time, that simply has to be a priority. One that's near and dear to my heart...but that's a done deal. We can do that any time this year. Councilman Mason: I agree about the Highway 5 corridor plan. I mean. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I do too. Councilman Mason: What did Planning, I'll admit. I didn't stay until the end. What did they decide to do with that? 27 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Paul Krauss: They actually go through with it in one public hearing, They recommended approval. They had some modest change in a couple of areas but it came through pretty intact. Councilman Wing: Well that's great. Mayor Chmiel: Was it properly put in the paper? Don Ashworth: How long will that take Paul? Paul Krauss: On a work session? Don Ashworth: Right. We're giving 30 minutes to the school site. Or do you want to give that 15 minutes? 30 probably. Paul Krauss: You can fill the rest.,.with Highway 5. Don Ashworth: ..,wants 2 hours so that means an hour and a half?. You can do it in an hour and a half?. Paul Krauss: You may decide you want more but. I think you know fortunately a lot of the Council has been very active in or following.,.It's not new. Now I've got to be out of town that day but Kate can be here and our consultants Barton-Aschman. Don Ashworth: Your next date is March 7th. Does anyone want to fill in any items on that? And then if we could fill in March 7th, then I would suggest we wait until either February 7th or March 7th to set the rest of them. Councilman Senn: I thought we were under some kind of time line or dead line in priortizing the TIF stuff. Don Ashworth: I made a suggestion you put it early because they have such things as the pedestrian bridge. I'm going to be passing that out this evening. Oh, yeah. You wanted to priortize what is referred to as the wish list. But except for insuring let's say TH 101 trail gets added, I don't know that there's a real rush to do that. Councilman Senn: I thought there was some kind of a time line on the wish list or something. Todd Gerhardt: Don't you want to wait until the Vision 2002? Councilman Mason: We should be looking at the Departmental goals too. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Why don't we look at Departmental goals on March 7th. Don Ashworth: I think I mentioned the position classification is a natural lead in or in for that deparunental goals thing. Councilman Senn: We could do both of those. Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's do both of those on that night. 28 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Paul Krauss: For March 7th, tentafively...organized collection stuff. The fkst meeting is coming up next week. We tentatively...it may slip to April. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We'll add that to our list and you won't be ready on March 7th, is that what you're saying7 Paul Krauss: Well, as I recall. We had a..amd the bottom line is you ac0!_a!iy bid it but before we do we want to get concurrence... Don Ashworth: Well we maybe could meet at 5:00 on February 7th. I don't know. I think we were talking about 5:30 weren't we? 5:30 to 7:30? Yeah. Drop dead time 7:30, right. Well, if those are aright with City Council, I guess staff's got enough to work' on through Mayor Chmiel: Don AshwoHh: March 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Don Ashworth: Okay. You're saying 5:00 rather than 5:30? We might do it for February 7th so Paul can give an update on organized collection. Councilman Senn: What happened to January 31st? Don Ashworth: You're still doing that and that's this list that Don had looked at. That's your interview schedule. Councilman Senn: So is organized collection on 3/7 or not? Don Ashworth: We're going to try to get it on 2/7 and maybe start it a little early that night. Start that one at 5:00...We'll do it March 7th at 5:00. Ail others will be 5:30 to 7:30 except March '7th. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Dick you had three quick ones. Councilman Wing: No, only two. The one, the Highway 5 is part of a work session. I won't be concerned about that. Just a quick comment for Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, toll road 212 was one of them. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I just wanted to _ask Scott and check with the Council. I'd like to ask Scott to give us a one or two, not a draft report. I just want a one or two page position paper for the state of our police service. And in that I want him to include the current City cost for police. That includes Scott's salary, the CSO program, as it relates to police and the contract. Any police cost in public safety I wanted added up and then I'd like him to compare that to what to replace those hours to patrol, number of cars would cost ff we went to 29 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 our own department. We don't have a current number. So I want to know what the cost of a police department would cost in 1994 dollars. Total public safety costs in the city of Chanhassen right now, directed to police. And then just a brief statement of the state of affairs as he sees it so we can have it on the record as a 1994 report. I don't think it should take a lot of time. I don't think it has to go to public safety. Just a brief update to Council on our status and costs. Where we stand. Mayor Chmiel: You're not making the position that we should go to our own police force other than the fact knowing what it is now and what it would be and what the costs would be initiated for that department. Councilman Wing: No. I don't even want to intimate that other than I think we should be, frankly ff we have a need for our own department, Scott