The URL can be used to link to this page

1j Approval of Minutesate: 02/03/1999 Time: 11:07:02 City of Chanhassen FM - Reports - Projects - Master - Project Listing Fiscal Year: 1999 - Sub Proj Proj Type Proj Stat Project Description Operator: DEW .0 O0 O1 Open .1 O0 O1 Open .2 00 O1 Open .3 O0 O1 Open 8 O0 O1 Open 9 00 01 Open ;0 00 01 Open ,1 O0 O1 Open ,2 O0 · O1 Open ,3 O0 O1 Open .5 00 01 Open ;9 O0 O1 Open 1 O0 O1 Open 2 O0 O1 Open 3 00 01 Open 4 00 01 Open 5 00 01 Open 6 00 01 Open 7 00 01 Open 9 00 01 Open 3 00 01 Open 1 00 01 Open 2 00 01 Open 9 00 01 Open ) 00 01 Open '1 00 01 Open '2 00 01 Open 9 00 01 Open ) 00 01 Open I 00 01 Open '2 00 01 Open 3 00 01 Open 4 00 01 Open 5 00 01 Open ,6 00 01 Open ~7 O0 O1 Open 9 O0 O1 Open I 00 01 Open 2 00 01 Open 3 O0 O1 Open " ~ O! Open 1 O0 O1 Open 9 O0 O1 Open } 00 01 Open - O0 O1 Open 2 O0 O1 Open 3 O0 O1 Open O0 O1 Open ~ O0 O1 Open O0 O1 Open O0 O! Open 3 O0 01 Open PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD COORDINATION CITY CODE UPDATES CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD BUDGET GENERAL OFFICE OPERATIONS ADVISORY BOARD & COUNCIL COORDINATION GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SECRETARIAL POOL CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYROLL UTILITY BILLING/RECEIVABLE AUDIT BUDGET GENERAL FINANCE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OVEHEAD CIVIL CRIMINAL SPECIALIZED OVERHEAD RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC OVERHEAD NETWORK HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SUPPORT CLIENT HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SUPPORT TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SUP GENERAL ADMINISTRATION TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL Y2K PROJECT GIS ACTI'VITIES SPECIAL PROJECTS OVERHEAD GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE UTILITIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE OVERHEAD ELECTION ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY CRIME PREVENTION OVERHEAD FIRE EDUCATION/PREVENTION TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL FIRE/RESCUE/MEDICAL/HAZMAT FIRE ADMINISTRATION Page Date: 02/03/1999 Time: 11:07:03 City of Chanhassen FM - Reports -'Projects - Master - Project Listing Operator: DEW Pa Fiscal Year: 1999 Proj # Sub Proj Proj Type Proj Stat Project Description 229 00 01 Open 230 00 01 Open 239 00 01 Open 250 00 01 Open 251 00 01 Open 252 00 01 Open 259 00 01 Open 260 00 01 Open 261 00 01 Open 268 00 01 Open 269 00 01 Open 310 00 01 Open 311 00 01 Open 312 00 01 Open 313 00 01 Open 314 00 01 Open 315 00 01 Open 316 00 01 Open 317 00 01 Open 318 00 01 Open 319 00 01 Open 320 00 01 Open 321 00 01 Open 322 00 01 Open 323 00 01 Open 324 00 01 Open 225 O0 01 Open 326 00 01 Open 328 00 01 Open 329 00 01 open 349 00 01 Open 353 00 01 Open 354 00 01 Open 359 00 01 Open 370 00 01 Open 371 00 01 Open 372 00 01 Open 379 00 01 Open 420 00 01 Open 421 00 01 Open 422 00 01 Open 423 00 01 Open 428 00 01 Open 429 00 01 Open 430 00 01 Open 431 00 01 Open 432 00 01 Open 438 00 01 Open 439 00 01 Open 440 O0 O1 Open 441 O0 O1 Open 442 O0 O1 Open 443 O0 O1 Open OVERHEAD PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OVERHEAD INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT PLAN REVIEW GENERAL INSPECTION OVERHEAD ANIMAL CONTROL ENFORCEMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COOPERATIVE AGENCY PROJECTS INHOUSE PROJECTS MAPPING & INFORMATION SERVICES UTILITY, GRADING, ROAD USE PERMIT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE SNOW REMOVAL/ICE CONTROL STREET SWEEPING SIGNS & STRIPING STREET LIGHTS/UTILITY LOCATES MOWING/TREE TRIMMING STORM PIPE/POND MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD OVERHEAD SIGNALS STREET LIGHTS/UTILITY LOCATES OVERHEAD INHOUSE FLEET MAINTENANCE VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT BUILDING/GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OVERHEAD PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARK OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT TRAIL OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE · OVERHEAD - PARKS FITNESS PROGRAMMING PROGRAMMING FACILITY RENTALS CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD ACTIVITY/TRIP PROGRAMMING INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONGREGATE DINING/MEALS WHEELS VOLUNTEER TRAINING Ie: 0210311999 Time: 11:07:03 City of Chanhassen FM - Reports - Projects - Master - Project Listing Operator: Fiscal Year: 1999 # Sub Proj Proj Type Proj Stat Project Description O0 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 O1 Open O0 01 Open O0 O1 Open O0 O1 Open O0 01 Open oo ol Open 00 01 Open O0 O1 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 O1 Open O0 O1 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 O1 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 open O0 01 Open O0 O1 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 01 Open O0 O1 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open 00 01 Open 00 01 Open O0 01 Open FACILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD COMMUNITY EVENTS YOUTH LEISURE SERVICES FACILITI. ES YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD ADULT SPORTS/LEISURE SERVICES YOUTH SPORTS FACILITY SCHEDULING YOUTH LEISURE SERVICES CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD FACILITIES LIFEGUARD/BEACH PROGRAM CONCESSION/BOAT RENTAL OPERATIONS CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD PARK OPERATION/CONSTRUCTION TRAIL OPERATION/CONSTRUCTION MOWING TREE CARE IRRIGATION REFUSE SKATING RINKS OVERHEAD DOWNTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION OVERHEAD PLANNING ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING LONG RANGE PLANNING PERMIT REVIEW CODE ENFORCEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD SENIOR COMMISSION OVERHEAD CATV OVERHEAD TIF ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OVERHEAD TIF ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OVERHEAD TIF ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL PROJECTS OVERHEAD DEW Page: Date: 02/03/1999 Time: 11:07:04 City of Chanhassen FM - Reports - Projects - Master - Project Listing Operator: DEW Fiscal Year: 1999 Proj # Sub Proj Proj Type Proj Stat Project Description 700 00 01 Open 701 00 01 Open 702 00 01 Open 703 00 01 Open 704 00 01 Open 705 00 01 Open 706 00 01 Open 707 00 01 Open 708 00 01 Open 709 00 01 Open 710 00 01 Open 711 00 01 Open 712 00 01 Open 718 00 01 Open 719 00 01 Open 805 00 01 Open 809 00 01 Open 810 00 01 Open 819 00 01 Open 850 00 01 Open 851 00 01 Open 858 00 01 Open 859 00 01 Open 860 00 01 Open 861 00 01 Open 865 00 01 Open 868 00 01 Open 869 00 01 Open 870 00 01 Open 871 00 01 Open 873 00 01 Open 874 00 01 Open 878 00 01 Open 879 00 01 Open 959 00 01 Open 995 00 01 Open 996 00 01 Open 997 00 01 Open 998 00 01 Open 999 00 01 Open 11001 00 11 Open SEWER CLEANING/MAINTENANCE SEWER LIFT STATION R & M WATERMAIN FLUSHING/MAINTENANCE WELLS & STORAGE TANK R & M METER INSTALL/READS UTILITY LOCATES EMERGENCY REPAIR BUILDING/GROUND MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM TRUNK WATER SYSTEM BUILIDNG/GROUND MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD DOWNTOWN OVERHEAD DOWNTOWN RECYCLING OVERHEAD LAKE MANAGEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD FORESTRY MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERMIT REVIEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERHEAD OVERHEAD SICK VACATION COMP TIME USED HOLIDAY PAY PERS HOLIDAY Main Street Repair Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:34 Save Ae= 1 P~anges: O~ti~s: Jrnl ~ Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Entry Journal #: (A) Trans #: (A) Line #: (A) Due Date: (A) Bank #: (A) Detail / Summary: D Sort: N Name City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: DEW Page: i Invoice Status: A Check Over Expend: N # of copies: i 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 6124 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 101-117-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-City 101-121-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Poli 10~-122-000-4531 R6a~ Radi-General-Fire 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 43215 83.31 222-00 08/1999 RADIO REPAIR CHIEFS CAR 83.31 .00 Invoice Total Net: 83.31 83.31 .00* 08/02/1999 08/23/1999 8299 490.05 179-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 30.00 . .00 219-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 23.34 .00 229-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 103.34 .00 ANC~C A/~COM TEC~{NIC3%L CENTER 715 0B/23/1999 A/P INV 6106 RADIO REPAIR CHIEFS CAR 10~-~22-000-4531 R~ Radi-General-Fire Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount AANENS KATE AANENSON 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 7199 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 73199 MTG SW METRO 7.40 101-152-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Plan 525-00 08/1999 MTG SW METRO 7.40 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7.40 7.40 .00' KATE AANENSON Net: 7.40 7.40 .00' ADCTEL ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81299 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 42932 P~EFUND PICNIC DEPOSIT 200.00 101-000-O00-2026 Dep/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND PICNIC DEPOSIT 200.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 200.00 200.00 .00* ........................................ ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Net: 200.00 200.00 .00* ALLHF-J% ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 07291999 07/29/1999 08/23/1999 43232 FD PRE PHYSICAL-HEART ECHO 653.10 101-122-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fire '223-00 08/1999 FD PRE PHYSICAL-HEART ECHO 653.10 .00 Invoice Total Net: 653.10 653.10 .00* ........................................ ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM Net: 653.10 653.10 .00* ALTHOF KARLAi%LTHOFF 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42873 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LK ANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* ........................................ KARLAALTHOFF Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* AMEBUI AMERICAN BUILDING CONTRACTORS 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08131999 . 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 REFUND PERMIT OVERPAYMENT 13.00 101-D00-DD0-4901 Ref/Reim-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND PERMIT OVERPAYMENT 13.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 13.00 13.00 .00* AMERICAN BUILDING CONTRACTORS Net: 13.00 13.00 .00* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:35 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 2 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl % Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount · ~4EENG AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC. 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 1259 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 SOILS TESTING-PUMP #8 97-4A 200.40 705-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-Well#8-*-* 310-00 08/1999 SOILS TESTING-PUMP #8 97-4A 200.40 .00 Invoice Total Net: 200.40 200.40 .00* AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC. Net: 200.40 200.40 .00' 2~MEPUB AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 619578 07/13/1999 08/23/1999 MICRO PAVER-PAVEMENT MGMT SOFTWARE 750.00 400-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-CapPjtAd-*~* 313-00 08/1999 MICRO PAVER-PAVEMENT MGMT SOFTWARE 750.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 750.00 750.00 .00* AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION Net: 750.00 750.00 .00* AMERICAN RED CROSS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42888 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 43602 SUPPLIES FOR BABYSITTING CLINIC 418.28 101-143-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec 431-00 08/1999 SUPPLIES FOR BABYSITTING CLINIC 418.28 .00 Invoice Total Net: 418.28 418.28 .00' AMERICAN RED CROSS Net: 418.28 418.28 .00' 101-132-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Str 329-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 113.35 .00 101-148-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Pk M 489-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SBPT~4BBR 70.01 i .00 700-702-000-4531 R&M Radi-Utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 P, ADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 53.34 .00 101-137-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-~ara 379-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 13.33 i .00 101-131-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Engi 319-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 13.33 i .00 ~01-125-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Code 259-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 53.~4 i .00 101-126-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Anml 269-00 08/1999 RADIO MAINTENANCE-SEPTEMBER 16.67 I .00 Invoice Total Net: 490.05 490.05 i .00' ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER Net: 573.36 573.36 i .00, === ======= = ================================================ = =================================================================== 2%PIFUN API FUND FOR PAYROLL EDUCATION INC 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 YEAR-END SEMINAR-THIBODEAU 370.D0 101-113-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Fina 132-00 08/1999 YEAR-END SEMINAR-THIBODEAU 370.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 370.00 370.00 .00' Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:36 City of Chanhaesen Operator: DEW P:age: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor % Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description . Chk Terms Check# Chk Date AmoI t API FUND FOR PAYROLL EDUCATION INC Net: 370.00 370.00 ! .00' ARGMAN ARGENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS , 746 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08091999 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 520.i10 101-152-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Plan 520-00 08/1999 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 520.10 .00 Invoice Total Net: 520.10 520.10 .00* ARGENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Net: 520.10 520.10 i .00' ASHWOR DONALD ASHWORTH 740 08/23/1999 A/P INV 61799 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 081199 VEHICLE REIMBURSE 1se .!00 468-D00-000-4380 Mileage-McGlynnD-*-* 699-00 08/1999 VEHICLE REIMBURSE 158.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 158.00 158.00 .00* 739 ~8/17/1999 A/P INV 61799 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 8199 MEETINGS 101.!00 460-000-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-E.D.A.-*-* 640-00 08/1999 VEHICLE REIMBUP~E, MEETINGS 101.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 101.,00 101.00 .00' DONALD ASHWORTH Net: 2'59.00 259.00 ! .00' ~TR A-1 STRIPES 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 2090 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 41847 P. ESTRIPING AT REC CENTER 892!52 101-148-000-4510 R&M Bldg-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 RESTRIPING AT REC CENTER 892.52 i .00 Invoice Total Net: 892.52 892.52 i .00* A-1 STRIPES Net: 892.52 892.52 .00* ~%KROA BAKER ROAD AUTO SERVICE 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8569 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 42034 PLOW PARTS 62184 101-132-000-4120 Ec/p Supl-General-Str 321-00 08/1999 PLOW PARTS 62.84 I .00 Invoice Total Net: 62.84 62.84 , .00* ~EMENT BILL BEMENT 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYC3%RE 197192 101-D00-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 197.92 ,. .00 Invoice Total Net: 197.92 197.92 I .00* BIL~ BEMEMT Net: - .... ~;;~;~ ......... TEREI BERG 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42852 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 10I, REFUND-LKi~N CAMP ~00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:37 City Of Chanhassen Operator: DEW page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # 101-00D-408-3636 Self-Sup-Generai2*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 REFUND-LKANN CAMP 10.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 10.00 10.00 .00' TERRI BERG Net: 10.00 10.00 .00, ~OLAND BOLAND & ASSOCIATES 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 799 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 799 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - JULY 1,000!00 400-D00-000-4300 Serv Fee-CapPjtAd-*-* 525-00 08/1999 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - JULY 1,000.00 I .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00' BOTCHE SCOTT BOTCHER 738 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8399 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 8399 LUNC~ WITH MAYOR 16193 ~01-1~-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Admn 129-00 08/1999 LUNCH WITH MAYOR 16.93 .00 Invoice Total Net: 16.93 16.93 .00, SCOTT BOTCHER Net: 16.93 16.93 .00, ~OYFOR BOYER FORD TRUCKS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 874843 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 42590 LEVER 117.55 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 LEVER 117.55 .00 Invoice Total Net: 117.55 117.55 .00, BOYER FORD TRUCKS Net: 117.55 117.55 .00, BRAD RAGAN, INC. 715 00/23/1999 A/P CRM 002000 R~TLIRNTIRES 101-140-000-4120 Eq~ Supl-General-Pk M 715 00/23/1999 A/P INV 002336 TIR~S, SERVICE CALL 101-148-000-4120 Bqp Supl-General-Pk M 482-00 08/1999 RETUP-N TIRES Invoice Total Net: 07/29/1999 08/23/1999 482-00 08/1999 TIRES, SERVICE CALL Invoice Total Net: BRAD RAGAN, INC. Net: 42591 -56.00 -56.00 .00 -56.00 -56.00 .00' ........................................ 42591 950.60 950.60 .00 950.60 950.60 .00' 894.60 894.60 .00' HAROLD BROSE 715 08/23/1999 A/P I~ 72099 07/20/1999 08/23/1999 42595 25 BALES HAY 50.00 101-132-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 25 BALES HAY 50.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 50.00 50.00 .00* ........................................ 715 08/~3/1999 A/P INV 72899 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 42594 10 ]~%LES }{AY 20.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:37 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: PM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl ~ ~rDate Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher ~ PO # DescriPtion Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 700-702-000-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W 700-00 08/1999 10 BALES HAY 20.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 20.00 20.00 .00' HAROLD BROSE Net: 70.00 70.00 .00' ~ROSOD BROWN'S CULTURED SOD 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 6150 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 41518 200 ~/DSOD 171.25 101-148-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 200 YD SOD 171.25 .00 Invoice Total Net: 171.25 171.25 .00' BROWN'S CULTURED SOD Net: 171.25 171.25 .00' BROTIR BROWN'S TIRE & AUTO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 73199 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 42119 PROPA/gE 30.00 101-132-000-4170 Fuel&Lub-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 PROPANE 30.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 30.00 30.00 .00* BROWN'S TIRE & AUTO Net: 30.00 30.00 .00' BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INn; EGl1763601 07/13/1999 08/23/1999 42074 GLENZOIL 271.58 101-132-000-4120 Echo Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 GLENZOIL 271.58 .00 Invoice Total Net: 271.58 271.58 .00' BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC Net: 271.58 271.58 .00' RAYMOND BROZOVICH 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 63099 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 1416 REFUND-SECURITY ESCROW 2,500.00 915-0D0-221-2024 ESCROW-WATER SERVICE 0-00 08/1999 REFUND-SECURITY ESCROW 2,500.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,500.00 2,500.00 .00' RAYMOND BROZOVICH Net: 2,500.00 2,500.00 .00' BETTY BRYAN 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8499 08/04/1999 08/23/1999 42925 PICNIC REFUND 54.00 101-000-000-3634 Park Fac-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 PICNIC REFUND 54.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 54.00 54.00 .00* BETTY BRYAN Net: 54.00 54.00 .00* BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 4417980 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-112-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Admn 101-113-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Fina 101-125-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Code Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:38 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 129-00 08/1999 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 139-00 08/1999 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 319-00 08/1999 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES City of Chanhassen PM Entry - Invoice Journal 7474961 176.86 89.75 .00 73.22 .00 13.89 .00 DEW Page: Operator: Vendor ~ Name Jr~l # TrDate Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount Invoice Total Net: 176.86 176.86 ~ .00' BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTER/~ATIONAL Net: 176.86 176.86 ' .00, === == ~ =========~========= = ====================================== ~ =================== ~ ======================================~= ~UMBUM BUMPER TO BUMPER 727 08/23/1999 A/P INV 211004 MISC. PARTS 101-122-000-4120 Eq!oSupl-General-Fire 101-122-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Fire 101-122-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Fire 101-125-000-4140 Veh Supl~General-Code 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 101-148-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Pk M 101-148-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Pk M 700-702-000-4140 Veh Supl-Utility-S/W 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 214247 222-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 222-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 250-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 250-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 320-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 325-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 482-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 480-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 482-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS 700-00 08/1999 MISC. FARTS Invoice Total Net: BUMPER TO BUMPER Net: 25.'94 103.42 21.57 42.77 9.76 173.32 31.10 63.96 11.82 22.75 506.41 506.41 506.~1 i .00 ~ .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 i 00' 506.41 506.41 i .00' ====================================================== ========= ELIZABETH BURGETT 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 72099 07/20/1999 08/23/1999 72099 UPS C"HARGES 7.52 101-122-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 UPS CHARGES 7.52 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7.52 7.52 .00' ELIZABETH BI/RGETT Net: 7.52 7.52 .00' BWILLI BPJ%NDON WILLIAMS 738 08/23/1999 a/P INV 42855 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.100 1D1-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANNCAMP REFUND 5.00 ~ .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* BRANDON WIL~IAMSNet: 5.00 5.00 i .00' CAPAGE CAP AGENCY 746 08/23/1999 A/P INV 799600 08/01/1999 08/23/1999 THIRD QUARTER SERVICES 2,100.!00 101-153-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Sr C 530-00 08/1999 THIRD QUARTER SERVICES 2,100.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,100.00 2,100.00 .00' CAP AGENCY Net: 2,100.00 2,100.00 .00' CAP. LS6 RENEE CARLSON 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42739 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 81099 REFUND-BOOT CAMP 36.i00 101-000-402-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Exe 430-00 08/1999 REFUND-BOOT CAMP 36.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 36.00 36.00 i .00' Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:39 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW ~age: 7 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount RENEE CARLSON Net: 36.00 36.00 i .00' CAR~N JENNIFER CARPENTER 732 08/23/1999 A/P IN~; 42774 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 81199 REFUND-DANCE 72.100 101-000-401-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Dan 431-00 08/1999 REFUN-D-DA/~CE 72.00 i .00 Invoice Total Net: 72.00 72.00 i .00* JENNIFER CARPENTER Net: 72.00 72.00 .00* CARP~ED CARVER COUNTY RED CROSS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 53202 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 8699 FIRST AID BROCHURES-SAFETY CAMP 75 00 220-000-000-4130 Prg Supl-CrimeSft-*-* 213-00 08/1999 FIRST AID BROCHI/RES-SAFETY CAMP 75.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 75.00 75.00 .00' ..................... CARVER COUN~I~f RED CROSS Net: 75.00 75.00 .00' CARTRA CARLSON TP. ACTOR EQUIP. CO. 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 1014001 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 43406 KNIVES 63!63 101-132-000-4120 Eq~ Supl-General-Str 325-00 08/1999 K~IVES 63.63 i .00 Invoice Total Net: 63.63 63.63 i .00' CARLSON TRACTOR EQUIP~ CO. Net: 63.63 63.63 ! .00' CARTRE CARVER COUNTY TREASURER 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3510 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 72799 99 CONTRACT-HIRING GRANT 14,509i00 · 01-121-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Poli 210-00 08/1999 99 CONTRACT-HIRING GRANT 14,509.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 14,509.00 14,509.00 i .00' CARVER COU1T~Y TREASURER Net: 14,509.00 14,509.00 .00' CA,AR CATCO PARTS SERVICE = 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3-08266 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 42603 CABLE 32i38 101-148-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 CABLE 32.38 .00 Invoice Total Net: 32.38 32.38 i .00' 729 08/23/1999 A/P CRM 3-08496 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 81399 KIT 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3-08497 NUTS 101-122-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Fire Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:40 S 321-00 08/1999 KIT Invoice Total Net: 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 222-00 08/1999 ~JTS Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal -41.49 -41.49 .00 -41.49 -41.49 .00, 43409 17.68 17.68 .00 17.68 17.68 .00, Operator: DEW Page: Vendor ~ Name Jrnl % Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date ;~nount ========================================================== CATC0 PARTS SERVICE Net: 8.57 8.57 .00' ============================================================== = == ============================================================== CHA~0M CHASKA HOME 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 134639 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 31283 BOLTS 7.03 700-702-000-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 BOLTS 7.03 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7.03 7.03 .00' CHASKA HOME Net: 7.03 7.03 .00' ====================================================================== ===== =~========= ====================================== CHANF~%SSEN LAWN & SPORTS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 18020 SAW CHAINS 1D1-148-000~4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 715 0~/23/1999 A/P INV 18065 CHAIN SAW BLADE SHARPENING 700-702-000-4550 R&M Util-Utility-S/W 08/02/1999 08/23/1999 41516 55.33 483-00 08/1999 SAW CHAINS 55.33 .00 Invoice Total Net: 55.33 55.33 .00* 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 43052 8.25 709-00 08/1999 CHAIN SAW BLADE SHARPENING 8.25 .00 Invoice Total Net: 8.25 8.25 .00* CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS Net: 63.58 63.58 .00* CHAVET CH/LNHASSEN %FETERINARY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 7599 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 72799 J-0LY SERVICES 544.98 101-126-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Anml 260-00 08/1999 JULY SERVICES 544.98 .00 Invoice Total Net: 544.98 544.98 .00* CHI~N~rIASSEN VETERINARY Net: 544.98 544.98 .00* CO~RA COMM OF TRANSPORTATION 747 08/23/1999 A/P IN~; 07281999 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 MN/DOT MANU/LLS 70.00 101-131-000~4210 Bks&Peri-General-Engi 313-00 08/1999 MN/DOT MANUALS 70.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 70.00 70.00 .00* COMM OF TP. ANSPORTATION Net: 70.00 70.00 .00* COP~PRE CORPORATE PRESENTATIONS 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV 1754 07/13/1999 08/23/1999 42935 PA SYSTEM FOR VOL. APP. P/%RTY 135.00 101-111-000-4375 Promotio-General-Legi 119-00 08/1999 PA SYSTEM FOR VOL. APP. PA/~TY 135.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 135.00 135.00 .00' CORPORATE PRESENTATIONS Net: 135.00 135.00 .00' DAHLT TERRY DAkfL 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42737 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 81099 REFUND-BOOT CAMP Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:40 City of Chanhassen Operator: 9 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # ~r Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO ~ 36.00 DEW Page: Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 101-000-402-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Exe 430-00 08/1999 P~FUND-BOOTCAMP 36.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 36.00 36.00 .00' TERRY DAHL Net: 36.00 36.00 .00' ====================== =========== ~================================================ ==========================================~ == DANEME DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIP CO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 305275 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 41481 FIRE BOOTS 131.22 700-702-000-4120 Eqp Supl-Utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 FIRE BOOTS 131.22 .00 Invoice Total Net: 131.22 131.22 .00' DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIP CO Net: 131.22 131.22 .00' ========================================================================================= ====================================== DANKOF DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 70473852 08/01/1999 08/23/1999 8199 COPIER RENTAL 1,017.05 101-112-000-4410 Rent Eqp-General-Admn 129-00 08/1999 COPIER RENT~J~ '1,017.05 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,017.05 1,017.05 .00, DANKAOFFICE IMAGING CO Net: 1,017.05 1,017.05 .00* =================================================================================== ============================================ DA%%;AT DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV M234105 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 31271 ~%EPAIR OF IMPELLER 1,690.88 700-702-000-4550 R&M Util-Utility-S/W 701-00 08/1999 REPAIR OF IMPELLER 1,690.88 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,690.88 1,690.88 .00' DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT C0 Net: 1,690.88 1,690.88 .00' DELEGAP/) TOOL COMDA/qY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8960T 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 425~3 MULTIMETER 334.77 101-137-000-4260 Sml Tool-General-Gara 379-00 08/1999 MULTIMETER 334.77 .00 Invoice Total Net: 334.77 334.77 .00* DELEC~U~DTOOL COMPANYNet: 334.77 334.77 .00* DENCON DENNIS L. CONROY, PH.D. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 72399 07/23/1999 08/23/1999 43221 P~E-EMPLOY PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS 1,650.00 101-122-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fire 223-00 0B/1999 PRE-EMPLOY PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS 1,650.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,650.00 1,650.00 .00' DENNIS L. CONROY, PH.D. Net: 1,650.00 1,650.00 ,00' DJINK D.J. INKER~ 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 21079 DAZZLE DAZE HANDBOOK 101-112-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Admn Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:41 10 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 123-00 08/1999 DAZZLE DAZE FL~NDBOOK Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 3.50 3.50 .00 3.50 3.50 .00' Operator: DEW Page: Vendor # Name Jrnl % Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount D.J. INKERS Net: 3.50 3.50 .00' 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 NOTARY STAMP-EIDAM 26.46 101-113-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Fina 136-00 08/1999 NOTARY STAMP-EIDAM 26.46 .00 Invoice Total Net: 26.46 26.46 .00' DM STAMPS & SPECIALTIES Net: 26.46 26.46 .00' DNRFOR DNR FORESTRY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 PLANTS FOR MN LANDSCAPES-CD ROM 35.00 211-236-000-4110 Off Supl-EnvirPrt-Ref 860-00 08/1999 PLANTS FOR MN LANDSCAPES-CD ROM ' 35.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 35.00 35.00 .00* DNR FORESTRY Net: 35.00 '35.00 .00* DOLINS DOLLIFF INSURANCE INC. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 160426 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 158756 SERVICE CHG-INVOICE PAID LATE 395.02 101-117-000-4910 LaPayPen-General-City 171-00 08/1999 SERVICE CHG-INVOICE PAID LATE 395.02 .00 Invoice Total Net: 395.02 395.02 .00' DOLLIFF INSURANCE INC. Net: 395.02 395.02 .00* PLUNGE1 RITA DUNGEY 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 43604 YOGA INSTRUCTOR 490.50 101-143-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Rec 431-00 08/1999 YOGA INSTRUCTOR 490.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 490.50 490.50 .00* RITA DUNGEY Net: 490.50 490.50 .00' DUNSMO CAROL DUNSMORE 707 08/2~/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-HEALTH 55.00 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-HEALTH 55.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 55.00 55.00 .00,. CAROL DUNSMORE Net: 55.00 55.00 .00, DWINDI DIANE WINDINGLAND 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42853 08/16/1999 08/23/1999' 81699 LKANNCAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANNCAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00, DIANE WINDINGLAND Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' EARAND EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:42 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Pa~e: 11 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 18894 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42153 ARCHERY RANGE SIGNS 156.5.9 101-148-000-4560 R&M Sign-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 ARCHERY RANGE SIGNS 156.59 .00 Invoice Total Net: 156.59 156.59 .00' 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 19044 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 33127 STOP SIGNS FOR TRAIL 503°42 101-148-000-4560 R&M Sign-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 STOP SIGNS FOR TRAIL 503.42 .00 Invoice Total Net: 503.42 503.42 .00. EAR/~ F. AI~DERSEN &ASSOC Net: 660.01 660.01 .00. ============================= =================================== ==================================== ======================== EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES 714 08/23/1999 A/P INV 16353 08/10/1999 08/24/1999 72999 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 360.00 460-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 640-00 08/1999 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 360.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 360.00 360.00 .00. EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES Net: 360.00 360.00 .00. = EIDAM ELIZABETH EIDAM 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81099 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 81099 NOTARY SIGNATURE RECORDED-EIDAM 25.00 101-113-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fina 136-00 08/1999 NOTARY SIGNATURE RECORDED-EIDAM 25.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 25.00 25.00 .00. ELIZABETH EIDAM Net: 25.00 25.00 .00' KAREN ENGELHARDT 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-HF2%LTH 163.55 101-080-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-HEALTH 163.55 .00 Invoice Total Net: 163.55 163.55 .00. KAREN ENGELHAR/DT Net: 163.55 163.55 .00. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV BB4680 07/26/1999 08/23/1999 42077 RINGS, GLUE 883.95 101-132-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 RINGS, GLUE 883.95 .00 Invoice Total Net: 883.95 883.95 .00, ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC Net: 883.95 883.95 .00. EXPERIAN 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV S071079IN 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 42777 RE~q~RSE DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 136.01 101-121-000-4210 Bks&Peri-General-Poli 210-00 08/1999 RE%~ERSE DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 136.01 .00 Invoice Total Net: 136.01 136.01 .00' EXPERIAlqNet: 136.01 136.01 .00' FAIASP FAIRFAX ASPHA/~T Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:42 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor % Name Jrnl % Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher % PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8699 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 8699 SUGARBUSH PARK, ROUNDHOUSE PA/%K 16,934.00 441-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-NeiPrkIm-*-* 423-00 08/1999 SUGARBUSH PARK, ROUAUDHOUSE PARK 16,934.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 16,934.00 16,934.00 .00' FAIRFAD~ ASPHALT Net: 16,934.00 16,934.00 .00* FERGUS PATRICIA FERGUSON 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42869 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANNCAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* PATRICIA FERGUSON Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* FINK TERI FINK 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42861 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LK ANN CAMP REFUND 15.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANN CAMP REFUND 15.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 15.00 15.00 .00' TERI FINK Net: 15.00 15.00 .00' FOCONE FOCUS ONE HOUR PHOTO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV IN1308 FILM DEVELOPING 220-000-000-4130 Pr~ Supl-CrimeSft-*-* 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV IN1319 FILM DEVELOPING-SAFETY CAMP 220-000-000-4130 Prg Supl-CrimeSft-*-* 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 8599 15.00 213-00 08/1999 FILM DEVELOPING 15.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 15.00 15.00 .00' 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 8599 53.23 213-00 08/1999 FILM DEVELOPIN~-SAFETY CAMP 53.23 .00 Invoice Total Net: 53.23 53.23 .00' ........................................ FOCUS ONE HOUR PHOTO Net: 68.23 68.23 .00* FOLCH CHARLES FOLCH 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 208.33 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCAP~ 208.33 .00 Invoice Total Net: 208.33 208.33 .00* ........................................ CHARLES FOLCH Net: 208.33 208.33 .00, GADBER PATRICIA GADBERRY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42776 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 81199 REFUND-LAKEANN CAMP 20.00 101-000-408-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Prg 431-00 08/1999 REFUND-LAKF2LNNCAMP 20.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 20.00 20.00 .00' 20.00 .... PATRICIA C4%DBERRY Net: 20.00 .00' GAGNER NANCY GAGNER Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:43 City Of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8999 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 42426 ART CAMP-SUPPLIES 759.13 101-146-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-SlfS 463-00 08/1999 ART CAMP-SUPPLIES 759.13 .00 Invoice Total Net: 759.13 759.13 .00' NANCY GAGNER Net: 759.13 759.13 .00' G~-BIN GENERAL BINDING CORP 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 10970431 07/26/1999 08/23/1999 072699 LAMINATOR-MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 129.93 101-121-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General~Poli 212-00 08/1999 LAMINATOR-MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 129.93 .00 Invoice Total Net: 129.93 129.93 .00' GENERAL BINDING CORP Net: 129.93 129.93 .00' GENERO BOB GENEROUS 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE/HEALTH 428.64 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE/HEALTH 428.64 .00 Invoice Total Net: 428.64 428.64 .00* BOB GENEROUS Net: 428.64 428.64 .00* GEITRYA GENZ -RYAN 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 71138 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 71138 PJEFUND-OVERPAYMENT NTG 7.90 101-000-000-4901 Ref/Reim-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND-OVERPAYI~ENT HTG 7.90 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7.90 7.90 .00* GENZ-RYAN Net: 7.90 7.90 .00* GERHAR TODD GEP. HARDT 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 58.33 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 58.33 .00 Invoice Total Net: 58.33 58.33 .00* TODD GERKARDT Net: 58.33 58.33 .00* GIRARD GIRARD'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 068834 08/11/1999 08/23/19.99 023466 RIBBONS-CHECK ENCODER 25.12 101-113-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Fina 139-00 08/1999 RIBBONS-CHECK ENCODER 25.12 .00 Invoice Total Net: 25.12 25.12 .00* ........................................ GIRARD'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC Net: 25.12 25.12 .00' GLEFLO GLEN-ROSE FLOR3%L 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 29125 FLOWERS-GESKE 101-122-000-4290 Misc M&S-General-Fire Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:44 14 07/14/1999 08/23/1999 222-00 08/1999 FLOWERS-GESKE Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 43217 45.95 45.95 .00 45.95 45.95 .00, .............................. .......... Operator: DEW Page: Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount GLENROSE FLOP. AL Net: 45.95 45.95 .00' GOLD MEDAL SPORTS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 2742 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 42928 ADULT SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS 700.00 101-146-406-4130 Prg Supl-General-SlfS 460-00 08/1999 ADULT SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS 700.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 700.00 700.00 .00* GOLD MEDAL SPORTS Net: 700.00 700.00 .00* GOPSTA GOPHER STATE ORE-CALL 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 9070178 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 73199 SERVICE-JULY 654.50 400-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-CapPjtAd-*-* 409-00 08/1999 SERVICE-JULY 654.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 654.50 654.50 .00' GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL Net: 654.50 654.50 .00. GRANOS PAUL GRANOS 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42868 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANNCAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' PAUL GRANOS Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' HAK LADINN & SANG HAK 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81198 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 9800834 ~FUNDBUILDING PERMIT 167.09 101-000-000-3301 Building-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND BUILDING PERMIT 99.75 .00 101-000-000-3302 Plan Chk-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND BUILDING PERMIT 64.84 .00 101-000-000-2022 Surtax/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 P~EFUND BUILDING PERMIT 2.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 167.09 167.09 .00, LADINN& SANG HAKNet: 167.09 167.09 .00. ~{ANCO }{ANCO CORP01~ATION 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 097234 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 42575 PLIERS 26.76 101-122-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 PLIERS 26.76 .00 Invoice Total Net: 26.76 26.76 .00' HANC0 CORPOP, ATION Net: 26.76 26.76 .00- ~%NSENTHORP 744 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3091 ARBOP. ETUM BLVD CONSTRUCTION INSP 95-21 660-000-000-4752 Out Engl-90-17 TH-*-* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:45 15 08/16/1998 08/23/1999 S~.~O 0-00 08/1999 ARBORETUM BLVD CONSTRUCTION INSP 95-2 55.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 55.50 55.50 .00' City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # ~r Date Tr ~%y~pe Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount HANSEN THORP Net: 55.50 55.50 .00' ~{ARWO0 F~%ROLD'S WOODWORKING SHOP 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081099 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 43229 SHELF FOR TRUCK 216 314.18 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 SHELF FOR TRUCK 216 314.18 .00 Invoice Total Net: 314.18 314.18 .00* ........................................ HAROLD'S WOODWORKING SHOP Net: 314.18 314.18' .00' ~{AWCHE }{AWKINS CHEMICAL INC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 197988 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 43055 RINGS, VALVES 123.97 700-702-000-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W 703-00 08/1999 RINGS, VALVES 123.97 .00 Invoice Total Net: 123.97 123.97 .00* ........................................ HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC Net: 123.97 123.97 .00* HAWWAT ~AWKINS WATER TREATMENT 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV DM26242 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 413600 CONTAINER CHARGE 60.00 780-702-000-4160 Chemical-Utillty-S/W 703-00 08/1999 CONTAINER CHARGE 60.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 60.00 60.00 .00' HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Net: 60.00 60.00 .00' DAVE HEMPEL 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 197.92 101-D00-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCJLP. E 197.92 .00 Invoice Total Net: 197.92 197.92 .00* ........................................ DAVE HEMPEL Net: 197.92 197.92 .00* ~ILL2 GRETCHEN HILL 715 08/23/1999 A/P IN~; 42711 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 8999 REFUND-T-BALL 17.30 101-000-403-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Spo 431-00 08/1999 REFUND-T-BALL 17.30 .00 invoice Total Net: 17.30 17.30 .00. GRETCHEN HILL Net: 17.30 17.30 .00' /{~BTAU HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 31642 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 7065 1998 At3DIT 20,820.00 101-113-000-4301 Fin&Audi-General-Fina 134-00 08/1999 1998 AUDIT 20,820.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 20,820.00 20,820.00 .00* 736 0S/23/1999 A/P INV 31694 07/31/1999 08/24/1999 7065 TA3~ INCREMENT SPREADSHEETS 2,735.50 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:45 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal ~endor # Name Jrnl ~ Tr Date ~r ~ype Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # P0 # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 460-DD0-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 73~ 08/23/1999 A/P INV 31694 98 FOOTNOTES, DEF. ASSMT POLICY 101-113-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fina 101-113-000-4301 Fin&Audi-General-Fina 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 31730 1998 TIF REPORTING FORMS 640-00 08/1999 TAX INCREMENT SPREADSHEETS 2,735.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,735.50 2,735.50 .00' ........................................ 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 7065 2,153.75 137-00 08/1999 98 FOOTNOTES, DEF. ASSMT POLICY 418.75 .00 134-00 08/1999 98 FOOTNOTES, DEF. ASSMT POLICY 1,735.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,153.75 2,153.75 .00, 07/31/1999 08/24/1999 7065 8,607.50 460-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 640-00 08/1999 1998 TIF REPORTING FORMS 8,607.50 .00 · Invoice Total Net: 8,607.50 8,607.50 .00,' HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. Net: 34,316.75 34,316.75 .00' ~OCF. ET DEBRA HOCK~TT : 736 00/23/1999 A/P INV 42870 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' DEBRA HOCKETT Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' HOFFMA TODD HOFFMAN 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-HEAL,I{ 114.18 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-HEALTH 114.18 .00 ' Invoice Total Net: 114.18 114.18 .00, TODD HOFFMANNet: 114.18 114.18 .00' HOLEN CATHY HOLEN 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 208.33 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 208.33 .00 Invoice Total Net: 208.33 208.33 .00, CATHY HOLEN Net: 208.33 208.33 .00* ~OWGRE HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 23100 CSAH 14/PIONEER HILLS 720-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 23101 WARITZ DP, AINAGE ISSUE 720-D00-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:46 17 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 870-00 08/1999 CSAH 14/PIONEER HILLS Invoice Total Net: 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 870-00 08/1999 WARITZ DRAINAGE ISSUE Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 8399 582.10 582.10 .00 · 582.10 582.10 .00' 8399 545.00 545.00 .00 545.00 545.00 .00* Operator: DEW Page: Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Deecription Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount . = ======================================================================== ====================================================== 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 23102 SHORE DRIVE STORM SEWER 720-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 23103 BLUFF CREEK WETLAND 720-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 870-00 08/1999 SHORE DRIVE STORM SEWER Invoice Total Net: 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 870-00 08/1999 BLUFF CREEK WETLAND Invoice Total Net: HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY Net: 8399 9,314.89 9,314.89 .00 , 9,314.89 9,314.89 .00* 8399 680.00 680.00 .00 680.00 680.00 .00' 11,121.99 11,121.99 .00' ~IUSS JOHN R-dSS 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42867 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 REFUND LKANNCAMP 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 REFUND LKA/qNC3%MP 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' JO~i~ HUSS Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' ICBO I.C.B.O. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81099 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 41044 PLAN REVIEW CERTIFiCATIN MANUAL 30.00 101-125-000-4360 subscrip-General-Code 252-00 08/1999 PLAN REVIEW CERTIFICATIN MANUAL 30.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 30.00 30.00 .00' I.C.B.O. Net: 30.00 30.00 .00' IMPPOR IMPERIAL PORT~ THRONES 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3376 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42427 4TH OF JULY SERVICE 769.65 101-145-000-4400 Rent L&B-General-Rec 450-00 08/1999 4TH OF JTJLY SERVICE 769.65 .00 Invoice Total Net: 769.65 769.65 .00' IMPERIAL PORTA THRONES Net: 769.65 769.65 .00* INTBAT INTERSTATE BATTERIES 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 20002657 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 43404 2 BATTERIES 134.08 700-702-000-4140 Veh Supl-Utility-S/W 700-00 08/1999 BATERIES 134.08 .00 Invoice Total Net: 134.08 134.08 .00* INTERSTATE BATTERIES Net: 134.08 134.08 .00* IOSCAP I0S CAPITAL 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 44631127 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 38806 PUELIC WORKS COPIER 195.96 101-137-000-4530 R&M Eqmt-General-Gara 379-00 08/1999 PUBLIC WORKS COPIER 195.96 .00 Invoice Total Net: 195.96 195.96 .00* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:47 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 18 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # ~l'rDate ~ Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 44694790 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 82799 REC CENTER COPIER 189.57 101-1&3-000-4410 Rent Eqp-General-Rec 439-00 08/1999 REC CENTER COPIER 189.57 .00 Invoice Total Net: 189.57 189.57 .00' IOS CAPITA/~ Net: 385.53 385.53 .00, JAMIN1 JAMAR INVEST, INC, DANIEL/ROBIN EDMUNDS 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 72199 07/21/1999 08/23/1999 PARC22B EASEMENT AGREEMENT 1,993.47 444-000-000-4701 Land&Imp-TrailCon-*-* 0-00 08/1999 EASEMENT AGREEMENT 1,163.70 .00 44~-D00-000-4701 Land&Imp-TrailCon-*-* 0-00 08/1999 EASEMENT AGREEMENT 829.77' .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,993.47 1,993.47 .00, JAMAR INVEST, INC, DANIEL/ROBIN EDMUNDS Net: 1,993.47 1,993.47 .00, JAMAR INVESTMENT, INC 732 08/23/1999 A/P INV 72199 07/21/1999 08/23/1999 PARC22B EASEMENT AGREEMENT 1,163.'70 4~4-000-000-4701 Land&Imp-TrailCon-*-* 0-00 08/1999 EASEMENT AGREEMENT 1,163.70 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,163.70 1,163.70 .00* ........................................ JAMAR INVESTMENT, INC Net: 1,163.70 1,163.70 .00* JASKOL LAURIE JASKOLKA 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42863 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKANNCAMPREFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANNCAMPREFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* ........................................ LAURIE JASKOLKA Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' JDLIND JDL INDUSTRIES, INC. 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 63205 07/23/1999 08/23/1999 BOXES/REFLECTIVE SPRAY 283.92 700-?02-D00-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 BOXES/REFLECTIVE SPRAY 283.92 .00 Invoice Total Net: 283.92 283.92 .00' JDL INDUSTRIES, INC. Net: 283.92 283.92 .00' KENNEDY & GRAVEN 714 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3680 MOVIETHEATER PROJECT 491-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-EnterTIF-*-* 714 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3680 1998 DEBT RESTRUCTURING 460-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:48 19 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 690-00 08/1999 MOVIE THEATER PROJECT Invoice Total Net: 08/10/1999 08/24/1999 640-00 08/1999 1998 DEBT RESTRUCTURING Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 13000043 65.00 65.00 .00 65.00 65.00 .00' 13000066 455.00 455.00 .00 455.00 455.00 .00' ........................................ Operator: DEW Page: Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # ~rDate TrType Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 714 08/23/1999 A/P INV 3681 08/10/1999 08/24/1999 13500046 1999 LEGISLATIVE WORK 2,100.00 460-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 640-00 08/1999 1999 LEGISLATIVE WORK 2,100.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,100.00 2,100.00 .00' KENNEDY & GRAVEN Net: 2,620.00 2,620.00 .00' KINKOS KINKO'S 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 062100026426 SUPPLIES-SAFETY CAMP 101-123-000-4340 Printing-General-PubS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 062100026501 SUPPLIES-SAFETY CAMP 101-123-000-4340 Printing-General-PubS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 062100026535 CARDSTOCK 101-143-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 062100026609 1998 CAFR 101-113-000-4340 Printing-General-Fina 07/09/1999 08/23/1999 212-00 08/1999 SUPPLIES-SAFETY CAMP Invoice Total Net: 07/19/1999 08/23/1999 212-00 08/1999 SUPPLIES-SAFETY CAMP Invoice Total Net: 07/22/1999 08/23/1999 431-00 08/1999 CARDSTOCK Invoice Total Net: 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 134-00 08/1999 1998 CAFR Invoice Total Net: KINKO'S Net: 42770 12.57 12.57 .00 12.57 12.57 .00' 42770 5.66 5.66 .00 5.66 5.66 .00' 72299 74.02 74.02 .00 74.02 74.02 .00' 36618 741.91 741.91 .00 741.91 741.91 .00' 834.16 834.16 .00' =====--============= ==== = = = === = = = = = = = = = = = == == = == = = = == == === ==== == == == = = = = = = = = = = = = ======= = = = = = = == = = = = = == = == = = = = = == = = = = == = === = = = = = KLEVE 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8916 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 71173 REFUND HEATING PERMIT 60.00 101-D00-D00-3310 Gas Pipe-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFUND HEATING PERMIT 60.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 60.00 60.00 .00' KLEVENet: 60.00 60.00 .00' KUSC0N KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08121999 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 SHOR~ DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPRO%~-24ENTS 23~217.05 720-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* 870-00 08/1999 SHORE DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 23,217.05 .00 Invoice Total Net: 23,217.05- 23;217.05 .00, KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Net: 23,217.05 23,217.05 .00' ~%KCOU LAKE COUNTRY C~APTER 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 41045 SEMINAR-BLDG OFFICIALS 945.00 101-125-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Code 252-00 08/1999 SEMINAR-BLDG OFFICIALS 945.00 .00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:48 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 20 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount =================================================== ====== ======================================= ============ ====== ====== = Invoice Total Net: 945.00 945.00 .00* LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER Net: 945.00 945.00 .00' ================================================================================================== = ============ = ======~====== = = LAKELAND TRUCK CENTER 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 333804 07/01/1999 08/23/1999 42531 MISC PARTS 276.87 ~01-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 321-00 08/1999 MISC PARTS 276.87 .00 Invoice Total Net: 276.87 276.87 .00, LAKELAND TRUCK CENTER Net: 276.87 276.87 .00,' ======================================================================= ====== ================================================ FAP34 PLAN 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 92594 FUEL TANK CAP 101-132-000-4120 Eq~ Supl-General-Str 715 08/23~1999 A/P INV 93336 CAP 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 93596 END ASSEMBLY 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 715 08/23/1999 A/P CRM 93796 LINKASSEMBLY 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 94356 SWITCH 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 94451 THROTTLE CABLE 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 06/30/1999 08/23/1999 325-00 08/1999 FUEL TANK CAP Invoice Total Net: 07/09/1999 08/23/1999 320-00 08/1999 C3~P Invoice Total Net: 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 480-00 08/1999 END ASSEMBLY Invoice Total Net: 07/16/1999 08/23/1999 480-00 08/1999 LINK ASSEMBLY Invoice Total Net: 07/26/1999 08/23/1999 320-00 08/1999 SWITCH Invoice Total Net: 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 325-00 08/1999 THROTTLE CABLE Invoice Total Net: FARM PLANNer: 42524 9.90 9.90 .00 9.90 9.90 .00' 42546 3.22 3.22 .00 3.22 3.22 .00* 41948 285.75 285.75 .00 285.75 285.75 .00'- 71699 -155.68 -'155.68 .00 -155.68 -155.68 .00' 42572 71.68 71.68 .00 71.68 71.68 .00'. 42579 62.42 62.42 .00 62.42 62.42 ~00'' 277.29 277.29 .00' LANO EQUIPMENT, INC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 18119 07/06/1999 08/23/1999 42029 PINS, BUSHINGS 18.36 101-132-000-4120 Ec/p Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 PINS, BUSHINGS 18.36 .00 Invoice Total Net: 18.36 18.36 .00' 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 18784 07/16/1999 08/23/1999 42031 GASKETS, BUSHINGS 2.79 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:49 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Ty~e Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# chk Date Amount = = = =============================== ============================================================ =======--=========== 1D1-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 GASKETS, BUSHINGS 2.79 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2.79 2.79 .00' 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 19066 07/22/1999 08/23/1999 42117 TRACK PADS 281.16 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 TRACK PADS 281.16 .00 Invoice Total Net: 281.16 281.16 .00' LANO EQUIPMENT, INC Net: 302.31 302.31 .00' BOB LANZI 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8699 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 42926 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 55.50 101-146-406-4300 Serv Fee-General-SirS 460-00 08/1999 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 55.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 55.50 55.50 .00, BOB LANZI Net: 55.50 55.50 .00' DALE LARSEN 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 WORK SHOES 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8699 ICE-WATER COOLER 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8699 WORK PANTS 101-132-000-4240 Uniforms-General-Str 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 329-00 08/1999 WORK SHOES Invoice Total Net: 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 320-00 08/1999 ICE-WATER COOLER Invoice Total Net: 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 329-00 08/1999 WOP~K PANTS Invoice Total Net: DALE LARSEN Net: 42134 64.99 64.99 .00 64.99 64.99 .00' ........ ~i~--~ ........................ 2.74 2.74 .00 2.74 2.74 .00' 42123 35.98 35.98 .00 35.98 35.98 .00' ........................................ 103.71 103.71 .00* LEOPOL PAMELA LEOPOLD 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42738 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 81099 REFUND-BOOTCAMP 36.00 101-000-402-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Exe 430-00 08/1999 REFUND-B00TCAMP 36.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 36.00 36.00 .00' PAMELA LEOPOLD Net: 36.00 36.00 .00' /~DCARC LOCUS ARCHITECTURE 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 197 CONSULTING WITH PARK & REC 410-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-PkAcq&Dv-*-* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:50 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 8399 160.54 422-00 08/1999 CONSULTING WITH PARK & R~C 160.54 .00 Invoice Total Net: 160.54 160.54 .00' City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FMEntry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl % Tr Date Tr ~;pe Pst Invoice # . Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount LOCUS ARCHITECTURE Net: 160.54 160.54 .00' = ============================================================ ================================================================== LONLAK LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 6098 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 43404 CLEVIS 157.80 101-132-000-4120 Ec~ Supl-General-Str 325-00 08/1999 CLEVIS 157.80 .00 Invoice Total Net: 157.80 157.80 .00* LONG L~Y~E FORD TRACTOR Net: 157.80 157.80 .00* ================================~ ============================================================================================= ~UNDEE JULIE LUNDEEN 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42857 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKi~ArNCAMP REPTIND 10.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKi~NNCAMP REFUND 10.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 10.00 10.00 .00* JULIE LUNDEEN Net: 10.00 10.00 .00* PEGGY MAP. STON 736 0S/23/1999 A/P INV 42854 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKI~NNCAMP REFUND 5.00 101-D00-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* PEGGY MARSTON Net: 5.00 5.00 .00* MCES, YOUTH PROGRAMS 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV i 08/15/1999 08/23/1999 42934 LIFEGAURD SERVICES-LKANN 7,099.49 101-147-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-LkAn 471-00 08/1999 LIFEGAURD SERVICES-LKANN 7,099.49 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7,099.49 7,099.49 .00, MCES, YOUTH PROGRAMS Net: 7,099.49 7,099.49 .00' i~.ATEL MEANS/MEANS TELCOM 742 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08011999 08/01/1999 08/23/1999 I~FrERNETCHARGES 792.16 101-116-000-4320 MiS UTILITIES . 169-00 08/1999 INTER/qET CHARGES 492.16 .00 101-116-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-MIS- 165-00 08/1999 INTERNET CHARGES 300.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 792.16 792.16 .00' MEANS/MEANS TELCOM Net: 792.16 792.16 .00' ~DTOX MEDTOX LABORATORIES 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 079979210 DRUG TESTING 101-132-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Str ?00-702-000~4300 Serv Fee-Utility-S/W Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:51 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 329-00 08/1999 DRUG TESTING 709-00 08/1999 DRUG TESTING Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 79210 138.00 92.00 .00 46.00 .00 138.00 138.00 .00- Operator: DEW Page: Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice % Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# chk Date Amount MEDTOX LABORATORIES Net: 138.00 138.00 .00' MERIT HVAC, INC. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 72999 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 31137 AIR CONDITIONER PAD 43.10 700-702-000-4150 MalntMat-Utility-S/W 701-00 08/1999 AIR CONDITIONER pAD 43.10 .00 Invoice Total Net: 43.10 43.10 .00' MERIT HVAC, INC. Net: 43.10 43.10 .00' ~ETATH METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 35508 05/26/1999 08/23/1999 62599 ATHLETIC SUPPLIES 83.07 101-145-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec 453-00 08/1999 ATHLETIC SUPPLIES 83.07 .00 . Invoice Total Net: 83.07 83.07 .00': METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY Net: 83.07 83.07 .00, ~4ETC02 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 0000691037 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 0999 WASTEWATER SERVICE-SEPTEMBER 82,749.61 70D-?02-000-4509 Othr A~n-utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 WASTEWATER SERVICE-SEPTEMBER 82,749.61 .00 Invoice Total Net: 82,749.61 82,749.61 .00' METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Net: 82,749.61 82,749.61 .00' ~ ............... ~=~==~ .......................................................................................... 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 52.08 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 52.08 .00 Invoice Total Net: 52.08 52.08 .00'' KIM T. MEUWISSEN Net: 52.08 52.08 .00' MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 66995MB 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 42126 FINE MIX 4,890.65 101-132-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 FINE MIX 4,890.65 .00 Invoice Total Net: 4,890.65 4,890.65 .00* MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. Net: 4,890.65 4,890.65 .00'i MIDCOC MIDWEST COCA-COLA BTLG CO 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 63257145 LKi~TN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1D1-147-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-LkAn 715 0~/23/1999 A/P INV 63262145 LKANN CONCESSION SUPPLIES Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:51 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 42923 163.90 472-00 08/1999 LKANN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 163.90 .00 Invoice Total Net: 163.90 163.90 .00' 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42930 163.90 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Pa~e: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice ~ Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 101-147-000-4130 Pr~ Supl-General-LkAn 472-00 08/1999 LKANN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 163.90 .00 Invoice Total Net: 163.90 163.90 .00'' MIDWEST COCA-COLA BTLG CO Net: 327.80 '327.80 .00' MINCAR MINNEAPOLIS CARDIOLOGY ASSOC 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08011999 08/01/1999 08/23/1999 43230 FD PHYSICAL-HEART ECHO 351.75 101-122-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fire 223-00 08/1999 FD PHYSICAL-HEART ECHO 351.75 .00 Invoice Total Net: 351.75 351.75 .00* MINNEAPOLIS CARDIOLOGY ASSOC Net: 351.75 351.75 .00* MINCOU MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTOP. NEYS ASSOC. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8599 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 42776 TEAFFIC TRAINING-ZYDOWSKY, NOLDEN 30.00 101-121-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Poli 210-00 08/1999 TRAFFIC TRAINING-ZYDOWSKY, NOLDEN 30.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 30.00 30.00 .00* MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTOP. NE¥S ASSOC. Net: 30.00 30.00 .00* MINFI2 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE MkRSHAL 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81299 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 43231 CLASS-HAYES,LITTFIN 100.00 101-125-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Code 252-00 08/1999 CLASS-HAYES,LITTFIN 100.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 100.00 100.00 .00' MINNESOTA STATE FIRE MARSHAL Net: 100.00 100.00 .00' MINNESOTA GFOA 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 81799 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 81799 ANNUAL CONFERENCE-DEJONG 200.00 101-113-D00-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Fina 136-00 08/1999 ANhVJAL CONFERENCE-DEJONG 200.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 200.00 200.00 .00* MINNESOTA GFOA Net: 200.00 200.00 .00* CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 28200000022 07/19/1999 08/23/1999 43220 RENTAL FOR BURN BLDG 691.25 101-122-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Fire 221-00 08/1999 P~ENTAL FOR BUP. N BLDG 691.25 .00 Invoice Total Net: 691.25 691.25 .00* CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Net: 691.25 691.25 .00' ~LINNEG MIN-NEC~ASCO 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08121999 C4%S CHARGES 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utility-S/W 101-137-000-4320 Utilitle-General-Gara 101-143-000-4320 Utilitie-General-Rec Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:52 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 709-00 08/1999 GAS CHARGES 379-00 08/1999 GAS C"62%RGES 439-00 08/1999 GAS ~GES City of Chanhassen PM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: Vendor % Name jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date 44.45 12.79 .00 12.78 .00 18.88 .00 DEW Page: Amount Invoice Total Net: 44.45 44.45. .00, ........................................ MINNEGASCO Net: 44.45 44.45 .00, MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 0078323 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 43053 HYD REPAIR PARTS 2,383.20 700-702-000-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W 702-00 08/1999 HYD REPAIR PARTS 2,383.20 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,383.20 2,383.20 .00* ........................................ MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT Net: 2,383.20 2,383.20 .00* MINSOC MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPA'S 734 08/23/1999 A/P INV 999 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 1099 AUDIT SEMINAR-HOLEN 169.00 101-113-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Fina 136-00 08/1999 AUDIT SEMINAR-HOLEN 169.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 169.00 169.00 .00' MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPA'S Net: 169.00 169.00 .00, M00MED MOORE MEDICAL CORP. 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 80000173 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Fire 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 91072796 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Fire 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 222-00 08/1999 FIRST AID SUPPLIES Invoice Total Net: 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 222-00 08/1999 FIRST AID SUPPLIES Invoice Total Net: MOORE MEDICAL CORP. Net: 43226 9.48 9.48 .00 9.48 9.48 .00* ........................................ 43216 144.65 144.65 .00 144.65 144.65 .00* ........................................ 154.13 154.13 .00, MORSE BRADLEY MORSE 707 08/23/1999 A/P INV 081399 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 39.00 101-000-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 FLEX-DAYCARE 39.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 39.00 39.00 .00' ........................................ BRADLEY MORSE Net: 39.00 39.00 .00*. ~4TIDIS M T I DISTRIBUTING CO 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV I279808 ~JBE 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 718 ~8/23/1999 A/P INV I285307 FLASHER 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:53 26 06/01/1999 08/23/1999 480-00 08/1999 TUBE Invoice Total Net: 06/21/1999 08/23/1999 482-00 08/1999 FLASHER Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 42468 22.99 22.99 .00 22.99 22.99 .00* 42158 120.58 120.58 .00 120.58 120.58 .00' Operator: DEW Page: Vendor % Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV I295167 MISC PARTS 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV I295921 SIGNAL LAMP/PRESSURE 101-148-000-4120 EqlO Supl-General-Pk M 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV I296224 MISC. PARTS 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV S13785 DELIVERY CHARGES 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 482-00 08/1999 MISC PARTS Invoice Total Net: 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 480-00 08/1999 SIGNAL LAMP/PRESSURE Invoice Total Net: 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 482-00 08/1999 MISC. PARTS Invoice Total Net: 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 482-00 08/1999 DELIVERY C"~IARGES Invoice Total Net: M T I DISTRIBUTING CO Net: 42184 544.26 544.26 .00 544.26 544.26 .00* ........................................ 42155 349.11 349.11 .00 349.11 349.11 .00* ........................................ 42154 84.44 84.44 .00 84.44 84.44 .00* ........................................ 42152 16.30 16.30 .00 16.30 16.30 .00' ........................................ 1,137.68 1,137.68 .00' ~UN-BUI MUNICIPAL BUILDERS, INC 744 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08041999 08/04/1999 08/23/1999 WELL NO 8 97-4A 12,686.30 705-000-000-4751 ConstrCo-We11#8-*-* 310-00 08/1999 WELL NO 8 97-4A 12,686.30 .00 Invoice Total Net: 12,686.30 12,686.30 .00 MUNICIPAL BUILDERS, INC Net: 12,686.30 12,686.30 .00 ==================== =========== ============================================================================================== MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 92805495 08/02/1999 08/23/1999. 42585 ~{P~F~AD DEPTH GAUGE/CLEVER L~VER 176.91 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 THREAD DEPTH ~AUGE/CLEVER LEVER 176.91 .00 Invoice Total Net: 176.91 176.91 .00~ MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAITY Net: 176.91 176.91 .00: N~OPOST LF2%SING 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 2073486 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 FOLDER/iNSERTER LEASE 486.92 101-112-000-4410 Rent Eqp-General-Admn 129-00 08/1999 FOLDER/INSERTER LEASE 486.92 .00 Invoice Total Net: 486.92 486.92 .00: NEOPOST LEASING Net: 486.92 486.92 .00, N-E-P CORPORATION 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 042304 04/05/1999 08/23/1999 41970 WIRING 315.52 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str 321-00 08/1999 WIRING 315.52 .00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:53 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name jrnl % Tr Date Tr Type Pet Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount = = =================================================== ============================== ============================================ Invoice Total Net: 315.52 315.52 .00, N-E-P CORPORATION Net: 315.52 315.52 .00. ============================================= ==================================== =========== ================================ ~ORAME NORTH AMERICAN LAKE MANAGEMENT SOC 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08161999 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 85.00 211-235-000-4360 Subscrip-EnvirPrt-LkE 851-00 08/1999 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 85.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 85.00 85.00 .00* NORTH AMERICAN LAKE MANAGEMENT SOC Net: 85.00 85.00 .00* ~OP. HAN NORTHERN HANDYMAN 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 82173999 OIL CANS/BRUSH 700-702-000-4120 Eqp Supl-Utility-S/W 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 82176918 STRAPS 700-702-000-4260 Sml Tool-Utility-S/W 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 82176919 I{ANDTRUCK 700-702-000-4260 Sml Tool-Utility-S/W 07/01/1999 08/23/1999 700-00 08/1999 OIL CANS/BRUSH Invoice Total Net: 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 709-00 08/1999 STP~APS Invoice Total Net: 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 709-00 08/1999 HANDTRUCK Invoice Total Net: NORTHER~ HANDYMAN Net: 42027 25.51 25.51 .00 25.51 25.51 .00' 41499 55.35 55.35 .00 55.35 55.35 .00* 41500 153.36 153.36 .00 153.36 153.36 .00* 234.22 234.22 .00* NORTHEP, N STATES POWER CO 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08121999 ELECTRICI~ CHARGES 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utility-S/W 101-135-000-4320 Utilitie-General-Lite 101-145-000-4320 Utilitie-General-Rec 101-122-000-4320 Utilitie-General-Fire 101-147-000-4320 Utilitie-General-LkAn 742 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08131999 ELEC~fRICITY CHARGES 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utility-S/W 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 709-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY 359-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY 459-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY 229-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY 479-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY Invoice CHARGES CFJ%RGES CHARGES CHARGES CHARGES Total Net: 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 709-00 08/1999 ELECTRICITY C~ARGES Invoice Total Net: NORTHEP, N STATES POWER C0 Net: 5,978.34 4,593.25 .00 206.55 .00 62.63 .00 215.38 .00 900.53 .00. 5,978.34 5,978.34 .00* 139.09 139.09 .00 139.09 139.09 .00* 6,117.43 6,117.43 .00* =================================================================================== ======================== ~-YSPRI NYSTROM PRINTING 712 08/23/1999 A/P INV 15936 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 81099 FALL NEWSLETTER 5,876.00 101-111-000-4340 Printin~-General-Legl 110-00 08/1999 FAI~L NEWSLETTER 5,876.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5,876.00 5,876.00 .00' Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:54 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # ~r Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount NYSTROM PRINTING Net: 5,876.00 5,876.00 .00' 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 116613 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 42593 PICKUP TOOL BOX 457.52 950-000-000-4704 Vehicles-VehEqMan-*-* 700-00 08/1999 PICKUP TOOL BOX 457.52 .00 Invoice Total Net: 457.52 457.52 .00' OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO Net: 457.52 457.52 .00* JOAN OLSON 744 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08171999 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 REPLACE CHECK #83367 23.25 101-000-000-2020 A/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REPLACE CHECK #83367 23.25 .00 Invoice Total Net: 23.25 23.25 .00* JOAN OLSON Net: 23.25 23.25 .00' OP-N~ NANCY OP_NE 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42689 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 REFUND-SAFETY CAMP 10.00 220-000-000-3629 Pub Safe-CrlmeSft-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REFU~-D-SAFE~"f CAMP 10.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 10.00 10.00 .00. NANCY ORN~ Net: 10.00 10.00' .00' ORTMAN JTJLI E ORTMAN 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42871 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LK ANN CAMP REFUND 10.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LK A/TN CAMP RBFUND 10.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 10.00 10.00 .00' JULIE ORTMAN Net: 10.00 10.00 .00' PAPWAR PAPER WAREHOUSE 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 132804 RIBBON 101-111-000-4375 Promotio-General-Legi 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 132805 BALLOONS 101-111-000-4375 Promotio-General-Legi 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 132831 4TH OF ~-OLY SUPPLIES 101-145-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:55 29 07/10/1999 08/23/1999 118-00 08/1999 RIBBON Invoice Total Net: 07/09/1999 08/23/1999 118-00 08/1999 BALLOONS invoice Total Net: 06/30/1999 08/23/1999 450-00 08/1999 4TH OF JULY SUPPLIES Invoice Total Net: City of Chanhassen FM Entry - Invoice Journal 5.31 5.31 .00 5.31 5.31 .00' ........................................ 26.36 26.36 .00 26.36 26.36 .00' 43.61 43.61 .00 43.61 43.61 .00* Operator: DEW Page: Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 132832 06/30/1999 08/23/1999 TABLE COVERS 90.00 101-111-000-4375 Promotio-General-Legi 118-00 08/1999 TABLE CO%rEPS 90.00 ~00 Invoice Total Net: 90.00 90.00 .00' 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 133659 06/14/1999 08/23/1999 RIBBON/NAMETAGS-PLAYGROUND 15.31 101-145-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec 452-00 08/1999 RIBBON/NAMETAGS-PLAYGROUND 15.31 .00 Invoice Total Net: 15.31 15.31 .00* PAPER WAREHOUSE Net: 180.59 180.59 .00* PAREME PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCTS 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 80739 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 43223 LEG SPLINT 54.82 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 LEG SPLINT 54.82 .00 Invoice Total Net: 54.82 54.82 .00* PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCTS Net: 54.82 54.82 .00* PEPSI PEPSI COLA COMPANY 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 26744542 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 43222 9 CASES ALL SPORT 150.01 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 9 CASES ALL SPORT 150.01 .00 Invoice Total Net: 150.01 150.01 .00' PEPSI COLA COMPANY Net: 150.01 150.01 .00' PETROF JIM PETROFF 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 7027 07/29/1999 08/23/1999 42331 SWITCH PH EXT-ZYDOWSKI/RICE 110.00 101-116-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-MIS- 162-00 08/1999 SWITCH PH EXT-ZYDOWSKI/RICE 110.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 110.00 110.00 .00' JIM PETROFF Net: 110.00 110.00 .00' MARY PIERSON 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42856 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LK ANN CAMP REFUND 5.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKAiTNCAMP REFUND 5.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.00 5.00 .00' ........................................ MARY PIERSON Net: 5.00 5.00 ,00' ~RALAW PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 58612 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 42599 INTAKE MANIFOLD 5.20 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 482-00 08/1999 INTAKE MANIFOLD 5.20 .00 Invoice Total Net: 5.20 5.20 .00* Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:56 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 30 FM Entry - Invoice Journal ~en~or ~ Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# chk Date Amount 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 58615 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 43401 PUMP 4.15 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General~Pk M 482-00 08/1999 PUMP 4.15 .00 ; Invoice Total Net: 4.15 4.15 .00. PRAIRIE LAWN & GARD~NNet: 9.35 9.35 .00' ========================================================================================== = ==================================== ~ROONE PROTECTION O~rE 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08171999 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 42936 LKANNCONCESSION MONITORING CKARGE 75.00 101-147-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-LkAn 472-00 08/1999 LKANN CONCESSION MONITORING CHARGE 75.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 75.00 75.00 .00' PROTECTION ONE Net: 75.00 75.00 .00' ==~ ======================== ~ ======================================================================================= = =========== mROSTA PROSTAFF 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 102223043 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 TEMPORARY HELP 88.00 101-112-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Admn 123-00 08/1999 TEMPOHARY HELP 88.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 88.00 88.00 .00' PROSTAFF Net: 88.00 88.00 .00. i%EAGEM REAL GEM JEWELRY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 14099 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 8599 GOLD PLATES 9.49 101-141-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Pk C 422-00 08/1999 GOLD PLATES 9,49 .00 Invoice Total Net: 9.49 9.49 .00* REAL GEM JEWELRY Net: 9.49 9.49 .00* RIGHIT RIGID HITCH INC. 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 1096786-01 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 43407 TRUCK HITCH PARTS 511.17 950-000-000-4704 Vehicles-VehEqMan-*-* 320-00 08/1999 TRUCK HITCH PARTS 511.17 .00 Invoice Total Net: 511.17 511.17 .00* RIGID HITCH INC. Net: 511.17 - 511.17 .00. ROAD RUN17ER 742 08/23/1999 A/P INV 345644 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 DELIVERY CHARGES 51.85 400-000-000-1155 Der Insp-CapPjtAd-*-* 0-00 08/1999 DELIVERY CHILRGES 32.40 .00 700-702-000-4300 Serv Fee-Utility-S/W 709-00 08/1999 DELIVERY CHARGES 19.45 .00 Invoice Total Net: 51.85 51.85 .00* ROA2~ RUNNER Net: 51.85 51.85 .00* ROLF PAULAROLF 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08101999 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42929 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 333.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:57 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 31 FM Entry - Invoice Journal ~endor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice ~ Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 101-146-406-4300 Serv Fee-General-sirs 460-00 08/1999 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 333.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 333.00 333.00 .00' PAULA ROLF Net: 333.00 333.00 .00' ============================================================================== = =================== = ==========~===== = ====~====== EATHRE NANCY SATHRE 736 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42872 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81699 LKA~N CAMP REFUND 10.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr 0-00 08/1999 LKANN CAMP REFUND 10.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 10.00 10.00 .00' NANCY SATHRE Net: 10.00 10.00 .00' ===============~======================================================== =============================== = ======================= SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 8100261182 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 YEARLY INSPECTION SERVICE 245.04 101-117-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-City 173-00 08/1999 YEARLY INSPECTION SERVICE 245.04 .00 Invoice Total Net: 245.04 245.04 .00* SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION Net: 245.04 245.04 .00* ============================================================ ============ = ====================================================== SHOTRU SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 31281 08/02/1999 08/23/1999 42807 SILICONE CHALK/MOUSE TRAPS/MAGNET HOLDER 6.96 101-117-000-4150 MaintMat-General-City 173-00 08/1999 SILICONE CHALK/MOUSE TRAPS/MAGNET HOL 6.96 .00 Invoice Total Net: 6.96 6.96 .00. SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Net: 6.96 6.96 .00. =================================================================== ===== ~================== = =================================== $~GNSU SIGNS N'SUCH 729 08/23/1999 A/P Ih~J 81299 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 42809 WINDOW LETTERING-PUBLIC SAFETY 56.00 101-117-000-4510 R&M Bldg-General-City 173-00 08/1999 WINDOW LETTERING-PUBLIC SAFETY 56.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 56.00 56.00 .00. SIGNS N'SUCH Net: 56.00 56.00 .00' SIGSOU SIGN SOURCE 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV 16401 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42937 LAKE ANN PICNIC SIGN 195.68 101-147-000-4120 Eq~ Supl-General-LkAn 470-00 08/1999 ~ ANN PICNIC SIGN 195.68 .00 Invoice Total Net: 195.68 195.68 .00' SIGN SOURCE Net: 195.68 195.68 .00. SJPMAT SJF MATERIAL HANDLING 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 0033461 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 42557 STEP BEAM 57.51 101-137-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Gara 379-00 08/1999 STEP BEAM 57.51 .00 Invoice Total Net: 57.51 57.51 .00' Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:57 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 32 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount SJF MATERIAL HANDLING Net: 57.51 57.51 .00' SMALLB ROGER SMALLBECK 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08071999 08/07/1999 08/23/1999 REIMBURSE EXPENSES 58.45 101-122-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 REIMBURSE EXPENSES 58.45 .00 Invoice Total Net: 58.45 58.45 .00, ........................................ ROGER SMALLBECK Net: 58.45 58.45 .00, SMITH4 JOY SMITH 731 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08161999 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 42717 REIMBURSE-SENIOR PICNIC 8.40 101-144-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Seni 440-00 08/1999 REIMBURSE-SENIOR PICNIC 8.40 .00 Invoice Total Net: 8.40 8.40 .00' JOY SMITH Net: 8.40 8.40 .00' SOUSUB SW SUBURBAN PUBLISHING 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 07311999 ADVERTISING 101-111-000-4340 Printing-General-Legi 101-112-000-4340 Printing-General-Admn 101-126-000-4340 Printing-General-Anml 101-145-000-4340 Printing-General-Rec 101-151-000-4340 Printing-General-Plan 101-151-000-4340 Printing-General-Plan 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 121-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING 123-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING 269-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING 459-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING 510-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING 521-00 08/1999 ADVERTISING Invoice Total Net: SW SUBURBAN PUBLISHING Net: 1,346.29 300.30 .00 108.78 .00 54.60 .00 496.10 .00 200.20 .00 186.31 .00 1,346.29 1,346.29 .00* ........................................ 1,346.29 1,346.29 .00* SRC SRC 731 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08121999 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 42933 REFUND PICNIC DEPOSIT 200.00 101-000-217-2026 Dep/P-General-*-Picni 0-00 08/1999 REFUND PICNIC DEPOSIT 200.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 200.00 200.00 .00' SRC Net: 200.00 200.00 .00' STATRI STAR TRIBUNE 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 381382001 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 AD-P&R RECEPTIONIST 237.50 101-142-000-4340 Printing-General-Pk A 428-00 08/1999 AD-P&R RECEPTIONIST 237.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 237.50 237.50 .00' STAR TRIBUNE Net: 237.50 237.50 .00' STEMFG STEPP MFG CO INC 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 17086 07/26/1999 08/23/1999 42078 HOSE FOR TAR KETTLE 644.81 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:58 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date AmoUnt 101-132-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 HOSE FOR TAR KETTLE 644.81 .00 Invoice Total Net: 644.81 644.81 .00. STEPP MFG CO INC Net: 644.81 644.81 .00. STMART KRISTI ST MARTIN 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 42723 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 REFUND-KINDER DANCE 66.00 101-000-401-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Dan 0-00 08/1999 REFUND-KINDER DANCE 66.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 66.00 66.00 .00' KRISTI ST MARTIN Net: 66.00 66.00 .00* STPAU THE ST PAUL 718 08/23/1999 A/P INV 07281999 07/28/1999 08/23/1999 INSURANCE CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE 485.63 101-117-000-4483 Ins Genl-General-City 171-00 08/1999 INSURANCE CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE 485.63 .00 Invoice Total Net= 485.63 485.63 .00, THE ST PAUL Net= 485.63 485.63 .00, TABPRO TAB PRODUCTS COMPANY 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 1029345RI 07/22/1999 08/23/1999 FILE FOLDERS 72.45 101-131-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Engi 311-00 08/1999 FILE FOLDERS 72.45 .00 Invoice Total Net: 72.45 72.45 .00, TAB PRODUCTS COMPANY Net: 72.45 72.48 .00, TECHNA TECHNAGRAPBICS, INC. 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 99319801 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 BUSINESS CARDS-DEJONG 102.03 101-113-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Fina 139-00 08/1999 BUSINESS CA~DS-DEJONG 102.03 .00 Invoice Total Net: 102.03 102.03 .00, TECHNAGRAPHICS, INC. Net: 102.03 102.03 .00, TESSEE TESSMAN SEED COMPANY 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 5024127IN 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 40 BAGS FIELD DRY 101-148-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 40 BAGS FIELD DRY Invoice Total Net: TESSMAN SEED COMPANY Net: ========= =====~=================================================================== ~ECON THEIS CONSTRUCTION CO. 729 08/23/1999 A/P INV 9914 08/08/1999 08/23/1999 CONCRETE-LKANN CONCESSION 101-148-000-4510 R&M Bldg-General-Pk M Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:06:59 34 41515 305.02 305.02 .00 305.02 305.02 .00' 305.02 305.02 .00' .......... ======================= 42159 2,225.00 480-00 08/1999 CONCRETE-LKANN CONCESSION 2,225.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,225.00 2,225.00 .00' City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount THEIS CONSTRUCTION CO. Net: 2,225.00 2,225.00 .00' =============================================================== =============================================================== THERM0 THERMOGAS COMPANY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 137345 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 43228 PRESSURE REGULATOR 30.67 101-122-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Fire 221-00 08/1999 PRESSURE REGULATOR 30.67 .00 Invoice Total Net: 30.67 30.67 .00* THERMOGAS COMPA/~-Y Net: 30.67 30.67 .00* ================================================================ =============================================================== TIMLAN TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 0095034 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 42151 BLOCK 1,273.80 101-148-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 BLOCK 1,273.80 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,273.80 1,273.80 .00' TIMBERWAJ~L LANDSCAPING Net: 1,273.80 1,273.80 .00' ========= ================================================================== ~=================================================== TORNT0 CATHERINE TOP~NTORE 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 81699 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 43601 ;LEROBIC TAPE 26.45 101-143-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-Rec 438-00 08/1999 AEROBIC TAPE 26.45 .00 Invoice Total Net: 26.45 26.45 .00* CATHERINE TORNTORE Net: 26.45 26.45 .00' 717 08-/23/1999 A/P INV 241853 LAKE ANN ADVENTURE CAMP SUPPLIES 101-146-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-SlfS 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 242319 ~ ANN ADVENTUP~E C/iMP SUPPLIES 101-146-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-SlfS 07/31/1999 08/23/1999 42423 287.59 463-00 08/1999 I~AD%~E CAMP SUPPLIES 287.59 .00 Invoice Total Net: 287.59 287.59 .00, 08/04/1999 08/23/1999 42424 28.12 463-00 08/1999 LAKE ANNADVENTURE CAMP SUPPLIES 28.12 .00 Invoice Total Net: 28.12 28.12 .00' TRIARC0 ARTS & CRAFTS Net: 315.71 315.71 ,00. ======================================= ====================================================== TRIAX CABLEVISION 728 08/23/1999 A/P INV 71599 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 81599 MONI"6LY SERVICE-FIRE STATION 56.95 101-122-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Fire 229-00 08/1999 MON~7{LY SERVICE-FIRE STATION 56.95 .00 Invoice Total Net: 56.95 56.95 .00' TRIAX CABLEVISION Net: 56.95 56.95 .00' ======================================================================================== ====================================== TRIPUM TRI STATE PUMP & CONTROL 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 17639 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 31280 REPAIR HYDROMATIC SEWAGE PUMP 1,491.88 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:00 City of Chanhaseen Operator: DEW Page: 35 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount 700-702-000-4550 R&M Util-Utility-S/W 701-00 08/1999 REPAIR HYDROMATIC SEWAGE PUMP 1,491.88 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,491.88 1,491.88 .00' TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL Net: 1,491.88 1,491.88 .00, ======~==5==========~t=m ====================================~================== = ========~==================================== ~4IWAT TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 5627 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 WATER TESTING 96.00 ?00-702-000-4300 Serv Fee-Utility-S/W 703-00 08/1999 WATER TESTING 96.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 96.00 96.00 .00, TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC Net: 96.00 96.00 .00, ========================= =========================== =========================== ============================================= 717 08/23/1999 A/P I~ 78687 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 43227 SHIRT 30.71 101-122-000-4240 Uniforms-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 SHIRT 30.71 .00 Invoice Total Net: 30.71 30.71 .00, UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Net: 30.71 30.71 .00' DSFIL US FILTER 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 5575645 08/03/1999 08/23/1999 35898 METERS/METER WIRE 9,124.92 700-?02-000-4250 MerchRes-Utility-S/W 704-00 08/1999 METERS/METER WIRE 9,124.92 .00 Invoice Total Net: 9,124.92 9,124.92 .00* ........................................ US FILTER Net: 9,124.92 9,124.92 .00* USOFF US OFFICE PRODUCTS 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 01AF0892 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-125-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Code 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 259-00 08/1999 OFFICE SUPPLIES Invoice Total Net: 08/09/1999 08/23/1999 259-00 08/1999 OFFICE SUPPLIES Invoice Total Net: 717 08/23/1999 A/P INV 01AF4228 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101-125-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Code 10.01 10.01 .- .00 10.01 10.01 .00' 6.77 6.77 .00 6.77 6.77 .00' US OFFICE PRODUCTS Net: 16.78 16.78 .00' = ===================================================== ========================================================================= VALTEM VALLEY TEMPORARY STAFFING, INC. 739 08/17/1999 A/P INV 00043396 TEMP - PUB SAFETY, GARAGE 101-137-000-4020 S&W Temp-General-Gara 101-125-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Code 3~ 746 08/23/1999 A/P INV 43473 TEMPORARY HELP Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:01 08/04/1999 08/23/1999 8499 684.00 379-00 08/1999 TEMP - PUB SAFETY, GARAGE 324.00 .00 259-00 08/1999 TEMP - PUB SAFETY, GARAGE 360.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 684.00 684.00 .00, 08/11/1999 08/23/1999 307.50 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor # Name Jrnl ~ Tr Date TrType Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount =============================================================== ================================================================ 101-125-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Code 259-00 08/1999 TEMP0P3%RY HELP 307.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 307.50 307.50 .00' VALLEY TEMPORARY STAFFING, INC. Net: 991.50 991.50 .00, ========================= ================================================================ ================== ================= VICGAZ VICTORIA GAZETTE 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 4714 08/16/1999 08/23/1999 43603 AD FOR DANCE 37.50 101-143-000-4375 Promotio-General-Rec 431-00 08/1999 AD FOR DANCE 37.50 .00 Invoice Total Net: 37.50 37.50 .00, VICTORIA GAZETTE Net: 37.50 37.50 .00* ================================== =========================== ============================================== ================= VISU-SEWER CLEAN/SEAL 726 08/23/1999 A/P INV 12683 07/12/1999 08/23/1999 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION TELEVISING 700.00 681-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-98-16Lak-*-* 0-00 08/1999 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION TELEVISING 700.00 .00 Invoice Total Net: 700.00 700.00 .00* VISU-SEWER CLEAN/SEALNet: 700.00 700.00 .00* V W EIMICKE ASSOC INC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 673048 06/11/1999 08/23/1999 41199 ACTION TABS 143.46 ~01-112-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Admn 123-00 08/1999 ACTION TABS 143.46 .00 Invoice Total Net: 143.46 143.46 .00' V W EIMICRE ASSOC INC Net: 143.46 143.46 .00' ~ACFAR WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV WB215461 07/27/1999 08/23/1999 41513 ROUNDUP 120.03 101-148-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Pk M 482-00 08/1999 ROUNDUP 120.03 .00 Invoice Total Net: 120.03 120.03 .00* ........................................ WACONIA FAP34 SUPPLY Net: 120.03 120.03 .00' WALWAL WALSTEN, WALSTON & TE SLAA, P.A. 