Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.16.03 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR June 16, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Nick and Robin Roberts, Jan, Allison, Jessica and Natalie Karrmann, Tim Lenway, Jeff Krueger, Carrie Smith, Brian Watson, Paul Hardt 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation (Solid Waste Operator) Mr. Wayne VanGuilder was introduced as the new Solid Waste Operator. b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development Ms. Georgia Larson was introduced as the new Administrative Support Technician in Community Development. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Ms. Kari Wilson-Smith and Ms. Carmen Fox Ms. Kari Smith, 19879 Emperor Court, thanked the Council and City Administrator for acting on her request for an ordinance regarding model homes. She has had faith in the Council at some points, and not at other times. It is nice to see it actually can work for a citizen. She is also pleased Brandl Anderson is aware of the residents' feelings. Councilmember Soderberg suggested Ms. Smith and Ms. Fox be kept aware of the progress of this issue. Commuity Development Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 2 Director Carroll stated there is a memo in the Council packet that chronicles some of the work that staffhas done. There are some actions that staffhas proposed to take and want to make sure Council is in agreement. Nearby communities also have ordinances dealing with model homes. Staff has recommended to Council that they authorize staff to prepare a draft of an ordinance regulating model homes, using what staff feels are the best provisions from other cities. This draft ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission and to developers and builders who are currently constructing homes in Farmington. It would then be brought back to Council for review and adoption. Councilmember Soderberg felt this was a good idea. Mayor Ristow stated he liked Lakeville's language. Would it also be presented to the developer's committee? Mr. Carroll stated we would want to give them some opportunity to know what is being proposed and have a chance to comment on it so they can adjust their plans accordingly. Ms. J an Karrmann, 18614 Egret Way, commented about how important a daycare facility is to the community. She discovered a very underserved need for daycare in the city. She saw an opportunity to start Just Kidding Around Daycare. The population of Farmington has grown by 3,702 people since 2001. Since that time no other daycare facilities have been established. The city is trying to address growth issues. Just Kidding Around Daycare is ready to help with that growth problem. The economy is such that the majority of families are becoming 2-income families. With the rapid rate of growth how better can we serve the people of our community than providing the services they need. To be able to do it well and at a reasonable cost through a local business is a great solution. At some point a franchise of a large corporation will come in and accomplish these same goals, but at a much higher cost. Wouldn't you rather help a small business person from your own community who has ties and commitments and responsibilities to those that they serve? The issues that are at the forefront are whether the industrial park is a good location for a daycare. In relation to the covenants and ordinance, yes, it is obvious it is a good location. It is the only conditional use allowed. In her opinion, it is an excellent location. There are so many employees in the industrial park who would be able to take advantage of the convenience of the daycare. It is centrally located in the city with easy access from major routes. She cannot say enough good things about the daycare being an ancillary service in the industrial park. Ms. Karrmann distributed a letter to Council from an employee in the industrial park who supports the daycare and a letter of recommendation from her employer, Hubbard Broadcasting. She then showed a picture of the location for the proposed daycare. Another issue that appears to be a concern is the safety of the children. The children's safety is always number one. MN Chapter Rule 3 regulates the rules of running a daycare. She has also drafted a parent manual which provides other rules for parents to follow in addition to those. As far as the site, there would be a building and an extremely large fenced area for the children to play. Some people feel children would be running all over the industrial park, and that is just plain silly. Children are never left unattended. Children will walk from their cars to the building with their parents. There is no reason for them to be left unattended. She hoped at some point Council will agree with the comments she has made. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Shelly Sheetz, 18618 Egret Way, stated they found a daycare they were happy with, but it had to close. They have had a hard time finding daycare in the community they were comfortable with and was affordable. They have moved their daycare outside of Farmington. She looks forward to having another option in Farmington. She is excited about the idea of having another daycare that is more affordable that is center based vs in the home. In the home you have concerns if the caregiver is ill, etc. She looks forward to having another option. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (6/2/03 Regular) (6/2/03 and 6/4/03 Special) b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approved CLG Grant for Study of Historic Rural Properties - Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R37-03 Approving Gambling Premises Permit American Legion - Administration e) Adopted RESOLUTION R38-03 Approving Gambling Event Permit Senior Class Parents - Administration f) Adopted RESOLUTION R39-03 Approving Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement - Fire Department g) Approved No Parking Zone - Charleswood - Engineering h) Adopted Revised Agreement Dakota County Fair Board - Finance i) Received Information 2003 Curbside Cleanup Summary - Parks and Recreation Councilmember Soderberg stated he likes the idea of the curbside cleanup. He noted an item regarding increasing the amount of police patrol in the areas of cleanup the day before and the day of collection. He received a comment from a citizen concerned about the amount of scavenging during that time. Not only of the curbside materials, but materials in his car and by his house. Councilmember Soderberg felt the increased patrol is a good idea. Mayor Ristow stated he received complaints that there were a lot of residents bringing materials to houses in large quantities. It costs the residents of Farmington whether you have friends living within the city or outside the city. The more we bring in, the more it costs. Weare trying to accommodate the residents, but it does cost everyone else more when we bring our friends in. Also, someone had dropped some material off in a city park. It is a savings for the residents so we do not have to go to a site that is patrolled. It is also a convenience for people that do not have trailers as they can leave materials at their home. Councilmember Soderberg agreed we do not need to have people bring items into the city. It is a service for city residents. Increased police patrol will be an excellent idea. j) Approved 2004 ALF Ambulance Budget - Administration Councilmember Soderberg wanted to make the Council aware, and to express appreciation to Administrator Shukle, to get more equity in the training. ALF does training for Apple Valley and Lakeville. Our fire department receives a Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 4 training beyond the scope of ALF Ambulance's ability. ALF reimburses to Farmington an additional $5400 to cover the training the firefighters receive to make the training compensation equitable between all the cities. There has also been additional technology. k) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 195th Street Project Assessment - Engineering The 195th Street East Extension Project is complete. The final project cost was $1,068,000. There are three benefiting property owners participating in these costs, the city, Autumn Glen (Arcon), and Tax Free Exchanges (former Reisinger property). The other properties abutting the roadway have been previously assessed for CSAH 31. The cost allocations are based on property front footage. The city's share is $675,215, Arcon $280,585, and Tax Free Exchanges is $112,200. Arcon has already paid their portion. The amount for Tax Free Exchanges is deferred until it is developed without accruing interest. The city's share of$675,000 is to make up for CSAH 31. Councilmember Fitch asked because that is a future county road, will the city be given credit for what we have done on that road? Finance Director Roland replied as part of an agreement on Akin Road, the county gave the city $250,000 towards the cost of 195th Street East. We have seen the amount of money we will get from the county. The balance comes out of the city's road and bridge fund. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R40-03 adopting the assessment roll for the 195th Street East Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Approved Building Materials Industrial Park - Community Development Ms. J an Karrmann has been working on opening a daycare facility in the industrial park. Community Development Director Carroll stated whenever staff speaks about a new business that is proposed, part of that is to implement some of the goals the city has adopted. One of goals is to promote and increase the city's industrial and commercial development and redevelopment. Staff looks for commercial and industrial development that meets two requirements. One is that it complies with local zoning regulations. Staff looks at whether or not it is a permitted or conditional use. If it is not, we tell them they should not pursue it. If it is, staffwill work with them. The other condition is whether it complies with other applicable city, county, state, or federal regulations. That is related to the issue Council has to decide. An example is does the proposal comply with the industrial park design standards. A few other things considered are a business that provides new employment opportunities, a business that provides products or services desired in Farmington, also businesses that operate in a clean and environmentally safe manner. Regarding local zoning regulations, there are Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 5 certain uses that are permitted and certain uses that are conditional in the industrial park. Permitted uses include light manufacturing, office showroom, office warehouse, research facilities, warehousing facilities. Conditional uses include child daycare facilities, manufacturing facilities, and public utility buildings. In the past when businesses expressed an interest in the industrial park and have been turned down, most of the reason was that they did not meet the list of conditional or permitted uses. Within the last year a couple businesses approached the city regarding a hotel and a mini-storage. The clear direction from the Council was that if it is not a conditional or permitted use, staff should not continue interaction with those businesses and we have not. The question before the Council is not a matter of expansion. No one is proposing that we add new language to the city code or new provisions to the city code or new exterior materials to the design standards. It is also not a matter of liberalization. This is a matter of interpretation or definition or application. We are looking at what concrete is. It is a term that is in the design standards now. There is some question as to what falls in that definition. When someone proposes a material that could fall within an existing standard it is the city's obligation to move that forward. There is a material that Ms. Karrmann has proposed that is Hardi-Plank. It has Portland cement in it and various other components. The claim is that this is concrete. The definition in the design standards is that concrete may be poured, tilt-up or precast and shall be finished in various ways and has a life expectancy of 10 years. Ms. Karrmann has said Hardi-Plank is concrete. There was a joint meeting between the Council, HRA, and Planning Commission on April 30, 2003. The question was, is Hardi-Plank concrete? A staff determination was made at that time that it did not meet that definition. Ms. Karrmann appealed that decision to the Planning Commission on May 13,2003. The Commission ruled the material is concrete. Mr. Jeff Thelen appealed that decision saying Hardi-Plank is not concrete. The question before the Council is, is Hardi-Plank concrete? Ifnot, Council would sustain Mr. Thelen's appeal. If Council feels it is concrete, they would deny Mr. Thelen's appeal. Mr. Jeff Thelen, owner of Thelen Cabinets, stated by itself, he is not disputing that Hardi-Plank could have some concrete material in it, and could be classified as concrete. He has a concrete bird bath at home, but he is not proposing that for a building structure. The other thing is are we talking about the building itself, the structural material of the building being required to be concrete, or the coverings? In James Hardie's own literature they say their material is lap siding, shingle siding, vertical siding, trim, fascia, and soffit. No where does it say it is a structural component of a building. The intent of the ordinance and the covenants vs the way it is being interpreted is different than the way it was written 12 years ago in phase 1 of the industrial park. Because of staff, Council, HRA, Planning Commission turnover we do not have that history here for anyone to comment on it. Invite those people in and get some comment from the last HRA's member that invented the covenants. You might get a little different idea of what the Council Minutes (Regular) June 16,2003 Page 6 intentions were. It might be a poorly written covenant or zoning, but again what is the intent of the zoning and the covenants? We have something completely different than what we are talking about. Mayor Ristow opened it to the audience, asking not to have any personal attacks on anyone. He invited people to make their comments about the daycare. Ms. J an Karrmann distributed a letter that was given to the Planning Commission on May 9 dealing with the definition of concrete. The definition of Hard i-Plank is the same as concrete. Concrete does meet the design standards of the industrial park. It was recommended by the Planning Commission and the HRA has also approved it as an acceptable material. Mr. Thelen's appeal is not based on any issue having to do with fact or procedural error, which are the qualifications for an appeal. His appeal is based on his opinions and how things were handled 10 or 15 years ago. Ms. Karrmann wondered if Mr. Thelen's appeal should have been brought to the City Council at all at this point. It seems that we are listening to a few people. Mayor Ristow stopped her saying Ms. Karrmann had her right for an appeal and Mr. Thelen has his right otherwise staff would not have moved it ahead. Ms. Karrmann stated she accepts that. She was just wondering if it should have been brought to this point. Mayor Ristow stated staff moved it ahead. If Mr. Thelen did not have probable cause, it would not have been moved ahead. Ms. Karrmann thanked Mayor Ristow for that clarification. Ms. Karrmann continued saying she has spoken to the Planning departments of Lakeville, Bumsville, and Apple Valley and they all accept the Hardie products in their industrial zoning products. Her builder and the representative from James Hardie was in attendance to give more details as to why they feel it is acceptable and why it should remain an acceptable use in the zoning district. Mr. Larry White, builder for Ms. Karrmann, stated the material is made by James Hardie Company. The Material Safety Data Sheet says the product is 50-60% Portland cement, 35-45% sand, and less than 10% wood fiber. The definition of concrete talks about the components being Portland cement, sand, water and other aggregates. Hardi-Plank is concrete. There has been no documentation from anyone that has appealed this. Mr. White also had a sample of the stucco texture, which the Planning Commission approved. Referring to a comment by Mr. Thelen, Hardi-Plank was not in this market at the time the covenants were established. It is understandable how they did not consider this product. It entered this area in the 1990's. No one can criticize the HRA for not considering this product. It was not here. If we took that approach with every material, we would still be living in caves. Mr. White showed some photos of buildings with Hardi-Plank. Councilmember Fitch asked if the buildings are in an industrial setting or commercial? Mr. White replied the first photo is industrial. There are precast concrete buildings, textured concrete block building, a mini-storage built out of fab-con wall panels in the industrial park. Bumsville allows an applicant to upgrade to a higher level of standard and allow it in the industrial park. Hardi- Plank has a 50 year product warranty, so it exceeds the 10-year requirement. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 7 They are proposing 4x8 stucco sheets which the Planning Commission preferred. The lap siding is available in a factory finish product which carries a 15 year warranty on the finish itself. The panels are not factory finished and are installed on-site in a primed finish. They are then field painted. Councilmember Fitch asked what the exterior walls would be made of? Mr. White replied it would consist of wood load bearing studs, on the outside there would be sheathing and on the outside of that would be the Hardi product. The building code addresses the type of materials used. The ordinance does not get into structural materials. It talks about the exterior materials. What is exterior is the piece that is exposed to the air. Councilmember Fitch asked if you came to the city and said I want to build an exterior wall out of concrete masonry block, would you expect that to be approved? Mr. White stated you need to put that in narrower context. Councilmember Fitch stated as far as structure, would you expect that anyone of those things in the current code that says exterior wall, not the fa~ade, not the covering, because here it says brick is acceptable, but with brick you would need one or more of these components necessarily more which would be a concrete block wall behind the brick. Are you intending for your exterior walls to either be poured in place concrete, or block, or precast, or tipped up concrete panels behind the Hardi siding? Mr. White replied no. The reason is the ordinance does not address the structural issues, the ordinance addresses the exterior materials and the building code addresses structural materials and there are a variety of materials or methods depending on the occupancy of the building and the level of fire protection, there are a number of options in the building code that address that and it is due to the hazard level ofthe use of the building. We will meet all the building codes. Councilmember Fitch stated your exterior wall will be wood. It will not be poured in place concrete, tipped up, or concrete block, is that correct? Mr. White replied the structural component of the exterior wall will be load bearing wood. Councilmember Fitch stated where anyone of these other materials would by themselves be the structural component. Mr. White disagreed. If you look at state of the art construction, you will find other than some large institutional buildings, you will find brick installed primarily over wood stud or metal stud framing. You'll find the same with stone. Councilmember Fitch asked if there were any examples in our current industrial park, where the exterior walls are something other than these materials. Staff replied not that they are aware of. Councilmember Fitch asked about the structural component of the exterior walls. Staffreplied not that they are aware of. Mayor Ristow asked if that was related to the design standards as specified in the comments on the history where it says concrete that is poured in place, tipped up, or precast? Community Development Director Carroll stated Mr. White has correctly identified the issue. It may be a legal interpretation as to what the industrial park design standards and covenants address. Staffhas taken the position that since it says exterior wall of buildings shall exist of one or more of these materials, that the focus is on what you see when you look at the exterior of Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 8 the building. It was primarily an aesthetic issue and secondary a structural issue. We do not have a lot of background history in terms of written records as to what was in the mind when Council adopted this. Mr. White is correct that if someone was building a home and they wanted to have a wood or metal frame structure with this product on the outside, building inspections would approve it. Mayor Ristow stated he is going by Mr. Carroll's comments that both sets of design standards specify several broad categories of acceptable exterior wall materials including concrete that is poured in place, tipped up, or precast. Mr. Carroll stated if someone intended to have that as the only exterior wall material, that would be approved. Mayor Ristow asked that is not the design standards then that is in the covenants for the industrial park? Mr. Carroll replied the Planning Commission position on their decision was that this product when applied to the exterior of a building, is the exterior wall material and that it is concrete and therefore satisfies the requirements of the design standards. Mr. White stated in the industry if we were told that the exterior wall system had to be of a certain type and had to be load bearing, that would support what Councilmember Fitch was driving at. However the ordinance does not say system. System means all the components in the exterior wall as opposed to just the exterior materials. Ifwe follow the ordinance, and just look at exterior materials, we meet the ordinance with this product. Councilmember Fitch stated there are covenants to deal with and covenants can be more restrictive than the ordinance. Mr. White replied we have addressed the covenants in other meetings with the HRA, which has the authority to address the covenants, and they voted to support this product that it met all their requirements. City Attorney Jamnik stated an earlier memo in the packet includes the ordinance provisions at issue. Weare not talking about restrictive covenants. Weare talking about the ordinance interpretation, how you interpret that code section. The memo indicates exterior wall. It does not specify structural members vs the exterior surface aspect, which Councilmember Fitch was trying to get at. It also addresses alternate exterior surface materials. It reinforces the initial staff interpretation that we are looking at aesthetics or surface materials rather than the structural components. It calls for interpretation, and the interpretation is what Council needs to determine and whether or not Hardi-Plank is concrete as defined in the ordinance. Mayor Ristow stated when you were asked by the Planning Commission to make your determination, you did not agree that it was a concrete material. Attorney Jamnik replied in April staff made the interpretation it was not based on the materials in Hardi-Plank. We were not provided the full MSDS at the time. That material was provided to the Planning Commission and partially provided the basis for the Commission to reverse the staff interpretation. Mr. White stated if you were to interpret the ordinance to control the structural members in the exterior wall, that would be a huge undertaking and a huge redundancy of a program you already have in place with your building staff and with the State of Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 9 MN building codes. He is not aware of other communities that attempt to regulate structural components by planning ordinance. There is a distinct line between those two. Weare asking you to interpret this as the exterior materials, which is the language in your ordinance. Mr. Garry Heron, of James Hardie, stated the product is 90% sand and cement. It is poured and formed and it cures and we autoclave it and it is cured cement in 34 hours. It is concrete. The fiber in it is a rebar to hold the product together while it is being cured and manufactured. It is popular because it performs like cement, but looks and sounds and works like a wood product. It has a 50 year warranty. Mayor Ristow stated that is up to the person purchasing it. Our requirement is 10 years. If you are around in 50 years, more power to you. He has seen other people with other materials that have steel siding that has been on 30 years and now they cannot find the people they bought it from. It is all in the trust. Councilmember Soderberg stated the company has been around for 100 years. The product was developed in 1980? Mr. Heron stated the asbestos was taken out in the late 70' s. The product has been around since 1917. Councilmember Soderberg stated the product has been around for more than 50 years. You just took the hazardous material out. How has the product held up? Mr. Heron stated you could look at the old asbestos sidings. They were put on over 50-60 years ago and are still performing fine. This product is identical, except the asbestos is removed. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is a proven warranty and proven product. Mr. Nick Roberts, 5597 1 80th Street, commented as a citizen and member of the HRA. The reason he is on the HRA is to help small businesses come into the community. Obviously, Ms. Karrmann has done more than her fair share of work and effort on this project. She has to be commended on that. Everyday this goes longer it is more money out of her pocket and it could be more money in her pocket for putting up a business. It would be a great asset to the business park to have a childcare facility in the industrial park. It allows businesses to have their children close by, it has the advantage for an employee to come over for lunch with their children. It would also be a very large asset to bring more businesses into the city. The major concern of large businesses is childcare. Most businesses themselves want to open up childcare within their own company to address the concerns of employees. Having a daycare close by makes Farmington another asset for the community. Mr. Roberts questioned Mr. Thelen and Mr. Garvey's motivation for their appeals. Why is there such a concern for allowing this? The gentleman from James Hardie just stated that this is a poured concrete. It is tipped up as well. There is a lot being taken into consideration as to what the past HRA members have said. The current HRA is what is important. The current HRA has made the decision and it is their interpretation, 4-1, that this material meets the covenants for placing the childcare facility in the industrial park. He questioned the personal motivations of some members of Council for helping Mr. Thelen especially during certain meetings. In his opinion, Mr. Thelen has gotten Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 10 some extra assistance from certain members of Council where Ms. Karrmann has not gotten any help from the city it seems like for helping move this along. The city has done everything they can to help bring this business into the city. In his opinion, there are certain members of the community getting unfair assistance from the Councilmembers without mentioning any names. Mr. Roberts thinks it is a good and viable project, and it would be a terrible loss to the city not to bring this business into the industrial park. Mayor Ristow replied it was probably me because it was not televised and I was here, but maybe Ms. Karrmann can bring you up to speed back in April the telephone call she made to the Mayor to get where she is today if she wishes. If you are referring to me taking sides for one or the other, it is not true. Mr. Roberts stated he is not mentioning any names. Mayor Ristow stated you can take Ms. Karrmann back to April and ask her what position she was in then until she called me to get the thing moving. Mr. Roberts then asked Mayor Ristow what his motivation is for helping these citizens, coming to the HRA meeting, leaving after the decision was made and waiting in the parking lot for the gentleman to leave the meeting. Mayor Ristow stated that is his business. It does not mean we were talking about that. He stated his piece at the meeting just like Mr. Roberts is tonight. Mr. Roberts stated I value your opinion and please value mine. Mayor Ristow stated he would. Mr. Jeff Thelen, stated he can answer what his motivation is. Even though he is in phase 1 of the industrial park, he has a signed contract from the HRA at that time. Now maybe the current HRA does not think a written contract from their predecessors is worth anything. It certainly is. The same contract was signed with all of the building owners in phase 2 of the industrial park. The reason this is being proposed in the industrial park is because the Planning and HRA has done a poor job of allowing other zoning and developing other land in the city that would fit more appropriately. They claim we do not have any other land available so they are pushing it in where everyone along here has said this location is not their first or second choice, but it might be their third choice. Mayor Ristow stated the hearing tonight is whether this building material is concrete. Mr. Thelen replied that is what his first comments were about. The other parts keep coming up by other members. Mr. Paul Hardt, 1117 Bristol Lane, also a member of the HRA spoke to the appeal. He thinks Mr. White's picture of a building with Hardi-Plank says it all. He wished that picture had been provided at the HRA hearing, it probably would have swung the last vote over. Any city would be proud to have that type of building in their industrial park. We have heard about other cities in this area, that actually have buildings in their industrial park made of this type of material. As a member ofthe HRA, this kind of development meets many of the standards the city has set up in the past about the kind of businesses we want in this area, the fact that it offers employment, it is consistent with many other areas of development in the industrial park. As a member of the HRA, it will promote Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 11 business in the area, it will provide a valuable service to the city and to the citizens, and it certainly helps to carry out the intent ofthe industrial park, which is to bring business into Farmington. He left the picture up saying the picture says it all. Ms. Carrie Smith, 19987 Emperor Court, stated she is a science teacher. Let's look at this scientifically. Does it meet the requirements? Yes. If she went through the scientific method and have my problem, and we take our data, if the Council comes up with a different conclusion than what many of us are thinking, she does not know how they can. If you look at the data, don't think with your heart and who you like and who you don't. Mr. Thelen called it this thing. It is not a thing it is a daycare. Ms. Smith thinks Mr. Thelen is thinking with his passion and this is an industrial park and we want to stay industrial. You have to realize you are looking at whether or not it is concrete. Scientifically, she does not know how they cannot call it concrete. If you are listening to what everyone is saying, it is concrete. MOTON by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Fogarty asked Attorney Jamnik, when staff made the determination that this was not concrete, they did not have the full MSDS? Attorney Jamnik stated we did not have the full MSDS with the breakup of the material. The city was informed by the applicant that it was a concrete type material. Councilmember Fogarty asked if staff now has a different opinion. Attorney J amnik stated we have not rendered a different opinion nor has the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cordes stated if we go by past decisions, staff is still under denial. Attorney J amnik stated we haven't looked at staff interpretation formally. Mayor Ristow stated you based it on your professional opinion. Attorney Jamnik stated we did on April 30. Councilmember Soderberg stated based on the information we have now, do you care to render an opinion as to whether it is concrete? Attorney Jamnik stated it would not be appropriate at this point to do that because the process has flowed from the initial staff to the Planning Commission to the City Council. Regardless of what any of the testimonial providers tonight would say or what staff would say, the interpretation of the ordinance and whether the product is concrete or not, is the City Council's to make. Councilmember Soderberg stated based on that comment it is totally inappropriate for staff to change their position or render a different opinion. Attorney Jamnik stated it would not be appropriate at this point. Councilmember Soderberg stated in looking at the design standards and the covenants, brick and stone are also included. He cannot imagine putting up a concrete block wall and putting brick on the exterior ofthat. Some sort of frame behind it whether it is wood or steel, with the brick or stone on it makes sense. So the interpretation we are talking about is the actual exterior wall, rather than the structural materials. Given the composition we have received tonight, he cannot help but conclude it is concrete. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 12 Mayor Ristow asked what would you put up behind it? Councilmember Soderberg replied you would put up a wood frame or steel stud wall with some sort of sheeting and material to attach the brick to. The covenants and the city code allows brick or stone. It does not specify specifically it has to be a block wall. The state building code already addresses those issues. Councilmember Cordes stated she does not think the intent of the appeal is to state whether the exterior wall should be concrete or brick. The appeal is do we accept Hardi-Plank as an acceptable material or not? Councilmember Soderberg stated it has no bearing on the daycare. Is Hardi-Plank concrete? He thinks it is. Councilmember Fitch stated he is torn. It says may be poured in place, he does not see Hardi-Plank poured in place, tipped up, or precast. By our own definition of concrete, he does not see it as concrete. If it was under alternate materials, he could see it under there. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the design standards or covenants said that the concrete "shall be" poured in place, or "shall be" tipped up, or "shall be" precast, he would agree. But "may" gives you options. It does not say those are exclusive options. If you look at the rest of the standards, brick and stone are also allowed. While a tip up panel or poured in place, provides structural support and aesthetics, this allows for some other options. Councilmember Cordes felt there are two different interpretations of tipped up or pre-cast. Councilmember Soderberg stated no one has said this is tipped up or precast. Councilmember Cordes said the builder has and so has the manufacturer. Councilmember Soderberg replied the Planning Commission and the HRA said it is concrete. It says the exterior shall be concrete. Here are some options, it can be a tip up panel, poured in place, or precast. These are options recognized and available then, but this product was not anticipated at that time. Mayor Ristow stated if you look at the original design and all the buildings out there, what is the general consensus of what the buildings are? They are precast concrete pillars that have been stood into place, bolted down, whatever. Councilmember Soderberg stated there is a variety. Councilmember Fogarty stated this is new. This is called taking advancements and saying there are new types of concrete now. If we stood still and said nothing qualifies, then you are going to have the same thing over and over again, and never improve. Manufacturers will stop trying to make better products. Mayor Ristow stated new and improved is what the manufacturer said. Councilmember Fitch asked for building code purposes, what is our definition of an exterior wall? Is it the covering or is it the wall? Community Development Director Carroll stated he did not know if they have a definition. At one point staff was asked to look into what other communities do. Lakeville in their industrial park uses the phrase exterior building finishes. Woodbury also does that, and also Burnsville. Those communities were looking at the aesthetic issues and how it looks from the outside as opposed to the structural issues. Someone asked what information staff had available at the time the initial decision was Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 13 made that Hardi-Plank was not concrete. Much of the information you heard tonight, staff did not have at the time, or the Material Safety Data Sheet. As far as the definitions that Mr. White provided, staff had not looked into that yet either, and we did not have the benefit of the presentation from the representative from Hardi-Plank. So you have the benefit of more information than we had when we made the decision. Mayor Ristow stated he would expect staff, as professional people would take every opportunity you have, and you were under no pressure, to get all the information to give us that decision. That is what we pay you for. You were asked by the Planning Commission to give your opinion as a professional on what this material was, and you came back and said that it wasn't concrete. So to make excuses tonight is not acceptable in my opinion. Community Development Director Carroll replied I'm sorry you think we are making excuses. Weare not. Weare clarifying which information you have and which information we had. Mayor Ristow stated the information should have been readily available to you as it was to Mr. White. Community Development Director Carroll replied, like everyone else we make decisions based on the information available at the time. That is exactly what you are going to do tonight. That is what we did then. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA looked at this material in light of the covenants only, and determined it was a concrete product that was acceptable under the covenants as a use in the industrial park. The Planning Commission also looked at it and rendered a unanimous decision that it was an acceptable product. He supported the Planning Commission in their decision. Councilmember Cordes asked about 6% of the exterior wall surface. The 6% could be metal flashing on top or siding. Attorney J amnik stated it is pre- engineered metals. Councilmember Cordes asked if this material would be considered an alternate material? Attorney Jamnik replied no, because it would not be considered a pre-engineered metal. The ordinance leads to the conclusion that the primary focus is aesthetics or exterior surface finish. Councilmember Fitch noticed his name is signed on the most recent covenants. That was one of our main concerns, was aesthetics, and quality of the industrial park. We wanted a quality product and to make sure businesses were all playing by the same rules and building the same type of quality building. Aesthetics was part of it. The industrial park was built to look like an industrial park, not like a residential housing unit. There are different design standards for the industrial park. As far as the covenants, they are immaterial tonight, except that the covenants read the same as the building code. Councilmember Fogarty did not think this is an unaesthetic building. If Ms. Karrmann went with the stucco look instead of lap siding you would get an aesthetic look, without a house look. It is not a lower standard of product and would not devalue the other properties out there. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 14 Councilmember Fitch asked if we change this and say it is concrete, would that specifically be put into the code? Community Development Director Carroll replied not unless you ask us to. Attorney Jamnik stated your decision would not translate immediately into a code amendment. Your decision would be binding on this application, as well as serve as precedent for the future. Councilmember Soderberg asked if this building were proposed as 100% brick with a wood frame structure behind it, would there be a problem? Councilmember Cordes stated no, because brick is acceptable. She is looking at the finish. As long as they meet the building code, they can put whatever they want behind the wall. Mayor Ristow stated according to the Fire Marshal it is because the building is 5,000 sq. ft. or less. If it were more, a wood structure would not be acceptable. Councilmember Soderberg replied that is stated in the building code. Weare not here to determine what the building code says. Mayor Ristow stated it depends on what kind of material you can use. There are not many buildings out there with that amount of square footage and the intent at the time was to have a more industrial type building. Councilmember Fogarty stated now we are getting into what is going into the building instead of what will be on the outside. Mayor Ristow stated he is going by what the intent of the outside was. He did not think there were any buildings out there with a wood structure. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is to be determined by the code itself. As far as the size of the building, that is no where defined in the code or covenants. Councilmember Fitch asked if it was agreed we are strictly talking about the exterior material, not the wall itself. Is the wall the fa~ade or is the wall the structural part? Councilmember Fogarty immediately thought of the fa~ade. Councilmember Fitch stated he knows where Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg stand, and asked if Mayor Ristow and Councilmember Cordes agreed that this is talking about exterior surface? Mayor Ristow replied is it a concrete material? Councilmember Fitch stated at that point you can say there have been advances in materials. So then is that concrete according to an exterior wall by definition of a fa~ade, or an exterior wall by definition of a structural member? There is a distinct difference between the two. Councilmember Cordes thought up until tonight, that an exterior wall meant you saw a cement block on both sides. Now she looks at it as the fa~ade. Mayor Ristow thought some buildings had brick and stone part way up. The question is, do we agree with the Planning Commission or the staff that it is a concrete material. Staff at one time said it wasn't, and the Planning Commission says it is. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision that Hardi-Plank is concrete. Councilmember Fitch asked if we change this, would it be wise that we make some distinction in terminology between walls, facades, and exteriors to clarify this? If we reach a decision, we should start taking the ambiguity out of our Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 15 codes. If it hadn't been that some of us were on the HRA at that time, we wouldn't have a clue as to what those people were thinking. Councilmember Soderberg stated you are asking for a definition of what is a structural wall? Councilmember Fitch stated a wall has a definite meaning to all of us. There were two or three definitions between us. In our code, if we are going to call this concrete, he would not want to make his basement wall out of this concrete material. He does not determine this as a building material to build a foundation out of. We have to start clarifying what we mean by a wall. Attorney J amnik stated most ofthose structural issues are fully addressed by the state building code. We would be pre-empted from modifying the structural aspects of the building that is administered by the building officials. Ifwe did do a clarification, it would be along the lines Community Development Director Carroll mentioned, to specify that this is an exterior wall finish, rather than a structural section. Mayor Ristow asked in your professional opinion, by accepting this as concrete and allowing this material, is it breaking any past covenants? Attorney Jamnik stated no, the covenants are HRA interpreted and by the terms of the covenants, with the exception of Lexington Standard, the HRA is the sole determinant of that, and that covenant interpretation is separate from the ordinance interpretation which was staff, Planning Commission and now City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow stated he did not believe it is a concrete based material the way it .has been interpreted in the past, but we will accept from the information we have tonight that it is a concrete material which we are making our decision on. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Soil Testing Results - 3rd and Spruce Street - Community Development Mr. Timothy Lenway, of Peer Environmental, presented results of the soil borings that were done on the 3rd and Spruce Street site. In May 2003, 5 environmental borings were done. Four on parcels A and B and one on parcel F. Four were done on parcels A and B as previous investigations had been done on the other parcels during past clean-ups. Parcels C-F had already received a no action letter from the MPCA which stated everything was ok. The analytical testing was very minimal. One soil sample had a little DRO in it, and that was part of the asphalt component and not of any concern. There was one ground water sample with 110 micrograms/liter. Detection limits are at 100. With respect to the soil and ground water the report shows no more investigation is required. They also did a hazardous materials inventory for asbestos. During the initial walk through, no asbestos was identified without doing a destructive sampling. A hazardous materials inventory was also completed. A destructive sampling should be done prior to demolition. Regarding the small detection in the ground water, the only issue that might come up is depending on the building design, if you have to dewater an area or digging footings 8 or 10 feet down, you might have to dewater to get the concrete poured. With that low of a concentration, there is a 99% chance there will not be a problem, but it would be a good idea to collect a sample Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 16 of the discharge to verify none ofthe contaminants are getting into the storm sewer. With hazardous materials, it is a good idea to write into the purchase agreement that the owner of the property is aware he has to take everything out that is his. Such as the 55-gallon drums, the scrap yard, paint, and cleaning materials. City Administrator Shukle asked Council ifthey wanted to give direction to staff as to what they would like to do with the site. At one time, it was discussed ifthe site was environmentally clean we would continue to look at the City Hall being located there or the HRA is interested in purchasing the site for economic development reasons. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA has expressed an interest if it will not be used as a City Hall site. It would be more appealing to any developer to have the entire site. If the City Hall does not go there, the HRA would like to acquire the parcel. Councilmember Cordes stated at a recent workshop, it was discussed if or when a City Hall is built there, it would be a good idea to purchase the Blaha site. She would not be uncomfortable with the HRA looking into that. Councilmember Fitch stated the city owns a few parcels in the city. At this point we have been unable to move them. He has a problem that unless it is going to be determined right now that that will be a City Hall site, he hates to keep taking buildings off the tax roles. Ifwe have a definite plan and foresight for it he would agree. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA has expressed that falls more within the redevelopment aspect and that was their decision. The HRA was going to do an RFP for the parcel next to Gossips, but as the City Hall Task Force was just considering different sites, he asked the HRA to postpone putting out RFP's until we knew where the Council was going to go with the City Hall location. If we do decide to build on the current site, we do have one business that would have to relocate and the McVicker site would be an excellent location. However, that would be up to that business owner. Mayor Ristow stated the understanding was that we would get back to Mr. Blaha in 45 days. Councilmember Fitch stated tonight was in the 45 days area. Councilmember Soderberg stated from the HRA's perspective the entire 1/2 block becomes much more appealing to a developer. Councilmember Fitch stated he would not have a problem with the HRA purchasing it, but with the idea that let's get some RFP's, see what can be put on that site, and see what people are interested. He does not want to landlock the City Hall so that in 20 years we are rebuilding a City Hall somewhere else where land is $150,000/acre. When you see housing lots going between $90,000 and $150,000, you can only imagine the cost of