should be addressing that so in his paper I would expect him to address that issue. Do we need a department at this time or don't we. And why don't we and why do we. This isn't a secret. If we do, we should be looking at it. I don't see the need but I don't have that information so I would suggest Scott just address that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think he has done that over the years. In fact the last time that we went through the contract. Councilman Wing: I'm more interested in costs and what a '94 department would cost. I'm assuming it's still big bucks and I'd like to have an upgrade so we can justify our position. The only other thing Don was, in the Administrative Section there was a letter from some Southwest Metro Coalition, Cb. ash we want to get a road into our city and improve things and because the State doesn't have funding, they're starting to look for other ways to fund it. And I can't think of anything, stop lights are an issue to me but a toll road defies imagination. Having been in New York and having been in Chicago, I don't ever want to see that happen in this state or in my community and I don't want to see Chaska's road subsidized by even the thought of a toll road to pay for this. So I would like to, with your permission, in the next agenda under Council presentations, include that letter and I would recommend at that time, if we happen to disagree with their position, that the Council take such a stand opposing the idea of a toll road. That's all my comment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, we can address it later and kind of talk about it because I do serve on that coalition as well. Councilman Wing: Can I put it under Council Presentations so we can address it there? Ursula Dimler: I was wondering if I heard you right. Councilman Wing: The Honorable Mrs. Dimler is here from the County and Ursula, I don't know if you have any comments in that but I found that extremely offensive. What, do you have the proper name? I'm just curious. Who's doing that or proposing that? Ursula Dimler: It's...Southwest. Mayor Chmiel: Southwest Coalition for Highway 212. Councilman Wing: Are they being supported by Carver County? Ursula Dimler: No, but we do have some... 30 City Council Meeting. January 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and I also sit on that Board as well and if you'd like more information, I'll be more than happy to get it to you. Councilman Wing: Please. Mayor Chmiel: Let's have some coffee one day. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: B. LCMR GRANT APPLICATION FOR BLUFF CREEK, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Short? Paul Krauss: Very short,..grant application for the lottery money to get work going on Bluff Creek. What I handed out tonight is, they have a really weird form...We're asking for...about $777,000.00. Now, of that most of the money would be actually doing the implementation. Buying land...Tbere is a component in here that... The reason why I need your concurrence is that I'd like to ideally a resolution in support, which we can put together for you, but also the fact that we've been told that some sort of a local match is really being sought in this thing and what we're probably going to propose is that of the $777,000.00, it's a 2 year program starting in 1975. Is that the school...a match of $100,000.00 over that period. Now I can't with any certainty tell you that other agencies are waiting in line...There are several other sources of monies than the ones you get from Metro CounciL.wind up having to assume all ourselves. But even if we did, worst ease, we're mllcing about $50,000.00 a year coming out of the SWAMP fund. I think the way to go, and I didn't want...the city's support of that without asking you first I've got to turn this around quickly. We've been working on this for the last 6 weeks on and off and it's got to be submitted by February 2nd. I'll be happy to respond to any questions you have. We're looking...about $100,000.00 over 2 years starling a year from now. Councilman Mason: About all I can say is, since I took that walk with you and a number of other people, on Bluff Creek, anything we can do to protect that I'll support. And if that means worst case scenario is SWAMP fund has to put in $50,000.00 a year, let's do it. That's my opinion. It's such a gem down there. Councilman Senn: Can we use existing program? Paul Krauss: That's the unfortunate part of it Mark. When I went there and, I'm speaking,.. Councilman Senn: No, no. I'm not saying ones that we've done now but we even have some program now for example during the coming year don't we down in that area? Paul Krauss: h's all got to be new dollars starting in the year of the appropriation exists. Councilman Senn: Which would be which year? Paul Krauss: '95. So anything done prior to it, they think is nice but it doesn't count. They're also looking for...match. You know there's my time, Diane's time, there's your time, that we're going to commit of course...than the dollar match. 31 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Wing: I ask myself every night, what would Ursula do. I agree with you Mike. I think this is part of the cost of doing business on these projects. Anyway we can get from A to B is to go through the... Paul Krauss: Ursula and the County have been very supportive...This is a big project where everybody gets involved... Councilman Senn: Couldn't we... 16 and holc[ it off until then and use it? Paul Krauss: Well, to get that last off in .... Councilman Mason: Well I certainly would support a resolution. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, why don't you draft one. Resolution g94.18: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve th~ LCMR Grant Application for Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. PROPOSAL TO JOINTLY ACQUIRE A 5.07 ACRE PARCEL ON BLUFF CREEK WITH THE RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. Mayor Chmiel: And I have a little to add to that because I had some discussions with Fiskness today. Paul Krauss: Oh good because I haven't had a chance to talk with him directly. This one...I got a call from the Watershed District engineers 2 weeks ago who indicated that they'd be willing to, it's a 5.07 acm lot at the very bottom of Bluff Creek by the railroad tracks. It's one of the most pristine areas is available for sale. It'~ a lot of record. It's one where they may be obligated to do a variance to build and we talked to Roger about this lot...and we prefer that it not be built on... Anyway, it's on the market fight now and the Watershed District . engineer said if we come up with 25%...and the City Come up with 75%...and Todd Hoffman and I said well, it sounds like something that would be doable for us. We'll approach the Council on that. In the meantime, we called up the property owner to try to start talking about price and he told us somebody else was giving him a bid and we'd have to compete with them and it turned out the other person was Ray Haik from the Watershed District. Mayor Chmiel: That's fight. He already had a purchase agreement. Not bidding. Paul Krauss: ...same thing so I called up Ray l-laik and he asked me to put together a letter and basically we... a couple scenarios back from the Watershed District. One whereby, the guy's asking price was $75,000.00 and when he offered the $75,000.00 it was $25,000.00 down. The rest over some years at 8% interest. We offered tentatively, and I said in the letter that we...that we may be willing to pick up the final few years...Another scenario we pondered was do you want to go into it as a joint venture. We'd be willing to consider that too as some sort of a joint venture statement. I wanted to bring it back before you for some guidance and...Mr. Mayor, if there's something you can add from... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Basically Conrad called me to just, so I could bring this up this evening. Just to let Council know that the Watershed District is not pulling an end run and circumventing us. He wanted to make sure that they're willing to work with the city to accomplish what's best for the Bluff Creek Watershed District and to acquire that, and that their attorneys have akeady, and Ray has already made the offer and I think it's 32 City Council Meeting. lanuary 24, 1994 acceptable to them with the periods of time that's pretty much what Paul has indicated. And so I said well, I don't object to it as long as you're not going to try pnlling in any end runs as forcing us into other things once before and hopefully that we can both sit down and come out of this for the good and good for the environment as well. gaM by acquiring this and keeping this within the city. And he assured me that that was so and fi'mt he would like to continue to work with us on this. Total dollars were discussed but it seemed, some of the figures he quoted to me are a little different than what we've talked now so that remains to be seen what the purchase Was. Paul Krauss: So was there...joint venturing on the thing? Mayor Chmiel: He didn't mention the joint venturing at all other than the fact that there was equitable solution that we could have between us and them and that if City felt like, I thought it was a direct contribution that they would turn around and turn back and give it to the city with whatever easements that their needs might be. Paul Krauss: That would be wonderful to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well let's work at it from that aspect and see what happens. Councilman Senn: Well you know what I think, that's wonderful too so long as the city has real good involvement up front in the...those easements and stuff because one of, you know I know that part of the corridor pretty good and that's not the best place to really look for, I'm going to have any treatment of water flow or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Well, whatever their concern is. I think really what they were saying, if they don't purchase that part of it, the rest of it's not going to be looked at for the long run and I think that's probably what Conrad had indicated to you with any discussions that you may have had. Paul Krauss: Well if you're comfortable, I'll sure continue negotiating with them on this. Councilman Wing: For those who have been down there, if we're going to ever trail Bluff Creek, the only access to that property is to east, and then it's slamight down. This parcel...access out. Councilman Mason: Yeah, we need that piece of land as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I don't see any action has to be taken on this right now. Paul Krauss: No, and as long as I know I have your support... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Item D. Don. Pedestrian Bridge. Don Ashworth: Pass this down. This is a rendering of the proposed pedestrian bridge over Highway 5. There's different shots there. Councilman Wing: Is this the computer imaging we've been asking for? Councilman Mason: You bet. 33 City Council Meeting - January 24, 199~ Councilman Wing: There's no excuse. This really ticks me off. Don Ashworth: That went to the HRA. Initially they were a little concerned with the cost and actually reduced part of the size of the structure. Kind of removing the center pillar and what not. It went back over to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission said gee, we like the massing that this thing has and they like the idea of the vines, etc. And they asked the I-IRA to basically reconsider. The HRA was able to chop $40,000.00 out of project costs but then did reinstall the major pillar portion that you see in the center of that. And the stone work on either side including kind of a, what would you call that center area where you actually, the over the top of the pillar. You've got an expansion. Paul Krauss: ...the architect gave me the architect spiel and when this was designed the architect gave us a lot of direction as to how the...so why pay $45,000.00 for something we can't see because there's a shadow. When the Planning Commission saw that they said the pillar, the oversized pillar was important. First of all because it gives more sense of a mass to the middle. Secondly, because...but that floating deck stuff was silly so... Don Ashworth: So since the HRA is paying the cost associated with this, it is back with that grant application but I didn't know to what extent the City Council. I mean does it suffice to simply have me inform you as to where this thing stands or do you formally want to have it onto an agenda where you approve or deny it? Councilman Senn: Well, that's why I was bringing up, at least earlier, the TIF thing because when this thing started out, I went back in my notes. We were looking at like $300,000.00 and a grant of $100,000.00 in city money or something like that. Now from the numbers that's in this report tonight, we've doubled the city contribution out of TIF to $200,000.00 and I just have a real hard time jumping in and saying that we're going to do that and we're not really looking at any priority and quite honestly, from my perspective, I have a very hard time saying we should put $200,000.00 of TIF money into this bridge. And no money into parts of the trail system that have been in the master plan for ages. And this wasn't there for ages nor is it going to go anywhere for a while. So I'd really like to look at the prioritization of those dollars. Mayor Chmiel: I think it was son of a finning up of those dollars. If I remember correctly, some of that were sort of estimates that were going out at that time early in the stages. And if I remember correctly, I don't think the dollar figures were fully pulled together other than going for the grant that we were requesting. And that's why some of those dollars changes took place. Councilman Senn: Well but when we were brought in the grant application to go for it,. I mean the, I didn't bring it tonight. I wish I would have. Said the cost, the city cost or the maximum city eost...was going to be $100,000.00. Paul Krauss: Yeah, that would have been...but we didn't have some preliminary estimates of something on the order of $120,000.00...Grant applications, being what they are, usually they have a fairly short turn around and you can't spend a whole lot of time...One of the things that we found out that tripped us up is that there are some...bridges that can serve as the foundation to this thing but MnDot, bridge section refuses to accept any... bridges by anybody and every bridge has to be specially designed and..,so you have an engineer...sign off on a bridge structure, that's different from any other bridge structure, they're staking their reputation on it that it's being designed to the nth degree. And it's also obviously more expensive to build anything custom. So that did add an element of cost that we were...The rest of the estimates weren't too far off. That was the biggest chunk of it. 34 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well, I mean we have a good opportunity here. Don't get me wrong on getting the $300,000.00 grant constructing the bridge and we're ~_~lidng about $200,000.00 in TIF now going into this bridge and I just personally have a real hard time getting behind that 100% even though we do have an opportunity and then go back and tell the people up on TH 101 that sorry, you've got no money for a trail to build out of TIF. And it just doesn't make sense to me and I think there's room for both or whatever but I think it's time that we address both rather than just go ahead and do this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I think your issue is well tauten except I think you're riding a dead horse on TH 101. Unfortunately. Resident: Mr. Mayor...the word dead is not the word to use right now. Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's my opinion and I just s~ated it. Councilman Wing: I almost thing the bridge and this corridor study are far...than TH 101. Tl~ey...years ago and TH 101 has come up more recently. I think it's part of our highway infrastructure more than it is a trail system. I think it's got to go in now. It's sort of, I don't know why we're even discussing it. It seems like it's kind of already a done deal, other than increasing the money Mark's concerned about. Councilwoman Dockendoff: But to answer Mr. Ashworth's question, I would like to see it come back to Council... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, you have direction. Let me put a clarification as a dead horse. Only because of the dollars is my concern of what's going to happen with TH 101 and with money out there beforehand ~ money not well spent and that's the position that I at least have taken. When I say TH 101, I think that was part of my campaign as well when I was running for office. Saying those are some of the major areas that should have that kind of accessibility to trails. But the dollars again, if we can find the dollars or do something of another nature then we can do it. So with that I'll close and ask for adjoununent. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 35 ~