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 12446 08/07/1999 08/24/1999 CROSSROADS PI~%ZATHIRDADDN 1,578.65 460-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 640-00 08/1999 CROSSROADS PLAZA THIRD ADDN 1,578.65 .00 Invoice Total Net: 1,578.65 1,578.65 .00, WALSTEN, WALSTON & TE SLAA, P.A. Net: 1,578.65 1,578.65 .00' ==================================================================== mm== ========================================= WARLIT WARNING LITES 0FMN 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 32286 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 43214 TRAFFIC CONES 135.88 101-122-000-4260 Sml Tool-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 TRAFFIC CONES 135.88 .00 Invoice Total Net: 135.88 135.88 .00, Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:01 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 37 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor % Name Jrnl ~ Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice # Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# Chk Date Amount WAR~ING LITES OF MNNet: 135.88 135.88 .00' ====================================================================~ ============================================== =======~==== ~ASMAN WASTE MANAGEME~-SAVAGE 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 2282-0185692 08/01/1999 08/23/1999 0799 JULY 1999 SERVICE 163.80 101-117-000-4350 Cleaning-General-City 179-00 08/1999 JULY 1999 SERVICE 163.80 .00 Invoice Total Net: 163.80 163.80 .00, WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE Net: 163.80 163.80 .00. WATCOM WATSON COMPANY IrC 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 548189 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 42927 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 311.06 101-147-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-LkAn 472-00 08/1999 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 311.06 .00 Invoice Total Net: 311.06 311.06 .00' 735 08/23/1999 A/P INV 548709 08/17/1999 08/2~/1999 42938 LAKE AArN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 169.43 101-147-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-LkAn 472-00 08/1999 LAKE i~TNCONCESSION SUPPLIES 169.43 .00 Invoice Total Net: 169.43 169.43 .00' WATSON COMPANY INC Net: 480.49 480.49 .00.. WATSTR WATER STREET GALLERY 720 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08131999 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 34486 3 FP3%MED PHOTOS 259.72 410-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-PkAcq&Dv-*o* 422-00 08/1999 3 FRAMED PHOTOS 259.72 .00 Invoice Total Net: 259.72 259.72 .00* WATER STREET GALLERY Net: 259.72 259.72 .00* WEARGU WEARGUARD 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 40721538-1 08/06/1999 08/23/1999 WORK PANTS-SCHMIEG 101-148-000-4240 Unlforms-General-Pk M 480-00 08/1999 WORK PANTS-SCHMIEG Invoice Total Net: WEARGUARDNet: ===================================================================== WEBER3 PRISCILLA WEBER 744 08/23/1999 A/P INV 08171999 08/17/1999 08/23/1999 REPLACE CHECK #81619 101-000-000-2020 A/P-General-*-* 0-00 08/1999 REPLACE CHECK #81619 Invoice Total Net: PRISCILLA WEBER Net: 41517 303.85 303.85 .00 303.85 303.85 .00.. 303.85 303.85 .00.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2.49 2.49 .00 2.49 2.49 .00' 2.49 2.49 .00' =========================================================== =================================================================== WM MUELLER & SONS INC ~ 38 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 6120 07/29/1999 08/23/1999 42128 CURB MIX 4,631.99 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:02 city of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Vendor ~ Name Jrnl # Tr Date Tr Type Pst Invoice ~ Inv. Date Due Date Voucher # PO # Description Chk Terms Check# chk Date Amount 101-132-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 CURB MIX 4,631.99 .00 Invoice Total Net: 4,631.99 4,631.99 .00' 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 6358 07/30/1999 08/23/1999 42129 CURB MIX, BLACKTOP 2,242.29 101-132-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 CURB MIX, BLACKTOP 2,242.29 .00 Invoice Total Net: 2,242.29 2,242.29 .00' WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. Net: 6,874.28 6,874.28 .00': 715 08/23/1999 A/P INV 275148 07/29/1999 08/23/1999 43218 STORZ WRENCH 41.20 101-122-000-4260 Sml Tool-General-Fire 222-00 08/1999 STORZ WRENCH 41.20 .00 Invoice Total Net: 41.20 41.20 .00* - .00' W. S. DARLEY & CO. Net: 41.20 41.20 W.W. GR3%INGER INC 729 0~/23/1999 A/P INV 495-329989-0 08/05/1999 08/23/1999 42587 SPRAYER 224.57 181-132-000-4120 Eq~ Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 SPRAYER 224.57 .00 Invoice Total Net: 224.57 224.57 .00* ........................................ W.W. GRAINGER INC Net: 224.57 224.57 .00* ZIEGLER, INC 729 D8/23/1999 A/P INV PC000240650 08/10/1999 08/23/1999 42596 FUSE HOLD~ 7.54 101-132-000-4120 Eq!~ Supl-General-Str 320-00 08/1999 FUSE HOLDERS 7.54 .00 Invoice Total Net: 7.54 7.54 .00, ZIEGLER, INC Net: 7.54 7.54 .00' Grand Totals Net: 297,749.31 297,749.31 .00' Discount Lost: .00' Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:04 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Journal Account ~ Description Fiscal Debit Credit 101-0D0-000-2005 Flex/P-General-*-* 08/1999 1,723.28 101-000-000-2020 A/P-General-*-* 08/1999 25.74 101-000-000-2022 Surtax/P-General-*-* 08/1999 2.50 101-000-000-2026 Dep/P-General-*-* 08/1999 200.00 101-000-000-3301 Building-General-*-* 08/1999 99.75 101-000-000-3302 Plan Chk-General-*-* 08/1999 64.84 ~01-000-000-3310 Gas Pipe-General-*-* 08/1999 60.00 101-000-000-3634 Park Fac-General-*-* 08/1999 54.00 101-000-000-4901 Ref/Reim-General-*-* 08/1999 20.90 101-000-217-2026 Dep/P-General-*-Plcnic 08/1999 200.00 101-000-401-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Dance 08/1999 138.00 101-000-402-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Exercise 08/1999 108.00 101-000-403-3631. Rec Ctr-General-*-SportYth 08/1999 17.30 101-000-408-3631 Rec Ctr-General-*-Pr~Yth 08/1999 20.00 101-000-408-3636 Self-Sup-General-*-Pr~Yth 08/1999 i05.00 101-111-000-4348 Printing-General-Legislat-* 08/1999 6,176.30 101-111-000-4375 Promotio-General-Legislat-* 08/1999 256.67 101-112-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Admn Off-* 08/1999 236.71 101-112-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Adm~ Off-* 08/1999 88.00 101-112-000-4340 Printing-General-Adma~ Off-* 08/1999 108.78 101-112-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Admn Off-* 08/1999 16.93 101-112-000-4410 Rent Eqp-General-Admn Off-* 08/1999 1,503.97 101-113-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Finance-* 08/1999 226.83 101-113-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Finance-* 08/1999 443.75 101-113-000-4301 Fin&Audi-General-Finance-* 08/1999 22,555.00 101-113-000-4340 Printing-General-Finance-* 08/1999 741.91 101-113-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Finance-* 08/1999 739.00 101-116-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-MIS-* 08/1999 410.00 101-116-000-4320 MIS UTILITIES 08/1999 492.16 101-117-000-4150 MaintMat-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 6.96 101-117-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 245.04 101-117-000-4350 Cleaning-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 163.80 101-117-000-4483 Ins Genl-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 485.63 101-117-000-4510 R&M Bldg-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 56.00 101-117-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 30.00 101-117-000-4910 LaPayPen-General-CityHall-* 08/1999 395.02 101-121-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Police-* 08/1999 129.93 101-121-000-4210 Bks&Peri-General-Pollce-* 08/1999 136.01 101-121-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Police-* 08/1999 14,509.00 101-121-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Pollce-* 08/1999 30.00 101-121-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Police-* 08/1999 23.34 101-122-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 91.91 101-122-000-4130 Prg Supl-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 673.14 101-122-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 169.43 101-122-000-4240 Uniforms-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 30.71 101-122-000-4260 Sml Tool-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 177.08 101-122-000-4290 Misc M&S-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 45.95 101-122-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 2,711.80 101-122-000-4320 Utilitie-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 215.38 101-122-000-4370 Tr-~l&Trn-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 721.92 101-122-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-FirePrev-* 08/1999 186165 101-123-000-4340 Printing-General-PubSaCom-* 08/1999 18.23 101-125-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 30.67 I~ate: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:06 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW FM Entry - Invoice Journal A~¢ount ~ Description Fiscal Debit Credit 101-125-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 42.77 101-125-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 667.50 101-125-000-4360 Subscrip-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 30.00 1D1-125-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 1,045.00 101-12S-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Code Enf-* 08/1999 53.34 101-126-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-AnmlCntl-* 08/1999 544.98 101-126-000-4340 Printing-General-AnmlCntl-* 08/1999 54.60 181-126-000-453~ R&M Radi-General-AnmlCntl-* 08/1999 16.67 101-131-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Engineer-* 08/1999 72.45 101-131-000-4210 Bks&Peri-General-Engineer-* 08/1999 70.00 101-131-000-4531 R&M Radi-General-Engineer-* 08/1999 13.33 =01-132-000-4110 Off Supl-General-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 1,528.76 101-132-000-4120 Eqp Supl-General-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 1,620.74 101-132-000-4140 Veh Supl-General-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 712.92 101-132-000-4150 MaintMat-General-Str Fultn-* 08/1999 11,814.93 101-132-000-4170 Fuel&Lub-General-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 30.00 Page: 41 101-132-000-4240 101-132-000-4300 101-132-000-4531 101-135-000-4320 101-137-000-4020 101-137-000-4120 101-137-000-4260 101-137-000-4320 101-137-000-4530 101-137-000-4531 101-141-000-4300 101-142-000-4340 101-143-000-4130 101-143-000-4300 101-143-000-4320 101-143-000-4375 101-143-000-4410 101-144-000-4130 101-145-000-4130 101-145-000-4320 101-145-000-4340 101-145-000-4400 101-146-000-4130 101-146-406-4130 101-146-406-4300 101-147-000-4120 101-147-000-4130 101-147-000-4300 101-147-000-4320 101-148-000-4120 101-148-000-4140 101-148-000-4150 101-148-000-4240 101-148-000-4510 101-148-000-4531 101-148-000-4560 101-151-000-4340 101-152-000-4300 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:08 Chanhassen Uniforms-~eneral-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 35.98 Serv Fee-General-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 92.00 R&M Radi-Oeneral-Str Mntn-* 08/1999 113.35 Utilitle-~eneral-Lite&Sig-* 08/1999 206.55 S&W Temp-General-Garage-* 08/1999 324.00 Eqp Supl-~eneral-Garage-* 08/1999 57.51 Sml Tool-Oeneral-Garage-* 08/1999 334.77 Utilitie-General-Garage-* 08/1999 12.78 R&M Eqmt-~eneral-Garage-* 08/1999 195.96 R&M Rad£-~eneral-Garage-* 08/1999 13.33 Serv Fee-~eneral-Pk Comms-* 08/1999 9.49 Printing-~eneral-Pk Admn-* 08/1999 237.50 Prg Supl-~eneral-Rec Cntr-* 08/1999 518.75 Serv Fee-aeneral-Rec Cntr-* 08/1999 490.50 Utilitie-~eneral-Rec Cntr-* 08/1999 18.88 Promotio-General-Rec Cntr-* 08/1999 37.50 Rent Eqp-Oeneral-Rec Cntr-* 08/1999 189.57 Pr~ Supl-General-SeniorC~-* 08/1999 8.40 Pr~ Supl-~eneral-Rec Pr~m-* 08/1999 141.99 Utilitie-General-Rec Pr~m-* 08/1999 62.63 Prlnting-General-Rec Prgm-* 08/1999 496.10 Rent L&B-General-Rec Pr~m-* 08/1999 769.65 Pr~ Supl-aeneral-SlfSupPg-* 08/1999 1,074.84 Prg Supl-General-SlfSupPg-SumSftB1 08/1999 700.00 Serv Fee-General-SlfSupPg-SumSftB1 08/1999 388.50 Eqp Supl-~eneral-LkAnn Op-* 08/1999 195.68 Pr~ Supl-General-Lk~nOp-* 08/1999 808.29 Serv Fee-~eneral-LkAnn Op-* 08/1999 7,174.49 Utilitie-~eneral-Lk$~q/%Op-* 08/1999 900.53 Eqp Supl-~eneral-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 3,531.93 Veh Supl-~eneral-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 108.16 MaintMat-General-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 596.30 Uniforms-General-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 303.85 R&M Bldg-~eneral-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 3,117.52 R&M Radi-General-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 70.01 R&M Sign-General-Pk Maint-* 08/1999 660.01 Printing-General-PlanComm-* 08/1999 386.51 Serv Fee-General-PlanAdmn-* 08/1999 7.40 City of Operator: DEW FM Entry - Invoice Journal Account # Description Fiscal Debit Credit Page: 101-152-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-General-PlanAdr~%-* 08/1999 520.10 101-153-000-4300 Serv Fee-General-St Comm-* 08/1999 2,100.00 Fund Total: 103,448.22 .00 211-235-000-4360 Subscrip-EnvirPrt-LkErosin-* 08/1999 85.00 211-236-000-4110 Off Supl-EnvirPrt-Reforest-* 08/1999 35.00 Fund Total: 120.00 .00 220-000-000-3629 P~kb Safe-CrimeSfC-*-* 08/1999 10.00 220-000-000-4130 Prg Supl-CrimeSfC-*-* 08/1999 143.23 Fund Total: 1S3.23 .00 400-000-000-1155 Dev Insp-CapPjtAd-*-* 08/1999 32~40 400-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-CapPjtAd-*-* 08/1999 2,404.50 Fund Total: 2,436.90 o00 410-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-PkAcq&Dv-*-* 08/1999 420.26 Fund Total: 420.26 .00 441-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-NeiPrkIm-*-* 08/1999 16,934.00 Fund Total: 16,934.00 · .00 444-000-000-4701 Land&Imp-TrailCon-*-* 08/1999 3,157.17 Fund Total: 3,1S7.17 .00 460-000-000-4300 Sez-v Fee-E.D.A.-*-* 08/1999 15,836.65 460-000-000-4370 Trvl&Trn-E.D.A.-*-* 08/1999 101.00 Fund Total: 15,937.65 .00 468-000-000-4380 Mileage-McGlynn/)-*-* 08/1999 158.00 Fund Total: 158.00 .00 491-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-EnterTIF-*-* 08/1999 65.00 Fund Total: 65.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:09 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW .00 Page: 42 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Account # Description Fiscal Debit Credit 660-000-000-4752 Out Engi-90-17 TH-*-* 08/1999 55.50 Fund Total: 55.50 .00 681-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-98-16Lak~*-* 08/1999 700.00 Fund Total: 700.00 .00 700-702-000-4120 Eql~ Supl-Utiiity-S/W Oper-* 08/1999 156.73 700-702-000-4140 Veh Supl-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 156.83 700-702-000-4150 MaintMat-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 2,861.22 700-702-000-4160 Chemical-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 60.00 700-702-000-4250 MerchRes-Utility-S/W ODer~* 08/1999 9,124.92 700-702-000-4260 Sm1 Tool-Utillt¥-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 208.71 700-702-000-4300 Serv Fee-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 161.45 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 4,745.13 700-702-000-4509 Othr Agn-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 82,749.61 700-702-000-4531 ' R&M Radi-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 53.34 700-702-000-4550 R&M Util-Utility-S/W ODer-* 08/1999 3,191.01 Fund Total: 103,468.95 .00 705-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-Well#8-*-* 08/1999 200.40 705-000-000-4751 ConstrCo-Well#8-*-* 08/1999 12,686.30 Fund Total: 12,886.70 .00 720-000-000-4300 Serv Fee-SurfWatr-*-* 08/1999 34,339.04 Fund Total: 34,339.04 .00 915-000-221-2024 ESCROW-wATER SERVICE EXT 08/1999 2,500.00 Fund Total: 2,500.00 .00 950-000-000-4704 vehicles-VehEqMan-*-* 08/1999 968.69 Fund Total: 968.69 .00 43 Grand Totals: 297,749.31 Control 101-000-000-2710 Revenue-General-*-* 08/1999 666.89 101-000-000-2720 Expense-General-*-* 08/1999 100,629.81 211-000-000-2720 Expense-EnvirPrt-*-* 08/1999 120.00 220-000-000-2710 Revenue-CrimeSft-*-*' 08/1999 10.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:07:10 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW .00 FM Entry - Invoice Journal Page: Account # Description Fiscal Debit Credit 220-000-000-2720 Expense-CrimeSft-*-* 08/1999 143.23 400-000-000-2720 Expense-CapPjtAd-*-* 08/1999 2,404.50 410-000-000-2720 Expense-PkAcq&Dv-*-* 08/1999 420.26 441-000-000-2720 Expense-NeiPrkIm-*-* 08/1999 16,934.00 444-000-000-2720 Expense-TrailCon-*-* 08/1999 3,157.17 460-000-000-2720 Expense-E.D.A.-*-* 08/1999 15,937.65 468-000-000-2720 Expense-McGlyn~D-*-* 08/1999 158.00 491-000-000-2720 Expense-EnterTIF-*-* 08/1999 65.00 660-000-000-2720 Expense-90-17 TH-*-* 08/1999 55.50 681-000-000-2720 Expense-98-16Lak-*-* 08/1999 700.00 700-000-000-2720 Expense-U~ility-*-* 08/1999 103,468.95 705-000-000-2720 Expense-well#8-*-* 08/1999 12,886.70 720-000-000-2720 Expense-SurfWatr-*-* 08/1999 34,339.04 950-000-000-2720 Expense-Veh~qMan-*-* 08/1999 968.69 Control Grand Totals: 293,065.39 101-000-000-2020 A/P-General-*-* 08/1999 211-000-000-2020 A/P-EnvirPrt-*-* 08/1999 220-000-000-2020 A/P-CrimeSft-*-* 08/1999 400-000-000-2020 A/P-CapPjtAd-*-* 08/1999 410-000-000-2020 A/P-PkAcq~Dv-*-* 08/1999 441-000-000-2020 A/P-NeiPrkIm-*-* 08/1999 444-000-000-2020 A/P-TrailCon-*-* 08/1999 460-000-000-2020 A/P-E.D.A.-*-* 08/1999 468-000-000-2020 A/P-McGlyT~r~D-*-* 08/1999 491-000-000-2020 A/P-EnterTIF-*-* 08/1999 660-000-000-2020 A/P-90-17 TH-*-* 08/1999 681-000-000-2020 A/P-98-16Lak-*-* 08/1999 700-000-000-2020 A/P-Utility-*-* 08/1999 705-000-000-2020 A/P-Well#8-*-* 08/1999 720-000-000-2020 A/P-SurfWatr-*-* 08/1999 915-000-000-2020 A/P-DevEscro-*-* 08/1999 950-000-000-2020 A/P-VehEqMan-*-* 08/1999 A/P Grand Totals: . .00 .00 103,448.22 120.00 153.23 2,436.90 420.26 16,934.00 3,157.17 15,937.65 158.00 65.00 55.50 700.00 103,468.95 12,886.70 34,339.04 2,500.00 968.69 297,749.31 Discount Discount Grand Totals: .00 o00 Manual Checks - Cash Cash Grand Totals: .00 .00 Date: 08/17/1999 Opt fons: Check # Account Time: 13:46:16 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW FM Entry ~ Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Journal #: (A) Transaction #: (A) Check Date: (A) Check#: (R) 89222 - 89256 Bank#: (A) # of copies: i Void Checks: N Vendor Name Check Date Ty~e Title Description Jrnl# Page on Check: N Tr~ns Amount Page: 89222 POSTMASTER 08/09/1999 M 706 40 101-111-000-4340 Printlng-General-Legislat FALL NEWSLETTER MAILING 1,029.80 Invoice 080999 Total: 1,029.80 1,029.80 89225 AIRTOUCH CELL~37~AR 08/12/1999 R 698 2 101-121-000-4310 Telephon-General-Police-* CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES 27.93 Invoice 08011999 Total: 27.93 27.93 E9226 DONAi%VfHONY 08/12/1999 R 700 1 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands LANDSCAPE ESCROW P. EFUND 750.00 Invoice 6700 Total: 750.00 750.00 89227 CENTEX HOMES 08/12/1999 R 699 3 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 750.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 500.00 Invoice 2028 Total: 1,250.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROWREFUNDS 500.00 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 750.00 Invoice 2165 Total: 1,250.00 2,500.00 89228 DAVID WILLIAMS CONST. 08/12/1999 R 693 8 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 1,000.00 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 1,250.00 Invoice 7595 Total: 2,250.00 2,250.00 89229 PHILIPPE DUFOUR 08/12/1999 R 694 1 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands LANDSCAPE ESCROW REFUND 750.00 Invoice 6931 Total: 750.00 750.00 89230 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 08/12/1999 R 696 8 101-000-000-2009 DefCmp/P-General-*-* EMPLOYEE DEF COMP 1,138.69 Invoice 30430399071600 Total: 1,138.69 1,138.69 89231 KEREER HOMES 08/12/1999 R 699 2 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi EROSION ESCROW REFUND 500.00 Invoice 6700 Total: 500.00 500.00 89232 LECY CONSTRUCTION 08/12/1999 R 693 5 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 750.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROWREFUNDS 1,000.00 Invoice 6633 Total: 1,750.00 1,750.00 S9233 LI/NDGREN BROS CONST INC 08/12/1999 R 693 2 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 12,000.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 7,000.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:46:18 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Cheek ~ Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account ~ Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice 81099 Total: 89234 MASON HOMES 08/12/1999 R 701 1 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUND 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUND Invoice 1035 Total: 89235 GEORGE MAURER 08/12/1999 R 693 10 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS Invoice 6629 Total: 89236 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 08/12/1999 R 696 7 101-000-000-3816 SAC Reta-General-*-* SAC CHARGE PYMT-JULY 700-000-000-2023 SAC/P-Utility-*-* SAC CHARGE PYMT-JULY Invoice 071999 Total: 89237 MGM CONSTRUCTION 08/12/1999 R 693 6 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi EROSION ESCROW REFUND Invoice 6931 Total: 89238 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOM 08/12/1999 R 696 2 101-132-000-4060 STREET-UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT-R. ROJINA Invoice 7984941 Total: 101-132-000-4060 STREET-UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT CREDIT Invoice 7984941CM Total: 89239 MN STATE TREASURER 08/12/1999 R 696 6 101-000-000-2022 Surtax/P-General-*-* BUILDING PEP_MIT SUR TAX 101-000-000-3818 Sur Tax-General-*-* BUILDING PERMIT SUR TAX Invoice 071999 Total: S9240 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR 08/12/1999 R 696 12 101-000-000-2006 WageDedP-General-*-* 0014106056-EMP GARNISHMENT Invoice 08131999 Total: 500.00 500.00 750.00 500.00 -241.50 24,150.00 500.00 2,660.00 -240.11 2,924.11 -116.96 322.28 19,000.00 19,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 23,908.50 23,908.50 500.00 500.00 2,660.00 -240.11 2,807.15 2,807.15 322.28 322.28 2,419.89 Invoice Check 89241 NATIONAL LODGINGS, INC 08/12/1999 R 696 9 492-000-000-4804 Spl Asse-NatWeaSe-*-* TIF REIMB-CHANHASSEN SUITES Invoice 07021999 Total: 89242 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 08/12/1999 R 698 1 101-135-000-4320 Utilltle-General-Lite&Sig ELECTRICITY CHARGES 13,912.51 101-137-000-4320 U~ilitie-General-Garage-* ELECTRICITY CHARGES 463.71 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utility-S/W Oper ELECTRICITY CHARGES 292.63 Invoice 08021999 Total: 101-145-000-4320 Utilitie-General-Rec Prgm ELECTRICITY CHARGES 7.54 101-122-000-4320 Utilitie-General-FirePrev ELECTRICITY CHARGES 6.28 700-702-000-4320 Utilitie-Utillty-S/W Oper ELECTRICITY CHARGES 18.18 Invoice 08101999 Total: 89243 ON THE LEVEL INC 08/12/1999 R 693 9 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW I~EFUNDS 750.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 500.00 Date= 08/17/1999 Time: 13:46:20 City of Chanhassen Operator: 25,047.05 25~047.05 25,047.05 14,668.85 32.00 14,700.85 DEW Page: 6,497.86, FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check # Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account # Title Description Amount Invoice Check Invoice 6951 Total: 1,250.00 1,250.00 89244 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY AS TRUST 08/12/1999 R 696 1 101-000-000-2009 DefCmp/P-General-*-* F~4PLOYEE DEF COMP 255.00 Invoice 081399 Total: 255.00 255.00 89245 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS 08/12/1999 R 696 11 101-000-000-2010 PERA-General-*-* PERA 13,286.59 Invoice 081399 Total: 13,286.59 13,286.59 89246 ROTTLUND COMPAIXTY 08/12/1999 R 693 1 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi EROSION ESCROW REFUNDS 36,250.00 Invoice 2010 Total: 36,250.00 36,250.00 89247 GERALD RUEGEMER 08/12/1999 R 696 5 101-000-000-1027 Petty-PK-General-*-* CHANGE-MARPA SHIRT SALES 100.00 Invoice 081199 Total: 100.00 100.00 89248 SCHUTROP HOMES 08/12/1999 R 693 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 750.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 500.00 Invoice 6959 Total: 1,250.00 1,250.00 89249 JIM STEWART 08/12/1999 R 699 1 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands LANDSCAPE ESCROW REFUND 250.00 Invoice 3900 Total: 250.00 250.00 89250 SUPERIOR HOMES 08/12/1999 R 694 2 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 500.00 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 750.00 Invoice 3951 Total: 1,250.00 1,250.00 89251 TIMBERRIDGE HOMES 08/12/1999 R 693 4 915-000-201-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Lands ESCROW REFUNDS 1,250.00 915-000-202-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosi ESCROW REFUNDS 500.00 Invoice 6872 Total: 1,750.00 1,750.00 89252 U.S.C.M. DEF. COMP. PROG 08/12/1999 R 696 4 101-000-000-2009 DefCmp/P-General-*-* EMPLOYEE DEF COMP 6,497.86 Invoice 081399 Total: 6,497.86 89253 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 08/12/1999 R 698 3 700-702-000-4310 Telephon-Utility-S/W Oper TELEPHONE CHARGES 473.42 Invoice 8011999 Total: 473.42 473.42 89254 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 08/12/1999 R 698 4 101-117-000-4310 Telephon-General-CityHall INTERNET CHARGES 570.63 Invoice 1999214 Total: 570.63 570.63 89255 VIGIL COMPANIES 08/12/1999 R 696 13 915-000-204-2024 Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Sign SIGN ESCROW REFUND 100.00 Invoice 9910SITEPLANTotal: 100.00 100.00 Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:46:22 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 4 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Check ~ Vendor Name Check Date Type Jrnl# Trans Account # Title Description Amount Invoice Check 89256 WESTEP~N FUNDING 08/12/1999 R 696 10 101-000-000-2006 WageDedP-General-*-* EMPLOYEE GARNISHMENT 250.00 Invoice 081399 Total: 250.00 250.00 165,185.64, Date: 08/17/1999 Time: 13:46:22 City of Chanhassen Operator: DEW Page: 5 FM Entry - Invoice Cash Disbursement Journal Account # Description Debit Credit Recap Totals: 101-000-000-1010 Cash-General-*-* 42,854.36 101-000-000-1027 Petty-PK-General-*-* 100.00 101-000-000-2006 WageDedP-General-*-* 572.28 101-000-000-2009 DefCmp/P-General-*-* 7,891.55 Control Acct: 101-000-000-2010 101-000-000-2022 101-000-000-3816 101-000-000-3818 101-111-000-4340 101-117-000-4310 101-121-000-4310 101-122-000-4320 101-132-000-4060 101-135-000-4320 101-137-000-4320 101-145-000-4320 492-000-000-1010 492-000-000-4804 700-000-000-1010 700-000-000-2023 700-702-000-4310 700-702-000-4320 915-000-000-1010 915-000-201-2024 915-000-202-2024 915-000-204-2024 101-000-000-2710 101-000-000-2720 492-000-000-2720 700-000-000-2720 PERA-General-*-* Surtax/P-General-*-* SAC Reta-General-*-* Sur Tax-General-*-* Printing-General-Leglslat-* Telephon-General-CityHall-* Telephon-General-Police-* Utilltle-General-FirePrev-* STReET-UNEMPLOYMENT Utilitie-General-hite&Sig-* Utilitie-General-Gara~e-* Utilitie-~eneral-Rec Prgm-* Cash-NatWeaSe-*-* Spl Asse-NatWeaSe-*-* Cash-Utility-*-* SAC/P-Utility-*-* Telephon-Utility-S/W Oper-* Utilitie-Utility-S/W Oper-* Cash-DevEscro-*-* Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Landscap Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Erosion Escrow/P-DevEscro-*-Sig~ Revenue-General-*-* Expense-General-*-* Expense-NatWeaSe-*-* Expense-Utility-*-* Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Grand Totals: Grand Totals: 13,286.59 2,924.11 -241.50 -116.96 1,029.80 570.63 27.93 6.28 2,419.89 13,912.51 463.71 7.54 42,854.36* 25,047.05 25,047.05* 24,150.00 473.42 310.81 24,934.23* 22,000.00 50,250.00 100.00 72,350.00* 165,185.64' -358.46 18,438.29 25,047.05 784.23 43,911.11' 42,854.36' 25,047.05 25,047.05* 24,934.23 24,934.23* 72,350.00 72,350.00* 165,185.64' ' .00' Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance CITY COUNCIL 110 00 4§150 6,905.80 45150 38,832.56 45,150.00 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 15% 86% 38,832.56 Project Totals: 6,905.80 0 38,832.56 6,317.44 111 00 30175 0.00 30175 10,058.07 30,175.00 STRATEGIC PLANNING 0% 33% 10,058.07 Project Totals: 0.00 0 10,058.07 20,116.93 112 00 37775 0.00 37775 8,964.98 37,775.00 ADVISORY BOARD COORDINATION 0% 24% 8,964.98 Project Totals: 0.00 0 8,964.98 28,810.02 113 00 18275 0.00 18275 62.20 18,275.00 CITY CODE UPDATES 0% 0% 62.20 Project Totals: 0.00 0 62.20 18,212.80 118 00 15475 121.67 15475 3,732.17 15,475.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 1% 24% 3,732.17 Project Tota Is: 121.67 0 3,732.17 11,742.83 119 00 18500 135.00 18500 82,292.17 18,500.00 OVERHEAD 1% 445% 82,292.17 Project Totals: 135.00 0 82,292.17 (63,792.17) TOTAL COUNCIL $ 165,350.00 $ 7,162.47 $ 165,350.00 $ 143,942.15 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budlget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance 'ADMINISTRATION 120 00 26348 0.00 ;!6348 2,690.83 26,348.00 0% 10% 2,690.83 Project Totals: 0.00 0 2,690.83 23,657.17 121 00 52696 300.30 52696 50,838.51 52,696.00 GENERAL OFFICE OPERATIONS 1% 96% 50,838.51 Project Totals: 300.30 0 50,838.51 1,857.49 122 00 26348 0.00 ;!6348 25,312.50 26,348.00 ADVISORY BOARD & COUNCIL COORD 0% 96% 25,312.50 Project Totals: 0.00 0 25,312.50 1,035.50 123 00 79044 343.74 79044 63,559.99 79,044.00 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 0% 80% 63,559.99 Project Totals: 343.74 0 63,559.99 15,484.01 125 00 52696 '0.00 52696 52,696.00 52,696.00 SECRETARIAL POOL 0% 100% 52,696.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 52,696.00 0.00 128 00 26348 0.00 ;!6348 14,955.561 26,348.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 57% 14,955.56 :Project Totals: 0.00 0 14,955.56 11,392.44 129 00 26348 1,610.65 ;!6348 21,'115.60 26,348.00 OVERHEAD 6% 80% 21,115.60 : .' roject Totals 1,610.65 0 21,115.60 5,232.40 TOTALADMIN $ 263,480.00 $ 2,254.69 $ 263,4810.00 $ 228,478.16 $ 263,480.00 Just This Project # I Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance FINANCE 131 O0 21510 0.00 21510 13,152.73 21,510.00 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 0% 61% 13,152.73 Project Totals: 0.00 0 13,152.73 8,357.27 132 00 10495 370.00 10495 39,527.34 10,495.00 PAYROLL 4% 377% 39,527.34 Project Totals: 370.00 0 39,527.34 (29,032.34) 133 00 112883 0.00 112883 36,822.06 112,883.00 UTILITY BILLING/RECEIVABLE 0% 33% 36,822.06 Project Totals: 0.00 0 36,822.06 76,060.94 134 00 45480 23,296.91 45480 42,479.54 45,480.00 AUDIT 51% 93% 42,479.54 Project Totals: 23,296.91 0 42,479.54 3,000.46 135 00 14530 0.00 14530 4,870.41 14,530.00 BUDGET 0% 34% 4,870.41 Project Totals: 0.00 0 4,870.41 9,659.59 136 00 75955 420.46 75955 45,894.73 75,955.00 GENERAL FINANCE 1% 60% 45,894.73 Project Totals: 420.46 0 45,894.73 30,060.27 137 00 2265 418.75 2265 4,517.86 2,265.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 18% 199% 4,517.86 Project Totals: 418.75 0 4,517.86 (2,252.86) 139 00 1800 200.37 1800 6,835.60 1,800.00 OVERHEAD 11% 380% 6,835.60 Project Totals: 200.37 0 6,835.60 (5,035.60) TOTAL FINANCE $ 284,918.00 $ 24,706.49 $ 284,918.00 $ 194,100.27 $ 284,918.00 Just This Project # ! Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance 'LEGAL 140 00 54000 0.00 54000 0.00 54,000.00 CIVIL 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 54,000.00 141 00 4500 0.00 4500 12,875.30 4,500.00 CRIMINAL 0% 286% 12,875.30 Project Totals: 0.00 0 12,875.30 (8,375.30) 142 00 31500 0.00 31500 1,594.23 31,500.00 SPECIALIZED 0% 5% 1,594.23 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,594.23 29,905.77 149 00 0 0.00 0 29,476:44 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 29,476.44 Project Totals: 0.00 0 29,476.44 (29,476.44) TOTAL LEGAL 90000 0 90000 43945.97 90000 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 150 00 54940 0.00 54940 0.00 54,940.00 RESIDENTIAL 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 54,940.00 151 00 9380 0.00 9380 3,735.27 9,380.00 COMMERCIAL 0% 40% 3,735.27 Project Totals: 0.00 0 3,735.27 5,644.73 152 00 2680 0.00 2680 27.69 2,680.00 PUBLIC 0% 1% 27.69 Project Totals: 0.00 0 27.69 2,652.31 159 00 0 0.00 0 200.50 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 200.50 Project Totals: 0.00 0 200.50 (200.50 iTOTAL PROP ASSMNT 67000 0 67000 3963.46 6700( Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance 160 00 36653 0.00 36653 27,295.26 36,653.00 NETWORK HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SUPP 0% 74% 27,295.26 Project Totals: 0.00 0 27,295.26 9,357.74 161 O0 17872 0.00 17872 9,031.68 17,872.00 CLIENT HARDWARE/SOFTWARE SUPPOR 0% 51% 9,031.68 Project Totals: 0.00 0 9,031.68 8,840.32 162 00 26018 110.00 26018 1,196.76 26,018.00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE/SOF 0% 5% 1,196.76 Project Totals: 110.00 0 1,196.76 24,821.24 163 00 11265 0.00 11265 7,503.48 11,265.00 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 0% 67% 7,503.48 Project Totals: 0.00 0 7,503.48 3,761.52 164 00 4528 0.00 4528 3,403.80 4,528.00 TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL 0% 75% 3,403.80 Project Totals: 0.00 0 3,403.80 1,124.20 165 00 74892 300.00 74892 35,881.33 74,892.00 Y2K PROJECT 0% 48% 35,881.33 Project Totals: 300.00 0 35,881.33 39,010.67 166 00 37231 0.00 37231 21,048.16' 37,231.00 GIS ACTIVITI ES 0% 57% 21,048.16 Project Totals: 0.00 0 21,048.16 16,182.84 167 00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 SPECIAL PROJECTS #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 Project Totals:. 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 169 O0 0 492.16 0 4,302.20 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4,302.20 Project Totals: 492.16 0 4,302.20 (4,302.20) TOTAL MIS 208459 902.16 208459 109662.67 208459 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance 171 00 80000 880.65 80000 79,477.15 80,000.00 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 1% 99% 79,477.15 Project Totals: 880.65 0 79,477.15 522.85 172 00 35000 0.00 35000 0.00 35,000.00 UTILITIES 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 35,000.00 173 00 100400 308.00 100400 20,694.15 100,400.00 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 0% 21% 20,694.15 Project Totals: 308.00 0 20,694.15 79,705.85 179 00 0 764.43 0 47,985.97 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 47,985.97 Project Totals: 764.43 0 47,985.97 (47,985.97) TOTAL CITY HALL 215400 1953.08 215400 148157.27 215400 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance ELECTIONS 181 O0 23400 0.00 23400 0.00 23,400.00 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 0% 0% .0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 23,400.00 189 O0 0 0.00 0 88.15 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0 ! 88.15 Project Totals: 0.00 0 88.15 (88.15) TOTAL ELECTIONS 23400 0 23400 88.15 23400 Just This Project # I Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance LAW ENFORCEMENT 210 O0 568365 14,675.01 568365 60,621.23 568,365.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT 3% 11% 60,621.23 Project Totals: 14,675.01 0 60,621.23 507,743.77 211 00 25208 0.00 25208 2,636.14 25,208.00 TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL 0% 10% 2,636.14 Project Totals: 0.00 0 2,636.14 22,571.86 !212 O0 62110 148.16 62110 271,461.57 62,110.00 GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY 0% 437% 271,461.57 Project Totals: 148.16 0 271,461.57 (209,351.57) '213 00 54122 143.23 54122 34,372.06 54,122.00 CRIME PREVENTION 0% 64% 34,372.06 Project Totals: 143.23 0 34,372.06 19,749.94 219 00 0 51.27 0 8,131.38 0.00 OVER H F_AD #DIV/0! #DIV/0 ! 8,131.38 Project Totals: 51.27 0 8,131.38 (8,131.38) TOTAL LAW ENFORCEME 709,805.00 15,017.67 0.00 377,222.38 332,582.62 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance 'FIRE DEPARTMENT 220 00 9735 0.00 9735 1,892.09 9,735.00 FIRE EDUCATION/PREVENTION 0% 19% 1,892.09 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,892.09 7,842.91 221 00 15819 721.92 15819 19,572.71 15,819.00 TRAINING/INSTRUCTIONAL 5% 124% 19,572.71 Project Totals: 721.92 0 19,572.71 (3,753.71), 222 00 247961 1,249.961 247961 187,965.26 247,961.00 FIRF__/RESCUE/M EDICAL/HAZMAT 1% 76% 187,965.26 Project Totals: 1,249.96 0 187,965.26 59,995.74 223 O0 51068 2,654.85 51068 76,072.51 51,068.00 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5% 149% 76,072.51 Project Totals: 2,654.85 0 76,072.51 (25,004.51 ) 229 00 0: 381.95 0 23,049.38 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 23,049.38 Project Totals: 381.95 0: 23,049.38 (23,049.38) TOTAL FIRE DEPT. 324583 5008.68 324583 308551.95 324583 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PUBLIC SAF~.i¥ COMM ' 230 00 2475 0.00 2475 0.00 2,475.00 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 2,475.00 239 00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY C 2475 0 2475 0 2475 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT 250 O0 I 390684 64.34 390684 112,893.33 390,684.00 INSPECTION/ENFORCEMENT 0% 29% 112,893.33 Project Totals: 64.34 0 112,893.33 277,790.67 251 00 161172 0.00 161172 45,242.46 161,172.00 PLAN REVIEW 0% 28% 45,242.46 Project Totals: 0.00 0 45,242.46 115,929.54 252 00 167437 1,075.00 167437 106,240.41 167,437.00 GENERAL INSPECTION 1% 63% 106,240.41 Project Totals: 1,075.00 0 106,240.41 61,196.59 259 00 0 737.62 0 71,466.86 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 71,466.86 Project Totals: 737.62 0 71,466.86 (71,466.86) TOTAL BUILD/INSPEC 719293 1876.96 719293 335843.06 719293 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance ANIMAL CONTROL !260 00 24168 544.98 24168 10,881.25 24,168.00 ANIMAL CONTROL 2% 45% 10,881.25 Project Totals: 544.98 0 10,881.25 13,286.75 261 00 24067 0.00 24067 7,994.47 24,067.00 ENFORCEMENT 0% 33% 7,994.47 Project Totals: 0.00 0 7,994.47 16,072.53 268 00 24064 0.00 24064 23,068.02 24,064.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 96% 23,068.02 Project Totals: 0.00 0 23,068.02 995.98 269 00 0 71.27 0 3,451.27 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3,451.27 Project Totals: 71.27 0 3,451.27 (3,451.27 TOTAL ANIMAL CONT. 72299 616.25 72299 45395.01 7229,~ Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Description ENGINEERING 310 O0 23906 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Project Totals: 311 O0 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Project Totals: 25569 312 00 7628 COOPERATIVE AGENCY PROJECTS Project Totals: 313 O0 271359 IN-HOUSE PROJECTS Project Totals: 314 O0 24261 MAPPING & INFORMATION SERVICES Project Totals: 8000 10672 315 00 UTILITY, GRADING, ROAD USE PER Project Totals: J316 00 'TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Project Totals: 317 00 BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW Project Totals: 13970 28152 318 00 CUSTOMER SERVICE - Project Totals: Just This Acct Payable % 12,886.70 54% 12,886.70 72.45 O% 72.45 0.00 0% 0.00 820.00 0% 820.00 0.00 O% 0.00 o.o° 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 YTD Budget 23906 25569 762~ 271359 24261 8OO0 10672 13970 28152 YTD Actual YTD % 946,419.87 3959% YTD Variance 23,906.00 946,419.87 0 946,419.87 (922,513.87 35,939.03 141% 35,939.03 9,123.36 120% 9,123.36 66,274.07 24% 66,274.07 7,563.62 31% 7,563.62 4,461.73 56% 4,461.73 2,735.75 26% 2,735.75 12,068.51 86% 12,068.51 12,596.37 45% 12,596.37 25,569.00 35,939.03 (10,370.03 7,628.00 9,123.36 (1,495.36 271,359.00 66,274.07 205,084.93 24,261.00 7,563.62 16,697.38 81000.00 4,461.73 3,538.27 10,672.00 2,735.75 7,936.25 13,970~00 12,068.51 1,901.49 28,152.00 12,596.37 15,555.63 319 00 OVERHEAD Project Totals: TOTAL ENGINEERING 74316 487833 27.22 0% 27.22 13,806.37 74316 127110 34,287.74 46% 34,287.74 61688.37 74,316.00 · 34,287.74 40,028.26 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance STREETS 320 00 294960 15,072.72 294960 174,475.63 294,960.00 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE 5% 59% 174,475.63 Project Totals: 15,072.72 0 174,475.63 120,484.37 321 00 160000 613.74 160000 91,931.49 160,000.00 SNOW REMOVAL/ICE CONTROL 0% 57% 91,931.49 Project Totals: 613.74 0 91,931.49 68,068.51 322 O0 40200 0.00 40200 228,732.65 40,200.00 STREET SWEEPING 0% 569% 228,732.65 Project Totals: 0.00 0 228,732.65 (188,532.65) 323 00 41200 0.00 41200 20,763.57 '41,200.00 SIGNS & STRIPING 0% 50% 20,763.57 Project Totals: 0.00 0 20,763.57 20,436.43 324 00 18940 0.00 18940 1,872.54 18,940.00 STREET LIGHTS/UTILITY LOCATES 0% 10% 1,872.54 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,872.54 17,067.46 325 00 19750 467.07 19750 39,678.72 19,750.00 MOWING/TREE TRIMMING 2% 201% 39,678.72 Project Totals: 467.07 0 39,678.72 (19,928.72) 326 00 8868 0.00 8868 8,221.18i 8,868.00 STORM PIPE/POND MAI NTENANCE 0% 93% 8,221.18 Project Totals: 0.00 0 8,221.18 646.82 328 00 17700 0.00 17700 4,549.44 17,700.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 26% 4,549.44 Project Totals: 0.00 0 4,549.44 13,150.56 329 00 69350 5,386.21 69350 64,550.28 69,350.00 OVERHEAD 8% 93% 64,550.28 Project Totals: 5,386.21 0 64,550.28 4,799.72 TOTAL STREETS 67096.8 21539.741 670968 634775.5 670968 Just This Proiect # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance STREET LIGHTS/SIGNS 353 00 31440 0.00 31440 3,135.63 31,440.00 SIGNALS 0% 10% 3,135.63 Project Totals: 0.00 0 3,135.63 28,304.37 354 00 193300 905.12 193300 7,861.07 193,300.00 STREET LIGHTS/UTILITY LOCATES 0% 4% 7,861.07 Project Totals: 905.12 0 7,861.07 185,438.93 359 00 0 14,119.06 0 147,634.08 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 147,634.08 Project Totals: 14,119.06 0 147,634.08 (147,634.08) TOTAL LIGHT/SIGNS 224740 15024.18 224740 158630.78 224740 Just This Proiect # I Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance CITY GARAGE 370 00 154650 0.00 154650 79,121.37 154,650.00 IN-HOUS FLEET MAI NTENANCE 0% 51% 79,121.37 Project Totals: 0.00 0 79,121.37 75,528.63 371 00 28700 0.00 28700 6,874.88 28,700.00 VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT 0% 24% 6,874.88 Project Totals: 0.00 0 6,874.88 21,825.12 372 00 12200 0.00 12200 14,737.05 12,200.00 BUILDING/GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 0% 121% 14,737.05 Project Totals: 0.00 0 14,737.05 (2,537.05) 379 00 87400 1,402.06 87400 56,457.83 87,400.00 OVERHEAD 2% 65% 56,457.83 Project Totals: 1,402.06 0 56,457.83 30,942.17 TOTAL CITY GARAGE 282950 1402.06 282950 157191.13 282950 Just This Project # I Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PARK ADMINISTRATION 409 00 0 654.50 0 6,996.66 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6,996.66 Project Totals: 654.50 0 6,996.66 (6,996.66) 420 00 2075 0.00 2075 11,392.92 2,075.00 PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION. 0% 549% 11,392.92 Project Totals: 0.00 0 11,392.92 (9,317.92) 421 00 16315 0.00 16315 4,556.97 16,315.00 I NTERGOVERN MENTAL 0% 28% 4,556.97 Project Totals: 0.00 0 4,556.97 11,758.03 I 422 00 373260 429.75 373260 374,829.00 373,260.00 ' PARK OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT 0% 100% 374,829.00 I Project Totals: 429.75 0 374,829.00 (1,569.00) I 423 00 54280 16,934.00 54280 82,952.51 54,280.00 TRAIL OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT 31% 153% 82,952.51 Project Totals: 16,934.00 0 82,952.51 (28,672.51) 428 00 44445 237.50 44445 19,310.95 44,445.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 1% 43% 19,310.95 Project Totals: 237.50 0 19,310.95 25,134.05 429 00 2000 0.00 2000 21,157.14 2,000.00 OVERHEAD - PARKS 0% 1058% 21,157.14 Project Totals: 0.00 0 21,157.14 (19,157.14) TOTAL PARK ADMIN 492375 18255.75 492375 521196.15 492375 Just This Project # I Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance REC CENTER 430 00 43951 108.00 43951 20,602.06 43,951.00 FITNESS PROGRAMMING 0% 47% 20,602.06 Project Totals: 108.00 0 20,602.06 23,348.94 431 00 55232 1,129.60 55232 37,347.58 55,232.00 PROGRAMMING 2% 68% 37,347.58 Project Totals: 1,129.60 0 37,347.58 17,884.42 432 00 40596 0.00 40596 11,152.82 40,596.00 FACILITY RENTALS 0% 27% 11,152.82 Project Totals: 0.00i 0 11,152.82 29,443.18 438 00 114271 26.45 114271 50,206.11 114,271.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 44% 50,206.11 Project Totals: 26.45' 0 50,206.11 64,064.89 439 00 0 208.45 0 7,006.55 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 7,006.55 Project Totals: 208.45 0 7,006.55 (7,006.55 TOTAL REC CENTER 254050 1472.5 254050 126315.12 254050 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance SENIOR CENTER 440 O0 6504 8.40 6504 8,964.83 6,504.00 ACTIVITY/TRIP PROGRAMMING 0% 138% 8,964.83 Project Totals: 6,504.00 8.40 6504 8,964.83 (2,460.83) 441 00 3251 0.00 3251 1,590.78 3,251.00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ! 0% 49% 1,590.78 Project Totals: 3,251.00 0.00 3251 1,590.78 1,660.22 I 442 00 1627 0.00 1627 1,280.36 1,627.00 CONGREGATE DINING/MEALS WHEELS 0% 79% 1,280.36 Project Totals: 1,627.00 0.00 1627 1,280.36 346.64 443 00 3253 0.00 3253 647.48 3,253.00 VOLUNTEER TRAINING 0% 20% 647.48 Project Totals: 3,253.00 0.00 3253 647.48 2,605.52 444 00 3253 0.00 3253 534.50 3,253.00 FACILIT! ES 0% 16% 534.50 Project Totals: 3,253.00 0.00 3253 534.50 2,718.50 448 00 14637 0.00 14637 3,470.75 14,637.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 24% 3,470.75 Project Totals: 14,637.00 0.00 14637 3,470.75 11,166.25 449 00 0 0.00 0 447.58 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 447.58 Project Totals: 0.00 0.00 0 447.58 (447.58) TOTAL SENIOR CENT 32525 8.4 32525 16936.28 32525 Just This !Project #/Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance RECREATION PROGRAMS ~450 00 92360 813.26 92360 55,921.20 92,360.00 COMMUNITY EVENTS 1% 61% 55,921.20 Project Totals: 813.26 0 55,921.20 36,438.80 452 00 16403 15.22 16403 15,422.73 16,403.00 YOUTH LEISURE SERVICES 0% 94% 15,422.73 Project Totals: 15.22 0 15,422.73 980.27 453 00 45485 83.07 45485 19,401.79 45,485.00 FACILITIES 0% 43% 19,401.79 Project Totals: 83.07 0 19,401.79 26,083.21 454 . 00 9089 0.00 9089 1,606.30 9,089.00 YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS 0% 18% 1,606.30 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,606.30 7,482.70 458 00 8573 0.00 8573 6,123.48 8,573.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 71% 6,123.48 Project Totals: 0.00 0 6,123.48 2,449.52 459 00 0 566.27 0 6,681.34 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6,681.34 Project Totals: 566.27 0 6,681.34 (6,681.34) TOTAL REC PROG 171910 1477.82 171910 105156.84 1719101 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS I 460 00 I 36204 1,088.50 36204 12,250.03 36,204.00 ADULT SPORTS/LEISURE SERVICES 3% 34°~ 12,250.03 Project Totals: 1,088.50 0 12,250.03 23,953.97 461 DO 8433 0.00 8433 571.60 8,433.00 YOUTH SPORTS 0% 7% 571.60 Project Totals: 0.00 0 571.60 7,861.40 462 00 28546 0.00 28546 325.95 28,546.00 FACILITY SCHEDULING 0% 1% 325.95 Project Totals: 0.00 0 325.95 28,220.05 I 463 00 0 1,074.84 0 16,141.04 0.00 YOUTH LEISURE SERVICES #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 16,141.04 Project Totals: 1,074.84 0 16,141.04 (16,141.04) 468 00 1943 0.00 1943 0.00 1,943.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 1,943100 469 00 0 0.00 0 1,124.51 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #REF! Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 TOTAL SELF SUP PROG 75126 2163.34 75126 30413.13 75126 Just This Project # 1 Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance LAKE ANN OPERATIONS 470 00 13685 195.68 13685 3,424.84 13,685.00 FACILITIES 1% 25% 3,424.84 Project Totals: 195.68 0 3,424.84 10,260.16 471 00 22600 7,099.49 22600 14,198.98 22,600.00 LIFEGUARD/BEACH PROGRAM 31% 63% 14,198.98 Project Totals: 7, 099.49 0 14,198.98 8,401.02 472 00 21780 883.29 21780 18,087.57 21,780.00 CONCESSION/BOAT RENTAL OPERATE 4% 83% 18,087.57 Project Totals: 883.29 0 18,087.57 3,692.43 478 00 1400 0.00 1400 0.00 1,400.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 0% 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 1,400.00 479 O0 0 900.53 0 6,223.58 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6,223.58 Project Totals: 900.53 0 6,223.58 (6,223.58) TOTAL LAKE ANN OPS 59465 9078.99 59465 41934.97 59465 Just This Project# / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PARK MAINTENANCE 480 00 2966261 6,429.96 296626 190,075.70 296,626.00 3ARK OPERATION/CONSTRUCTION 2% 64% 190,075.70 Project Totals: 6,429.96 0 190,075.70 106,550.30 481 00 30320 0.00 30320 12,719.73 30,320.00 TRAIL OPERATION/CONSTRUCTION 0% 42% 12,719.73 Project Totals: 0.00 0 12,719.73 17,600.27 482 O0 52115 1,832.48 52115 42,755.72 52,115.00 MOWING 4% 82% 42,755.72 Project Totals: 1,832.48 0 42,755.72 9,359.28 483 00 13455 55.33 13455 3,874.87 13,455.00 TREE CARE 0% 29% 3,874.87 Project Totals: 55.33 0 3,874.87 9,580.13 484 00 36226 0.00 36226 5,230.34 36,226.00 IRRIGATION 0% 14% 5,230.34 Project Totals: 0.00 0 5,230.34 30,995.66 485 00 16560 0.00 16560 3,053.61 16,560.00 REFUSE 0% 18% 3,053.61 Project Totals: 0.00 0 3,053.61 i 13,506.39 486 00 73848 0.00 73848 12,728.25 73,848.00 SKATING RINKS 0% 17% 12,728.25 Project Totals: 0.00 0 12,728.25 61,119.75 489 00 0 70.01 0 19,013.85 0.00 OVERHEAD DOWNTOWN #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 19,013.85 Prq~ect Totals: 70.01 0 19,013.85 (19,013.85 TOTAL PARK MAINT 519150 8387.78 519150 289452.07 51915( Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PLANNING COMMISSION 510 O0 3900 200.20 3900 6,788.84 3,900.00 PLANNING COMMISSION 5% 174% 6,788.84 Project Totals: 200.20 0 6,788.84 (2,888.84) 519 00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 Project Totals: 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PLAN COMM 3900 200,20 3900 6788.84 3900 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance PLANNING ADMINISTRATION I 520 00 I 18820 520.10 18820 17,578.80 18,820.00 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 3% 93% 17,578.80 Project Totals: 520.10 0 17,578.80 1,241.20 521 00 33806 186.31 33806 71,768.04 33,806.00 CURRENT PLANNING 1% 212% 71,768.04 Project Totals: 186.31 0. 71,768.041 (37,962.041 522 00 33806 0.00 33806 14,840.68 33,806.00 LONG RANGE PLANNING 0% 44% 14,840.68 Project Totals: 0.00 0 14,840.68 18,965.32 523 00 4208 0.00 4208 1,124.37 4,208.00 PERMIT R EVI EW 0% 27% 1,124.37 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,124.37 3,083.63 524 00 4208 0.00 4208 3,250.55 4,208.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT 0% 77% 3,250.55 Project Totals: 0.00 0 3,250.55 957.45 525 00 8558 1,007.40 8558 8,634.57 8,558.00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 12% 101% 8,634.57 Project Totals: 1,007.40 0 8,634.57 (76.571 528 00 67754 0.00 67754 26,658.19 67,754.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 39% 26,658.19 Project Totals: 0.00 0 26,658.19 41,095.81 529 00 0 0.00 0 4,966.46 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #D IV/0! 4,966.46 Project Totals: 0.00 0 4,966.46 (4,966.461 TOTAL PLANNING 171160 17t3.81 171160 148821.66 17116( Just This !Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance !SENIOR COMMISSION ~530 O0 22500 2,100.00 22500 7,179.50 22,500.00 SENIOR COMMISSION 9% 32% 7,179.50 Project Totals: 2,100.00 0 7,179.50 15,320.50 539 00 0 0.00 0 512.95 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 512.95 Project Totals: 0.00 0 512.95 (512.95) TOTAL SENIOR COMM 22500 2100 22500 7692.45 22500 Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance CATV 610 00 105100 0.00 105100 6,702.15 105,100.00 CATV 0% 6% 6,702.15 Project Totals: 0.00 0 6,702.15 98,397.85 619 00 0 0.00 0 2,562.61 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2,562.61 Project Totals: 0.00 0 2,562.61 (2,562.61 ', TOTAL CATV 105100 0 105100 9264.76 1051 Project # / Sub Project Description TIF ADMINISTRATION 640 O0 TIF ADMINISTRATION Project Totals: 641 00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Project Totals: 649 00 OVERHEAD Project Totals: 880 00 TIF ADMINISTRATION Project Totals: 881 00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Project Totals: 689 00 OVERHEAD Project Totals: 690 00 TIF ADMINISTRATION Project Totals: 691 0O ;PECIAL ASSESSMENTS 'roject Totals: 392 00 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Project Totals: BUDGET 54747 896488 75000 33419 363676 Just This Acct Payable % 15,937.65' 29% 15,937.65 0.01 0.0( 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0 0.0( #DIV/0! 0.0( 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 65.00 0% 65.00 25,047.05 7% 25,047.05 0 0.0~ #DIV/0! 0.0( YTD Budget 54747 896488 YTD Actual YTD % 116,384.23 213% 116,384.23 29,695.80 YTD Variance 54,747.00 116,384.23 (61,637.23 896,488.00 75000 3%I 29,695.80 0 29,695.80 866,792.20 2,416.56 75,000.00 0 0 33419 363676 3% 2,416.56 9,655.06 #DIV/0! 9,655.06 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 26,732.59 #DIV/0! 26,732.59 6,332.44 19% 6,332.44 64,172.80 18% 64,172.80 42,599.98 #DIV/0! 42,599.98 2,416.56 72,583.44 0.00 9,655.06 (9,655.06) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,732.59 (26,732.59 33,419.00 6,332.44 27,086.56 363,676.00 64,172.80 299,503.20 0.00 42,599.98 (42,599.98) 697 00 ;PECIAL PROJECTS )roject Totals: 699 00 OVERHEAD l~roject Totals: TOTAL TIF 20000 1443330 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 158.00 1% 158.00 41207.7 20000 0 0.00 #DIV/O! 0 0.00 1,706.95 9% 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 1,706.95 14433301 299696.411 144333, Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Description SEWER AND WATER 700 00 1535100 SEWER CLEANING/MAINTENANCE Project Totals: 701 O0 ;EWER LIFT STATION R & M 14350O 'roject Totals: 702 00 117900 WATERMA1N FLUSHING/MAINTENANCE Project Totals: 703 O0 WELLS & STORAGE TANK R & M Project Totals: 7O4 00 METER INSTALL/READS Project Totals: 705 00 UTILITY LOCATES Project Totals: 706 O0 EMERGENCY REPAIR Project Totals: 170000 109800 Just This Acct Payable % 659.86 O% 659.86 3,451.93 2% 3,451.93 2,383.20 2% 2,383.20 279.97 O% 279.97 9,124.92 8% YTD Budget 1535100 143500 1179O0 170000 1098O0 YTD Actual YTD % 167,611.76 11~ 167,611.7( 48,795.31 34% 48,795.31 42,901.59 36% 42,901.59 43,899.27 26% 43,899.27 110,345.35 100% YTD Variance 1,535,100.00 167,611.76 1,367,488.24 143,500.00 48,795.31 94,704.69 117,900.00 42,901.59 74,998.41 170,000.00 43,899.27 126,100.73 109,800.00 110,345135 9,~24.92 ' 0 110,345.35 (545.35 31900 0.00 31900 23,645.29 31,900.00 0% i 74% 23,645.29 0.00 01 23,645.29 8,254.71 63000 0.00 6300° 16,383.75 63,000.00 17600 20750 707 00 BUILDING/GROUND MAINTENANCE Project Totals: 708 00 CUSTOMER SERVICE Project Totals: 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 17600 26% 0 16,383.75 16,742.41 95% 16,742.41 16,383.75 46,616.25 17,600.00 16,742.41 857.59 0.001 20750 10,359.36 20,750.00 0%I 50% 10,359.36 0.00| .............. 0 10,359.36 10,390.64 I 709 O0 710 O0 TRUNK SANITARY Project Totals: 711 00 TRUNK WATER SYSTEM Project Totals: 89050 75000 SEWER SYSTEM 712 00 BUILDING/GROUND MAINTENANCE Project Totals: 718 00 CUSTOMER SERVICE Project Totals: 719 O0 OVERHEAD l~roject Totals: TOTAL WATER/SEWER 125000 1000 6O0 316195 2816395 89,036.89 100% 89,036.89 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.0( 0.0( 0% 0.00 0.00 O% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 104936.77 89050 75000 125000 1000 6O0 316195 2816395 837,791.23 941% 837,791.23 0.00 0% 0.00 55,910.90 45% 55,910.90 399.21 4O% 399.21 0.00 0% 0.00 954.23 0~ 954.2~ 1375739.6{ 89,050.00 837,791.23 (748,741.23) 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 125,000.00 55,910.90 69,089.10 1,000.00 399.21 600.79 600.00 0.00 600.00 316,195.00 954.23 315,240.77 2816395 I Just This Project # / Sub Project BUDGET Acct Payable YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Description % YTD % Variance HISTORIC PRESERVATION TRUST 805 00 231958 0.00 231958 57,253.12 231,958.00 DOWNTOWN 0% 25% 57,253.12 !Project Totals: 0.00 0 57,253.12 174,704.88 809 00 0 953.10 0 61,894.90 0.00 OVERHEAD DOWNTOWN #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 61,894.90 Project Totals: 953.10 0 61,894.90 (61,894.90) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 806 28930 0.00 231958 1,625.00 231,958.00 DOWNTOWN PARKING 0% 1% 1,625.00 .............................. 0.00 0.00 1,625.00 230,333.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! TOTAL HISTORIC 0 953.10 0 120,773.02 463,916.00 Project # I Sub Project BUDGET Description ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RECYCLING 810 O0 RECYCLING Project Totals: 819 00 OVERHEAD Project Totals: SUBTOTAL-RECYCLING 4618( 46180 Just This Acct Payable % 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0 YTD Budget 46180 0 46180 YTD Actual YTD % 659.01 1% 659.01 1,091.78 #DIV/0! 1,091.78 1750.79 YTD Variance 46,180.00 659.01 45,520.99 0.00 1,091.78 (1,091.78) 46180 LAKE MANAGEMENT 850 00 LAKE MANAGEMENT Project Totals: 851 00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Project Totals: 858 00 CUSTOMER SERVICE Project Totals: 859 00 OVERHEAD Project Totals: SUBTOTAL LK MGNT 11200 3O00 4OOO 0 18200 0.00 O% 0.0( 85.0( 3% 85.00 0.00 O% 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 85 11200 3000 40O0 0 0 18200 5,323.82 48% 5,323.82 940.16 31% 940.16 8,760.24 219% 8,760.24 0.00 #DIV/O! 0.00 15024.22 11,200.00 5,323.82 5,876.18 3,000.00 940.16 2,059.84 4,000.00 8,760.24 (4,760.24) 0.00 0.00 0.00 18200 FORESTRY MANAGEMENT 860 00 J FORESTRY MANAGEMENT Project Totals: 861 00 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW J;roject Totals: 20521 12821 35.00 O% 35.00 0.00 0% 0.00 20520 12825 39,575.63 193% 39,575.63 1,101.99 20,520.00 39,575.63 (19,055.63) 12,825.00 9% 1,101.99 1,101.99 11,723.01 865 00 5130 0.00 5130 740.46 5,130.00 I NTERG OVER N M E NTAL 0% 14% 740.46 Project Totals: 0.00 0 740.46 4,389.54 868 00 12825 0.00 12825 1,451.22 12,825.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 11% 1,451.22 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,451.22 11,373.78 869 00 0 0.00 0 861.91 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0) 861.91 Project Totals: 0.00 0 861.91 (861.91 ) SUBTOTAL FORESTRY 51300 35 51300 43731.21 51300 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 870 00 I 441370 34,339.04 441370 151,604.81 441,370.00 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 8% 34% 151,604.81 Project Totals: 34,339.04 0 151,604.81 289,765.19 871 00 7000 0.00 7000 624.83 7,000.00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0% 9% 624.83 Project Totals: 0.00 0 624.83 6,375.17 873 00 12040 0.00 12040 1,363.22 12,040.00 PERMIT REVIEW 0% 11% 1,363.22 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,363.22 10,676.78 874 00 12540 0.00 12540 1,176.55 12,540.00 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 0% 9% 1,176.55 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,176.55 11,303.45 878 00 31750 0.00 31750 1,673.27 31,750.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE 0% 5% 1,673.27 Project Totals: 0.00 0 1,673.27 30,076.73 879 00 0 0.00 0 2,022.63 0.00 OVERHEAD #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2,022.63 ,Project Totals: 0.00 0 2,022.63 (2,022.63) SUBTOTAL SWMP 504700 34339.04 504700 158465.31 504700 'TOTAL ENV,ROPR~OT J 6203801 34459.041 6203801 218971.531 620380 PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING 8-8-99 5204 3820 5206 4555 4614 1201 3824 7210 3104 3110 5203 1203 7201 3701 2103 1207 3803 7206 2511 3829 1308 1602 1702 3704 2102 2104 3805 2602 2521 3213 5207 4617 4505 1202 3210 3705 5205 1210 3702 3801 3150 2507 3804 3107 2518 4202 2513 1307 7211 AANENSON, KATHRYN R $ ABERNATHY, ANTHONY P $ AL-JAFF, SHARMIN M $ ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER S $ ANDERSON, KELSEY J $ ASHWORTH, DONALD W $ AUSETH, ANGLE N $ BELL, LOREN J $ BEMENT, WILLIAM R $ BENSON, ANITA L $ BOE, VICTORIA E $ BOTCHER, SCOTT A $ BOUCHER, GERALD E $ BROSE, HAROLD D $ BURGETT, ELIZABETH B $ BURMEISTER, GINA M $ CHALUPSKY, JERRY D $ CHIHOS, CHARLES G $ DEBNER, RANDY L $ DEBNER, RYAN L $ DeJONG, BRUCE M $ DEVENS, JOLEEN F $ DRESSLER, DAVID M $ DUMMER, NIKKI J $ DUNSMORE, CAROL M $ EIDAM, ELIZABETH A $ EILER, CHARLES A $ EKHOLM, DANIEL A $ EKHOLM, PAUL W $ ELGREN, ALBIN A $ ELKIN, PHILLIP A $ ELLEFSON, KINDRA A $ ELLWOOD, ANN R $ ENGELHARDT, KAREN J $ ENGELMANN, LOREN R $ FOLCH, CHARLES D $ GENEROUS, ROBERT E $ GERHARDT, TODD R $ GOETZE, DUANE E $ GREGORY, DALE J $ GUSTAFSON, JOSEPH A $ HAYES, GREGORY C $ HEINEN, ROBERT C $ HEMPEL, DAVID C $ HOESE, DOUGLAS W $ HOFFMAN, TODD J $ HOISETH, BETH A $ HOLEN, CATHY L $ JANES, KELLEY M $ 2,692.00 238.31 1,774.33 338.72 343.13 3,051.20 496.00 1,727.44 1,812.16 2,308.47 1,597.20 3,096.00 2,210.56 2,181.04 1,417.28 1,387.92 1,401.58 1,889.80 1,971.52 639.38 1,230.76 867.00 1,479.92 1,496.88 1,644.08 1,490.17 1,607.61 504.00 673.20 1,040.00 1,784.41 131.75 545.62 2,126.24 1,653.83 2,718.25 1,945.68 2,562.25 1,845.20 2,167.21 726.75 1 492.24 1 281.44 2 218.57 1 682.41 2 519.93 1 668,48 1 612.22 1 876.64 Page I PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING 8-8-99 7207 4625 2519 7202 4603 4521 5202 4515 3204 4524 3828 2506 3212 4504 2520 3102 4513 2512 3809 3831 2603 4523 3203 1209 4619 4615 4510 4207 2517 3106 1601 3202 4203 4616 3206 4519 3208 1250 3802 4620 1206 4650 3822 3703 5209 5250 3832 3105 3806 JOHNSON, JERRY M JOHNSON, KRYSTA L KEOGH, JEFFREY J KERBER, ARTHUR M KEUSEMAN, MATTHEW R KILLIAN, JOANNE K KIRCHOFF, CYNTHIA R KNOWLES, THOMAS A LARSEN, DALE A I_ARSON, BRENDA L LAUMANN, JOSEPH A LITTFIN, MARK G MACZKO, PATRICK A MAREK, SUSAN J MARTINO, COLLEEN K MEUWISSEN, KlM T MILLER, DEB L MOHN, JERRITT W MORSE, BRADLEY D NAGEL, ANDREW D NOLDEN, KERRI A NYBERG, MICHAEL T OIEN, STEVEN K OPHEIM, JANANN O PEARSON, VALORIE D PEASE, JAMIE L PEKAREK, WENDY S PETERSEN, TRACY K REID, ROBERT W REMER, DANIEL R RICE, RICHARD D ROQUETTE, KEVIN W RUEGEMER, GERALD G RUTZ, ALEXIS M SABINSKE, DEAN F SAUTER, ANDREW J SAUTER, STEPHEN M SCHERMERHORN, MARK SCHMIEG, DEAN F SCHRUM, JENNIFER L SCHULLER, NORMAL SCHWARTZ, DONALD B SEGNER, MYRON L SIEGLE, CHARLES J SINCLAIR, JILL A SOYSKI, GRETCHEN L ST AUBIN JR., THOMAS J STECKLING, JEAN M THEIS, JAMES M $ 1,508.89 $ 3O9.76 $ 1,591.21 $ 66O.OO $ 600.00 $ 32.48 $ 1,365.52 $ 568.65 $ 1,346.63 $ 181.26 $ 600.00 $ 2,148.48 $ 1,858.00 $ 979.44 $ 493.24 $ 1,254.15 $ 261.60 $ 2,014.64 $ 1,436.00 $ 300.00 $' 1,276.25 $ 13.25 $ 1,510.80 $ 1,442.24 $ 357.00 $ 320.00 $ 368.82 $ 1,346.40 $ 2,523.70 $ 1,711.92 $ 2,060.34 $ 1,153.60 $ 1,797.53 $ 29.75 $ 1,526.80 $ 477.92 $ 1,586.80 $ 440.00 $ 1,927.20 $ 262.50 $ 1,285.57 $ 500.00 $ 720.00 $ 1,805.28 $ 1,016.65 $ 781.00 $ 573.75 $ 599.68 $ 1,874.65 Page 2 PAYROLL FOR PERIOD ENDING 8-8-99 1304 3825 2514 4506 4516 7212 1303 4600 3205 4622 4623 4204 2516 3826 3830 3823 4509 7203 3750 2604 THIBODEAU, CHRISTINE L TONN, BYRAN R TORELL, STEVEN B TORNTORE, CATHERINE M von WALTER, JOHN R WALLIS, CORI K WASHBURN, DANIELLE E WEBER, ELIZABETH WEGLER, MICHAEL J WERMERKIRCHEN, ANDREA K WESTERMANN, LORI H WICKENHAUSER, KARA ANN A WICKLUND, LLOYD E WlLLEMS, DAVID J WOOD, MICHAEL J YOUNG, RONALD R ZARN, JENNIFER L ' ZIERMAN, CURTIS H ZIERMAN, DANIEL B ZYDOWSKY ROBERT A 1,624.08 717.76 2,228.32 138.51 176.86 1,191.52 1,408.25 780.00 2,191.44 3O9.76 222.26 767.20 27O.OO 528.OO 65O.63 720.OO 577.7O 2,296.03 646.00 1,953.69 147,364.14 Page 3 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened With the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel, Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Anita Benson, and Cindy Kirchoff. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the · following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #99-67: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Stone Creek Drive Improvement Project 98- 15. c. Authorization to Purchase Skate Park Equipment. d. Approve Frigstad Encroachment Agreement as amended. e. 1998 Trail Easement Payment. Request for Temporary Beer & Wine License for Charity Ball on October 8, 1999 as amended, Edina Realty Foundation. g. Approval of Bills. ho Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 19, 1999 - City Council Work session Minutes dated July 26, 1999. - City Council Minutes dated July 26, 1999 as amended. Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 1999 i. Approve Sign Plan for Minnesota Mini-Storage, Highway 5 and Park Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 PUBLIC ItEARING: ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POTENTIAL SALE OF LOTS 2 & 3~ BLOCK 1~ CROSSROADS PLAZA 3Rr~ ADDITION. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council. Under Minnesota State Statute the City Council must hold a public hearing when considering disposing of public property. The significant terms and conditions of the purchase agreement call for the sale of Lots 2 and 3 of Crossroads 3ra Addition for $9.50 a square foot. The site is approximately 80,175 square feet for a total purchase price of $761,664.40. The scheduled closing is November 1st of 1999. The property would be used for an 80 unit hotel with a construction price of $4.5 million. Real estate commission will be paid by the buyer and staff has included several economic status reports and I'd like to go through those at this time. The HRA purchased this property approximately 8 years ago at a $1.50 a square foot for a total purchase price of about $120,000. There was approximately $2.12 worth of assessments totaling $169,000. Giving it our grand total of $290,000 were our total price into the property. Miscellaneous expense was totaled at approximately $50,000. Total holding costs for the eight year period is $338,000. Revenue from the selling of this property would again total $761,000 through the sale of the property. Estimated taxes are approximately $150,000. Building permit fees would range in the fee of about $65,000. Sewer and water revenue on an annual basis is approximately $12,000. Total revenues are $988,000. Under that assumption we took into account revenues of taxes, building permits and utilities of $988 minus our holding costs with a net gain of $650,000. Under assumption number 2, minus all the miscellaneous expenses of revenue versus the holding cost, your total net gain would be $423,325. Based on the economic status reports staff would recommend approval of the attached purchase agreement minus the last sentence under Section 5.16 which reads, that the city delete, seller shall use it's best efforts to assist the buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions. Staff has concerns regarding one of the restrictions regarding building materials. I believe the City Council's going to be meeting in the next two weeks to discuss that matter. Until that meeting is completed I would ask that you eliminate that sentence until you have had a chance to review building materials for the downtown, Highway 5 corridor area. With that staff would ask that the City Council open it up for public comment. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Does Council have any questions for Mr. Gerhai'dt? Okay, then this is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the City Council on this issue of selling land and making a profit. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Is there any discussion from any council members? Councilmember Senn. Councilman Senn: As far as the purchase agreement goes, you know from this point forward there's going to be a fair amount of...going into this from the city's part going forward and I really think we ought to have more than $15,000 as earnest money on a deal that's you know, almost $750,000. Your normal earnest money amount is considerably higher than that. Mayor Mancino: So what would your suggestion be and give us a little bit. Councilman Senn: You can do pretty much whatever you want but I mean you know minimally you kind of look at kind of like the 5% you know to 10% range normally. In an earnest money deal so, especially where there's going to be an elongated period of time. Mayor Mancino: So at 5% you're saying right around $30 to $35,000 earnest money. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Any discussion on that from other council members? City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Engel: I'd support it. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm okay with that if that's the standard that we've used in the past. I'm curious as to maybe where we came up with the $15,000. Todd Gerhardt: Staff came up with $15,000 thinking that would be our cost in reviewing this over the next 2 to 3 months. As the council has debate regarding building materials, I would not include that as part of Mr. Wright's cost in reviewing this purchase agreement. Basically our expense associated with this would be solely towards the purchasing of the property. Attorney's time, my time spent in reviewing that document. Any title matters that may come up. And they have already cut the check and it is escrowed. It's down at the title company so that was one of our, we were persistent in making sure that the check was down there before we presented it to council so. Mayor Mancino: That's helpful knowledge, thank you. Very much. Councilman Engel: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen, so you feel comfortable with the 15, okay. Councilman Senn: It's, well I mean just to understand it. I think it's pretty easy to walk away from a deal ifa problem arises over $15,000. Mayor Mancino: But it will certainly cover our costs from what Mr. Gerhardt said. A motion please. Councilwolnan Jansen: A motion approval with an amendment to 5.16 eliminating the last line. The seller shall use it's best efforts to assist buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the purchase agreement with H. Dan Wright for the sale of Lots 2 and 4, Crossroads 3rd Addition amended to delete the last line in Section 5.16 which reads, "Seller shall use its best efforts to assist Buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions.". All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS A PART OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION~ EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This subdivision was approved on July 26th. At that time there was two lots. Since it was given preliminary plat approval it has been subdivided into two lots. You need to, in order for the two lots to be accommodated we do need to vacate an easement. That easement is shown on the plat. Staff is recommending approval. No activity has taken place out here. They're just getting the final plat, recording documents so there's nothing out there that's been significant except that they City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 are starting to grade. So we are recommending approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions of staff from council members? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address the City Council on this vacation of utility and drainage easements? Okay, thank you. Seeing none, let's bring it back to council. Any discussion? Any comments? Then let us go for a motion. Councilman Labatt: I just take it, any city costs would be back, paid from by Eden Trace? Kate Aanenson: Cost for vacation? Yes. They pay a fee for the application, yes. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please. Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Resolution//99-68: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Vacation #99-5 for the utility and drainage easements over Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown in Attachment #1, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the easements proposed to be vacated. 2. The vacation is contingent upon recording of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition's Plat and dedicating the necessary utility and drainage easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER TRANSFER OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM TRIAX CABLEVISION TO MEDIACOM. Scott Botcher: In front of you you have a, you each have a couple packets. One is a smaller enclosure that came with the original packet. The second is something from, it's on Moss and Barnett letterhead. It's substantially thicker. That came later and should have been delivered under separate cover. As you are aware, you have in the past decided to hold and have held public hearings regarding a proposed transfer of the cable television franchise from Triax to Mediacom. We have taken note and enclosed in the public record comments from our citizens regarding Triax service and related issues. Tonight you are being asked to review the resolution that's enclosed in your packet, the smaller packet and to vote in favor of it. I'll go through briefly what's enclosed in the resolution. On page starting on page 2. It delineates the some of the things we've already been through. Indicates Triax is the lawful holder of the franchise. The guts of the resolution is if you turn to the very last page of the additional issues, it lists on there three issues that have been determined by staff and legal counsel to be critical to the city in the transfer of it's cable franchise agreement. Item number 1. There's still a question on the 84 cents PEG access fee issue. Mr. Gerhardt and myself and representatives of Triax met as recently as last week to try to reach an understanding on the issue. Legal counsel for the city has yet to receive a substantial explanation as to the 84 cents issue, so therefore with the support of myself and Mr. Gerhardt we've City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 recommended including the 84 cent issue in the resolution as something that must be addressed prior to this resolution and the transfer actually being effectuated. Item 2 is the system upgrade which you are all familiar with. We had a gentleman here at our public hearing who mentioned that and this makes this upgrade again a very explicit part of the franchise agreement transfer. Item 3 is something that we have talked about internally and I know we've talked about it maybe in passing here at the council level. One of the things that we have a desire to do is to provide as much public access to our citizens as possible in terms of what we do here. Either the Council, Planning Commission, EDA, whoever. We have had some difficulties in procuring what I consider to be adequate playback of our public meetings. My own experiences at it, it's a very inexpensive and very easy to provide the infrastructure to have actual live broadcasts from this facility during public meetings, if that's something the Council wants to do. If that's something the Council does not want to do, we still are in need, or still have the need to provide the infrastructure to have playback on our local system whenever we desire. It's not a lot of equipment but I think that the ability of Triax/Mediacom to provide us with this kind of feed is easy to do and is something that's an issue that we would like to raise so beyond that I assume that you've all had a chance to read the Moss and Barnett report. It was pretty thorough. The bottom line is that Mediacom appears to have a fairly good relationship with the Community and they talk to the mayors of these different folks and they seem to have a response that's far better than perhaps other people get from theirs and so if you have any questions about the report, if you have any questions about the resolution, now's the time to ask. I guess in closing what we're asking to do is that the council approve this resolution with the understanding that the three issues mentioned in the Addendum will have to be dealt with prior to the transfer being effectuated. That's all I have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. When you say the three items have to be dealt with, one of the major concerns that I have is the upgrade that will happen by January 7, 2000. My concern is that we don't have a plan in front of us from Mediacom as to how they are going to, if this, well We don't have Triax either. When the representative from Triax came he said that they had not started the upgrade in Chanhassen. They were going to start sometime in August. Scott Botcher: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Has it been started do you know? Scott Botcher: No, in fact Anita we met with that gentleman a week ago? Or so. Who is the individual I guess who would actually coordinate the install and he was meeting with Anita and her staff to put together issues regarding permit fees and permitting and some of those types of technical engineering issues. I didn't hear any other change in terms ora finite date, unless you did during that meeting. Anita Benson: We did not establish a finite date. We did ask that they submit construction plans as soon as possible so we can accelerate the permit process. We have not seen those. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So my concerns are two fold. Number one is they haven't started it yet. They have in Waconia and the other cities in Carver. Secondly, looking at Mediacom, on page 41 of the attorney's report. Page 41, number 2. Specific financial data. Statement data analysis. The assets, working capital in the short term they don't have money to put towards upgrading our system. So there's nothing in this report that helps me feel that they're going to get it done, which they said they would, which Triax made the commitment to that Mediacom can even do it. There are no, they have not given us the resources, the capital to show us that they can even do it so I'd like to get that from them. Number one, a plan schedule. And number two, some sort of financial analysis that they actually can do it. 5 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: And to maybe piggy back on that ifI could. In the financial analyst though, I mean go one step further. They haven't even showed us how they're going to finance the purchase. And they don't have sufficient assets to do it themselves so their step one isn't going to be finding financing to do the purchase and then the question is is after they secure financing to do the purchase, do they have the ability to go secure financing to do the improvements. Scott Botcher: We can add those as conditions. Councilman Senn: Now is that, so that's conditions meaning we don't approve this unless they can do that or what? Scott Botcher: Correct. These are all, it's like a conditional purchase agreement. You've got to meet all these issues. You've got to deal with all these issues to the satisfaction of you guys prior to the transfer actually going through. Councilman Senn: Okay. And did Brian ever look at the issue of what our options are one way or another if these conditions aren't met? Mayor Mancino: That's my question too. Scott Botcher: Brian and I have held some discussions in that regard. Councilman Senn: Could you have him outline those to us so we know what they are? Mayor Mancino: And to add a little bit more to that. When Brian had, or his attorneys had the interview with the 16 communities that Mediacom provides service for, those systems they said are generally 10 to over 25 years old. Let's see, 6 of the communities have systems that are over 20 years old. 13 of the communities have systems that are 15 years old. Have they had experience in upgrading systems? Because from what we read here from the interviews, I'm not, it doesn't give me much comfort that they have gone into a community and upgraded the system and know how to do it. I mean it's their business. I'm just wondering. Anita Benson: For what it's worth, the gentleman that Scott and I met with is a construction coordinator. He's been working in Wisconsin, Michigan in different states doing these type of upgrades is the way he presented himself. Mayor Mancino: And are the upgrades just for entertainment purposes only? The band width will just be for cable or are they going to be putting fiber optics in that are for commerce too? Anita Benson: I'd defer that question maybe to Scott. We haven't seen any plans. Scott Botcher: We talked a little bit about the whole issue of cable modems, if that's where you're going with the commerce. Mediacom, and the only information we have is based upon the verbal report of their representatives, because I don't recall it being in this report anywhere about cable modems. That that's something they have done in other systems and they would like to do here. They did not have any time table for rolling out cable modems here. Councilman Senn: They're committed upgrade to us was fiber optics. Once you have fiber optics... City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Scott Botcher: That's correct. Councilman Senn: So I mean effectively yes they have committed to that. That was in at the time that we did the franchise agreement, they committed to the upgrade and the upgrade was fiber optics. Mayor Mancino: But I want to make sure that fiber optics is just the end user. Is not just for entertainment but it is for commerce also. Todd Gerhardt: It is. They want to hook up to the businesses. It's a six band, 750 megahertz system and it's dark fiber. That's the high speed fiber used for most internet services. And it will have a variety of different nodes which will not physically looping like you would a watermain system but will give capabilities where the entire community would not be out of cable unless a major fiber line is hit. And the telephony system you probably will not see for a couple of years. But they are working on that. That is the money in the system in the future. Mayor Mancino: Got it. Councilman Senn: Todd, in relationship to Brian's analysis ifI could, would you, I mean he does his analysis kind of what our options are, but do you also have them in relationship to that analysis. Kind of give us an insight on his view of the structure that they're using and in fact if there is future you know actions or whatever that we need to take. Whether we can even get through that structure and get it anything one way or the other. Because they have a, I think they had about a 2 or 3 deep LLC set up. Scott Botcher: We've talked, and when Todd and I met with these folks we were pretty candid insofar as it's a very real possibility in cable that these guys will be here for a couple years and then be bought by a bigger fish. That's the nature of the beast. But we can get as much corporate information as you like. Is basically what you're asking, correct? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you know essentially this isn't a new thing. I mean this is something that's kind of been a series of promises over a long period of time. It'd be nice to see them deliver it for once. Rather than somebody just standing in here this December saying we can't, you know we need a couple more years or something like that. I'm not sure if somebody's in that position that the mood would be such to let them do it so I mean a little bit of it come back to what's our recourses and where do we go for those recourses and everything else. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions, discussion? Scott Botcher: Basically as I understand it then we will, the council would like to add. I can have it consolidated into one more additional issue which is a production ora financial analyst that Mediacom can perform the upgrade contemplated in additional issue number 2. And it's actually finance the purchase of the existing franchisee. Is that correct? And then as a secondary, just to report to the council, have the upgraded systems in the past, what are the options if these conditions are not met. And analysis of the corporate structure of Mediacom. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And do we need to...will this go forward? Scott Botcher: No, you need to make a motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I please have a motion. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: How do we? Scott Botcher: You just move to approve the resolution as amended. Councilman Senn:- And you've got all the notes then? Scott Botcher: Yep. Just what I just said is what we're going to do. Councilman Senn: Alright. Move approval of the resolution as amended. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution #99-69: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the resolution approving the transfer and assignment of the cable television franchise to Mediacom LLC, as amended by Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ KIM & JOHN WARNER~ 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE. Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you. On July 21st the Planning Commission approved a 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of an addition based upon staff's recommendation. The applicant is appealing this decision. The original request was a 25 foot variance. The existing house is 5 feet from the rear lot line and the original proposal sought to construct a new addition at that existing setback. The present request however is for a 20 foot setback leaving a 20 foot setback variance, leaving a 10 foot setback. The applicant contends that the 19 foot setback approved by the Planning Commission would add to the cost of the addition because a gas line would have to be relocated and interior design modifications would have to be made on the proposed addition. The existing home maintains a 19 foot setback so staff believes that this is a good compromise between their request of the 20 foot setback variance and the required 30 foot setback. An addition can be constructed on the site with the parameters that the Planning Commission did approved on that July 21st meeting so staff does recommend denial of the 20 foot setback variance request, but approval of an 11 foot variance request. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here? And would you like to address the City Council. John Warner: My name is John Warner. I live at 6870 Nez Perce Drive. It is true we did ask and request for a 25 foot variance with a 5 foot setback. This was intended to put the new addition on the existing rear wall of the garage that's there. With their proposal of moving it up 19 feet, it means I have to completely dismantle this garage and take it completely down. On the back of this, on the drawing here, at the back of the house here there's a concrete slab. Underneath that concrete slab there's a full foundation which is a portion of my basement. The walls in that area are bowing in on the house. If I were to excavate near there, take this back wall and run it even with the house, I'm afraid I'm going to end up collapsing that room. I will then incur the cost of either rebuilding it, putting it back to the way that it was, or tearing it out completely .... that side of the house as far as the support of the new addition wall and the existing wall of the house. If it's moved up I'm afraid that that's going to off center that City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 which means I will have to put in more foundation and add to the cost of that to increase that structure in order to carry the load of that staircase. With those considerations in mind I would like the Council also to know that this house is a two bedroom home with a single bath. My wife and I just currently had a baby about 2 weeks ago and I do have two children from a previous marriage that do visit us occasionally and the house gets awful small when they're there and seeing as how they are teenagers, they sometimes don't appreciate having to sleep on the floor in the middle of the living room. And with that I would thank the council for their time and I would like them to take that into consideration. Mayor Mancino: Thank you John. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the council on this variance request here tonight? Okay, bring it back to council for discussion. Steve. Councilman Labatt: I went out and visited this site yesterday...and we pretty much went through the entire packet here... The area, you know he talked about in the basement where he's afraid of the wall collapsing and having to move that rear wall forward to meet the back wall of the house. It's a simple give and take of 5 feet... He's going to do a heck of an improvement to that house and... Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councihnan Engel. Councilman Engel: Consistent as always. I find in favor of the homeowner. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: Like Steve I did visit the site and I guess what stood out for me, and Mr. Warner and I discussed this, was the issue of his having approached the neighbors to purchase the property on the back side of the house where that assumption had been that it had been his all along. The neighbors had been willing to sell that to him, but there was the issue of the cost involved in how many surveys would have to be accomplished. And Cindy and I exchanged e-mails today trying to arrive at whether or not that was the correct number. But let me pose the question to you now ifI could again. The assumption that Mr. Warner is making is that we would require him to resurvey the lot prior to the addition. Survey his neighbor's lot and then update his survey. The second, it would be his second survey showing the addition, and I'm gathering from what you shared with me, we're more so looking at could he use his recent survey. Have that updated to show the additional 10 feet and then just have the legal description presented to the City as to how that changes the two lots. Cindy Kirchoff: So your question is whether he would have to resurvey the parcel with the additional land from the neighbor? Councilwoman Jansen: I gather he'd have to at least do that one, correct? Cindy Kirchoff: Yes he would have to. In order to get a building permit he has to demonstrate that he can meet the setback. Councilwoman Jansen: And so that would just be one survey showing the additional 10 feet being added to the lot, whereas right now he's assuming he has three that he's facing. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff: Correct. He would only have to do a survey for his property. In order to do the administrative subdivision we would just need the legal descriptions for his property and the neighbor's property. Councilwoman Jansen: That's not expensive you say Mark? Councilman Senn: No. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because there was some confusion when the initial survey was done on the property because there are so many properties, or original lots that are encompassed within this one now. So it did get very expensive for him because I had asked him when I was out, why an estimate of $5,000. Well his initial one was. Mayor Mancino: That includes the land too. Councilwoman Jansen: There is that amount in there. And then his assumption was three surveys on top of that so we're looking, that was his. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I... Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was the assumption that was made that it would be that costly. It just seems to work if he owns that property behind him, to then be able to put the addition on and if we can eliminate that $5,000 from his concerns by maybe better documenting that it's one more survey. I think there's a misunderstanding I guess is what I'm getting at. That it's one more survey showing the 10 feet being added and redoing the legal description is the only requirement that the city would have for his being able to construct the addition. Correct Cindy? Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess in taking that into consideration, because there is such a distance between the two homes, and the buffer for the other home is built considerably back from Mr. Warner's property, it would seem that, and I don't know if we have to table this to enable him to explore that issue. I don't know that we'd want to necessarily approve this without the purchase. I guess I'm throwing it out as an option. That if that option wasn't explored to the extent that it could with the neighbor, maybe we need to more clarify to Mr. Warner what we would need from him to be able to go ahead with approving the addition on his lot with the additional 10 feet that he purchased. Roger Knutson: Mayor if I could just ask one question for clarification. If he gets this 10 feet, does he need a variance? He still needs a variance? Cindy Kirchoff.' Yes. He won't meet the 30 foot setback. Mayor Mancino: But he will meet the variance that the Planning Commission has given if he gets the 10 feet? Cindy Kirchoff: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, there we go. Okay, got it. Are you finished? 10 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Cindy as far as, I mean essentially what they need to do, I mean either way they're going to have to do a survey of the property to show the setbacks from the line. Correct? Whether they do or don't buy the 10 feet, they still have to do a survey. Cindy Kirchoff: Well, what he'll have to do if the variance would be approved tonight is he'll have to show some elevations on the survey that they had done. I'm not sure when this was dated last year. The one that was submitted in your packet. He'll have to make some changes on this and show the elevation changes with the addition. Councilman Senn: But don't they have to stake the lot line so you can. Cindy Kirchoff: Yeah, he'll have to show where the side yard setback is and the rear yard so we can note the setbacks. That the council would approve. Mayor Mancino: But regardless of any, but regardless if we grant a variance or not, he still has to do that. Councilman Senn: Correct. And essentially as far as the multiple lots or whatever going in to make up this building area essentially, that's something you can do administratively by just combining and doing a new legal, right? Cindy Kirchoff: An administrative subdivision can be done by staff, yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, so not real complicated. Okay. I would like to see us proceed on the basis that the homeowner acquire that additional property and negate the need for the, you say the elongated, or the larger variance. You know the variance being requested is not without issue. There is a neighbor who has stated they have an issue with it, which I think is always...factor in granting variances. I would also agree essentially then it's a lot easier to look at as to something, as a logical reason to vary but here we do have a neighbor who objects to it, which I think requires us to try to find a little better way to make it work and you know basically looking at the site and how it's configured and what's on it and what's proposed, I mean it really is how would you say, intensifying the use on the property. And I think if that's going to be done, that's got to be done within reason rather than expense, the expense of the...neighbors. Councilman Labatt: The only neighbor that objects is across the street. The adjoining neighbor is fine... The neighbor across the street that really is. Councilman Senn: But the neighbor across the street bought their house based on the rules that were in place and what existed across the street. So I mean it's a little hard to go back to them and say now that you know you bought your house based on those rules...And they seem to be okay with it if on the other basis so try to work to achieve that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I guess I would like to, I thought that the Planning Commission and planning staff did a good job, the 11 foot variance and I think with buying the property, which the owner, Mr. 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Warner, the owners to the property said that they would support and would sell you that extra 10 feet. I think that that is the way to go too. And I would like to see you upgrade your home. Make an extra two bedrooms and fit in well with the neighborhood. So may I have a motion? Councilwoman Jansen: See if this works. Denies the request for a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approve the variance request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions. Do we want to add a point 4, contingent upon the purchase of 10 feet of property to be added to the back of the lot? Or that would only be if he wanted to go the additional build? Councilman Senn: The variance you just authorized forces that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, so as stated. Roger Knutson: And that's based upon the findings set forth in the planning report and made by the Planning Commission? Councilwoman Jansen: Based upon the findings, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and those three conditions that are there. A second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council denies the request for a 20 foot variance from thc 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings set forth in the planning report and made by the Planning Commission, with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4tol. REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-8 TO INSTALL LIGHTING~ AND PERMIT ON SALE LIQUOR SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH 212 AND TH 101, RRS GOLF. Mayor Mancino: We're not looking to_adding a second tier tonight. Kate Aanenson: I'll give you some historical background for the wildlife refuge...This is Assumption Creek. Talked about putting in some lighting and the DNR...acquisition of that property. The property is 90 acres. It is in a flood plain. It does have periodic flooding, which is one of the issues that we brought down. It is guided A2 in the comprehensive plan. We left it A2 which allows residential. There 12 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 are some other uses conditional and interim use. The golf use is an interim use. As you recall, approximately one year ago when this application came in there were several applications that needed to be reviewed in order to make this happen. One is review of the flood plain. Again, it's approximately 90 acres of, a small percentage of it is being used although it still is in the flood plain. The flood plain goes up to the, what is now being used as the club house. When we looked at this the areas that were shaded, we did have to give a wetland alteration permit. We did have to give a conditional for alteration which would be grading in the flood plain. We also had to give an interim use which the golf course is in this district. We also looked at site plan review. One of the things that they had asked for previously was our standards for miniature golf. One is that it was a daytime type use. The applicant at that time had requested that we amend the district. The interim use district to allow them to have lights and there was a lot of discussion on that. Even the council there was dissenting votes on the light issue. Again that filled in hours of operation because this business as it's set up is intended, or can be used year round. Staff had concerns about that. Just based on the fact that it is surrounded by a wildlife refuge. The city map, what I was trying to show there, does have linkages to the broader area. We do have trails down in that area. So our concern was that one, intensification in the flood plain. At this time, as the Mayor indicated, the applicant is not going forward with a second tier. There are some building code issues that need to be resolved but is still requesting the lights. Conditions of the other jurisdictions still remain the same. They would prefer to see it left in a natural area. While the lighting he has proposed, Mr. Helstrom has proposed is subdued, it may work again we just feel it is in conflict with the goals of the wildlife refuge so the staff position still remains that we would not support it, although the Planning Commission did support the lights. The other request is that when we, he wanted to have the club house retail shop, so we put conditions on that that if he not a restaurant type but it'd mostly be prepackaged food and the house has been fixed up nice and they are selling pop and popcorn and that sort of thing. But he would like to have alcohol. One of the conditions we put on there originally under the standards that no alcohol be served so he's asking for an amendment to that. So the two issues before you tonight are then to amend the standards to allow alcohol to be served and the other one would be to amend the interim use permit to allow, to give a variance to that to allow lights. And the Planning Commission did recommend, even though it be year round, that it be limited to 9:00 p.m. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and when you say alcohol it's 3.2 beer and that's it? Kate Aanenson: We didn't discuss it at this point. I'm not sure based on the location and the zoning district and the liquor license, how that would work. The condition was on there that there be no alcohol. Mayor Mancino: Welt we'll find out. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant, Jeff do you want to come up. I mean I haven't voted yet but congratulations. What a nice addition and you've really done a lot of work in the last year. Wow. JeffHelstrom: Thanks. It's been a wild year. A couple of years ago I never thought lights would be so important to me, but they area. Mayor Mancino: We're starting already, okay. Jeff Helstrom: I put together a petition hem, so I just wanted to bring this out and let you take a look at it. It shows the community support for the lights. I guess you know a year ago I think all the council members know where I stand on this. We've discussed the issue. Lights are extremely important to this project. A year ago the Planning Commission approved the project I believe on a 6 to 1 vote. City Council did not approve the project. It went down by one vote but they did approve the project without the lights and it's just so important I think that I've had approval to move forward with this to give me 13 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 the chance to succeed with this. And it's going to be really hard if people can't come down there at night and hit. I know that some of the council members have been down there to see the facility on a weekends and it's just packed. And people waiting for 45 minutes to get in and hit because if they work they can't come during the week and hit balls. So that's been really tough and not to mention the fact that if someone else were to open up in Shakopee and have lights, it just makes it that much harder for me to make money to put back in the project. And I think I've shown my diligence to go above and beyond really what the city requirements are to make this as nice a project as possible. And I think the people in the city of Chanhassen of love it. I think it's a great family thing. They bring their kids down. I've got a short course and a putting course. I think it's an excellent addition to what the city of Chanhassen has to offer.but in order to make this thing really go it needs lights. So that came down to the issue of what were these lights going to be like? And I've got together a demo on that, that I think at least a few of the councilmembers have been able to see and it's a real moderate light system. It has glare louvers on all the lights. There's only eight lights and they really do focus just on the range area and that range area is very close to the intersection of 212 and 101 there so there's already street lights and it's not like it's out in the middle of the refuge. I feel like I've gone above and beyond to make it a very moderate light plan. Really enough to get me by and to get people out there in the evening and hit some balls...3.2 is all I'm requesting is 3.2 beer. So come out. Hit some balls. Have a beer is really what we're looking at. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Councilmembers have any questions of Jeff?. I have a couple. Big baby. I just saw one of your signatures so... So I just want to make sure I've got it right Jeff. You're requesting eight lights that have glare louvers on them that can be mounted on the roof of the. Jeff Helstrom: Of the hitting structure. Mayor Mancino: Of the hitting structure. And would you feel comfortable? One of my concerns is that they actually go off at 9:00 at night. Meaning that you know you're going to have somebody that says oh I've got three more balls, come on can I keep open till 9:30. Can you put timers on these lights? Jeff Helstrom: I have a timer already. Mayor Mancino: So will you put timers on the lights? Jeff Helstrom: Yes. Yes. Mayor Mancino: On all eight lights? JeffHelstrom: Yeah, and they'll shut off at 9:00. No if's, and's or but's. That will just be the way it is so ! have no problem with that at all. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: I have one in regards to the lights. What is the wattage? JeffHelstrom: They're a 1500 watt. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Each? Jeff Helstrom: Yeah. And it's deceptive in terms of how many watts you have because once again that light is focused on a certain area so they have glare louvers on the top and on the side so that light just 14 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 isn't illuminating all over the place. The people who have come down and looked at the light can see. I did a video initially for city council and you could see where someone walked out of the edge of this light and they literally disappeared. Dark. And then you walk back in and it's light so it's really focused on the area right there. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And the other, just so I'm understanding this. The other approval that the Planning Commission made was a variance from the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer. That's what the request is, correct? Jeff Helstrom: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilman Senn: Just one quick question. That's what we already did for Bluff Creek, right? Mayor Mancino: I don't know. That was before me. Councilman Senn: Yeah, we did a special...deal for Bluff Creek I thought on a beer license or something. Kate Aanenson: Not since I've been here. Councilman Senn: Well it's been in place for I mean, for quite a while so. Mayor Mancino: That's probably before you too then. Okay, thanks. Bring this back to council. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make any comment? Scott Botcher: Kate is it out of line, and I don't know what the policy is. Have we seen any photometric analysis of this thing? Kate Aanenson: Yes. He did provide that before when we went through. He invited the Planning Commission and City Council to, he did demonstrations. He did put the lights on the roof last year and we did fight the mosquitoes and go and look at it. And he's got that, I've got a detailed report on that. Scott Botcher: We don't have spillage at the lot line? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay, bring this back to council. Discussion. Councilwoman Jansen: Actually a question for Kate. I'm recalling that we did a comparison of the wattage of these lights to the highway lights. Kate Aanenson: That discussion came up on the new lights. Councilwoman Jansen: Am I remember 250 is what's on the highway lights? Kate Aanenson: Right. And as Jeff indicated, there's more diffusion with those. They're spread out and these are the downcast. But you're right, there is different wattage. 15 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, thank you. Scott Botcher: What happens to the light once it hits the grass? Mayor Mancino: What happens to light when it hits the grass? Scott Botcher: Well it can't be totally absorbed. Kate Aanenson: It's absorbed, yeah. Councilman Engel: Well it can't be totally absorbed, it'd be black. Kate Aanenson: I've got photos in here, I can dig those out real quick to show you. Councilman Engel: It tums green and reflects green. Scott Botcher: I mean there's the whole issue of ambient light. I just question on this site Kate, and I've been in support and I remain in support of the staff position on this one for whatever it's worth but, and I don't have any problem with the development. I've been down there but we're basically, we're approving or facilitating a commercial development, a nice one, in a swamp. I mean it's a swamp. Councilman Engel: Hey, now I'm not the only guy that's ever said that. Scott Botcher: And the question is what happens when we hit flood stage again? Councilman Engel: He fixes his problem. Scott Botcher: I just wonder, just raising the question. But there's got to be, I know it's focused down and all that, and I haven't seen the photometrics but what happens to the light once it hits the grass. It's either absorbed or...where does it go? Mayor Mancino: Well and I think Planning Commission, Matt brought it up in his discussion on what happens if it floods and. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and I guess I picked on that point also and versus having that reaction of what do we care? We're not looking far enough out as to the effect that that's having on us. If we think if it's a zero effect to us individually as citizens, that's why the federal government stepped in Grand Forks and bought people out of the flood plain. Was because federal tax dollars were going to the clean- up and relief from those situations so when these things get wiped out, there is a monetary as well as an environmental impact from it and if we don't care about the environmental impact that we have going downstream, you can get into a whole other conversation on that one with the whole water quality issue, but I won't go there. More the focus that I think that Kate spoke to when she was asked by the Planning Commission about what do we care. I loved her reaction is, and I don't know if you want to speak to you know why we should care what happens down in the flood plain but the quote that I picked up on was it's using good judgment. It's good planning practice. Are we encouraging development where we shouldn't be encouraging development? Councilman Senn: Isn't that kind of a moot point though because it's already a development. 16 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Well no, that has to do with the second one, the second tier more than anything else. Than lighting and 3.2. But we're not looking at that one tonight. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and the whole Fish and Wildlife and of course the DNR, they're the neighbors to this property and they did come out in the letter that they sent the second time through Kate I don't think made it into our packets but they again addressed the concern, major concern that they have with the lights and the fact that if we do continue to intensify the use on this piece of property as Kate was showing us on the map, it's not just on the edge of the refuge area. It's in the refuge area. It is still on future plans of the State as they expand their land purchases in that area, that this is still part of that whole consideration and they're relying on us in our joint partnership with what we're trying to accomplish down there, that we're going to be following pretty much the same comp plan guidelines as theirs. And that's that we're doing you know as little intensification down in that area as possible. Kate spoke to the fact that we did approach whoever it was for a grant. If it was the State for the grant. The DNR, to do a land purchase so it is significant. It's in the...franchising and expansion and young entrepreneurs should. I mean there's other things on the horizon beyond just one success story. But when we put this on this property, it was with very specific restrictions and as Kate spoke to, they were known up front that this area would present a challenge for this sort of a business to expand down there into a flood plain. And I would anticipate that this is just one of the first of the requests that will come to councils in the future as this business is looking to continue to expand. Where do we finally draw the line? And at whatever point we do, there will have been some investment in this property. It's a matter of how much investment that ends up going in before the city goes back to implementing the goals that are in the Bluff Creek watershed plan, the comp plan, the zoning. What we're trying to accomplish with the whole land use down in that area. And it of course is in the property owner's best interest economically to keep coming back to us and asking for variances until we do finally sayyou know, no.- We have to draw the line somewhere. And the lights, if we went back through all of the memos that came to the City from the DNR, from the Fish and Wildlife, from the review agencies, they all considered the lights to be not just an issue but a major issue. And realizing that we don't have the level of expertise to understand why technically lights would be a problem, that's why we have professionals that are being, their opinions are being sought on is this a problem? Isn't this a problem? We have staff recommending against it. Fish and Wildlife and DNR are recommending against it. There are reasons and you know unfortunately since it's outside of our realm to understand the impacts, we do have to rely on the professionals who are saying to us, you know stay with the guidelines. They're there for a reason. And we will be working with those organizations in the future as we continue to work with the refuge and DNR as far as any trail expansions that we choose to do. I was intrigued on the park map. We do show future trails going down into that area. And unfortunately the lights do project in, when you think about it, everyone's discussing the lights as standing behind them. You can see them from the other side so you're looking back from well 101, the complex is very visible, especially in the winter without any of the tree coverage. And then the Shakopee side is where they have the trails that are used by everyone who uses this refuge area. It's very significant. And it's a growing popular sport, not as publicized as golf in Minnesota but the whole natural resources based activity is becoming more and more important. In fact I would suggest that it might be a good work session agenda item to bring the Fish and Wildlife and DNR in to have the conversation about these areas where we do overlap jurisdictionally, as to what their philosophies are. Their goals and objectives so that maybe we do understand them and the impact that we have on those areas. So it's a great project, and I am carrying on at length but I guess you know where I would come from from a business standpoint is that the future success of this business hinges on an elected body and opinions that can change you know every two years with an election so I don't know how stable a situation that is for a growing business because eventually there may be someone drawing the line in the sand to say nope. You know we've got plans for this area. We're going back to them, but 17 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 I guess that's for future decision makers to deal with but I would definitely stay with the professional opinion of staff and the other organizations. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Scott Botcher: The only other one that I have, I'm sorry. If you look on Kate's report, this business does exist under an interim use permit and if you read the standards, and I'm just reading off Kate's report dated the 13th of July. Purpose and intent is to allow for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while a permanent location is under construction, and, and then there's another, there's a second part I guess. I'm unaware of any efforts on the part of the applicant to seek another permanent location and I guess that's sort of my question maybe to you Kate or to the applicant. That's one of the conditions of the interim use permit. It's sort of help you get off the ground and get going and from all accounts the business is doing pretty well. Where are we in terms of meeting the first condition of the interim use permit? Do you know Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well we discussed this when it came in before. This may be highest and best use for the property. It was agricultural practices. We looked at, we spent a lot of time when this came in before, looked at the agricultural practices and environmental issues and chemicals that were applied to the property. What that was doing. We did an analysis of that. I just again looked at the list of the A2 uses. Pretty much residential. There are some other conditional uses that are, you need to be, have a prime, principal use. So we examined this the first time. We said it would be difficult to put a timeframe on this based on the fact that this type of investment, that was one of the decisions I apprised the council of. That this type of investment that you're putting on the property is not going to be a 3 year, 5 year. It's not typical like when we looked at Swings and that was part of the issue that we discussed. Swings is more temporary in nature. That's the one up on Galpin and Highway 5. A lot different operation...same place than here lends itself it a larger term. This area will never be brought in for urban services so it was more difficult when we examined that. Again that kind of goes back to say what's the level intensity and is he getting reasonable use of the property and that's where the staff came back and said, a driving range may be appropriate but does that mean it needs to be lit and needs to have the bunkers and that was our original position first time through. Scott Botcher: And the last one and then I'll be quiet. Is there any, and I see Steve's got a little bit ora report here that maybe I haven't seen. Kate Aanenson: That's the lighting issue I'm passing around. Scott Botcher: The kind of lighting, the sodium vapor. Is it the high, you know there's a couple different types that are out there. Some are more yellowish. Some are white. Kate Aanenson: Jeff may be able to answer that. Mayor Mancino: Jeff, do you want to answer that please. Jeff Helstrom: Yes. They're normal lights. The main thing is the glare reduction. They're not yellow or anything. They're just typical lighting. Can I just make one comment on what Linda was saying? Something that I think that may be getting overlooked is that the structure that we've built here, other than basically the poles with the nets, is all out of the 100 year flood plain. There's a comer of the dugout that actually falls into that 100 year flood plain. The elevation of the...hitting area has been 18 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 raised like 7 feet from that 100 year elevation. So I am not intensifying anything in the flood plain. This is, everything that I've intensified is out of the 100 year flood plain. I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Mancino: That's helpful, thank you. Councilman Labatt: Jeff, how many candle powers? Jeff Helstrom: They're like a half a candle out side of the... Kate Aanenson: Yep, that's going around. We've got photometrics here. Jeff Helstrom: Under a half so, Councilman Labatt: The eight lights are going to be on the dugouts shining towards. Jeff Helstrom: ...basically down. Councilman Labatt: Turned down towards the ground so there will be no lights shining back toward the building up onto the bluffs? Jeff Helstrom: No. No. And they've got glare reduction on the sides and they've got glare reduction on the top. So they just focus on the range area. I mean you'll be able to literally walk 15 feet out of the range and it's pretty dark. That's the kind of lighting you can have for that kind of an application. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then to change the subject here. The liquor license you're requesting is a 3.2 license? Jeff Helstrom: Right. Councilman Labatt: And that's 3.2 beer. JeffHelstrom: That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Well since it was brought up by Councilwoman Jansen regarding Grand Forks and the floods, I just feel as someone who was a student there for several years, spent a lot of time in Grand Forks and I'm a native North Dakotan, I'd like to respond to this because sometimes we make assumptions that things should be done a certain way and the assumption may be in error. Completely in error in the first place. And the assumption that the federal government, or any governing body is responsible to make whole people who have suffered losses because they built in the flood plain and were irresponsible enough not to buy flood insurance I believe is wrong. So it doesn't even enter into this debate or any other debate in my opinion. It's just, I'll be the first guy to support him 100% in all his endeavors to build and expand and make that a productive property but I'll also be the first guy to tell you Jeff, you don't have flood insurance and that thing floods, tough off buddy. So I just want to get that on. That's, I think it's a false premise to use the federal government as a out there. Councilman Labatt: Tough up? 19 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Engel: Tough off. Councilman Senn: Can I get a definition of that? Councilman Engel: Yeah, it means. Mayor Mancino: Am I getting old or what? Councilman Engel: That means get your wallet out buddy. Okay. But I want to also recap what I think the attitude was on the last council when we approved this thing because i was here for that and I know it might, I'm just going to recap and Mark can either confirm or deny and you as well Nancy. It was more or less a Missouri type of attitude. It was a show me. Show me what you've got. I don't think we really thought you'd do it. I don't think we thought you'd be successful. I'm paraphrasing. I'm reading what I saw happening that night and I thought boy, this is a kooky plan. It looks tough. I don't know if it will make it and they went far enough to let you try it and prove what you had without doing the lights and I know the assumption was if he came back, maybe we'd give the lights if it looked like you were going to make a go of it. That's the feeling I got that night. And I think you've shown a lot of commitment to it. I think he's made a heck of a use of that property. And I don't have any problem with the lights. I don't have any problem with the liquor permit. And I also don't have any problem with the second deck because I don't think that second deck is viewable from anywhere except the dead front, side of the building as you're traveling by on the highway. And if you did it, you'd have enough revenue to upgrade the decor on the side of the building and I think you'd make it even more attractive so I'm for it. Mayor Mancino: But you only get to vote on two tonight. Councilman Engel: Yep, I'mjust reading you the rights right now. That's where I'm going to be so I'm telling you now. Mayor Mancino: And there were a few of us that had other concerns about the lights and that, okay. Councilman Engel: Yep, I have no concern with the lights. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilmember Senn. Councilman Senn: I don't really have anything new to add over what's already been said. Mayor Mancino: I really don't either. Only that I would very support the variance for the city code to allow for the 3.2 beer and much like I voted before, more on principle with the wildlife refuge, I would like that to stay intact and would not vote for lights. But let's have a motion. In fact could we have two. Councilman Senn: I would move approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations to allow the request for lights and the amendment to city code, or the variance to city code to allow for the alcoholic beverages. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round, and to approve the 20 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 variance to the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino and Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: I am for the 3.2 beer and good luck and you have the majority that they're saying vote for the lights too. So there you go. And Jeff if you could, it isn't part of the conditions. If you could put timers on it'd be great. It'd be helpful. Okay, thank you. CSM CORPORATION, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER: A. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT Ii BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER (39.49 ACRES) INTO 5 LOTS; AND VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOUR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH THE FOLLOWING AREAS; BUILDING A---46~800 SQ. FT. BUILDING B~54~000 SQ. FT; BUILDING C--54~000 SQ. FT; BUILDING D~49~500 SQ. FT; PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES ON LOT Iv BLOCK 2. C. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Back in March of 1998 the site plan was approved for a subdivision and site plan for three industrial buildings. The plans were abandoned and the subdivision was never recorded. This action tonight includes, the proposal includes three actions: site plan, subdivision and vacation of a drainage and utility easement. There will be four lots. Four buildings and the fifth is the actual existing DataServ building that is also being platted. The four warehouse are similar in design. We think this is an improvement over the one that was approved over a year ago in the fact that they're lower in profile. Smaller buildings and seem to have worked better in the transition area with the neighbors and the berm that's to the neighborhood to the south in Eden Prairie. The variance that was brought up was in the DataServ, the existing parking lot is close to Lake Drive. The new parking lot to accommodate that does meet the setback standards. They've also improved it by adding additional landscaping. When that parking lot was put in place we had different standards. Now they're putting more landscaping in and improving that. It does meet both, or all five site plans meet the Highway 5 corridor standards. The loading docks have been put to the interior of the building, again screening those from the neighbors. The Planning Commission did ask questions regarding lighting to the rear and we believe that's been mitigated to make sure that there's no intrusion into the neighboring properties. I'm going to let the architect or the design, the people that are here representing the applicant to talk a little bit about the buildings themselves. There was some discussion, there are two types of buildings. A little bit of the mirroring image. They've got a color rendering so I'll let them go through and the material samples too. There was one change I need to clarify for you. That would be in the conditions of approval on page 15. Item number 19. Storm water management fee of $112,000 approximately. That has been reduced to $87,474.00. The reason for the reduction is that at the time of the, when we put the pond in to accommodate this development and the CSM development to the north, it was assumed the value of the pond. The actual cost was higher. Therefore they're being credited more so their contribution would be less. Councilman Labatt: What about the current amount? What's the amount? 21 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: What it should say is $87,474. Mayor Mancino: Instead of $112,000. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah the construction cost was higher so. That'd be the one clarification. There's some, just-some other minor ones that they have addressed. We didn't reflect those. Those are regarding parking lot setbacks. I have copies of that now. It's the 25 foot setback in the existing building but I'd gone through that so they are consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We had pointed out something that they needed to change. The only other issue was the sidewalk. Engineering requested that we do put a sidewalk along this side based on the amount of industrial buildings. We believe these buildings, they can be subdivided into multi tenant. We believe they'll probably be a little higher office type use and maybe the industrial type use. So we do want to have a sidewalk, even though there is one partially on the other side, for that continuity to allow people to work their way around. We see it similarly to what we have at Rosemount or some of their industrial buildings. Chan Business Center where even on your lunch hour you can get out. Mayor Mancino: So everybody can walk to McDonald's. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. But we felt that it's important, we are trying to encourage you know that in our industrial parks. We feel strongly about the sidewalks. The applicant requested that that be removed but again staff's position is that we keep that. Mayor Mancino: So you would add that to the site plan? Kate Aanenson: It is on there. Mayor Mancino: Which number is it? Do you know? Kate Aanenson: I'm looking. Mayor Mancino: Oh well, we can do that when. Kate Aanenson: He's got it. Number 14 under Subdivision. Mayor Mancino: Oh good, thank you. Kate Aanenson: With that we are recommending approval with the subdivision, site plan and the vacation. The drainage easement over Lot 1. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Mancino: No I don't. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Dave Carlin: Yes I would, thank you. First of I'll introduce myself and then Project Consultant. I'm Dave Carlin. I'm Vice President of Development at CSM Corporation. I'm responsible for all the commercial development, including this project and also the Chanhassen East Business Center which are the six buildings contiguous and happy to report that those buildings have been a real success for us. We've got I think 4,000 square feet left in the westerly most office building and based on that success we negotiated with General Electric to purchase the land, formerly DataServ building. We're working on retenanting that building. Wang's going to be out of there in less than a year. We do have a tenant secured for Building A, which will be a major corporate headquarters. We'll hopefully make an 22 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 announcement on that within the next week. They announced there's office warehouse buildings but you know we look at these as office tech buildings. There's great demand right now in the entire southwest corridor for a little more employee intensive, lower finish and in contrast to the previous proposal which was made by GE and Welsh, we think this is not only the right product for the market. We think it's a friendlier product in terms of the immediate neighborhood. We worked real hard with both staff and the adjacent neighborhood to make this as great a project as we can. And looking forward to getting started as soon as we can here in Chanhassen. Also introduce Paul Klein is a project architect at CSM that worked on the design of the project. And of course John Dietrich with RLK is the...for the project. John Dietrich: Thank you David. John Dietrich, RLK-Kuusito. We've been fortunate enough to work with CSM Corporation on the development of the 39 acres, primarily the eastern portion of that 39 acres with the four buildings that are shown here on the site plan. The site plan today is a much improved one over the one that came in front of you a year and a half ago. The improvements really are on the architectural and the type of building that is in place there today. The issue of the landscape and the amount of buffering and the amount of density that was necessary for that project has been maintained in this project, even though in absence the project has become downscaled. The buildings are 23 feet in height versus 30 feet in height. The amount of truck facility space in the interior courtyard is greatly reduced. So the type of vehicles that can be in there for truck and distribution really are not there that were in that previous plan. And then lastly the type of building materials is the split face concrete block that is going to be very comparable to the buildings on the north side of East Lake Drive that will allow there to be a continuity between north and south along the entire east side of the city of Chanhassen. We did have neighborhood meetings with the residents in Eden Prairie and we have made a commitment to maintain that berm as it is today. We are most likely going to take the berm down for the amount of material that has been there. Mine that out and then rebuild the berm back up. The berm that exists out there today is 100% on the northerly property. It is not on the property of the private residence. So we will be putting that berm back and to a higher level than it is today. And then landscaping it with the plan that we have shown and replacing the plant materials that are up there today. In addition with the higher berm there will be more screening and the buildings that have, that are being proposed today are approximately 20 feet further north from the property line than the previously approved plan. In addition we've added landscaping to the south side of the existing DataServ-Wang building. We put landscaping on top of that berm and have a continuous berm along the entire south side of the existing building and south of this parking lot. Some of the major improvements are the parking lot will...with trees and landscaping put in and the central landscaped areas between the buildings 2 and 3. We feel, or excuse me, Lots 1 and 2. Buildings 2 and 3 will be again a much more main pedestrian and office quality environment. These are going to be office tech buildings as Mr. Carlin had mentioned and we anticipate that they will have a good place in the market as again Building A has a tenant that's ready to go. We are ready to break ground within a couple of weeks. We are looking to hold a pre-construction meeting, assuming we have your concurrence tonight on the subdivision on the site plan and also on the vacation of the easement. We have worked hard with the staff and with engineering to submit the appropriate civil documents that will allow this project to go forward. We are in favor and concur with all of the' items that are in the staff report with the exception of one and that is the sidewalk. We do feel that we have a sidewalk that does exist along East Lake Drive. It does exist on the north side of the roadway. And that sidewalk extends all the way from Dell Road north all the way over to Great Plains Boulevard. If you look at East Lake Drive today, there is no sidewalk on the south side of East Lake Drive from Dell Road over to Great Plains Boulevard. We feel that the existing 6 foot sidewalk that is there on the north side will accommodate the walkers who are interested in walking to McDonald's which is on the north side of East Lake Drive, and that this is not a residential area but there is a facility for pedestrians to walk along East Lake Drive. Tie into Dell Road and once you get over to Dakota, you can go north. There are no sidewalks south into the neighborhood on Dakota. There is no sidewalks or trails or parks that is to 23 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 the west of this development. And once you hit Great Plains Boulevard there are no sidewalks to the south. We feel the amount of soil work, earth work moving that needs to go into this project has put a very tight budget onto it. We have put that money into the landscaping and into the quality of the buildings that we feel really will make a wonderful statement here on the east side and we look for your concurrence on this plan approval without the sidewalks. Secondly we do want to promote the buildings that have been submitted as part of the project to date. You did receive small reduced copies in your packet and I feel that those drawings blended and do not really show the significant changes between Buildings A and B and C and D. Mayor Mancino: John, let me just ask before you go forward and Kate also. There, I'm assuming there is enough room between the berm on that north side and the right-of-way to put a sidewalk in. A trail in on the south side. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that there was room, because I know that there's a berm, a 4 foot tall berm. Councilman Senn: 3 foot. Mayor Mancino: 4 foot? Councilman Senn: 3 foot. Mayor Mancino: Oh. I'll have to look at that condition again. It's to kind of camouflage or help reduce the visualness of the parking lot, okay. John Dietrich: One of the conditions of approval does talk about no grading or landscaping within the public right-of-way and we've matched that grade. Mayor Mancino: And can you kind of for me highlight some of the points how this is different than some of the other buildings, etc, as far as use of materials, etc? John Dietrich: In comparison Mayor with the previous approval or the buildings to the north? Mayor Mancino: Buildings to the north. John Dietrich: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Also in the grander scheme of the whole development. John Dietrich: Okay. I'll maybe have Paul help with some of the specifics of the architecture as we would talk these buildings in terms of the existing and then I'll jump back in. Paul Klein: Paul Klein. The buildings 'to the north, the ones existing along Highway 5, they use more brick than what we have here. We're using strictly rock face block. They use more of an orange brick. Orange rock face and then above it is iron stone. Here we're using, for Buildings A and B we're using a brown, it's called a Vienna Brown with an accent almond band with a green tinted glass. And then Buildings C and D we're using a tanner face block in here with that same almond band. We're also using 24 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 a bronze tinted glass which hopefully helps differentiate the two buildings. Yes, the window patterns the same. But with this tenant that they've currently mentioned we're going to be possibly changing Building A's design to a more ribbon window with the green glazing. It's just, at this stage with the different tenants that are going to be entering in, we don't know how big so we use the 8 foot window and then a 4 foot section and it allows us to get any type of tenant. Anywhere from 5,000 to 60,000. And right now we have-46,000 going into Building A. Dave Carlin: I'll butt in just real quick ifI can. I mean in terms maybe of the overall market, you know CSM...a lot of the other developers are not putting in as much detail into the buildings. Tending towards precast materials so I say all and all this is definitely the upper echelon for this kind of product in the market place. Mayor Mancino: Okay Dave, just so you understand where I was coming from. I read the Planning Conunission minutes and... (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Councilman Labatt: How are you going to do the break between Buildings D and C, would it be? Where you have the. John Dietrich: The parking lot basically will be sloping up at about 2 ½ to 3%. And then we have breaks. Excuse me, 2% in the parking and then we get grade breaks along, the.., so there will be a plateau here, here and here. Each one of these parking areas is a... Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for John, or you're not done yet are you? John Dietrich: I was just going to say we're here to ask your support with the modifications of the sidewalk and with the architecture as we have submitted. Mayor Mancino: Any questions that council members have at this time? Councilman Senn: Not of the applicant, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to address the council on this? Mike Rock: My name's Mike Rock. I live at 18832 Wynnfield in Eden Prairie. I just want to say that CSM and the architects worked real closely with the neighborhood group and they did come up with a much better design than what was previously approx(ed a year and a half ago for the area and we'd just say that I don't particularly represent the whole group but the major feeling is that we're in favor of it. Mayor Mancino: Good. It's nice to know that. Somebody from Eden Prairie. Thank you for coming. Bring this back to council. Any discussion? Councilman Senn: Questions ifI could. Mayor Mancino: Sure. Councilman Senn: Kate. Everything in the project was pretty good and there's one thing I keep coming back and struggling with and that's the parking. And I kept hearing the buildings tonight referred to as 25 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 office tech buildings and anyway you cut it, all we've allowed for parking is 3 per 1,000 and as I drive by some of the places we've already done that and see cars already inundated and parked all over the streets. I really wonder if we're adequately treating that. I mean have we monitored leasing activities on the first phases? Are we sure that the.., staying within use requirements or use assumptions on the square footage as it relates back to the parking? Or are we ending up with higher square footage areas of office and more heavily personneled areas than warehouse? And at least if you go drive by some of the existing parks, you certainly get the impression that that's a great deal. So that's a real concern I have, especially with this particular use and it's location. Kate Aanenson: Current that issue comes up and the city does not require business licenses. The only catch we have on these is looking at the tenant mix. We do try to apprise the application when we believe there will be a situation problem. To get a better count. There are times when the leases that aren't...but they're also going to have to monitor because that affects their leasing arrangements too. But the only thing we can do at this point is the policing of our streets and parking and... WE do try to review that again on the tenants. Mayor Mancino: But if we do see parking on the street where it shouldn't be, we can... Kate Aanenson: Sure, absolutely. Yep. Mayor Mancino: There is no parking on Lake Drive East is there? Councilman Senn: That's my concern. 3 per 1,000, if you put office space and a good chunk of that space you're going to have a big time problem. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm sure you're concerned about it too so. Dave Carlin: ... Mayor Mancino: Oh, come up and say that on the record please. Dave Carlin: The point I was making is that there is truck courts that are not striped for vehicle parking and as you have a higher finish level, you have less of a need for a traditional truck court kind of thing so what tends to happen is those become striped for vehicles at the expense of the trucks that don't exist. This is quite a bit higher ratio than what we have in the first phase and I mean I can tell you from experience, most of the leases that get written these days, there are provisions within the least that stipulate exactly how many stalls we provide and where those stalls are and it's really hard to over sell your parking. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does that answer that kind of?. Councilman Senn: Well I mean it partially answers it but I mean by doing the alterations on the truck stuff here, you know you're not going ~o pick up even oh...isn't going to add 1 more per 1,000 which still is going to leave you light on an office requirement which is normally what... I mean again we've got some real problems already in some existing areas and we're paying attention to it. Putting safeguards in place so we don't have, I mean the problem's going to come back to us. Not anybody else. Kate Aanenson: But again, their site plan does show a certain mix, office/industrial and that's the tenant finish and if it's all going office, we have to apprise them of the fact that they're going to be short 26 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 parking. They're going to have to solve it. They are adding additional, with the existing DataServ, the additional parking is being put in with that building. Mayor Mancino: And Mark, what would probably be helpful is for you to let staff know of those places where you see where there's not adequate parking so that they can check on that and monitor that. So I think that would be helpful. Any other? Yes Dave. Dave Carlin: Just one more comment. Actually overall for the project we have 4.0 for parking so it's not 3.0. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess the only comment that I would make in regards to the sidewalk, and the issue of yeah or nay. I think that we've been fairly vocal as a city council as well as the planning commission about trying to provide alternative locations for people to be able to exercise or walk or just get out and about and I would have a tendency to want to support the planning commission's addition of that sidewalk to the site plan. Councihnan Labatt: And that would extend along the south side of Lake Drive? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Councilman Senn: It's in the conditions. Councilwoman Jansen: It's in there, yep. Councilman Engel: What about the, does it extend past DataServ? I,ve got to remember. Is there one in front of DataServ now? Mayor Mancino: Well this goes to DataServ. Past DataServ now and then it will stop there until the next development. Councilman Engel: That's what I'm asking. Is there one on the south side now? Mayor Mancino: No. It doesn't go all the way to, what is that Dakota? John Dietrich: There is no sidewalk on the south side of East Lake Drive at all between Great Plains and Dell Road. Councilman Senn: And this would go all the way down to the western edge of DataServ. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I didn't remember there being one but I like one. Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have one, a motion for the preliminary and final plat. 27 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Motion to approve preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the preliminary plat dated June 4, 1999, and revised June 16th and the final plat dated received July 21st...staffreport. Correction on number 19, page 15 for the amount of the $87,474. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino: And again, just so the applicant knows that does include, and you want it to include 14 with the 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk? Councilman Labatt: Yep. No other... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the preliminary plat dated June 4, 1999, revised on June 16, 1999, and the final plat received July 21, 199, with the following conditions: o o All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall m-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 28 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. o If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. 10. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 11. Cross access and maintenance agreements with the city shall be prepared and recOrded against Lots 1 and 2 for the city The City shall be included in the use for accessing the regional storm water pond. 12. The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to accommodate emergency vehicle access and meet City Ordinance 20-1101. 13. The developer shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lot 4 in the City of Eden Prairie. 14. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Lake Drive East. 15. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence. the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The developer will be responsible for removing the sand deltas in the regional pond and repair the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site. 16. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide over the trunk storm sewer line. The width of the easement through Lots 1-4 needs to be increased to correspond to the depth of the storm sewer. A 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall also be dedicated along the northerly property line of Lot 5. 18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of all street lights along Lake Drive East impacted by this project. 19. The proposed Industrial development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a SWMP fee of $87,474. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 29 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Now for site plan. Can I have a motion for Site Plan Review please. I'll make the motion that the City Council approves Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans (Sheets A 1.1-EC 1.0) dated June 18, 1999 and Sheets C 1-C 13 dated received August 4, 1999, with the following conditions 1 through 26. Second please. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans (Sheets Al.l-ECl.0) dated June 18, 1999 and Sheets C1-C13 dated received August 4, 1999, with the following conditions: If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs for Building A will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building B will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations. Building C will be permitted signs along the north and east and Building D will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. o The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 30 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 o 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Building Official conditions: bo Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. Ea'ch building will require 6 accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. All rooftop and ground mounted equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Southwest Tech Center with Hennepin County. Increase berm height along the north property line to three feet. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. Increase plantings for Lake Drive E. buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements. Revise plant schedule to specify an average of 7 feet for evergreens. Increase parking lot island width to 10 feet or install aeration tubing in islands that are less than that. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. Fire Marshal conditions: II. III. IV. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Install and indicate on plans the location of the P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. VI. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact number and location. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 31 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 15. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with th~ latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and inspections from the City. 17. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any street lights in conflict with the proposed driveway access points along Lake Drive East. 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Drive East or Dell Road. Landscape materials are discouraged within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. 19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. 22. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 23. Cross-access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded against all lots for the utilities and driveways. The City shall be included in the document for accessing the regional storm water pond on Lot 1. 24. Rock construction entrances shall be installed prior to grading and maintained until all disturbed areas are revegetated. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. 25. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. Sidewalks shall be extended from the building to Lake Drive East. 33. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 32 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And the third motion is the vacation motion. I will move that the City Council approve Vacation//99-2 vacating the utility and drainage easements over Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen East Business Center subject to the following conditions 1 and 2. Is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #99-70: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve Vacation #99-2 vacating the utility and drainage easements over Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen East Business Center subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with legal description of the easements proposed to be vacated. 2. The vacation of the easements are contingent upon recording the final plat of Southwest Tech Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Kate Aanenson: There is one other issue and that's actually approval of the construction plan. Anita Benson: Development Contract and Construction Plans. Mayor Mancino: And 8(c). Thank you very much. Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, if I could make a suggestion with the development contract. Make the revision for the appropriate SWMP fees as was approved with the final plat. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I would like to move that we approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications for Southwest Tech Center, Project 99-17 with the amended cost for $87,474. Everybody understand that? Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications for Southwest Tech Center dated July 26, 1999, prepared by RLK-Kuusito, Ltd and the development contract dated August 9, 1999 conditioned upon the following conditions: The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter or credit in the amount of $405,090 and pay an administration fee of $161,697.95. 2. The SWMP fee be revised to read $87,474.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES~ ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR OFFICES A PERMITTED USES AND TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1~ BLOCK 7~ HIDDEN VALLEY~ LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST 33 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 OF HIDDEN COURT~ 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST~ SECOND AND FINAL READING~ FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Cindy Kirchoff: On June 28th the City Council approved the first reading of the rezoning or amendment to the PUD to the Family of Christ Church site. As part of the approval the City Council directed staff to draft a development standards for the site. The standards are essentially the same as those found in the staff report from the last meeting. Basically the standards require any development to maintain the residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods in building and design materials. In conjunction with the development standards staffhas prepared a definition of assisted living facility. It's currently not addressed or defined in the zoning ordinance and that is located in Attachment #2. Also, based upon the discussion that took place at a previous council meeting, staff has amended the definition of a church to include preschools, daycares, and cultural, social and educational programs as ancillary uses. This definition more accurately reflects the operation of a church. These definitions will be reviewed by the, and approved by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Staff does recommend approval of the PUD amendment and the land ues plan amendment to change the guiding from public...to mixed use. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm going to stop for a minute and just clarify a few things so that I understand them. I don't know if anybody else has these questions but I was not here during some of this. Couple, few questions. There has been a first reading and there was a simple majority for rezoning. Okay. And the rezoning included some conditional uses as part of that rezoning and the conditional uses were assisted living facility, office, medium density residential, and institutional. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The church use as existing today as it is would be permitted. Any expansion would require a conditional use. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we first have to say yes to the church the way it is today as permitted and then give really three conditional uses. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Because you have, you want to clear up the office and the medium density residential so it would be three conditional uses. Okay. And Roger for you. There are some design standards here, or development standards. And they are pretty general. I mean when I think of the design standards and how we approve the PUD contract for Villages on the Pond, it was that fact. These are fairly general. When a site plan comes in, or a conditional use to come in on this site, how much more specific can we get than these design standards? Over and above our existing ordinances. Does that make sense? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Good. Roger Knutson: At this point what you're doing is you are drafting legislation. You're creating policy. It's at this point that you have the most discretion to impose the standards which you think are appropriate. When you move on from the legislative, which you're doing now, to the next step which is quasi judicial, you're then applying the existing law to the facts and coming up with an answer. In the conditional use permit process you have reasonable discretion to impose reasonable conditions to take care of any negative impacts you feel associated with the uses that come forward. You don't lack, you lack the discretion then, you have some discretion then. You have a lot more discretion now. 34 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: But we will have some discretion over and above, okay. Roger Knutson: You'll have some limited discretion at the CUP process. You'll have some discretion. But you have more discretion today because you're acting in a legislative capacity. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: So does that mean we need to be as specific as we're going to get? Roger Knutson: You don't need to fill in all the details but if something in particular is extremely impmtant to you. Councilwoman Jansen: Now's the time to do it. Okay. Roger Knutson: This would be an appropriate time to do it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from council members on that? What it all means and so tonight what we're looking at is to approve the final reading for rezoning and development standards and that takes a 4/5 vote, correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: And then does the comprehensive land use plan amendment take a 4/5 also? BOth of them? Roger Knutson: That's correct. It's 2/3 but that's 4/5, correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: So since there is a 4/5 required before we even get to the guidelines, do we vote on the rezoning to confirm a 4/5 before we get down to the specifics or do we jump into the specifics? Roger Knutson: Well you have two things in front of you. You have the rezoning and a reguiding. Those are the two things and the standards you're talking about are part of the PUD. That's part of the planned unit development. Councilman Senn: As part of the zoning. Roger Knutson: Part of the zoning, correct. Mayor Mancino: So you do do the development standards as part of the rezoning? Roger Knutson: That is the rezoning. With the standards you'd be creating. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. One of the things that we had noted in the last meeting when we were discussing assisted living was to specifically word the motion as senior assisted living. So I did want to 35 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 maybe make sure that we address that through the definitions that we're being very specific. At least within that guidance, even though we do note the age once we get into the definitions, it just seems to be better to state it right up front. That we're only considering the senior assisted living. Mayor Mancino: I don't know. I'm 51 and 55 is...senior. I think 55's okay. I don't think... Okay. Before we do that I just want to open this up for a little bit only because everybody has just gotten the conditions, the development standards. Kate Aanenson: We sent that out to everybody and we did send them out last week. The standards with a letter that it was on so they were mailed out. Mayor Mancino: They were mailed out so everybody has it. So let's take a few minutes here if anybody has any comments they'd like to make on some of these development standards. One person speaking for a group, that'd be great. We'll take maybe 15 minutes at most if anybody wants to speak. Councilman Engel: As long as everybody's aware of what these definitions are. It should be part of the record. Mayor Mancino: So Sue, do you have the definitions of the assisted living facility and the church, the attachments to? You've got the whole report? Sue McCarthy: Do I need to state who I am? Sue McCarthy, 8001 Hidden Court, Chanl~assen. No, that wasn't sent out to us. The only thing that we received was Attachment #1 and the City Council agenda. Mayor Mancino: And pardon? Kate Aanenson: They didn't get the definitions. Sue McCarthy: ... so I don't know if you want to hear my questions or comments. Councilman Labatt: Do you want to read the definitions first? Sue McCarthy: Let me sit down. Mayor Mancino: And then you can come up. Anybody else like to come up? Councilman Senn: Can we maybe just discuss some of the definitions ourselves first? Before we create confusion on top of confusion maybe? Mayor Mancino: No I'm not sure, I just thought it was the definition and letting somebody react. Councilman Senn: But you're talking about. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. What we'll do for those people that are here, we'll have a discussion first so somebody keep their ear out for our discussion on these definitions also. Sorry that you did not get t them. Okay, Councilman Senn. You had some questions about definition. Councilman Senn: Well not so much questions about definitions but. 36 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Concerns. Councilman Senn: You know it seems to me we should discuss the definitions and put them in a light that people have something to comment on rather than opening what's here, which none of us may even be in agreement with. So that seems to me we ought to try to frame first what we're talking about and to go from there. Mayor Mancino: Go ahead and start. Councilman Senn: As far as, let's see here. Conditional uses. The assisted living, as Linda mentioned was to be senior and to be clarified as senior. I don't know if there is a legal definition for that. But I mean the one I've generally seen is 55 so I mean unless there's something more specific, 55's probably a better protection than senior, correct? Roger Knutson: Yeah, there are various definitions of senior housing. 55 is probably as conunon as any I've seen. It's 60 and I don't know what the majority is. Between 55 and 60. Councilman Senn: But the age definition is a more fine definition than the word senior by far. Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilman Senn: So defining at 55 would probably be far better. Roger Knutson: 55 as specific senior doesn't, senior means to me someone over. Councilman Senn: Well I'm just saying picking an age let's say. Let's say picking an age. Mayor Mancino: Well you could call it both. You coUld call it senior assisted living and then you have residents shall be 55 years or older. Councilwoman Jansen: And the point I was going to Councilman Senn is on Attachment #2 where we do have the definitions and it does just say assisted living facility, there is no age even listed in there. So that's more where my concern was that it should really read senior assisted. Councihnan Senn: Right, and that's where I was coming to. What I wanted to do was do it in light of the best way to do it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, gotcha. Okay. Councilman Senn: Which means I think it ought to be changed to be senior you know assisted living but to define it by an age. If55's that age, that's fine. Let's use it at 55. Kate Aanenson: I don't mean to, but just for clarification. Because this is a PUD. The way it was drafted is that we left the definition broad. We're amending the definition for the code city wide. If we put in this conditional use in this specific PUD 55 and older. Just so you understand why there's a difference. The definition applies in the city code in the entire city. Definition of assisted living and what went somewhere else. That's why we left it open. In this PUD we specifically said it's 55 or older. Councilman Senn: But we've also specifically defined this as senior assisted living. 37 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: In the conditional use of this PUD. But the definition is inclusive of this. Councilman Senn: Okay. So you're talking about two difference levels Of definition. Kate Aanenson: Cforrect. This is fine tuning that definition. Right. Councilman Senn: Fine tune within this, okay. So in the CUP we fine tune. Mayor Mancino: Let's just talk about CUP. Councilman Senn: CUP would be senior, senior is 55 or older. Okay. I'm really uncomfortable with the maximum of 60 units. The area of units shall be limited to the following blah, blah, blah. I'm sorry. I think we're out of water. It's not our area. It's not our field. We're not a regulatory agency in that area. I really think that should be defined or policed by the regulatory agencies...our criteria or our cap there should be in terms of an overall density on the site. And the one I guess I'd like to use as a standard or at least throw out on the table is given the church square footage and the expanded use of the church office max pretty much is 25,000 square feet. So I'd like to throw 25,000 square feet out as a maximum amount of square footage. You know building square footage on the property. And then again leave it up to those agencies to decide how many units should be able to go within 25,000 square feet or whatever. So you're not intensifying the use in the site beyond what it could now be basically. Okay. On the institutional one there, you know again I don't know since we're going through the exercise again there, it just seemed like maybe we should stick to a maximum of 25,000 so there's no question later as to can we push the envelope or can't we push the envelope. As far as the medium density and office use, the limitation on the office space is 15,000 square feet. The medium density residential, not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre I thought was a little high. I still don't mind the residential transition to a very small office building on the road side but I think trtore important...term residential strip is dealt with and I thought it was simply too high for that and thought it should be pared back to more in the 4 to 6 range or whatever but I mean really open for discussion on that. And last but not least, the other really big key point that I thought we could really resolve up front is the setback. I mean we've always been pretty darn consistent when you have one zone different than another butting up to each other and really kind of making that 50 feet sacred. As green space and stuff and I think we really ought to stick to that and require 50 foot green strip, or green space between the uses, rather than allowing parking or other you know ancillary uses to protrude into that area. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying under street, under setbacks D, parameter lot lines. Office and institutional is 50 and you would go 50 to the medium density residential, and that includes parking? Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So it would not be 30. Councilman Senn: What I'm saying, as far as the area butting the existing residential is 50 feet for anything from this area. Regardless of what the use is. Mayor Mancino: And that includes parking lot. Councilman Senn: Those were just. 38 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Anything with building height? Councilman Senn: The building, well building height to me becomes a limitation of what we just fine under the 25,000 square feet. At least as far as the church use goes and as far as the assisted living goes, okay. It's been defined so to me there was not an issue any more of number of stories or whatever. Councilman Engel: I'm not sure I'm with you on that. You need a 25,000 square foot pad that could be 50 above with two levels if you doubled it effectively or 25 period? 12 ½... Councilman Senn: 25,000 square feet is the same intensity of use that's allowed on the site now under it's current use. Councilman Engel: How do we relate square footage to building heights in other developments? Scott Botcher: I'm not sure how you've done it here but I understand what Mark's saying. It's a fact of construction. Am I correct? Councilman Senn: Yeah, correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay? So there would not, but you would still have a maximum building height? Councilwoman Jansen: Of 40 feet? Councilman Senn: Well} you really don't need one but I mean overall city code still governs that I mean one way or the other. I mean what we put in here can only further. Mayor Mancino: It's a PUD though. Scott Botcher: You don't give it up. Councilman Senn: We don't give it up if we don't mention it, right? (A tape change occurred at this point in the discussion.) Sue McCarthy: ...Minnesota State law said that 80% of the residents must be age 55 or older, which means if you think about that the reverse of that, that's 20% don't have to be. So what are the restrictions on those 20% people that they're not 55? Are they drug rehab? Are they going to be low income? What type of people are going to fit into those smaller units as defined here based on how it is defined today? When you define senior, think about what you mean by senior. If it's 60 then it goes on to say within the law, at least based on what my husband's research was, is that when you define it to be residents 62 years or older, that means 100% of those people who reside there must meet those particular age restrictions. Just something to think about. If you do put it at that lower age, which would affect more people, you're going to have those other 20% housing of what are you going to do with it and I don't know if you can put a restriction on those additional 20% or not. Just something to think about in your. Mayor Mancino: Roger, can we put a restriction to be more restrictive? We can. Roger Knutson: Yeah. 39 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Sue McCarthy: It can be a whole 100%? Mayor Mancino: It can be a whole 100%. Roger Knutson: This says 100%. Sue McCarthy: Even though the law itself says 80% is 55 and the 20% can be something else. You all can say. Councilman Engel: We can go higher in a PUD. Roger Knutson: If it qualifies for senior housing, we can have tighter qualifications. Sue McCarthy: Okay, so that's addressed then. It will be 100% are 55 and older. Mayor Mancino: And I think you'd want people 55 and older. Roger Knutson: I'm just going to point out you might want to consider someone living, a married couple or unmarried couple, one being over 55 and one being under. That's the normal exception. You wouldn't have to have that but right now it's 55. Mayor Mancino: So again, we would make it 100%. Sue McCarthy: Okay. Is there any definition as to the type of medical facilities that are going to be offered? On whether they are going to be, I believe it's Class A license or type of licensing that they are going to have. Is it going to be just hospital? Contracted medical care that's open just for that facility? Is it going to be contracted care that's open for multiple facilities? Is it going to be? Mayor Mancino: Got it. Roger Knutson: The use is assisted living facility. Anything that's there, whether it's a cafeteria, or whether it's a health care provider, will have to be in support of the assisted living facility. It has to be accessory to that use. They couldn't have a clinic open to the public there because this is in support of that facility. Mayor Mancino: Not according to the conditions we would put on it Sue. Sue McCarthy; You can put those conditions on it? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Sue McCarthy: Okay. Just the fact that assisted living is such a vague entity today that they haven't gotten a new licensing in place. I believe it's supposed to come out this month in August. That's why I'm concerned as to what type of medical care because there is no specific until this August licensing. Mayor Mancino: And we can put in here that anything that's on the premises has to just support this facility and cannot go nationwide, global, whatever. 4O City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Sue McCarthy: Whatever, okay. Also I'm concerned about the maximum square footage that Councilman Senn mentioned. It should be the 25,000 feet I think that's been discussed. I'm also concerned about the minimum/maximum unit size. I also did not see Attachment #2 until just now so I think we're a little bit more clearly defining what that would be. Councilman Senn:. What square footage are you concerned about? I said 25,000 square feet max. Sue McCarthy: That's the total. And then also I'm concerned about the individual units. You have studios down at 350. Two bedrooms up to 885. Is that the minimum for a two bedroom or is there going to be? Kate Aanenson: I thought that got wiped out. Sue McCarthy: Well let's talk about that a minute. Because if you do eliminate it totally, does that mean what we have found in talking to people is that if you make the total square footage so small, they turn into nursing home rooms or people can't rent them out. For example a facility in Minnetonka found out that their minimum square footage was about 250 square feet. No one wanted to rent them. They were just too small to even live so what they ended up doing was turning them Over to like office use and so forth. So I'm concerned that we have something in there. I don't want to be too restrictive and I now that 25,000 square feet is important but I also don't want nursing home rooms to come in so just to think about.. You may not say that it's important to have, but think in terms of how are you going to be able to rent these out and what type of square footage and what type of folks do you want living in them? It's going to be their home. You know do you want them to have a 250 square foot to get the most revenue out or do you want them to be in a 350 or 400, etc. I also did not see in here, and maybe I just missed it, the adaptive reuse of the building. The church building. I don't know. I read through this real quickly a couple times and I didn't see it so I just thought that was one of our uses was that we needed to make sure that the church building did have an adaptive reuse. I'm concerned about the height requirement. I believe that the 40 feet or the two story should be included. I think that is important. Not just the fact that it is 25,000 square feet. It is what we have to look at. I agree with the discussion on the fact that the medium density is very high. I was also under the impression that the 4 to 6 units would be a better use of the facility. Of the land. And one thing that I'm seeing all along and I don't see listed is market feasibility. Do we really need assisted living? Do we really need to have medium density housing and office put next to us? Do we need to have an extended church? And so I'd like to see, it would be great to see some wording that a market feasibility study be done by an independent entity before the site plan goes through. Before an actual developer comes in to make sure that it is really needed and that you're not...the land. This is 18 months out I believe and at that point there may be other facilities in town that are better suited or in surrounding towns and there may not be the need for these and I want to make sure that there is some feasibility put into that. That we're not just building or approving it for spot zoning but there truly is a need within Chanhassen for these particular units. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Just so you know Sue, we did get a petition from 200 plus seniors that we do need assisted living. That was in our packet tonight too so I just wanted you to know that. Okay, Jim. Jim Sulerud: Hi. I'm Jim Sulerud with Family of Christ Lutheran Church. Previously our congregation agreed with the staff report and on the, at the last meeting of the council where we were before you. And there was an approval with one dissenting vote for the rezoning and heading towards this second reading. The recommendation at that time included the city's successful determination that for what are the best land uses that are appropriate to this site and the determination that the process was procedurally correct. That is tonight before you. You do not have a recommendation that departs from the city's standards, 41 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 policies or procedures. Tonight the congregation again concurs with the staff report. The details have been gone through at your direction and we're pleased to support the staff recommendation. Our congregation has accepted limitation after one another in order to move forward. We like to say we've compromised and compromised but we've backed down and backed down. We even now in this current proposal accept prior restrictions on what will be future church expansion, either by us or by someone else. That's a backing away from probably where we were before. And as you pointed out Mayor, there were 200 residents, more than 200 residents that supported the assisted living. Earlier tonight you heard about the ongoing need for more office space as well as in some of the documentation that you've received, the need for office space has been illustrated. It's not that we haven't been at this long enough. We've been at this quite a while. It's now time to affirmatively move on. As you drive by Bluff Creek on Highway 5 and it looks out, you can now see a spot dug out for the foundation of our new church. The hole's dug. The parking lot's graded. While the average resident may be here for under 10 years, the congregational institutions are here for hundreds of years, and you have examples of that and the institution of our church will be here well beyond all of us. The time has come to put these considerations, the time we've put into these considerations has been appropriate but it's been expensive. It's been expensive in terms of your time and in terms of our time and certainly the neighbors have invested their considerable efforts as well. We've all been moving towards one thing. That is a solution. What works for the community. Not what works for the private interest of the church. Not what works for the private interest of the neighbors, but what's a good community solution? We started out on that basis some time ago and we've been, the congregation has been in good faith moving in that direction. Since your last recommendation to the staff, we have participated in that timeframe of Putting together and being respectful of the staff and they're putting together these recommendations. We're supporting those recommendations. Not that they would have been what we arrived at. They certainly is, you've heard they're hot what the neighbors, what the one neighbor would have arrived at or two neighbors, but we respect the decision, the process that's happened to arrive at these. If we are to enter into a further delineation of those, I think it's appropriate that we again involve the whole cormrtunity of discussion because the move towards 25,000 square feet of quite changed uses from church use as a ballpark applying that same parameter to the assisted living, we're talking about apples and oranges. We ought to have a fruitful discussion with you on that. We think the staff discussion has been, or the staff input on that is appropriate towards your solution. I've lived in this community for 25 years and my family and I over the years, these years have woven ourselves into the fabric of this community and we like you are people who build the value and the strength of this community. Each of our 1,000 congregation members are a part of that building of the strength and fabric of this community and we are creating the next Chanhassen Centennial quilt. We're ready to move forward. We think the staff recommendation is right on without regard and being respectful Councilman Senn to your concerns, we think that the staff has put in plenty of time on this. We've put in plenty of time. We think we're right on on these recommendations. If we don't have, if we depart from these or we don't have, if we have some further limitation, it's incumbent upon the congregation to keep at this. It isn't just well thank you and we're gone. It's going to be time and effort on into the future and we'll do that. Do that diligently and respectfully but we ask that you respectfully consider the letter of the recommendations that have been put down by the staff. Thanks. We have some further more technical input if we want to get into those discussions and departures from the recommendations. We have people here who are professional in the assisted living area and in the office area. I mean in the residential area as to what is really a solution. If we get backed into a situation where we have non-solutions, in other words non-sales, we don't have a church that's standing up ready to buy. You don't see a congregation here saying here we are with the money. If we don't have that situation, we've got to keep at this. We've appreciated your efforts in the past to work with us towards a solution and we think the staff's been right on the last two times. Thank you. 42 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Jim. Well philosophically, let me speak for a few minutes because I haven't spoken at all on this. Being on the Planning Commission for four years, my philosophy and one that I've certainly given to you and the Pastor has been that Chanhassen does a wonderful job of planning. We're proactive and we've got a comprehensive plan. We've got a great planning department. And we have our master plan. People come in, whether it's businesses. Whether it's residents. Whoever comes in-and makes an investment in our community, they come in and they check at City Hall and they say hey, what's going to go around me. Do I want to live here? Do I not want to live here? Do I want to live in a different subdivision? You know what does the City have planned and we in good faith as planners, as council members, want to be real upfront with everyOne and show them what we're planning for our community. So I have often said sure, if I think things should be changed, there are reasons to change things but it's going to take a lot to convince me to do that. Because I am so much in support of our comprehensive planning. And the thought and the time that we put forward for it. So for me this particular rezoning, it's important for me to see and to know that, I mean usually when we rezone we have someone with a site plan that comes forward and shows us what they want to put there. Whether it was a car dealership where we worked for a year and a half with Villages on the Ponds to do that rezoning. So we've put a lot of time and effort into it and we want everybody to know and we want to listen to all the parties and we also want to put some good parameters around it so that we know what's going to happen, and again so that those people who are coming in our community know that. And I just think that that's the most important thing we do. And that we communicate it. So Jim just kind of to answer the design standards. I think that they do need, I agree with Councilman Senn. I think that they do need some good parameters so we understand how it would be rezoned. How it affects an established neighborhood that has been there for years, and how it will also help the church in having some supportive, different zoning options for your selling. And I think that we owe it to both sides so those are my thoughts on that. With that, let's go back to the rezoning and the design standards. Councihnan Senn has talked about it. Councilman Labatt. Do you want to add.* And please talk a little bit about, and then you will be able to respond. To what Councilman Senn said about putting some of those square footage on, etc. Jim Sulerud: I didn't mean to say by this, while I'm whole heartedly in support of the staff recommendations to the letter, I don't mean to put you in a bind to say well it's all or nothing. Black or white. You know. We don't want to hear from you. I think this has been a process of interchange and conununication back and forth and if we need that time, you know this may not be the forum to do that. We're certainly, I mean as I said before, we're in this for the long term. And however best we can inform you of our needs and we can respond to your needs, that's what we're here for and that's what we've been endeavoring to do. Maybe we haven't hit the accident of this evening to do that so it's not a pressure thing and you wouldn't take it as that anyway so. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for that clarification. Councilman Labatt: Just start out with the, I'll kind of back track here. I agree with the setbacks that Mark has proposed. Mayor Mancino: You can't start on the second page. Councilman Labatt: Yes I am. And the, I always thought. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we're on page 2. 43 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Labatt: I thought 8 was always a little much to put in right there and 4 to 6 might be a better, or would be a better mix quite frankly. To get into the height restrictions and the square footage, I'm very supportive of the senior assisted living. I read the petition from the seniors and I think there's a big need for it. But I just wonder if limiting it to 25,000 square feet is going to make that building so small and obsolete that nobody's going to come there. In looking at the plans here on Attachment #2, in the space allocation analysis for assisted living, pretty much spells it out. I mean if you put a 25,000 square foot building and you plop down a second level onto it, what would that give you for a total height? Kate Aanenson: The current church building's about 21 so I'm assuming that they might need 26. Councilman Engel: Say that again Kate. Kate Aanenson: You could stay under 30 certainly. Make it two stories and keep it at 30 but I don't, the current church is 21. Councilman Engel: Maybe add 9 feet to do a two story. Conceptually. Mayor Mancino: The current church is 21,000 square feet with one story. Kate Aanenson: Right, but it's got the pitch and the. Councilman Labatt: Right. And the church with all their expansions maxed out is going to be 25,000 square feet. If I heard Mark right. Cindy Kirchoff: That was the original intent. Councilman Labatt: So, as I look at it in this analysis here providing all the resident areas, office administration, assisted living. Granted I mean you know I don't know whether we're 60 units, that's pretty well maxed. Mayor Mancino: In Centennial Hill right now there are 65 units and that takes up 50,000 square feet. And that, 65 units at Centennial Hill and that takes up 50,000 square feet and that is three story and four story in areas or is that just three story? Centennial Hill. Kate Aanenson: It's actually 80,000 square feet. Cindy Kirchoff: Yeah, it's 80,000 square feet. Mayor Mancino: Oh I'm sorry, 80,000 square feet. Thank you. Councilman Engel: And how many stories? Mayor Mancino: 3 ½. Councilman Senn: 3 ½. Councilman Labatt: That includes a garage underneath. 44 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: Underground parking. Cindy Kirchoff: That's 44 feet in height. Mayor Mancino: So 3 ½ stories, 65 units. Just wait a minute. First of all let's talk and then we will. Councilman Labatt: So that's one of my concerns is by saying well senior assisted living can only be 25,000 square feet, that might net you out only 15 to 22 units. I don't know. Which is one of my concerns. In the conditions here under the square footage size, I agree with Mrs. McCarthy. That I think we need something in here. Some sort of parameter. You know a 350 square feet unit we're going to build here because we don't want to have these people living in closets. And with the, and I know there's a deviation here from the State's allocation analysis, Attachment #3. For a studio to be 452 square feet, and that was penciled in here at 350 and the question popped up as who made that deviation and all the rationale for it? That's all I have for right now. I'll wait.. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. Councilman Engel: My history is, I don't find too many areas where there's gray when it times to make decisions. I tend to find black and whites all the time but some gray area in this one I will admit. I think there is a middle ground we can find that keeps both sides relativelY happy. The one concern I have with what's been mentioned so far is the same as Steve has. I think the 25,000 square feet might make it just too unfeasible for any of these options and I'm not sure. I'd like to see it more based on rather than the square footage there, the height of the building that you see from those back yards. If you could limit the heights and whether there's one or two there, I don't know. I wouldn't matter to me if it was my property. What would bother me is if all of a sudden I had one here and now I've got one twice as big. That would bother me so I would like to see us focus more on the sight line and the height rather than the square footage covered. And I guess it's a little redundant to what Steve's saying but I want to point out really my only concern. The other thing, I am in support of the 4 to 6 units in the residential. That seems reasonable there and the setbacks. I'm fine with that as well. I'm really concerned about putting a square footage limit. I don't know that there might be no way to do it. I don't know with the site plan. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess just in general I'm uncomfortable approving changes as significant as these without a site plan, and I know everyone's pretty well echoed it. But I'm continuing to be concerned that we're potentially approving something under guidelines that it's really going to surprise us when it comes in and it fits the guidelines and it wasn't at all what we thought it was going to be. With that said, to Mark's points and what everybody's been commenting on, I'm again in favor of having this site at least develop out to what was anticipated, and it was the 25,000 square feet of the maximum church expansion. So if that then means that assisted living can't be built on this particular site, it leads me to believe that again we're doing the cart before the horse routine. We don't even know if this is feasible on this site. We haven't done a feasibility study. No one has come in and said it fits within the 25,000 square feet so what have we accomplished if we approve that within the rezoning? And I guess that's what strikes me. I want to keep it to the 25,000 square feet but I am hearing that we could be making it impossible to build an assisted living facility there. It sounds like there are issues where we do need to maybe address more of the specifics. One of the things that Sue McCarthy mentioned, that anything that is on the property would be supporting this facility. Not being used externally. You know I go back and forth between the 55 and the 62 but making sure that we have specifically said it's 100% senior. That we're not allowing any latitude outside of that other than maybe a husband or wife. 45 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 However you term that. And definitely what Councilman Senn spoke to as far as the medium density residential. Having that be more the 4 to 6, and I don't know if we need to be more specific than saying 4 to 6. I'm fine with a range on that. And as far as the height of the building, again we're back to what was anticipated on that site and I don't really want to go beyond thatl And I really appreciated Councilman Senn saying same as what is there now. That is what would be compatible with what is being anticipated, and I know one of the things that keeps being mentioned is reaching a compromise and I certainly can appreciate the position that the church is in and I am not being, or I'm trying not to appear insensitive to that. I realize what the situation is but when you put yourself up at the Council table and you're charged with what is in the best interest of the entire community. Whether we have compelling reasons to be changing the comp plan, I have trouble addressing what we have in front of us and saying that this is giving us compelling reasons to make these changes and compelling reasons to be changing a comp plan. I can appreciate that there is a hardship here and the church is in a difficult position. But we're venturing out and we're setting up development standards that apply to an unknown at this point. And I don't feel like there's enough control. It just, it doesn't feel like there's enough control over something as complicated as assisted living. And all the variables that have been shared with us as to what that encompasses. But you know those thoughts said, you know and adding to that, making sure that we're specifically saying that we're looking for the adaptive re-use of the building. Can it be read into this that somebody could wipe the building out and start over if we haven't said that it's a re-use of the building. Because aren't we saying that the church building would still stand? That they would actually be re, there would be re-use of that building? (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Brad Johnson: ...taken the time to go to an architect to lay this out...They do that. I mean that's their company's business. We're just trying to sell the property. We can sell the property as a 60 unit assisted living. We can sell the property... The church isn't going to relocate for a year and a half so it's difficult to have a full design in here, you know somebody willing to put the money up front to design a facility. We felt comfortable as Jim said with the design. We thought we provided the information that's necessary... I don't know what your standard coverage in a commercial-residential, 70%? 65% impervious surface. Remember assisted living probably needs at the most 40 parking spots. You know these people don't drive. So that's just, you know we think we're comfortable we can do this. Now to answer the question about design. Okay, because I know you're not used to zoning things in a neighborhood like this. If I could figure out how to just go and design the assisted living and put it in there, that's about a $25,000 cost. Here's your assisted living. Is that what you're looking for or $25,000 worth of... Mayor Mancino: No. No. Here's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for personally, and anyone else can step up. Taking 60 units. Brad Johnson: Here's 60 units. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. Impervious surface of 65%. Just a minute. Setbacks of 50 from that east side. 50 from the south side. Parking. Brad Johnson: The parking, now what's our setback. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute Brad. To have staff draw us up to show what that, how big that is. What is that. For us to see. I don't know if that's 50 feet setbacks, etc so taking the actual measurements of 46 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 some of the things that we're talking about and putting it on a piece 0fpaper and showing us what kind of footprint that would be, etc, one would be very helpful for me. I don't know if that would help other. Councilman Engel: I was just doing some math here on the assumptions of 43,000...85,000 square feet is 65% of that lot. Mayor Mancino: So Brad we're just going one step a little further so we can see it visually so that these aren't just numbers in our head. That we can actually see something. So do a drawing and also have the setbacks. Brad Johnson: ... Mayor Mancino: Maybe, maybe not. Brad Johnson: That means that you look at all your... These are all at about 35 feet... We don't have the architects here because these plans have been sitting around City Hall now for three months. The question is is, we could do all that. I don't know how you make an ordinance like that, and maybe the solution only is, I'm looking for an alternate solution. That it's a conditional use subject to site plan approval. That's what we're talking about, isn't it? Yeah. Mayor Mancino: We want to get some broad design standards up front so. Brad Johnson: When you say design standards, are you saying. Mayor Mancino: Development standards just like we have here. Brad Johnson: ...before the zoning. Materials? ...look of the building's going to be like? I mean I'm just asking the questions because I'm trying to figure out the solution here. Mayor Mancino: Brad where we're going for is the development standards we want to add to them. Make them more specific, okay? That's what we've all talked about. Brad Johnson: That's always a two way discussion, right? The developer and the staff. Mayor Mancino: And the City Council, yes. Brad Johnson: I don't know if you're qualified to do that kind of stuff. I'm not. Mayor Mancino: We're giving direction on how we would like to see them change to staff. Brad Johnson: And then we have to get input from. Mayor Mancino: Staff will meet with you. Brad Johnson: My only concern on this, I'd love to sell it as a church or get that part done. We haven't done it. The thing is marketable as you've seen here with minor modifications...so if you add development standards to make it impossible to build it, that's why you always have to have somebody around looking at costs. Second thing is for your own information...so I don't know how we accomplish that tonight. What we'd like to see, and I think what Jim was saying is, the staff, we work out those. 47 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 You guys read them prior to the meeting, like two weeks in advance and then we don't have to go through this discussion. Mayor Mancino: We need to give guidance to our staff about what we will and won't pass as a legislative body. Brad Johnson: I understand. Mayor Mancino: So that's what we're here for. Brad Johnson: Okay. I thought the staff made the recommendation, Mayor Mancino: They do make recommendations and it's for us to say yeah or nay and if we would like them changed. Brad Johnson: So I would suggest then you table this issue. Mayor Mancino: Going back to the development standards, what I would like to see and I would like other council members to add to this is number one, that we give some guidelines to staff on some development standards that you would put down that we would like changed or maybe added to so that we have a better feeling and comfort zone for a rezoning. And of those number one would be the assisted living facility. Let's talk about each one of them. Take them at a time. Number one. With the setbacks, with the impervious surface, with the 60 units, a visual of what that looks like. It's a box. Nothing architecturally done. You know with the 50 foot setbacks and not the 30, but the 50 foot setbacks, what that looks like. Councilman Engel: ...of that drawing for lack of any other specific plan? Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Councilman Engel: Do you want to focus them towards that drawing since we lack any other specific plan? Mayor Mancino: Sure, you can use that. Councilman Engel: Use it as a baseline. Mayor Mancino: Use that as a baseline. And anyone else if you have suggestions as we go along. Secondly on, and then show us a comparison if we did do a 25 square foot, limit it to 25 square feet. How many units could go in it? What that looks like. Councilman Engel: You mean 25,000 square feet for the building? Mayor Mancino: 25,000 square feet. Councilman Labatt: One unit? Councilwoman Jansen: One person. 48 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Can you get 20 units to 22 units? Institutional. Again whether there should be a limit as far as square footage on that one. What that should be. Office. Professional and business office, non retail activity. Development shall be limited to 15,000 square feet of office space. Must be developed in conjunction with medium density residential. I think that we would like to see with the medium density residential more the 4 to 6. And again with the 50 foot setbacks, and just for the record and again I have said this from the very, very beginning of this project when I met with the applicant. I have not been in favor of office use on this particular lot. On this particular plot of land. I think that the street, the Lake Drive East is the buffer that segregates the residential and the residential feel on the south side from the more commercial feel on the north side. So, but if other councilmembers would like to see that. And I think the residential medium density that the council would like to see what 4 to 6 dwelling units would look like on that Kate, again with the 50 foot setbacks. And also the building height limited to the 40 feet. Any other? The only other concern that I heard that would need to be under senior assisted living that I think all council members agree with is that we do limit the medical or any of the on site facilities. Kate Aanenson: We came up with a definition on that which we'll work on. Something to the effect that any use has to be ancillary. What language we came up with. Any ancillary uses shall be directly related to the assisted living and it's...people that are living there. Tenants or residents or something like that. And again in that definition we try to clarify things that are commonly associated with that type of facility. Kind of limiting that. Concerns about those uses or narrowing or broadening that definition. Whether it's from the council or the residents. Or the applicant. We'd like to hear those and then we can modify that definition. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other conditions? Revised development standards. Scott Botcher: Kate I assume we have the technical ability to do that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. What we were thinking about doing is just show a buildable area based on impervious surface and parking ratios. Kind of a core area so... Mayor Mancino: Did you take also into note the transition that's already there between residential and commercial is R-4 which are the twin homes? And they have those on Erie. That abut at the eastern side of Erie. Those first 4 or 5 are twin homes, and I think that that is a good way the transition and that has been used very well from the beginning. Kate Aanenson: Sure, we'll show the buildable area and the residential and then the different products that can go on, and our ordinance doesn't...whatever the market is at that time but you certainly could... Councilman Senn: Based on what I thought you were asking for, I think was just contradicted by what Scott asked and Kate responded. Scott Botcher: No, I don't think so. Councilman Senn: Well, I thought you were asking for something to come back and show us the mass of a 50,000 square feet building on that site. Kate Aanenson: We can do that. Show the buildable area and what it would look like. How big to get 60 units. How many stories it would need to be to fit within that building envelope. 49 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: The mass. You'll show us the mass of the building. So you'll show us a drawing basically that will show us from the different angles and sides what you will view a 50,000 square feet building on that site, is that right? Kate Aanenson: I'll show you footprints. I'm not going to show you an architectural. Councilman Senn: That's the contradiction right there, and you know I think what we need to get, or at least maybe you don't but I need to get comfortable with a 50,000 square feet building on that site. Because that's what you're talking about if you want... Mayor Mancino: Because the mass is very different in the neighborhood, yeah. Councilman Senn: Well you're talking 60 units. You're coming back to that and 60 units right there in black and white, we had it before tonight means a 50,000 square feet building on that site abutting that neighborhood. In my mind I can visualize that very easy. But that's my business. Okay, and that's going to be a big monolith of a building sitting next to that residential neighborhood. Councilman Engel: I'd like to propose something different rather than focusing on a monolithic building. How about we stick with the, not stick with, consider the existing requirements of the 65% impervious surface on that site with say the existing height requirements of 26 feet and see if that can suffice for the options rather than going to specifics on all these things. 65% of the surface, what are your options at those height limits? And open it up a little bit. Kate Aanenson: We can certainly show you different renderings of different buildings. We're not architects. We can do that. I mean you can have them do a photo composite based on what they've got there. I'm not sure again. Councilman Engel: I say a lot of it's going to be conjecture. But if we try 65% of the space, we're already on record as saying that's... Scott Botcher: What does it look like? Councilman Engel: Let's see what we've got for options and if you keep that height restriction in, what can we do? Brad Johnson: You get the flat roof. Councilman Engel: I don't know Brad. I don't know. I'm not a designer. I mean if you want to start going down the specifics lane, I think that's where we're getting in trouble. Everybody's butting in. Councilman Labatt: That bottom picture there, is that the assisted living you proposed? Brad Johnson: That's a 60,000 square feet, Councilman Labatt: 60,000? Brad Johnson: Yeah. This is the proposal...65% impervious surface and 50 feet setbacks all around. Mayor Mancino: And it uses adaptive re-use. 50 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Brad Johnson: One of the key elements here is what can I do with the adaptive re-use? Okay. We said well the church fits nicely as an office. As a church and potentially is a core for assisted living. That's where this came from.., so I was just saying that was the idea. Mayor Mancino: So we can use that. Brad Johnson: Yeah. Now we can have her work with the guy that did this. It doesn't take long for these guys to do it...so we could reset this and either come back with an actual design for these units... Councilman Labatt: Why don't you base it off of 4 to 6 per acre. Brad Johnson: Let's what I said... Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's what we'd like to see and see if we can see some massing. Brad Johnson: ...three stories will look different. We want to keep it low so they wouldn't see it. Councilman Labatt: What is that, how many stories in the bottom rendering? Brad Johnson: Two. Councihnan Engel: Which is within limits. Brad Johnson: I think this is pretty, you know if you had flat roofs... Councilman Engel: We might want pitch, I don't know. Brad Johnson: 10, 12 feet per floor minimum. Okay... Councilman Engel: Do we need a motion? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Mayor before you make a motion, maybe perhaps you could ask the applicant if he'd grant us an extension of time in which to complete our review of his application. Jim Sulerud: Is the same as asking for tabling or is that just for an extension? Roger Knutson: We're asking you to grant an extension of time in whichthe city can complete their review so they can table it. Otherwise they would have to act tonight. Jim Sulerud: Our request is for that extension of time and we would be pleased to work with staff with your input towards a solution. Roger Knutson: Can we have a time on that? 60 days. 30 days. How long do we reasonably need? Mayor Mancino: Let's ask staff. Let's try to do it in 30 days. 51 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: 30 days is fine. Mayor Mancino: 30 days okay with you Jim? Jim Sulerud: 30 days. Otherwise we're back on and then okay. Brad Johnson: If you could write down what everybody said and then we can give it to an architect and have him lay out. Kate Aanenson: You've got it. Councilman Engel: I think they've been taking dubious notes here. Roger Knutson: You've got it verbatim. Sue McCarthy: ... Mayor Mancino: Let's get it all out because this is it. Sue McCarthy: We've talked about 60 units and when you calculate space for 25,000 square feet and you try to calculate 60 units, that's not really what we should be thinking of totally. We also need to make sure that when we talk about total square footage, we also take into account common areas. So while 60 units fitting into 25,000 square feet, it should be 60 units plus. Councilman Senn: Nobody has proposed that. Sue McCarthy: Wait a minute. I'm hearing. That's why I wanted to make sure. Councilman Labatt: If you put 25,000 square feet, we're not going to put 60 units in there. There's no way to do it. Sue McCarthy: But what I heard you all say you want to put together a footprint with 65% impervious and how many. Mayor Mancino: It includes everything. Sue McCarthy: And that includes the common areas...25 to 40%. I did not hear that. That's why I wanted to clarify that. Mayor Mancino: Good. I'm glad you asked. I have no problem with that. But the footprint Sue will include everything that would go into a senior assisted care facility. Everything. All the bathrooms. Everything. Please include. Steve Norness: Hi, I'm Steve Norness. My day job is I work in the health care field and I manage a program called Friendship Village of Bloomington and maybe I can give clarity regarding some of the things stated this evening. And I think some of the things we're working on is the unknown. Assisted living is designed as a non regulated industry to create flexibility for a developer to put in what the consumer wishes. Current health care designs today, if you're in a...skilled nursing home, there are set regulations. There are statutes out and furthermore there's a moratorium so you cannot build additional 52 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 skilled nursing beds. The industry today is talking about the housing Maja organization moved forward an act called Housing with Service. The primary core of that is you develop a relationship with the residents. As any other business would do as you develop what services you're going to provide and there's a contractual relationship. There is no government regarding what square footage. It's market driven so a developer coming in would put something that is market focused. I manage an independent living and to give you an example, my grandmother who lives there and she's in our studio and she's in a place that's 436 square feet which includes a kitchenette, a bedroom and that is a market nitch that certain people wish to have. And as we work through these things I would somewhat be careful of managing what has to be in there. What's common space because you're getting into an area that the consumer needs to be driving that and we know what the consumers out there so we can assist staff but ' really I think the core issue is the density on the property is what we're ta!king about. One of the things, just the 25,000 square feet or the 21,000 square feet was a preliminary plan that was put out and it's driven by parking. How large a sanctuary it's going to be is how many people will sit in it and how many teachers are going to be. There wasn't much detail to that except that was a number that was picked out picking how big the sanctuary would be one day so we're in support of going back and looking at it. We're in support of developing some options. One other thing. The home care rule regulations which are quoted, assisted living provider, if they're going to provide more services than just food and shelter and housing and recreation and if they're going to bring in any medical care, they license with a home care provider and what's happening, these are really home care rules. And it's a Class A license here. If you're providing home care. So either a provider would subcontract with either Fairview or Methodist to come in and provide additional services. The impetus is to get people living longer, independent in these types of settings. What's being discussed is that providers can do a modified home care agreement in which the service is only to that population and it makes it easier so what we're avoiding is the rules and regulations of charting and having someone come in and do the surveying so it's a modified agreement which does not extend, making the program community based. It's to that primary market group and those are the rules that are being reviewed and so just a little clarity on that. Any questions? Mayor Mancino: No. I have a father in law and we're going through looking for assisted living facility right now. Two bedrooms. Do you want to make a motion? Councilman Engel: Move to table. Mayor Mancino: Second that. Any questions from staffor anyone else on clarification? Councilman Engel moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to table the the second and final reading for a request for an amendment to the Hidden Valley PUD to allow church facilities, assisted living facility or office as permitted uses, and to incorporate specific design parameters for future development of Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: So guess what everyone, we.get to see you and you get to see us yet again.. The process goes on and thank you all for coming tonight. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Scott Botcher: Okay, let's roll. I'm sorry, a couple things. One, I did respond to Mr. Finger. The gentleman who talked about the lighting and the siren and the berming at Bandimere Park. Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. 53 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Scott Botcher: Okay. I did send him a complete packet because I gave the grading plan. I gave him the landscape plan. There's some misunderstanding on his part. I explained to him that if he wishes to have the sirens moved, he needs to make that request of the city. I think Todd you said we're talking about two grand to move that siren. Mayor Mancino: $1,400. Scott Botcher: Something like that. Yeah to move the siren and I said if you wish to have the council consider that, he needed to make that request. He has not yet done so but we need to get a response to him. I got a letter in the mail today, and I don't know Nancy, you may have gotten this as well. On the Youth Commission. At some point District 112 is requesting the City of Chanhassen to appoint one adult member to a District 112 Youth Commission for a two year term. So if there's anything I need to do for that, you guys all need to give me some direction. Mayor Mancino: Well I want to know who represents our community as a youth on that youth commission. Councilman Send: Well there's been an adult... Mayor Mancino: Well if there needs to be, could you find that out? Scott Botcher: I'll have to ask. Mayor Mancino: I don't think we have a youth, let alone an adult. Can I 'go back to your first one, only because Mr. Klein came also that night and asked about the berm and he was, he has not been contacted. And part of our recommendation was that he and staff and Lundgren figure out the berm. So if you could call Mr. Klein and follow up on that, appreciate it. Scott Botcher: Yep. Mayor Mancino: I talked to him on Sunday I think it was to ask to do a follow-up. Scott Botcher: We saw him outside the other day too didn't we Todd. Over by his place... What else do we have? And I don't know if you guys needs to approve this or not. I don't think so but I want to make sure that it's on the record that the Chamber of Commerce has asked that I become an exofficio member of their Board of Directors and I have accepted that. If you guys have a problem with that, then tell me and I can play basketball on Wednesday instead of go to the meeting. That's all I got. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION: Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions on Admin Section? Councilman Senn: On Carver County HRA issue. With the purchasing of the houses and stuff. Once Carver County identifies a site, could we please set up a process to notify people within the area what the site is so they know it's going there. And if there's comment, have an avenue for comment. Rather than have them come in after the fact and say gee you fooled us on this one guys. 54 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Scott Botcher: Now they, and Todd correct me if I'm wrong. We had a couple of phone conversations with this guy and this letter is actually the second, because we had the same concern as to we don't know where you're going. The neighbors don't know where you're going. He does run a public notice and that's published in the legal newspapers in whatever community they're going into. Did he say because I don't remember Todd honestly if he mailed notices to neighbors or not. We can ask them to do that. Mayor Mancino: The letter to the editor only, it was very general. It didn't say where and so if you found the Carver County HRA was going to buy 20 homes, you wouldn't know where in Chanhassen. Councilman Senn: Especially when it said single family condos and townhomes. Scott Botcher: Yeah, they ran a public notice and then they ran that lette~ to the editor. Those are the two efforts to communicate on their part. Councilman Senn: We really need to kind of break it down more and notify the immediate areas and let people know. Councilman Engel: I had a question on that. Regardless of what they come in and say, what power does this council have to affect Carver County HRA? Scott Botcher: From my understanding little or none. Councilman Engel: That's what I'm afraid. I know I'm wanting that...the impression that hey, we don't like our taxes. You guys can knock them down. We all know that doesn't work. I want them to know we're under the same limitations when we let them know about this. Councilman Senn: Well you have to go from two standpoints. One is yeah, I mean if you technically go at it, they can do whatever they want and they don't have to talk to us. Councilman Engel: Yep. Councihnan Senn: Technically. Okay, but at the same time they are also on record when they started this program out, and many of you weren't even on the council at the time, they came in and stated up front that they won't do anything in Chanhassen without our approving it. Okay, you know the whole deal was they came in and asked us number one...a couple years ago when Julie Frick and that other person came in and they set out. We met out at the public works building. Councilman Engel: I remember it. Councilman Senn: And they said very deliberately that here's kind of what we had in mind for a show and the program. What we want to do. We said we had some issues and concerns on it and they said fine but you'll get to approve anything before we do it. Scott Botcher: I will, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll send them a letter saying that this council... Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m. 55 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 56 .f CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 1999 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 35~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED ON LOT C BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD)~ BOEDECKER COMPANY~ AMCON CONSTRUCTION~ LLC. Public Present: Name Address Susan & Bob Mortenson Mike Salvador John Mueller Dennis Cornelius Mark Huus 3944 Enchanted Lane, Minnetrista 2086 Majestic Way 2078 Schefter, St. Paul 200 W Hwy 13, Burnsville 200 W Hwy 13, Burnsville Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Are there any questions for Sharmin? Aanenson: I believe the applicant did do some cross sections and as you have other questions, they've provided some additional information and we did have the renderings sent out to you in time frame but they do have, if you want to go through the site plan in more detail, they do have that. Joyce: ... Aanenson: Set that right up on the table. Mark Huus: Good evening. My name is Mark Huus with Amcon, the architect on the project. You are fairly familiar with the project so I'll be brief and just run through the changes we've Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 made since our last meeting. As Sharmin indicated we have increased landscaping in the rear of the building, along the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure itself is an addition as well. We've increased landScaping buffer from the north property line by 5 feet. And we've also added additional landscaping along the building at the back wall. As you remember from last time, the front of the building faces the intersection of Lake Drive and Audubon Road and we feel the actual front of the building is that southerly elevation, due to the fact that there's a large berm along Audubon Road and a good share of the building is hidden from Audubon Road as you're traveling south. If you're traveling north on Audubon Road your first view would be from the intersection. The berm as well, we have kept in place and will continue around the comer and the berm is back by a large retaining wall. Not large in height but long in length that continues along the easterly side of the parking lot. And then we've undulated it into the entry area where we've created a plaza, and that is nearly as it was last time although we've changed the retaining wall slightly for the addition of a fire hydrant. The patio we discussed along the Audubon side will be nearly invisible from Audubon Road. We have prepared sight sections. The first section labeled Section A is cut at the very north end of the building, through the patio and on through Audubon Road. And that shows the berm and those sight lines that you'd see from Audubon Road. Second Section B is cut just a little bit further down Audubon Road where the building's the closest to the road. The berm is approximately the same height all the way along Audubon. And again you can see that the berm will obscure all but about the top 2/3 of the building as you're driving south along Audubon. Section C is actually a diagonal cut from' the entry area, through the parking and to about the comer of the site. Again the berm along the side that tums the comer will obscure views of the parking lot from Audubon and then around the comer on Lake Drive West. The materials on the building. We have a precast panel. Architectural precast panel with exposed aggregate and a ribbed texture. The red that you see is metal panels and they have 2 x 2 horizontal reveals. The white metal that you see on the red, that's also a metal panel. And that continues from the front entry across the two other entries and to the comer element that we've added. The glass will be bronze tinted glass. We have brick accents below the windows and the, oh the brick accents below the windows are also capped by cast stone sill. In response to staff recommendations we've also, we've added the corner element with the metal panels above and that will be a comer window that wraps around the comer 8 feet either side. That will also have the brick and some cast stone sills. We've recessed the tenant entry and built the canopy over that entry. We've also added a section of metal panels above the entry at about the other third point on the building. And then we've also added the light colored accent to tie all these metal panel pieces together along the entry. That's all I have and I'd be happy to answer questions of any of you. Sidney: Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I had a couple questions. Is there going to be any lighting on the outside walls of the building? Mark Huus: There will be at the dock area. To light the docks. On the front of the building the lighting will occur in the two islands. Sidney: Okay. Mark Huus: With pole mount lighting. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Audience: And right at the entrance... Sidney: Yeah, I was concerned about anything that might be able to be viewed from the neighborhood across Audubon. It doesn't sound like you're having. Mark Huus: I believe we have to submit a photometric and we'll make sure that that doesn't happen. Sidney: And one more quick question about materials for the trash enclosure. What is that going to be made out oP. Mark Huus: Well the trash enclosure will also be precast to match the building with the ribbed texture and exposed aggregate. And then we'll have sound steel gates. Joyce: Anyone else with questions? I wasn't here for the last meeting, and maybe you went over this but the parking requirements, you're going to be 50% more... Mark Huus: Well the parking as provided is per Boedeckers requirements and I realize we're above and beyond the city's requirements. Joyce: What's the reasoning? Office? Mark Huus: Well yeah, they're fairly intensive in their office use in this building. So it's a more intensive use than a typical office warehouse. Joyce: Kate I was just looking, because there was a mention about recovery of service and I was just wondering why... Aanenson: Right. I guess on this circumstance you go with what the tenant that's going in there as they explained. They have more engineering office component. The impervious surface number we balance as part of the PUD. Joyce: No, I understand that. ! don't have a problem with it. seemed like a lot more parking. I guess it's more of a question. It Aanenson: And also they're doing some leasing until they expand and fill up the rest of the building so it gives them the flexibility that they want for tenant mix. Joyce: The only reason I'm just pointing it out because... Thanks very much. We should open this up for a public hearing. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: This item is open for a public hearing. If anyone wants to address the commission at this point. Seeing no one, I guess we're voting to close the public hearing. Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: I'll bring it back to the commission. One quick question. Do you have to clean this up? It seemed to be... Should we be aware of that before we make the motion? Aanenson: As far as the fact that they've been revised? Joyce: Right. Aanenson: The strike outs? Joyce: Right. Aanenson: I would just say, if you want to make your motion as revised or as stated in the staff report. Joyce: Okay we don't, item number 2 was really a duplicate so we can strike that. Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. Kind: I have a question for staff. Are you comfortable that the exposed aggregate meets the higher architectural plan or concept that we had for the entrance? Al-Jarl: It's one of the materials that are permitted within the PUD. And our main concern was the articulation and the design of the building and we feel that they have definitely improved the design. Joyce: ...the project itself?. Kind: I think it's a good project. My only concern is the material being used is not my favorite. I understand that it meets the requirements but I would support it because they do meet the requirement. And I do appreciate their effort in improving the architectural look of the plan. And the color rendering helps a lot. My only comment. Burton: I would just add that I think that the staff and the applicant both did a good job in cleaning this up and making this presentation and I think it looks really good. Joyce: Yeah, I'll echo that...I think it's a lot easier...appreciate you going through the process of tabling this thing and can we have a motion? Burton: Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 18, 1999 and subject to conditions 1 through 18 as amended in our packet. Joyce: Alright, can I get a second on that please. Kind: Second. Joyce: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 18, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained at all access points until the Class 5 gravel has been installed. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater calculations for a 1 O-year, 24- hour storm event using the rational method for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall incorporate more green space in the northerly parking lot adjacent the building between loading docks. 4. Existing trees planted by City and developer will remain on site, be incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan and replaced by the developer if they are damaged by construction. o The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet buffer yard minimum requirements, boulevard tree minimum requirements, and to meet parking lot tree minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan will be submitted to the City before final approval. 6. Additional berming shall be constructed in the southeast corner of the south parking lot to screen the parking from Lake Drive West and Audubon Road. Upon completion the utility and street improvements, they will be owned and maintained by the property owner and not the city. The appropriate building permits and inspections will be required for extension of the utilities into the site from the City's Building Department. All utility improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates and/or state of Minnesota plumbing codes. o The driveway access to the south parking lot from Lake Drive West shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide to accommodate two-way traffic and the radiuses expanded to 20 feet for emergency vehicles. In addition, the grade of the driveway at Lake Drive West shall be reduced to 4.00% to accommodate fire trucks. The driveway access width at Commerce Drive shall be increased to 28-30 feet wide. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 o Both driveway accesses will need to install industrial driveway aprons in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide a security escrow to the city in the amount of $6,000.00 to guarantee street and boulevard restoration and driveway apron construction. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: 11. 12. 13. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance//9-1. II. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy //04-1991. Copy enclosed. III. If the Lake Drive West address is to be used, the street name as well as the numbers shall appear in 12 inch numbers on the rear of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of wording and numbers. IV. The proposed fire hydrant on the south side of the building shall be relocated to the island which also has the post indicator valve. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant to be relocated. Vo Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement/development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. The site shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 14. Revise the building design by adding architectural interest to the building as described in the staff report. 15. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than ½ foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off- site and no more than ½ foot candle of light is at the property line. 16. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. One third of the fee was paid at the time of platting. 17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: We're going to make a little change in the agenda and we're going to call item number 3 up right now and then come back with the Chanhassen Bowl after that so. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK TO TEMPORARY STOCK PILE 30~000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND THE TWIN CITIES WESTERN RAILROAD~ DAVID STOCKDALE. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions of staff?. Conrad: Sure. The pond that you recommended, that is the solution for any kind of runoff contamination or whatever. Hempel: That in concert with the erosion control fencing that will be in place. Conrad: In your estimation there really isn't, no. In your estimation what issue is there with erosion? The pond. The fencing will solve it. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: The requirement is to restore the vegetation, the stockpile area within two weeks after the material's been hauled in on site so we'll have a vegetative growth over a majority of the stockpile area. We've required that the applicant, when he removes the material, take it from the easterly side of the stockpile so it will not disturb the entire stockpile area. Minimize the exposed area surface prone to runoff. That and the sediment pond that we're proposing and silt fencing, we're comfortable that erosion control measures. Conrad: I like the logic of that. How do you monitor that? Hempel: Generally interim use permits we do visit the sites on a quarterly basis if you will. Depending on the activity on the stockpile area. If it's, we envision it being used on a daily basis. There may be times that it may be left alone for a week or two depending on weather conditions and so forth so. Burton: I have a question Mr. Chairman. When I look at the motion that it's proposed that we approve, ! can't tell from looking at it what it is that the applicant's actually going to be storing there on the property and what it would be limited to and I'm wondering if maybe one of these things by saying, I don't know, for instance that you have to make it comply with all the requirements of the watershed district. Whether that takes care of it. I just don't know. I'm sure that whatever the applicant's intending to store there's fine but I also would like to make sure that we don't allow more than that. Aanenson: You're talking about to quantify it. Burton: Yeah. Aanenson: I mean how much material he can move. It's not stated in the conditions, is that what you're saying? Burton: Yeah. Joyce: So you're saying what the material is that he's...that he doesn't do anything above and beyond. Burton: Right. The stockpiling additional items there. The dirt, I don't know what it is even. Hempel: Stockpile material is limited to topsoil material that's being hauled in from the adjacent parcel. Burton: Okay. So I'm just wondering where in the recommendations it limits the additional storage to that topsoil. I just want to make sure we're not opening a door for some other type of stockpiling. Joyce: You're saying to stockpile, the definition of stockpile is dirt? Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: Correct, topsoil. Burton: That is the definition of it? Hempel: That is ~our definition of it. You may be right. It's not definitive in the conditions of approval. We did put a condition that there's no expansion to the existing contractors yard being approved by this permit on condition number 10. But we can certainly specify that the stockpile area will be limited to topsoil material. Burton: I think that would be good. Kind: Mr. Chairman, should it also be specified to be the 30, the quantity? ...30,000 cubic yards. Do you think so? ...want more. Hempel: We do have a grading plan that has to be followed and they will provide an as built survey to quantify that that material is in place. That is one avenue but we can certainly add a condition to limit it to the 30,000. I would suggest specified compacted volume versus loose volume. 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil material. Sidney: One question. On the...we received it says black dirt stockpile. Is it truly black dirt that they're talking about or it's just topsoil that is? Hempel: It is a mixture of black dirt material. Probably clay like material mixed into it. It will be used as topsoil material in the landscape business. Sidney: So it really isn't black dirt 100% that we're looking at. Hempel: A mixture basically, yes. Joyce: Alright, would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? You came down, you might as well say something. Mark Undestad: I really don't have anything to add to this. We will, as Dave said, seed it up right away after we get it in there and take it from the east side so the back side will be the last to go. Not much to put in there. Joyce: Okay, thank you. Alright, well this is open for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, can we close the public hearing? Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: Commissioners. Burton: Mr. Chairman with the condition that we discussed, I'm fine with it. Kind: I do have one question for Dave I think. What is the normal, we're approving one year. Is that a normal duration for a project like this or will it be likely they'll want to come back? Hempel: Interim use permits are good for one year. Annual review and depending on business activities, we anticipate it probably being a two year operation. Maybe the applicant can address that a little bit further but. Kind: I just don't want it to be there for 5 years or something... Hempel: The parcel could also be developed here in the near future and any material that's on site there, if any is left, could still be used as additional berming material on the outside perimeters of the lot as well. We don't feel that it will have to be removed from the site after it's once been placed. Kind: I don't have any other issues with it. Seems fine. Joyce: I'm fine with it too so can we have a motion... Kind: Mr. Chairman I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Interim Use Permit #99-1 with the following conditions 1 through 14. Or actually 1 through 15 and 15 will read, the stockpile should be limited to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil. Joyce: Second on that? Conrad: From the neighboring. Kind: Brought in from the neighboring lot. Period. Burton: Second. Joyce: Okay, motion and seconded. Discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #99-1 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount of $5,400.00 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the interim use permit. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 o o 10. 11. 12. 13. The applicant shall pay the City $457.00 for the grading permit fee. In addition, the applicant shall pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor and enforce the interim use permit. The inspection fee shall be billed at a rate of $30 per hour. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District. The applicant shall supply the city with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with topsoil, seed and mulch within two weeks after grading is completed. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem, warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with work not permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Prior to starting grading activities, erosion control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by staff. All material for the stockpile area shall be imported to the site by October 15, 1999. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and disc mulched by October 31, 1999. The interim use permit shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant may submit a written request to the city for renewal of the permit up to 45 days prior to the expiration date of the permit. No expansion to the existing contractor's yard is being approved with this permit The removal of material from the stockpile area shall be restricted to the easterly side. The westerly 50 feet of the berm/stockpile area shall remain in place at all times. The final side slopes shall be 3 to 1 or less. The applicant shall construct and maintain an interim sedimentation pond east of the stockpile area. The pond shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. Erosion control fence shall be maintained between the pond and wetland until the interim use permit expires. Importing of material is restricted to the approved haul route. No hauling shall be permitted on any City street. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 14. Exporting of material from the stockpile area in conjunction with the landscape business may require the appropriate traffic control signage along Audubon Road. The City shall determine when traffic signage is needed." 15. The stockpile should be limited to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil brought in from the neighboring property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWL AND FILLY'S BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH EIGHT ADDITIONAL THEATERS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 1~400 SEATS WITH AN AREA OF 30~000 SQ. FT. AND %000 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE~ VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE~ HARD SURFACE COVERAGE~ SUBDIVISION CREATING LOTS WITH NO DIRECT FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY~ HWY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT~ PITCHED ROOF ELEMENT REQUIREMENT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG~ GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT~ LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND PAULY DRIVEl EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARDi AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TM STREET~ CHANHASSEN PROPERTIES~ LLC. Public Present: Name Address Gerald Rummel Vemelle Clayton Bob Copeland 2300 Firstar Center, 101 E. 5th Street, St. Paul 422 Santa Fe Circle 570 Pauly Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Before we ask questions I want to make a note that the application time limits are up so we have to make a decision. Do we have any questions for staffat this time? Conrad: Yeah. Why have you recommended approval with conditions versus denial? Is there a reason? Aanenson: Well the conditions in the staff report reflect changes that we think make it acceptable. Our policy is that we like to...if modified... We did recommend approval with the cross access agreement. There is another way to meet the reduction of parking. The issue is the parking. The significant deficiency in parking. The only other way to resolve that issue would be to reduce the square footage or the number of theaters. That would also solve the problem. So that is another alternative. Conrad: But you didn't recommend reduction. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: No. We said the cross access agreements. But that certainly is an option that you could, you could also propose that option. We can't force a cross access agreement, but we can enforce that they have the required number of parking stalls. The two ways to resolve it is cross access agreement, which we verified through the parking study, or reduce the amount of square footage. Those are the two ways to solve the problem. Conrad: Do we have a vision of how the Bloomberg property will be developed? Aanenson: When we did the parking study, there were some assumptions made as possible locations for buildings. That information was shared with the EDA. In part because they funded that parking study that was done last April of '98. So we did look at some options of circulation, build out. Conrad: What could it contain? What's the potential of the balance of that property? Aanenson: It could be office. It could be retail. Both of those are permitted uses. A1-Jaff: Any of the uses that are permitted within the central business district. Aanenson: Most intense retail, office district so. Again it's being driven by parking. No matter what goes in there it's going to have to accommodate parking. A parking ramp was also talked about as part of that parking study. Conrad: Under good planning practices, could you see the theater developing separately from Bloomberg property? Could there be a separate parking that goes to each without a? Aanenson: No. We're deficit 400 parking stalls. That doesn't work. And the whole premise was based on shared parking arrangements because there was going to be peak times. I mean that's their answer is that they'll manage it by the time showing and by having a police officer controlling those peak traffic times. And it's our opinion that that's'too significant an amount of deficiency without allowing the cross parking. Conrad: How many parking stalls does Target have? I mean any guess. Okay. Aanenson: 65,000. We could do the math really quick. 65,000 times. Conrad: In your memory bank Kate you would just have that automatic. I'm looking for comparatives and that's why. Has a case been presented to you that shows we need less parking for the theater? Aanenson: Right. We acquiesced on that already. They've come back and said that they're using a different ratio as far as seating to cars and I think we agreed that we would accept some of that based on what our parking standard is. They're using a higher number and we agreed to that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: So a case has been made for a different ratio than what we use? Aanenson: Correct. Didn't they use 5.7 or. A1-Jaff.' 5.9 or 5.7. Aanenson: 5.7 or 5.9. So we conceded on that. We would go with the higher number but we're still short. We just think the gap is still too big without that share. Conrad: So you would be willing to accept the, whatever the case was for the ratio. Aanenson: Yep. Joyce: Any other questions? Kind: Not right now. Sidney: Well I guess I have one question for staff Mr. Chainrmn. Maybe you could just review when this went before the EDA, you mentioned TIF was approved based on architecture and also they had an understanding there would be an east/west access point. Aanenson: I mean that's also going to be an issue for the EDA to resolve. I guess the role of the Planning Commission is to say does that meet the standards of the district. As Sharmin's pointed out in the staff report, there is a significant number of deficiencies. The position the staff's taken is, we want the entertainment component but at what price? And that's the balancing act we're trying to come forward. We're just saying right now, based on the parking study that was done in 1998, it was always assumed that while we would accept the deficiency, that it could be picked up somewhere else and we believe that gap is too great. The architecture, I mean the impervious surface issue. And landscaping. Some of those things we're saying okay, if we want this to happen we have to acknowledge that and be willing to say this is an important element of the downtown and we would forego those and give those variances because we feel strongly about it. But the counter balance is, is it architecturally pleasing? Does it merit those variances and are we creating additional problems by having, by not having enough parking? Staff's position is right now that without the cross access agreements or without the reduction of the building, there's too big of a gap. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Joyce: Yes sir. Conrad: The cross access agreements could pertain to Market Square? Could pertain to Americana across the railroad tracks. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: The only thing I think at this point that we studied was, and I would guess we looked at what the people as a net study of that center. Off the top of my head would there be less at Market Square at certain times of the night? Yes. On a Saturday afternoon? I'm not sure. You know I feel more comfortable what we studied to say that we recognize the numbers were there on a certain square footage. We didn't study the peak demands over at Market Square and how that relates to the operations so I'm a little less comfortable speaking to that but off the top of my head, at night there probably is some additional parking over there. Conrad: So they could go. There are other places other than Bloomberg property to get these spaces. Aanenson: Sure. I mean we looked at the hotel. I mean we included that whole area in the interior of that super block. Conrad: But not across the railroad track? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And maybe not at Market Square? Aanenson: Correct. That was not a part of the study. Yeah we did look at peak times. Conrad: Does the railroad let you put pathways across the railroad track for pedestrians? Is that an issue? Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's an expensive permitting process to get a street across railroad tracks. I'm unfamiliar with a pedestrian crossing to be honest. I would assume though that it would be pretty difficult. Aanenson: I'm sure that'd be in conjunction with a street. Unbarri~aded and a liability issue. Kind: I don't know if we'd want to encourage that anyway. Conrad: Well there's only one train a day, or two trains a day. There is parking over there. I've counted. I've asked the tenants, I've asked the owners has anybody approached them. Nobody has so we haven't really explored that opportunity. There's probably 100 spots over there. There's probably some at Market Square. If they want to give them up. It's a pain in the neck but nobody's asked at this point in time. They're there. You talked about, the last time we were here we were talking about making people walk. Kind of neat if you can. If you take a look at that area, you can bring them across. Is it dangerous? Yeah, there's a train now and then but man, it's just. But again there are the rules and I don't know what they are but it's relatively easy and they're relatively, there are pathways that are relatively easy to cultivate right now to get people across. But anyways I'm just looking. If we want people to walk in town, this is one way to do it. You know we don't need more parking. Well we do here. We've got to find where it is, and I don't think we've really explored those avenues. And I'm not pointing at staff. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: We talked about that as an option and I think that's a possible option. We'd have some concerns about if we approved it over there, and not checking with the railroad, encouraging people to come across and liability of approving that. But certainly there are probably, and we. talked about the city as one of, that that'd be a possibility. Joyce: I can think of one example right now is over in Chaska...over by the library. That's kind · of a discussion and I hope I'm not screwing up the agenda but I'm saying someone had to get permission there in our neighboring village. They made it pedestrian friendly. Conrad: How nice would it be to park at a restaurant and walk to a movie theater. Now the restaurant wouldn't like the parking because they want to turn traffic and they only have so much, so you know we're talking philosophy but that's how you really do get pedestrian flow. Some of the stuff that we talk about is real artificial. It doesn't work. You know people won't park 3 miles away and walk. But if you park at a restaurant, park at a shopping center, you may. You're doing multi things and that's kind of cool. Those are the things that get people walking downtown and this is an opportunity but I don't think we pushed it. ~I don't think the applicant has pushed it yet. Joyce: Other questions of the staff?. Kate, I just want to understand from my point of view, in essence we've changed a couple of these conditions. One off..that you're accepting the fact the 95% impervious surface. Correct? The City's basically fine with that, correct? Condition nmnber 147 Aanenson: Yes. But again I guess I'd like to frame it in the fact that we're saying we feel that we want the theaters but based on the design that we're willing to give up some things to make that happen because we feel it's important. What we're saying is there were some changes that needed to be made, even in the architecture to get to that point and that's reflected in this condition. Our recommending approval we think entertainment is an important component but ...balance act to say. Joyce: Your problem is the seats, right? What it boils down to. Aanenson: And architecture were still some of the issues. Those are the two issues .... do we want it to look like one big building. The two different segments and was there enough on the back of the building. But the architecture. And the use. Do we feel that strongly about it that we're willing to, we don't feel comfortable waiving that much parking. I mean Ladd's come up with another suggestion that we talked about too. You've got to somehow solve that. We agreed, even with the shortage and there's going to be times that, Christmas break, whatever, that they're going to be short and that's going to happen and that's okay. We'll accept those times that's going to be really busy. But as a general operating practice, unless they can resolve some of those. Joyce: Getting back to the seats. Let's say you keep the building. Configure it somehow so there are less seats. Is that kind of what we're looking at here as far as options? Less seats. I 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 don't know. I mean I don't know...but if there's less seats there less need for parking and as far as bodies. Aanenson: That's one option. Also get more cross access agreements when you can. Joyce: You're saying that the size of the building...if they could address the parking situation. Aanenson: Our ordinance does allow off site parking. Proximity but you have to get those agreements and demonstrate that through a parking study that you're not creating like Ladd said, the restaurant problem somewhere else. That's why we feel more comfortable with the study that was done in '98 because it did look at the mix and different times and demonstrated how that worked. Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Last time we were talking, we had some concerns with the little alley. Anything change on the alley since the last? Did staff, the old part of the building really didn't change too much. And it still hasn't. Aanenson: That is one of the recommendations that we have in here. Conrad: Okay. Joyce: Have you taken the situation out of those conditions? I just thought of it now... So if we pass this we're saying, kind of putting the onus on them to get, figure out a cross access is what you're saying, correct? Alright. Anyone else? Kind: I do have one question Mr. Chairman. On number 19, condition 19. All new painted precast field material shall be upgraded to a better material. Do you think that we should specify what we mean by better material? Aanenson: Sure. If you want to give him some direction. AI-Jaff: They could use brick or EFIS or. Kind: Is that pretty clearly understood in the builders terms that that's better than precast? A1-Jaff: What they have on the existing cinema is precast and there has been numerous negative remarks regarding that facade. We didn't want to see a duplication of that. And that's why this condition is in here. Kind: But you feel there's room if we did decide to specify what that material might be. Aanenson: The Council would appreciate that. Joyce: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Bob Copeland: Good evening. My name is Bob Copeland. I know you're all tired of talking about this project so let's get right into it and I'll be as brief as I can. What I would suggest doing is just running down these conditions and then try to hit the highlights or the points that are, have the most discussion about them. First of all condition number one, putting the, or the concern about the utilities underneath the building. We will comply with that condition. That's no problem. Item number 2, restoring the disturbed areas. No problem. We'll do that. Item number 3(a) has to do with this east/west connection. Now we commissioned the study with Benshoofand Associates that brought up this east/west connection. And maybe that was a mistake to hire those folks to bring this up because this thing keeps coming back to haunt us in a way. But we agree that the east/west connection is a good idea and I'm confident that it will be done. The difficulty we have is that Bloomberg won't grant a connection across their property to the east of the cinema at this time. Now they've indicated that they expect the city will dictate such a connection across their property when they redevelop that property. And they expect that they will have to do it at that time. And they also anticipate there will be cross parking and cross access agreements. Formal agreements at that time. But the, we were never going to have parking there until they redeveloped. The lEDA never envisioned that we would have parking there until they redeveloped. Nobody anticipated that so in terms of parking, now I want to separate traffic and parking. But in terms of parking, there's no change. In terms of traffic, there is a slight distinction now in that Bloomberg will not permit access across their property at this time. So what we did is we went back to Benshoof, who originated the idea. He's the one that came up with this idea of this east/west connection, and we, I talked to him about it and I said Jim, they won't grant access across their property at this time. And I said, what can we do you know to deal with the traffic in the meantime. And it might be 6 months, it might be 6 years. You know none of us know when that's going to take place. And we came up with the idea of two things. One is staggering movie starts and ending times to spread out the traffic load, which we are willing to do. And the other one is to hire off duty police officers to direct traffic at Market Boulevard and Pauly Drive. And I have a letter that Jim Benshoof wrote to me that states that, this is the next one...and I've highlighted his conclusions in the back and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing his feeling about it when...he's recommended he's strongly in favor of it and he says it will take care of the traffic situation. And remember, he's the one that originated this east/west connection idea. And I also went to a different traffic consultant to get a second opinion on the issue. We hired BRW and Harold Preston over there to take a look at this situation also and to get a second opinion. And he concurs that the combination of these staggering these start times and the off duty police Officers will work. It's a good solution to the traffic congestion and they both concur. These two experts concur that this will work. And that it's really not something that any of us need to be concerned about if we follow this strategy. Now also we are willing to, you may wonder well how can you be assured that this would take place. Well, you really have two things that we would offer. One is that assuming the EDA continues to have TIF involved in this project, that TIF is a good lever. In other words, twice a year they have to rebate the taxes and so if we're not in compliance with everything, they can just choose not to rebate the taxes. So we would have of course a financial incentive or you'd have a lever on us twice a year. The other thing is if that's not a satisfactory, we will agree to give the city a check to, up front to cover the cost of off duty police officers for this purpose. We feel that this might be an issue as many as 12 weekends a year. 12 out of 52 weekends. But we're willing 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 to say let's be conservative. Let's double that. In other words, we're willing to commit to have people there 24 weekends a year. The top 24 weekends that we expect to be doing the most business. So I think that will, you know should be, provide ample comfort to all of you that this is a very workable situation. We're willing to step up and do this and guarantee the city that it will happen. Also I think that we all need to keep this traffic issue in perspective. It's an internal, within the site issue. It all has to do with here. It doesn't have anything to do with any public roads. And further, what we're talking about is in the worse case an annoyance to our customers. So all this discussion is about an annoyance and trying to avoid an annoyance to our customers. Now we're of course very concerned about annoyances to our customers and we don't want to have annoyances and we want people to be happy with their experience when they visit the theater and we want them to come back. So we don't want to propose a solution that we have any doubt at all that is going to work because this is a very big investment. This is probably the biggest single investment in downtown Chanhassen. So we aren't going to proceed with something that we're not very comfortable with. And so keep all those things in mind about traffic and I'll just stop there with traffic. Now are there questions that I can answer for you related to the traffic or anything that I've said about it so far? Joyce: Well I think this might be the time to...probably the biggest issue we have. Bob Copeland: I'm going to go onto parking soon but just talking about the east/west connection. Joyce: Well I appreciate you, I think we should, are there any questions regarding traffic? ...okay. Conrad: Well the issue is having an access point to the site obviously. There's going to be another one with the east/west and now you're solving it through, you don't know when... I don't know how you can answer that traffic question. You're going to put people in the place and say to us well, the problem will exist until Bloomberg decides to develop. Bob Copeland: But that isn't the traffic problem. That isn't the traffic problem that Benshoof discovered when he did his traffic study. The traffic problem was taking a left turn from Market Boulevard, I'm sorry, from Pauly Drive onto Market Boulevard. When it's busy. That's the issue. In other words right here. There is a right turn lane. I don't know if you can see this. There is a right turn lane here turning onto Market Boulevard. And there's also a left turn lane. What his concern was is that the cars could stack up here. It might be difficult to make a left mm onto Market Boulevard. Now this is something that's very easily solved by an off duty traffic person. Joyce: Dave Hempel, is there any... I see that, we're not going to get the cross easement. Talking about traffic stacking up, and I don't know what the implications it would have into Highway 5 or whatever we're talking about. Bob Copeland: Our traffic expert says there aren't any onto Highway 5 or West 78th. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I did talk with Mr. BenshoOf today regarding that issue about having an off duty traffic officer out there directing traffic and what ramifications does it have on the adjacent intersections. West 78th Street and Market and Trunk Highway 5 and Market. It was his belief that it would not because of the adequate spacing between the intersections. And I guess the other issue wi. th regards to the traffic problem, Mr. Copeland did address it correctly. It is the left turn movement from Pauly Drive out onto Market Boulevard and the intent was to alleviate that with an east/west connection to Great Plains Boulevard. It's not, there will be significant delays and people how do you say, get tired of waiting. Take more chances in pulling out and that's where you see more of your accidents. I guess it's staff's position from the engineering department that we definitely want the east/west connection, or reduce the size of the theater seating to accommodate, make use of the site. Don't exceed the site capacity with traffic and/or parking is our belief. Bob Copeland: Well again we've had two professional traffic experts look at this and they both agree that the off duty policeman is an excellent solution to this occurrence to the situation that occurs maybe as many as a dozen times a year. Alright, well let's move on then. The item number 3(b) on the recommendations, or the conditions is to have 28 foot drive aisles. I don't think there are very many places around town, around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area that have 28 foot drive aisles. We can't do that. We can't have that as a condition. We can't comply with that. That is, we'll have less parking if we do that. And we have 24 feet. The City has 24 feet in their new parking lot right here. It seems to work fine. I really don't think that should be an issue to turn down the project. It says 3(c), prepare a traffic control plan. We'll certainly do that. Item number 4 is report any drain tiles. We'll certainly do that. Number 5 is get permits. We'll do that. Item number 6 is limit the seating to 2,800. We'll certainly do that. That's what we want, but this brings up the parking. So let's talk about the parking here for just a minute. There are several things that have been said this evening that are not correct. So I'd like to ifI can set the record straight on this. When we came to the city about doing this addition to the cinema, the city was rightfully concerned about parking and they commissioned a parking study. They hired the Hoisington-Koegler Group to do a study. At that time Hoisington studied on how to just to deal with this site. They studied a 2,400 seat addition and a restaurant and MLT being here on the Bloomberg property. As big as 100,000 square foot office building right here. And Hoisington determined that it would work. And we went back to Hoisington and we said well that's not quite right. We wanted 2,800 seats, not 2,400. And he redid the study based on 2,800 seats, which is what we need to have. Aanenson: Excuse me for interrupting but that is a big point. We do not have a clarification of that study. Bob Copeland: Well. Aanenson: We don't have that in our files. Bob Copeland: Well there are two things that I can say, well three things I can say about that. Here's a copy of it with 2,800 seats here. That's the page he redid. And we used the parking ratios that he used to determine the parking requirements. I think you all have a copy of this 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 document. It's a four page narrative that we prepared and you probably got it a month ago or whenever you got the initial package. It's got a little table of parking requirements. The demand and the stalls available. The ratios that are there are the exact same ratios that Hoisington used in his study. And what it showed was that there is a demand of 525 stalls. Joyce: What's the ratio please? Bob Copeland: The ratio for the cinema for seats was 1 to 5.88. He used the inverse of that. He used...calls for 1,000 square feet for a retail and so on. And he came up with using those ratios, you come up with 525 parking stall requirements. Now we had 539. When we submitted our documents originally. But the staff determined that it was important to have a 30 foot wide east/west connection. In other words this connection across the cinema-retail site. The staff felt it important to make that 30 feet wide. As opposed to 24 or 26. And so we complied and we did that and we told the staff well if we do that we're going to lose stalls and they said well it's still more important that we have that 30 foot wide drive aisle and so that's what we did and we took out 52 stalls. So now with this plan that is before you for your approval we have 487. So we're 38 short of the number that would be required by Hoisington's study and that's about 7%. So from our standpoint we'd be happy to put the stalls back in and shrink that drive aisle but that's not what the staff thinks is best. Another point about all this is that people talk about shrinking the building and so on. Our preference would not be to have the retail building. If that solves the parking problems in people's minds, let's do away with the retail building. We'll be able to park more cars here and there will be less demand. Now we've talked to the staff about that. They- don't like that idea. They feel that it's important to have the retail building there. That it provides additional things happening on this site and they think that it breaks up the view of the building from the west and it does do those things. And so we have gone along with it but keep in mind that we've been guided here along the way and we've responded and we've done what we thought we were supposed to do. What we were being asked to do. So are there any questions about parking? That I can answer. Joyce: Let's do it this way so we don't have to complicate...are there any questions about the parking? Burton: I want to back up. Bob Copeland: I'm sorry for interrupting you sir. There's one other point that I failed to make and I want to make it before I forget and that is that some people said well where would cars park if this parking lot was full? Well there's a city owned parking lot right across West 78th with over 200 stalls that are available every evening and so that's why we didn't go to private neighbors and ask them for permission to park in their parking lot because there are city owned stalls right across West 78th. Right on the other side of here. There are over 200 stalls there. Where the so called Medical Arts buildings are. And the city owns that property. The city put in that parking lot and it's available to the public. And no easements are required. So I'm sorry for interrupting you. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Burton: Oh that's fine. I was just backing up a second because I was wondering about the drive aisles and the 28 foot recommendation versus the 24 foot and I was wondering if Dave or staff could address that. Hempel: Sure. If I can clarify for the record. We're recommending 28 foot drive aisles for the main drive aisles around the building to facilitate fire apparatus vehicles. The other drive aisles for parking are 26 feet wide is what the city code requires. They're proposing 24. Not much difference. Joyce: Any other questions regarding parking? Kate I guess I do have one question. I think when we were initially talking to staff here before Mr. Copeland stepped up, Ladd mentioned that you had taken this study and used their figures...5.75 or 5.88 seats. Accepted that. There is kind of a, where do we come up with the 4 seats? How do we go from 4 to 5.88? It seems like a lot. A1-Jaff.' One is ordinance. The other one is, yes proof of parking based upon the number of seats that they are providing in relationship to number of parking. Joyce: What I'm saying is, from my understanding, I didn't do the math but are you saying that you'd be satisfied with...the amount of parking that's needed? Aanenson: Which study? Joyce: I'm talking about the 5.8. A1-Jaff: We looked at other cities and what they have used for ratios. I believe the highest one was 4.5 that we saw. Bob Copeland: May I make a comment on that specific issue? Joyce: Yeah, I don't want to argue this back and forth. Bob Copeland: No, this is something I failed to say before and I think it's significant. We really don't need to do much guesswork. We don't need to really have a consultant at this point. Last fall we maybe did because we hadn't been through a full year of operation but now we have. And what we're talking about doing is doubling the number of seats and if we doubled our business, that would be tremendous but you know that's the outside or the most that could happen. So we know how many cars that we have on the parking lot on busy nights and it's not going to exceed this 1 to 5.88 ratio. Because we already, it's already half in place. So we don't have to do much guesswork to figure out what the parking requirement's going to be. Joyce: Alright. Let's move on. Bob Copeland: Okay. Item number 7, the 26 foot road width over Bloomberg's property, we've talked about that. Meet with the inspection division. We've done that. We'll do it again if 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 people would like. Items 9 and 10, we will put more plantings on the property as long as the space permits. We would prefer not to lose any additional stalls. Item 11. I can only find one item that, or one island that is less than 10 feet. It happens to be right here. This one right here. All the others are 11. This one is 7 feet and the reason it's 7 feet is it provides this 30 foot width across this drive aisle. We will redo the landscape plan as item number 12. Item 13, we will comply with all the fire marshal's conditions. Item 14. This hard space versus green area. Let me just clarify one thing and that is that with just the 95% hard surface coverage refers to the area in pink here. This area that I'm tracing with my finger now. This is the area that we would be buying. This is the property that we own. The rest of the property is either owned by others or it's owned by the city. So you can, if you can the area in pink there, you can see why there isn't any more space to do anything to have anything other than hard surface. If you look at the whole thing, the entire cinema site, which I think is maybe possibly what should be looked at more than that particular land locked piece of property, the parking ratios are somewhat better. Or I'm sorry, the hard surface coverage and that green area. Actually now instead of just 5% green in this whole site, we have 15%. Now that still doesn't meet the technical standards of the ordinance but it's three times as much percentage wise than this particular parcel. Item 15. Dedicate the easements. We'll do that. Item 16 is meeting with the building official again. That's done or we'll do it again. Item 17. This dentil block projection. I believe our architect adequately addressed that last time and hopefully you'll agree that that should not be a 1 foot projection. Item 18. Apparently the issue there is just will the windows be set into the walls and we will do that. 19. This upgrade new precast. We are not proposing nor have we ever actually proposed any precast. The city has made it clear to us that they don't like the precast so we have not even proposed any new precast so I don't think there's, there isn't any precast on the new structures so it's all brick and EFIS. And item 20. The sign restrictions, we'll agree to those. 21. Build the retail and the cinema concurrently, we would agree to that. Item 22. Screen rooftop equipment, we'll do that. And item 23. Add columns at the arches at the alley, we will do that. So those are my comments on the recommended conditions of approval and with that I'll answer any other questions that you may have. Joyce: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Bob Copeland: Thank you. Joyce: Appreciate your plan. Kind: I did have a question. Joyce: Mr. Copeland, could you answer a question please. Kind: Sorry. I flipped back my page. Sorry about that. On number 7 you just kind of zipped right by condition number 7. Are you willing to build a driveway across Bloomberg property? In your letter it stated you felt that they would be agreeable to such a driveway. Bob Copeland: Well, number 7. They will not permit a driveway at this time. And so we were agreeable to do that but we cannot do that. We don't have permission to do that. But 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Bloomberg, Bloomberg's attorney and their representative Clayton Johnson have told me that they fully expect that there will be a requirement placed on them by the city to do that when they come in with their plans to redevelop and that they are resigned to doing that. And they also understand that there will be cross parking easements and access agreements and so on at that time. They don't, want to do it now for a couple reasons. One is they think it will tie their hands in terms of where they position their building or just how it's configured and so on. And then number two, they have mortgages on that property and they think their lenders won't approve an easement or something that they might perceive reduces the value of the property. Kind: Thank you. Joyce: Okay, this item's open for a public hearing. Can I get a motion? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The Public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item's open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward. Vemelle Clayton: I just want to clarify something. I'm Vemelle Clayton. Just that you looked perplexed when he mentioned that there's parking on the north side of the street so I just want to explain where it is. Basically it's everything from the Oasis Market to the end of Colonial Square. And it was done on purpose. The plan was that even way back then, we always think that nothing was done right that was done before something that we had something to do with, but that is one thing that was carefully thought out and the idea was that that way there could be cross parking and more density downtown. And I should also point out that in older, or earlier traffic studies done for this project, that parking was taken into consideration. So there's some historical precedence for considering that for this site. Joyce: Anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Anyone like to take a stab at this? Don't all go at once. Kind: I'I1 go. Joyce: Great. Kind: I like the idea of having something on this site and I like this project. There's some issues .... my point of view. However I feel that part of my wanting to like this so much is determined by my loathing of what's there right now. And I don't want to be twisted, be arm twisted into approving something that compromises too many of our codes or variances or whatever because I don't like what's there. Regarding the thru street and the solution of having an off duty police officer. I think that's an excellent idea. The church I go to has used this method for 40 years. It's a long term solution to their every Sunday problem and I think that's an 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 excellent idea. I applaud your creativity for coming up with it. The no cross access agreement with parking, I think Kevin spoke to this in our last meeting. I don't know if cross access is the right term for it. I don't know, I think of it as joint use parking. I don't know if that's the correct term for it but Kevin touched on this at our last meeting that parking...over rated and I am un, I'm asquirm a little bit at the lack of parking but Vemelle's comments about that public parking across West 78th and Ladd comments about available parking all around have swayed me to be a little bit more comfortable with that aspect. So I'm okay with that. My biggest problem is the 95% hard surface coverage and I know the existing occupant had the same problem. That they are 95%, if not 100% surface coverage and I think this may be an improvement by adding those islands with trees and such so that part is probably an improvement over what we have. I still feel though that the 95% is a huge number and I can't help by feel that this is over building for that site. Pedestrian circulation. To me yeah, we could justify that it's no different than Target or Byerly's as far as getting around in the parking lot but yet I kind of hoped for a little bit better solution for this site. The original vision, the way I understand it, allowed for a plaza area to encourage people to linger and I don't see any of that in this plan. As well as streetscape kinds of items with benches and those sorts of things. I'd like to see that included. And then the landscaping issue overall. I think Mr. Copeland hit on the point which is they would be willing to add if there was any place to put it. But since the parking is so short, I don't know that they could really meet those requirements so I'm torn. I like the idea of seeing something there but right now I guess I feel like we're compromising... Joyce: Anyone else like to address this? Conrad: Sure. I think that the 95% is okay. After touring the site, that was the big issue that I had and I tell you I think, I agree with the staff report. That says let's go with it. I think that is not an issue anymore in my mind. I never said that before on any project. And overall I like the project. And the landscaping can be taken care of and issues but, but. I heard some good comments tonight on things. Things I hadn't heard before but it's, we're supposed to be planners and it's sort of non statistical stuff. Well we can get them there or it might be someplace. I don't have, it's real uncomfortable because our job is to plan and the City Council can figure out if they want to loosen some of the standards because they want this project in. But right now I'm not persuaded on the parking. I think some cases are being made. I think we've compromised on ratios that's of interest. It sure, and there may be spots. I haven't seen that presented, other than the last few minutes and I guess I'd really like to know if there was a plan, I'd expect somebody to show it to me. Here are 20. Americana has 26. Colonial whatever has 200 and here's our signage that will get people there. And here's our advertising program that will be included in our ads. And here's our agreement with Market Square because they are really right there so they're going to be, so there are, I think we can possibly solve the problem. I just haven't been shown that. I think there's hope tonight. The first time in the last 10 minutes I think this probably, some potential. But it's not, it's words right now. So I think there's some potential but there's not, it's just words and I don't know how to make a motion. Not a clue how to make a motion to get us out of tonight that's positive, aggressive. I'll let somebody else do it. I think we do need a design in front of us with an east/west, we're planners. We need to see the east/west design going through here. It may stop at the Bloomberg property but we are planners. We're supposed to figure this out how it works. I had some other smaller issues. The alley stills 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 bothers me a whole lot. The pedestrian circulation a little bit. Has never been able to get good pedestrian circulation on any of our bigger projects so maybe I'll never get it. It's not quite right. And I would like a little bit of an update look to the old part of the building, and I didn't really see that coming through on the staff report. Maybe it's there. I think the staff report on street widths is probably right. If somebody could make a presentation and show me where the parking really would be, I think a lot of these, then I'd be really very favorable to put a positive twist on the whole thing. IfI don't know I can't, my biggest problem, I just don't know. I mean I think there's potential here. I think all the other, and I think the applicant has some problems with the staff report and that may make some things economically a problem. That's hard for me to deal with but I think as the parking issue is one that we have to really feel comfortable with. Solutions presented but not very concise. And not to the point where I can say we've solved it so, and pass it along to the City Council. I think in my mind I don't know how we're doing it. I think we have some potential but I don't know how we're doing it right now. So the only way I could pass this on tonight positively is by reducing the size of the seating capacity or by getting retail out of there. We can't table it. Kind: Would you support getting retail out of there? Conrad: It's okay. I don't think the retail that's in there, I like how the retail looks but I don't think it's real significant. If we like the movie theater, I think that adds some pizzazz to the site. I don't think it really services a great huge need for the city. But it sure makes that wall better. But it's an option. It's an option to me. I'd prefer to find the parking. I'd prefer to have staff agree with the applicant that we know where people are going. I think cross access agreements and off site parking is great. We talk about that and love to do it but right now it's uncomfortable for me to say that we've got it in the bag. We don't know when Bloomberg's going to develop. So right now I think we should know where it's going to be coming from. So the only thing I can think of is to restrict the seating. Or review the retail. And that doesn't mean I'd like to get it out of there. Burton: No, I guess I concur with both of the comments and I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the motion would go this evening too. I've been spending time thinking about that and I think I probably need more time to think about it here but I concur in all the concerns. I like the project a lot and I'd like to see it go through. Actually I do like the retail and I'd like to see that remain. I guess I don't have much more to add at this point than that. It's a frustrating situation though. Sidney: Yeah I do agree with many of the comments. I have felt that looking at this application that it does seem like we're over building on the site and we've really compromised a lot in terms of parking and hard surface coverage for the project. And as a result I had hoped that we would see some improvement architecture materials, you know like we're talking about more definitive plans for parking. Signage and such things. And we just haven't seen it. I guess my feeling is disappointment, especially since the applicant really didn't address the pedestrian circulation, boardwalk or materials of the last discussion we had at the Planning Commission. And like what Matt said, I guess I have a real hard time trying to formulate a motion to look at this in a positive way and send it onto council. Help from my fellow commissioners. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: That makes my job easier because...you guys figure it out. And I don't envy you. But you've got to do it and I guess that's a little bit of my disappointment is that, just from a personal standpoint, I think we tabled this kind of expecting to see...and it seems like he is over here and the project's more over here and their idea of putting the traffic officer there really hasn't changed anything. There are some issues here. And my disappointment is I think I really feel we're close here. I really feel that for one, I've said this all along. Personally I'm not a big proponent of parking. I think we can get around the parking issue. I don't know. It's Thursday night. Beautiful night. Probably people aren't going to the movies but that part...tonight. I don't know what's playing. We all know it's going to be a Friday, Saturday night parking problem. Maybe a Thursday night during the holidays or other nights during the holidays but I feel that that is manageable. I think with some effort, I like the idea of using traffic officer. I think Ladd hit on a good point. I mean in that business but marketing sure could help. Showing where there are additional parking areas. I don't think parking's an issue here. I really don't, but I do think something like pedestrian circulation is an issue in the parking scheme and I think if there was some discussion on that or some sort of improvement on that, it would have pushed a couple of us maybe further along. And there was absolutely no change in any sort of pedestrian circulation. I felt uncomfortable after hearing about pressing that cross easement. I'm in agreement with Ladd. I think that should be part of a plan but not part of a condition. I can accept that as part of a planning process but not a condition. That's back there to the developer to force your hand to try to get access so I think that's a problem in the conditions here. The street width, you have to abide by that. That's 26 feet. And as far as the impervious surface, once again this is a downtown project. That's what we have... I think with a little bit of imagination this thing can work. I guess the biggest question, you know really the question is this a premature development? I mean isn't that the question? Is this premature or not? Can Chanhassen handle this development? I think it can. I think with a little imagination it can. That's my opinion and, but we have to make a decision tonight and then somehow give him some sort of direction. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, could I ask staff a question? Is there a seating capacity that would justify what has been presented? We changed it from 1,950 to 2,800 and then there was a 2,400 number in there. I'm just curious, is there based on the plan that has been presented, parking plan, is there a seating capacity that we would feel would utilize? A1-Jaff: It depends on the parking ratios that we're willing to accept and at this point we said we would accept the applicant's, which is 5.9. Conrad: Which would give us how many? Which would give them how many seats? Hempel: 475. Plus retail. A1-Jaff.' 475 times 4.0? Hempel: Oh I used 5. 5.8. Joyce: That's the question. 5.8... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: 483 plus the 30. 45 for the retail is 528. Conrad: So what's the grand total of seats that they could have? Based on 5.8 and 487 parking stalls. Hempel: Right. Conrad: What's the grand total Dave? Hempel: And the retail was another 45 staffs for a total of 528. Al~Jaff: Number of seats in the movie theaters. Grand total. Conrad: How many seats could they then have in the movie theater? Hempel: Based on the available parking now? Conrad: Yeah. Hempel: I'm sorry. Conrad: That's presented. Hempel: Minus 45 gives you 442, by the 5.88. ! came up with 26, 2,599. Conrad: Based on the new ratio and based on parking stalls that they can put in, they can have 2,600 seats. Okay. Kind: Are you formulating a motion? Conrad: Yeah, well I'm trying to. It seems, it's obviously something we can't dictate to you but it's a way to get the motion out of here so Bob you can go on and talk to City Council. But at least there's a standard for, we need something to justify. We need ratios we feel comfortable with and capacities we feel comfortable with and allowing a capacity that we don't know where that people are going to park. This is pretty bad planning and at this point in time nobody's told us really in a good comprehensive parking plan where they would park. I think that's an opportunity for the applicant but at this point in time we haven't seen it so we could table it and wait for him to come back but that's not an option so we can either vote it down and say no or we can vote it positively so anyway, do we have other comments? Otherwise I'll just make a motion and run with it. I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-21 to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's building and construct eight movie screens and a retail element. Variances to allow non-street frontage signs, marquee sign, hard surface coverage and Preliminary plat approval to replat two lots and three outlots into two lots and one outlot, Cinema Addition as shown on the plans dated Received June 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 23rd still, 1999, with the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Condition 6, that the maximum seating capacity will be 2,600 seats. I'm going to make the rest of the conditions but I'm going to stop and come back and ask staff a question before I get a second. That condition 24, that a long term parking plan be provided to City Council, excluding the, showing locations and justifying seating capacity. And also presenting again to the City Council why the 5.88 ratio should be accepted. Condition 25 is to review the concerns that the Planning Commission had with the alley between the retail and the cinema. In terms of screening, lighting, presentation, gating. Condition 26. The applicant review and recommend any facade changes possible to the old part of the cinema to make it reflective and consistent with the new. Condition 27. That the applicant show City Council pedestrian circulation flow coming from any off site locations and also the internal pedestrian flow. That's the end of my motion and now I'm going to ask staffa question. Have you seen a street design that's acceptable on any plan presented? The east/west corridor, have you seen it on any plan that is the way we'd like it. Ending where we'd like it. Hempel: The plan that's been submitted is I believe the east/west street is limited to the property itself. It doesn't show anything off the property limits through the Dinner Theater. Conrad: And that's where it curved up and out? Hempel: Right. Conrad: Now is that what you envision as a visionary Dave for streets connecting to the Bloomberg property? Is that what you envision as this east/west street? Being hooked like that. Hempel: Our first preference was for a more parallel east/west street with the railroad tracks to provide less turning movements with the parking lot. That's our first preference. It's really difficult to say without seeing the other site, the use on the Bloomberg property. Conrad: But we only have, again if we're positively passing on this and you know, it's hard to say. But then again that's what we. So we haven't seen really an east/west corridor on any plan that we feel pretty good about at this point in time? One that shows at least it goes there but none that we've seen. So again that would give us great cause to turn this down until we found one that was acceptable but we don't want to do that. So the leverage, by us approving the plan as it stands, does this give us the applicant the feeling that we like what the traffic. We're saying' we want an east/west but what's the leverage to say we're not, we don't like the way we see it right now. Aanenson: Can I make a suggestion on number 7. Originally in number 7 we had that the applicant acquire a cross access agreement. If you describe in there what type we want. Something to the effect, my concern is that if we don't make it onerous on this application and the next project says well I'm not going to give it back the other way. I guess we would like to have some language in there that, assuming that, yeah. Well the way you've written it now will solve the problem. You've reduced the parking or he's got an opportunity to solve it by demonstrating he can get it off site. But I guess we still want to provide the cross access. We 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 think that's good planning, which is what you're saying. So what if we say the applicant shall provide a cross access agreement and that he agrees, we work out some language between now and council and working with the attorneys that he's willing to work to provide that at such a future time that we can see where it goes. If that makes sense. Conrad: I'm okay with that Kate. Aanenson: Something that he says I'd be willing to rearrange my parking if I need to, to get the street in the right spot. If he's willing to give us that flexibility and we can hold that in abeyance until the right time. As long as he's willing to do that. Conrad: That's what we want to do. Aanenson: Okay. So we need something like that. Conrad: As long as you know that it's not good right now. Aanenson: Right. Right. Conrad: It simply isn't right. Aanenson: Change acquire to provide and then somehow we put in there something about study that in the future to make it in the right spot. Conrad: I'm not even going to try to word that right now. That's my motion. Kind: On the cinema site or on the Dinner Theater? Aanenson: Well what we're saying is there needs to be that east/west connection. That's the guiding principle. The unknown is, where is the correct location so we want a condition that says he is willing to be flexibility and if he needs to shift some of the parking to make that road be unimpeded, wherever the design works. So we want to put a condition in here that says he will provide an easement for a roadway at such time in the future, that makes sense. Kind: On the cinema site? Conrad: On the cinema site. Not Bloombergs. Aanenson: Right. Correct. Right. Conrad: But what we don't want is, you know we really don't want it angling up and through. It's just, it could be heavy traffic, it could be a fair amount of traffic. We don't want it winding. Aanenson: No, we're going to change acquire to provide. Provide an access point and then we'll. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: Unimpeded access. Aanenson: It should be subject to staff approval. I mean that pretty much says it right there. Staff approval and but somehow we're going to put some language in there between now and council. Whether we need to say that there needs to be escrow. Whatever we need to do to insure that that comes about. We'll work on that between the attorneys and them between now and council to somehow resolve that quick language on that but I'm in concurrence on what you want. Joyce: Okay Ladd? We have a motion... Do we have a second? Burton: Second. Conrad: That takes a lot of guts to second that. Nann, what did we say? Joyce: Any discussion? Kind: I'm discussed out. Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review 95-21 to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's building and construct 8 movie screens and a retail element, Variances to allow Non-Street Frontage Signs, Marquee sign, and hard surface coverage and Preliminary Plat approval to replat two lots and three outlots into two lots and one outlot, Cinema Addition as shown in plans dated received June 23, 1999, with the following conditions: The applicant shall redesign the building plans to avoid conflict with the City's sanitary sewer and water lines. The applicant shall have the option to relocate the sanitary sewer or add additional manholes and case the sanitary sewer line underneath the building. The water line shall be relocated a minimum of 10 feet away from any building structure. The applicant shall also dedicate all new drainage and utility easements to encompass the relocated utility lines. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall be responsible for all adjustments to existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require an inspection o£these adjustments. A security escrow in the amount of $25,000 shall be supplied by the applicant to the City to guarantee utility relocation/adjustments in conjunction with site plan approval. The security shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. o All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and/or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot improvements. o The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 o o 10. 11. 12. 13. compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of the city boulevards and adjustments to the city infrastructure. The plans shall be redesigned to incorporate the following items: A) Incorporate an unimpeded street from Market Boulevard easterly to Great Plains Boulevard. The minimum drive aisle width shall be 28 feet, face-.to-face of curb. Parking shall be prohibited on both sides of the street. B) All drive aisle and parking lot stalls shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20- 1118. C) The applicant shall prepare a revised traffic control plan for city staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. The plans shall include placement of stop signs and pedestrian crossings. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of draintile found during construction. The city engineer shall determine whether or not the draintiles can be abandoned or reconnected. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Health Department, Watershed District, and the City of Chanhassen's Building Department. Seating capacity of the theater complex shall be a maximum of 2,600 seats for the both the first phase and the new addition collectively. (Approval of this number of seats will result in a 35% variance in the required parking spaces; 745 required -487 provided based upon one stall per 4 seats as required by ordinance). The applicant shall provide a cross access easement 30 feet wide over/through the Dinner Theater site out to Great Plains Boulevard and construct a bituminous driveway over the easement. The applicant and staff will work together to provide an acceptable location for the east/west connection that will be constructed in the future. The driveway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide and constructed to a 7 ton street design. The alignment of the driveway shall be subject to staff approval. The building owner and/or their representatives meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The applicant shall increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant shall increase plantings for parking lot trees in order to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant shall increase landscape island width to a minimum of 10 feet or install aeration tubing. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval. Fire Marshal Conditions: 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. a. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1 .- Submit radius turn dimensions and parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.3 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In the proposed alleyway between the Cinema and the proposed retail there will be absolutely no storage of combustibles allowed at any time. Appropriate signage will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact wording of signs and location. The hard surface coverage shall be 95%. This coverage will exceed the maximum hard surface coverage permitted by ordinance by 30%. Dedicate the typical utility and drainage easements on the plat. Meet with the building official to address building issues at the applicant's earliest convenience. The "DENTIL BLOCK" imitation,, when built, shall have a minimum projection of one foot. All windows shall be constructed in a fashion that resembles the attached illustration of windows with a windowsill. All new painted precast field material shall be upgraded to a better material. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the sign area shown on the plan. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and logo. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Projecting signs are permitted. The size of the projecting sign should not exceed three feet in height and 6 square feet. One sign is allowed for each tenant. All signs 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 shall be double-faced and have a decorative hanging bracket. Illuminated letters may be attached to the exterior of the projecting sign. Projecting signs may not be illuminated from within. All signs will require a sign permit. 21. Both the cinema addition and the retail building shall be built concurrently. 22. All roof top and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from views. The existing roof top units above the existing theater shall also be screened. 23. Columns shall be added below the arch at the entrance and exit points of the alley." 24. The applicant will provide a long term parking plan the to City Council showing locations justifying seating capacity. Also presenting to the City Council why the 5.88 ratio should be accepted. 25. Review the concerns that the Planning Commission had with the alley between the retail and the cinema in terms of screening, lighting, presentation, gating. 26. The applicant review and recommend any facade changes possible to the old part of the cinema to make it reflective and consistent with the new cinema. 27. That the applicant show City Council pedestrian circulation flow coming from any off site locations and also internal pedestrian flow. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with-a vote of 4 to 1. Joyce: One nay. Would you like to? Kind: I think I can go on my former comments. Joyce: Former comments. Conrad: Which was? I think it's good. You know I read the Minutes and when people say, when the question is asked in those Minutes and the City Council is reading them and you just say well I've already said it. They've probably forgot what you said so it's probably good that you would reflect one or two things that made you say no. Nay on this one. Kind: Okay. I'm concerned about over building the property. 95% hard surface coverage is too much. And...better here with more landscaping opportunities because I don't think there's going to be any chance that they'll be able to meet those requirements. The parking requirements. And I hope for more pedestrian friendly streetscape, plaza area kinds of places. Those are my main ones. And that we're making too many compromises. Joyce: But we did pass the motion. It will go on to City Council on the 23rd. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: Vernelle, did you want to mention something? Vemelle Clayton; Yeah maybe for the record since it deals with the last thing you talked about, just for clarification here so we're not off track. And I don't know why I'm doing this because every time Minutes I can never figure out what I said so I'm sure nobody else can either. But this particular property, as I recall, the condition of approval of the Frontier Building was that there be cross access easements. So there is that condition this property is required to have them. What you did though tonight is something that this fellow can't quite comply with because he doesn't own this. Just so you know. The part that has this come up here is owned by the same people currently that own this. If that gives you some comfort unless, until they should sell this to someone before they develop it. The reason this...right now is because they'd like to have people get out of here right now before this is built and there's a building right there. So those are the... Aanenson: We'll look at that before City Council. Issues understood. Vernelle Clayton: Just so everybody knows... Joyce: Kate mentioned she's going to contact the attorney... Vernelle Clayton:... Aanenson: On items 5, 6 and 7, Craig had mentioned last time since not everybody's here he wanted to wait so I guess I'd recommend that again. What I think I'd like to do is at the next meeting, we just have one variance and then we have Ruby Tuesdays, which we're making progress on. That's the only things on. I think we'd like to discuss, we talked about taking some time to go through the variance criteria so we'll do that and then we'll discuss these, if that's okay. Joyce: So that was, scratch open discussion. Kind of our ongoing items, correct? Aanenson: Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 21, 1999 as presented. NEW BUSINESS: Conrad: New business? Joyce: That's what we were just talking about wasn't it? Aanenson: Well yeah, Ruby Tuesdays. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: There's something I'd like you to look at or report back. We had the Brozovich subdivision where we had the issue of interpretation of the rule where we split the difference between one side and the other side. There's going to be another one coming in and it's also in my neighborhood so where we had the same issue and it's on a peninsula and it's screwy so I guess I'd like you to review the ordinance and maybe there's an intent statement that should be in there. And I'm not even trying to smooth the way for the next one. I'm just saying I saw the. Aanenson: Every community does it different when you've got the aVeraging of setbacks. It causes a lot of consternation. That's a good point to look at. Conrad: Just to review it again and see if we're real comfortable as the next one comes through because it's coming. No, they haven't submitted it but it's here. Joyce: Okay, any other? Kind: I have one question of Kate. Phillip's letter about the bluff ordinance he attached, or somebody attached the city code that was pertinent to it. I could not, I read this over and over again. I could not find where it's implied that you could clear cut a 30... Aanenson: That might be, maybe we didn't include the shoreland regs which allows you on the shoreland to have a 30 foot area to do that. So we need to put that in there. I think at this point we're probably going to go ahead and put together a draft and you'll be seeing that shortly too. Saw the pictures that were attached. That's sometimes how we learn how the ordinances really don't work. Kind: I just couldn't figure out where they got from these ordinances the idea that they could do that. Aanenson: We do allow, so you can view the lake, if you've got a lot. The problem is that it's conflicts with what the intent of the bluff ordinance. So one should supercede. Obviously we're going to go with the bluff because yeah. In order for him to get the 30 feet he had to make a swit.ch back road which pretty much wiped the site out. Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36