commercial property. He has a great fear oflandlocking. Ifthe HRA bought it, he would be in favor of them seeing what kind of development proposals they could get to make that our start to the Spruce Street Corridor. Mayor Ristow stated if we gave 45 days, when are we going to make this decision? Councilmember Soderberg asked ifhe was correct that the HRA has already directed staffto negotiate with Mr. Blaha and staff is waiting for Council to concur with that. Community Development Director Carroll stated we received direction to enter into a purchase option with him so Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 17 we would not have to commit ourselves to buying it, but to lock in a price. Mr. Blaha was not interested in that alternative. He just wants to sell it. He is looking for us to see if someone is interested in buying it and at what price. If Council's direction to staff is to talk with him, lock in a price and terms and take it to the HRA, we will do that. Our understanding would be if the Council later decides they want it for a City Hall, you will not have a fight with the HRA. If not for a City Hall, then the HRA has the property combined in the best way to market it. Councilmember Fitch stated ifthe HRA purchases the site now, there is a current tenant. Community Development Director Carroll stated ifthe HRA acquires the property and keeps the tenant, and then later had to get rid of the tenant to develop the site, the city would have to pay relocation expenses. If Mr. Blaha agrees to terminate the lease and then the property is vacant, the relocation expenses may not exist. Councilmember Soderberg asked once the property is vacant, can the city lease it until such time without having any relocation expenses incurred? Attorney Jamnik replied yes, it can be stipulated in the lease. Councilmember Soderberg stated, then it would be advisable for the HRA to purchase it as a vacant building and then have a new lease without any relocation exposure. Mayor Ristow stated it was mentioned at one time that the HRA would have to borrow money from the city to purchase it, or do they have the money? Finance Director Roland replied with the sale of the two lots in the industrial park to Vinge Tile, the results of the 2002 audit in combination with receipt of the cash for those two lots, there would be existing funding at the dollar amount that was discussed. She believes the HRA has the funding at this point to enter into that agreement. Mayor Ristow stated you can shift the money from that district to another district. Finance Director Roland replied it is not in a district. The industrial park phase 1 was purchased as part of the downtown TIF district using bonds that the TIF in the downtown area repays. Vinge Tile has not asked for TIF, nor will they be receiving TIF. The sale price on those lots would go back into the HRA as stipulated in previous agreements with the sale of those properties. The bonds are still being paid offby the downtown TIF district. That does not include those two properties. Mayor Ristow asked if it would be wise to do an RFP on what is available and include that lot, take the chance on getting the site, or take the chance on Mr. Blaha selling it? Councilmember Soderberg felt it was not a wise choice to put out an RFP until the city determines where, when and if we will build a City Hall. Mayor Ristow stated he was asking if the HRA were interested in buying the building. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the HRA were to put out an RFP, and we did have a viable project, we would have a viable project competing with City Hall. That is not a good position for the city to be in. Ifwe make a determination that that is not the location, then the HRA will proceed with RFP's for whatever land we have available, once the Council makes a decision on the City Hall. Mayor Ristow asked what do we tell Mr. Blaha in the meantime? Councilmember Soderberg stated he is advocating for Council to give staff the Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 18 direction to negotiate with Mr. Blaha so the HRA can purchase the property. Councilmember Fitch asked if the HRA has the finances, does that need Council approval? Attorney Jamnik replied not legally, we are asking whether Council would support that strategy. You are running a slight risk that once you accomplish the land assembly, and choose not to proceed with City Hall, and an RFP process does not generate sufficient response, you will own property that will be off the tax role. Councilmember Fitch stated not if we continue a lease with the current tenant. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would be off the tax role, but it would provide revenue. Mayor Ristow stated you would want to vacate the tenant, so you would not have to pay relocation costs. Attorney Jamnik stated it would be a new lease. From a legal perspective it is the least risk for the city, and the best economic move to acquire in advance of a prospective developer. At this point, the current owner does not have a prospective purchaser that would be competing with the city. Mayor Ristow asked what staff would recommend negotiating? Community Development Director Carroll stated staffhad the property appraised. Mr. Blaha indicated he thought the property was worth more. He indicated a price he would want to sell it for, and after a period oftime, he indicated he thought it was worth more. There is not a wide range between what staff recommends and what he wants. Staff would like an opportunity to talk with Mr. Blaha to get that range narrowed. We would then go to the HRA with the best deal we can cut, whether the HRA would like to buy it for this amount and under these terms or not. The HRA would then decide. There is no point for the HRA to go down a path the majority of Council would oppose. This is why we are discussing this. If Council is in support of the HRA trying to acquire the site, and if Council authorizes staff to negotiate and get the best price and recommend it to the HRA, staff will keep Council informed as to when the HRA will be considering that, if Council would want to participate in the discussion. If we have control of all the parcels on that site, the outcome would be better for the city. Mayor Ristow stated it depends on what the Spruce Street Corridor is going to do. People might step up right now and buy the lot. There has been no definite price on the two lots. There have been offers in the past. A lot goes back to what we really want to do with the property. There was an offer at one time for $75,000 for the whole area. Before he gives direction he would like to know what will happen before he says to go ahead and purchase it. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff is not recommending that we buy it. Weare recommending that Council gives staff permission to explore that possibility. Mayor Ristow stated he does not want to send the wrong message to Mr. Blaha. Councilmember Soderberg asked Mayor Ristow ifhe opposed having staff enter into a discussion with Mr. Blaha to see if we can reach a mutual agreement on a purchase price. Mayor Ristow stated he would not oppose that. Just so the direction is clear that there is nothing definite. Councilmember Soderberg stated that decision is in the HRA's hands, to purchase the site. Mayor Ristow stated if the HRA thinks it would be a plus to them to negotiate, that would be up to them. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 19 Councilmember Cordes felt it would be wise to have the HRA negotiate. Councilmember Fogarty agreed, stating one big parcel would market well. Councilmember Fitch also agreed, as long as we do not vacate the tenant before we have to. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the HRA purchases the site, does the tenant physically have to vacate the building or can it be a termination oflease and a simultaneous re-lease? Attorney Jamnik stated it is best if there is an actual change in physical possession because there is an ambiguity created with the hold over. b) Vermillion River Presentation - Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water District - Engineering Mr. Brian Watson ofthe Dakota County Soil and Water District gave a presentation regarding the Vermillion River. Dakota County and Scott County have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to form a Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization. Mr. Watson's presentation outlined three things. He gave a tour of the watershed, some background on water quality data obtained over the last 4-5 years, and 4 or 5 parameters they use that show the health of the Vermillion watershed. The Vermillion watershed is the largest in the metropolitan area. c) May 2003 Financial Report - Finance Staff presented revenues and expenses to Council as of May 31, 2003. d) Consider Reconvening of MUSA Review Committee - Community Development The city allocated MUSA in October of200l and has not reconsidered the issue since then. At the time Council directed staff to not look at MUSA for at least a year. There has been some concern about growth, and that perhaps it has been too rapid. If additional MUSA is awarded, that may lead to additional growth. What staff is wondering is if Council would like staff to reconvene the MUSA Committee and look at the remaining MUSA that is available through 2005. This amounts to 212 acres. The Council has the right to allocate that now, wait until next year, or wait until 2005. There have been inquiries from property owners and from developers wondering in which direction the city wants to grow and at what rate. Mayor Ristow stated it was the intent to go from the downtown area to the north. Finance Director Roland indicated there are 1,000 platted lots yet to be built on. Mayor Ristow stated the recommendation from the Council was 275 permits. Finance Director Roland stated the 275 is an average that is covered in the city's comprehensive plan submitted to the Metropolitan Council in 2000. That is an average over a 20-year period. It has been used as a guide, but not an absolute figure. That will be balanced out once the land growth slows down. Councilmember Fitch wanted to be cautious looking at MUSA reconvening that it be carefully planned and brought in in a period of time we could handle it to keep Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 20 our growth regulated. As development slows down, the growth of the city budget will be less in our control than it is today. Finance Director Roland stated we will go as the city's growth goes. Councilmember Cordes felt the MUSA Committee did a good job of analyzing and telling developers that just because you apply, does not mean you will be building tomorrow. She does not think reconvening the committee is bad. Councilmember Fitch stated he is not against reconvening it, but would like the direction set now. (Councilmember Fogarty left the meeting at this point due to a/amity emergency). Community Development Director Carroll stated the message sent at the end of the process last time, was 12 ofthe 14 applicants did not get MUSA. Ifstaff receives authorization to reconvene the committee, there are many steps that need to be taken before the first meeting, which could take a year. Mayor Ristow felt it was good to reconvene the committee, but did not want the wrong message sent. Council authorized staffto reconvene the MUSA Review Committee. e) Adopt Resolution - Final Plat Meadow Creek 3rd Addition - Community Development Mr. Warren Israelson of Progress Land Company proposes to plat 80 single- family lots in the third phase of Meadow Creek. The proposed subdivision is located east of Prairie Creek and north of Autumn Glen. There are an additional 12 lots south of the Lake Julia waterway. Originally these were platted as one outlot. They were not previously platted because the design ofthe Lake Julia waterway had not been decided. The design is now clarified and these lots are ready. Mayor Ristow asked if the areas that backed up to this have been taken care of. City Engineer Mann stated the backyard drainage issues have been regraded. With this project, Lake Julia waterway will be completed. There are certain lots that will not be issued building permits until the waterway is completed. Mayor Ristow stated the second issue is the traffic and whether it would be diverted to 19Sth Street instead of impacting more on Embers and 187th Street. City Engineer Mann stated the alignment ofthe roadways do match the previous plan. The development is connected to 195th Street. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R41-03 approving the Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Final Plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16,2003 Page 21 t) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development As there was a fire at the surveyor's office the plat was not available. This item was continued to the July 7, 2003 Council Meeting. g) Adopt Ordinance - Parkland and Trail Dedication Requirements - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad brought a request to amend the current parkland dedication ordinance. During the public hearing at the Planning Commission, it was requested that input be received from developers. One letter was received from Mr. Steve Juetten, Newland Communities. It was agreed that the section in the proposed ordinance related to conditions to be met prior to deeding fell within the park development fee portion of the ordinance. This section was deleted. The significant new requirements include: Land required for parks, open space and trails is now determined by density rather than a flat percentage. A requirement that the developer entirely pay for trails to be constructed in the development when the trail has been identified on the city's Trail Plan. A requirement for the developer to pay half of the cost to develop the new park that is based on an average park development cost of $30,000 an acre. Councilmember Fitch asked if this becomes an impact fee to the developer and could this be challenged? Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied this is a partnership and providing an opportunity to develop the parks sooner rather than later. Attorney Jamnik stated we are still requiring a dedication ofland. We are using the density to classify how much need there is for the land. The cost of the park is worked in such as storm sewers and sanitary sewers. Councilmember Cordes asked so asking a developer to help with development is not an impact fee? Attorney Jamnik replied it is an impact fee in the sense it is a development cost that is necessitated by the development. But the city is authorized to do that. Where we are not authorized is for off site overall infrastructure costs proposed on a development for non-related developments away from there. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 003-490 approving the new Public Parks, Trails and Open Space dedication ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Schedule Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Meeting - Community Development A meeting was schedule for 6:00 p.m. on July 16, 2003. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fitch: Earlier this evening one of our HRA members seemed to indicate that there was a favoritism given to a particular resident. Councilmember Fitch wanted to be on record to say any resident in this city is equal and has the same access to Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 22 anyone at this table or the management table. If you find that not to be true, please contact us. To stand up here and say that people are favoring one side or another is blatantly false. We each have our own ideas and convictions on any particular project, but it certainly does not mean we have closed off access to anybody in the process. To say so otherwise is dishonest. Councilmember Cordes: Reminded everyone it is Dew Days this weekend and there are a wide variety of events taking place. City Engineer Mann: Reminded Council there is a joint meeting with Council and Castle Rock Township to discuss the Ash Street project on June 23, 2003. We are approaching the county's CIP deadline of August. Between that meeting and one final meeting decisions regarding that project need to be discussed. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:57 p.m. 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 11 :24 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~L~fr7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant