Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 08-28-2006 . . . ~ ~~HILLS Approved: 9/11/06 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 28, 2006; 7:00 P.M. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:04 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Vincent Pellegrin. Absent: Councilmember Brenda Holden (Excused Absence) Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Community Development Director, Karen Barton; City Engineer, Kris Giga; Assistant City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; City Planner, James Lehnhoff; Parks and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Mayor Aplikowski requested item 7(c) "Extension of Proposal Date for Unit Development of Royal Oaks" be added to the agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Pellegrin moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended_ The motion carried unanimously (4- 0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 31,2006 City Council Meeting B. July 17, 2006 Work Session Meeting MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the July 31, 2006 City COlillcil Meeting Minutes as presented and the July 17, 2006 Council Work Session Minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 2 . 3. a_ b. C- d_ e. f. g. . . CONSENT CALENDAR Claims and Payroll Motion to Approve Payment #1 to Amt Construction in the amount of $487,812.59 for the 2006 Ridgewood Neighborhood PMP Project Motion to Amend Ordinance No. 365 Relating to the Protection of Shade Trees Planning Case 06-021; Minor Subdivision & Variance; Bruce & Kathy Haglund; 3300 & 3294 Lake Johanna Blvd Planning Case 06-022; Site Plan Review; Greg Peterson; 1105 Amble Drive Motion to Amend the Budget for the 3153 Shoreline Lane Driveway Replacement Motion to Amend the Budget for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None_ 5. PUBLIC INOUIRIES/INFORMA TIONAL None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2006 Ride:ewood Neie:hborhood PMP Assessment Hearine: Ms. Giga stated that Council awarded the contract for the 2006 PMP improvements to Amt Construction Company on June 12, 2006. She gave a brief summary of the improvements to the neighborhood, as well as a current proj ect update_ Ms. Giga stated that the total project costs, including construction and engineering fees, are $2_1 million. Funding for this project comes from the General Capital Fund and Utility Enterprise Funds. Following the assessment policy adopted in 2004, 50% ofthe roadway improvement costs will be assessed_ She reviewed the proj ects costs associated with each ofthe funds and the assessable amounts. Approximately 29% ofthe project costs are proposed to be received from assessments, and the remaining 71 % will be funded by the City. Ms_ Giga indicated that there are two assessment payment options. The first is to pay the entire amount within 30 days of the adoption of the assessment roll. This can be paid at City Hall and will accrue no interest. The second option is for equal installments to be added to the residents' . - I I . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 3 property taxes over a 10-year period. Per the assessment policy, the interest is based on the prime rate plus 2%, set on the date ofthe adoption ofthe assessment roll (current prime rate is 825%.) Ms_ Giga also noted that there is a payment deferral option for seniors- residents must be 65 or older, need to fill out an application form available at City Hall, and provide supporting documentation of economic hardship. She recommended if there are any questions or concerns received at the hearing that the fmal adoption of the assessment rolls be continued to the September 11, 2006 City Council meeting to allow staff time to research questions and objections raised at the initial hearing. If Council receives no comments regarding the assessments, staff recommended approval of the resolution adopting and confirming assessments for the 2006 PMP improvements. Councilmember Grant noted the only assessable cost in this project was the road. Mayor Aplikowski opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mayor Aplikowski noted there would be no decision made at this meeting. A decision would be at the next Council meeting. Esther Dant,35 1 1 Ridgewood Road, stated she understood there were two payment options. She asked if they would get an additional statement from Ramsey County if it went through their taxes, or would it be on their tax statement Mr. Filla responded if the City certified the assessment; it would appear on their tax statement as a separate line item, which would go to their mortgage company for payment Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, asked what was the cost to replace the retaining wall on the west side of Siems Court, and what was the rationale for why they were paying for this as part of tbe assessment Ms. Giga responded the cost was $40,000 and it needed to be reconstructed to support the road and utilities along Siems Court. Mr. Nelson stated in order for the property owner to get a driveway in, the retaining wall was put up. He stated the retaining wall serviced the private lot and the only reason the retaining wall needed to be there was because of the driveways. He stated he would like to see when the retaining wall installation was approved by the City and he did not believe the retaining wall was a benefit to all of the homeowners_ He believed the wall only benefited the residents in that area. He stated it appeared to him that each resident was paying $600 for the retaining wall when it only benefited a couple of residents. He asked how the City calculated the double lots_ Ms. Giga responded she believed the double lots were assessed on a per lot basis where there was an existing home, but she was not 100 percent sure of this because the preliminary assessment rolls were generated before she was employed by the City. Mr. Filla noted if there was ever a connection, the City would recapture the cost Mr. Nelson stated it did not appear to be fair that the homeowners who owned two lots were not assessed double. . - . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 4 Mike Aamoth, 3550 Ridgewood Road, stated he had received some information from the City that was inaccurate and was not clear. He stated this was a problem and an inconvenience for the residents. He recommended the construction company be more accurate. He asked if there was any place he could go and look at the bids submitted for this project from the various construction companies. Ms. Wolfe stated the bids were available at City Hall and ifhe left his name with the City Engineer, they would be provided to him. Mr. Aamoth asked if there was an assessment meeting in June. He noted initially he was told the assessment was going to be around $7,000 and now it went up 45 percent. He stated he was concerned the project had now been started and there was no assessment hearing. Ms. Giga stated the feasibility report was done last August and there might have been a tentative schedule in that report. Ms. Wolfe stated initially they thought the assessment hearing would be held earlier than it ended up being_ She indicated in the feasibility study they estimated between $6,500 and $8,800 for the assessment, but the bids came in higher than anticipated. Mr. Aamoth stated it would be nice if there was better communication all around. Ms. Giga stated they were distributing information as best they could, but the contractor's schedule often changes hour by hour and not day by day_ If the contractor conveys the information in a timely manner the City will do their best to distribute the information. Lisa Abraham, 3511 Siems Court, asked if everyone had received the letter she sent. She stated if they were going to go back and consider lots in different areas, the Island Lake Beach Club also had two separate areas, which were having their fees waived_ She requested they look at this also. She stated her assessment should be waived because of her driveway access. Ms. Wolfe stated the basis for not assessing the Beach Club was because the parcels were not developable. Ms. Abraham believed there was a value to the islands and it should probably be assessed accordingly. Jennie Michael, 3436 Siems Court asked how many units was the Beach Club. Ms. Giga responded it was two parcels. Ms. Michaels noted the parcels were huge and a lot of residents did not use the Beach Club and therefore, they should not have to pay for that portion. She stated she was under the impression the City was going to pick up the shortfall difference between the estimate and the bid. Ms. Wolfe responded the City had increased their contribution to the project. Tom Mulcahy, 3530 Siems Court, stated when he was working and a project came in as much over budget as this one did, they would ask who should be fired. He stated they needed an explanation as to why the costs came in so high. He stated if they had a feasibility study in August 2005 he believed they should rely on that feasibility study and why was the feasibility study so inaccurate. He asked if the City just accepted the bids. Councilmember Larson noted the City was subject to the market fluctuations at the time and in this instance that was what had happened. He stated they had met with the contractor to come up with some changes to reduce . - . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 5 the cost. He indicated they were not happy that this had happened, but that this is part of the process when going out for public bids. Mayor Aplikowski stated they had to have some help in paying for the project and that is how they got where they were. Mayor Aplikowski continued the public hearing until September 11, 2006_ 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Planninl! Case 06-024: Planned Unit Development Amendment & Site Plan Review; Boston Scientific: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant was requesting a Master Plan POD (7th) Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 10,225 square foot addition to Building N, which is located in the northwestern portion of the Boston Scientific campus. The building was purchased just before the Master Plan was approved in 2002, and the Master Plan does not reflect the proposed addition to this application, which is the reason for the POD Amendment- According to the applicant, the addition will be used to integrate a new product component into an existing manufacturing process and approximately ten employees would be added to Building N with this addition. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. No parking stalls would be removed or added with this proposal; however, the applicant has indicated that there is sufficient parking space on the campus and a proof of parking had been submitted. The proposal in this application would be the second addition to Building N. A 38,000 square foot addition was approved in 2003_ The planning case report reviews all of the additions and amendments to the Master Plan and to the campus since 2002_ He stated the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 06-024 and unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review based on the submitted plans and a finding that the proposal would not have negative impact on the neighborhood or City if the following thirteen conditions are included: 1. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval as stated in the approved Master Plan POD except as amended by the six subsequent amendments_ A PUD Amendment form, drafted by the City Attorney, shall amend the PUD and encompass all seven amendments to the Master Plan POD. A building permit may only be issued after the POD Amendment document receives the approval of the City Conncil and is executed by both the City Council and the applicant. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the master plan amendment and site plan review application. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The master plan amendment and site plan review shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year from and after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun within that time period_ 2. 3. 4_ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 6 . . 5. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from Rice Creek Watershed, the Pollution Control Agency, and any other necessary permits before a building permit is issued. The City shall be copied with all required permits_ Any changes to the grading, erosion, or drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the City Engineer in the July 24, 2006, memo to the City Planner. Updated site plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal before any building permits are issued. If noise from the building exceeds MPCA noise regulations for residential areas at the property line, the applicant shall reduce noise by any means necessary to be in compliance with MPCA regulations. If any complaints regarding noise are to be made to the City, the applicant shall be responsible for providing decibcl measurements from the property line. A traffic study shall be conducted and submitted to the City for review to determine if road improvements are needed prior to the submission of any application(s) that would cause the total new square footage to exceed 419,500 square feet since the Master Plan was approved in 2002. The landscaping plan shall be modified so that at least 30 percent of the trees are in the 3-5" to 4" caliper range and 20 percent of the trees are in the 4.5" to 5" caliper range. The number of trees in the 2" to 3" caliper range shall not be more than 50 percent of the trees in the landscaping plan_ The modified plan shall be submitted prior to the insurance of any building permits and is subj ect to approval by the City Planner. The mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from all adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. The applicant shall provide four handicap access parking spaces per the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. The applicant shall provide an "as built" survey upon the completion of the project that includes all required changes_ 6_ 7_ 8_ 9. 10_ 11- 12. 13. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-024, Planned Unit Development Amendment & Site Plan Review; Boston Scientific; 4100 Hamline Avenue North, subject to the thirteen conditions as outlined in staffs August 16, 2006, report. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. Plannin!! Case 06-023: Master Planned Unit DeveloDment & Preliminary Plat: Roval Oaks Realty. Inc.. 1440 -1450 West Hi!!hwav 96 Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant proposes to construct 62,432 square feet of office space on the former 6.83 acre City Hall and Public Works garage property. The total footprint of the office would be 41,024 square feet The office space was proposed to be divided into 23 for-sale condos in seven separate buildings, though individual condos may be combined to form a single unit The property was proposed to utilize the exiting driveway approach from Ramsey County Highway 96 and to construct a new driveway across an exiting access easement to Hamline . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 7 . Avenue_ The applicant proposes to share the access road off of Hamline with the daycare that is located at the intersection of Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. The revised application for less office space, fewer parking spaces, and more landscaped area was submitted in July 2006. In June and July of 2005, the City reviewed a proposal from Royal Oaks Realty for a 76,000 square foot office condominium development that would be divided into 30 office condos in seven separate buildings_ In that proposal, the property was proposed to utilize the existing driveway approach from Highway 96 and construct an access across an existing access easement to Hamline Avenue. At the July 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the proposal subject to a number of conditions related to landscaping, drainage, access, and layout. The City Council reviewed the application in July 2005_ A motion was made to approve the PUD, which resulted in a vote of 3-2_ Since a PUD approval requires a 4/5's majority, the PUD was not approved. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended (6-1) approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review based on the revised plans and the following thirty-two conditions: . I. Final Plat. The applicant shall submit an application for a Final Plat within six (6) months following City Council approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. 2. PUD Permit. A Planned Unit Development Permit shall be drafted by the City Attorney and be subject to approval by the City Council prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Revised Plans. The applicant shall submit revised plans that are in conformance with the plan review comments from the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Building Official prior to approving the Final Plat, and any other applicable conditions. 4. Timeline. The applicant's timeline for development shall be as follows: a. Phase 1: Fall 2006 - the developer may begin grading, installing utilities, and construction of storm water improvements. b. Phase 2: Fall/Winter 2006 - The developer may begin construction on units 1 - 9. c. Phase 2: 2008: Project completed. Extensions beyond December 31, 2008, shall require an application and be subject to City Council review and approval. At the time of application for extensions, the City Council may include such conditions of approval as they determine necessary for compliance with City Code. 5. Bylaws. The bylaws, covenants, deed restrictions, or any other similar documents shall be subject to review by the City Attorney and shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Plat. 6. Occupancy. No more than one business shall be permitted to occupy anyone office condominium within the development. 7. Uses. Retail, restaurant, fast-food, and residential uses shall not be permitted to occupy any of the units in the proposed development. Retail uses may be permitted if they are incidental or accessory to the primary use. 8. Outside Storage. Outside storage shall not be permitted under any circumstances. . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 8 . 9_ 10_ . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. . 16. Landscaping Plan Revisions. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits that conforms to the following: a. Additional coniferous trees shall be provided along the west buffer yard of the development to increase screening for the trail and residential properties. b. At least 30 percent of the trees shall be in the 3.5" to 4" caliper range and 20 percent of the trees are in the 4.5" to 5" caliper range. The number of trees in the 2" to 3" caliper range shall not be more than 50 percent of the trees in the landscaping plan. c. The Northwood Red Maple and the Honey Locust to the southeast of unit #1 shall be supplemented with coniferous trees and/or other vegetation to reduce headlight glare from southbound traffic. d. The office condominium association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping indefinitely. Diseased or dead landscaping shall be replaced within six months. Significant changes to the landscaping plan, as determined by the City Planner, shall require Planning Commission approval. e. The landscaping shall be irrigated_ f. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any damage to the landscaping on neighboring properties. Landscaping in the right-of-way. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the Highway 96 right-of-way. The City shall be provided with a copy of the letter of permission for the landscaping in the Highway 96 right-of-way. If the applicant is unable to obtain permission from Ramsey County to landscape a portion of the Highway 96 right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that meets the City's landscape plan requirement within the boundaries of the property. Landscaping Bond. The applicant shall submit a performance bond or other surety acceptable to the City Attorney for all landscaping or screening in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of the materials and installation. The bond shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permits. Screening. If the landscaping does not provide at least 60 percent coverage as viewed from neighboring residential properties, as determined by the City Planner, the City may require additional landscaping_ Dust and Noise. The applicant shall make reasonable efforts to reduce dust and noise during construction. Construction Activities. The applicant shall comply with Section 630.01 of the City Code limiting construction times to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on 9:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays_ However, the City shall reserve the right to further limit times in which construction may occur if a complaint is received and the complaint is verified to be a nuisance by the City_ Dumpster Enclosures. The dumpster enclosures shall use Hardie Plank siding that matches the siding ofthe office buildings in place of the proposed stucco. Tree Preservation. The applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planner and City Forester to save as many existing, healthy, and well placed trees as possible in the areas designated as landscape space. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 9 . 17 _ Mechanical Screening. All mechanical operating equipment shall be screened to meet City regulations. Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the neighboring residential areas or the daycare. 18. Fencing. Decorative fencing shall be erected around the pond at the northeast comer of the property to increase pedestrian safety. The fence shall require a permit and shall not exceed six feet in height. 19_ Park dedication. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $40,000.00 prior to filing the Final Plat with Ramsey County- 20. Rice Creek Watershed_ The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey County prior to filing the Final Plat. 21. Highway 96 access. The Highway 96 access shall be right-in and right-out only. The applicant shall be responsible for the signing and striping to provide a right turn lane on eastbound Highway 96 to the development's driveway. 22. Hamline Avenue Access. a_ The Hamline Avenue access shall be a right-in and right-out access only. No left turns shall be permitted. b. To facilitate movement in and out of the development, a minimum 30-foot radius shall be built on the northwest and southwest comer of the Hamhne Avenue intersection. Revised entrance plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Ramsey County Engineer for approval prior to approving the Final Plat. The applicant shall be responsible for placing all necessary traffic signage. 23_ Daycare Access. The applicant shall provide the daycare with a no-cost access easement to allow vehicles to access the day care from the office park's access on Highway 96_ 24. Stop Signs. A stop sign shall be placed on the southbound exit to the access easement from the daycare per the recommendation of the 2005 traffic study. A stop sign shall also be placed at the eastbound exit to the access easement before the daycare exit/entrance to the access easement per the recommendation of the 2005 traffic study. 25. Signs_ The following shall apply to all signage in the development. a. Each unit shall be permitted one 2'xI0' sign on the front of the building centered above the entrance to the unit provided that these signs are uniform in color and are not illuminated. b. If any units are combined for use by one occupant, the combined units shall be considered one unit in terms of signage and shall be permitted one 2'xI0' sign centered between the combined units provided that the sign is in conformance with the other primary signs in the development as permitted in condition 20_a_ c. Units I, 9, 10, and 18 may be permitted one sign facing Highway 96 provided each sign does not exceed twenty square feet, the signs are in a uniform location on the end units, are uniform in color with other signs in the development, used by only one occupant, and is not illuminated_ d_ Ifunits 19-23 are combined into one unit, the combined units may have one shared sign on the rear of the building provided that the sign is no greater than 60 square feet, is centered on the building, is only used by the single occupant of the combined units, and is not illuminated. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 10 . 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. . e. Each individual unit or combined units shall be permitted up to one square foot of signage for address and business name adjacent to the door. The address and business name shall be uniform throughout the development in size, placement, and color. These signs may be illuminated_ f. Each sign shall be require a separate permit. g. Off-premise advertising shall not be permitted under any circumstances_ Drainage and Utility Easement. The applicant shall provide a 12-foot drainage and utility easement along the exterior lot lines and the right-of-way_ Lighting Plan_ The applicant shall amend the lighting to be in full compliance with the City's lighting regulations prior to approving the Final Plat. Sidewalks. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that include sidewalk connections to each building, where feasible, within the development and to the City and County trail systems. The plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Trail. The trail along the western edge of the property shall be conveyed to the City in a manner that is acceptable to the City Attorney. Easement Vacation. The twenty foot wide pedestrian easement near the center of the property shall be vacated prior to filing the Final Plat. Sprinkling_ All ofthe units shall be sprinkled for fire suppression. Sand Cushion. One-foot sand cushion shall be added under any sidewalk provided in the development. Councilmember Larson asked if the extra landscaping was part of the Plarming Commission conditions. He asked if that should be in the conditions. Ms. Barton responded it was in Condition 9_a. Councilmember Grant inquired about the drainage_ Mr. Lehnhoff responded the drainage was currently being reviewed by Rice Creek Watershed District and at this time they did not have final approval by them, but final approval would be necessary before the final plat would be issued_ Ms. Giga stated there were two infiltration basins, one on the northwestern portion ofthe property and one on the eastern portion of the property south of the wetland. The storm runoff from the site would go to one or the other and ultimately end up in the pond. She stated there was some runoff on the south side of the property that would continue to go in that direction, but based on her review of the site, the proposed drainage area were less than the existing drainage areas that were going off to the south side. She stated ultimately the water would discharge into the storm sewer system on Highway 96, which eventually went to Sunfish Lake. Councilmember Grant inquired about the wetland area and asked if that was an infiltration pond and if so, how would the water escape. Ms. Giga responded that wetland would remain and ifit would ever overflow they would have a catch basin. . Councilmember Grant inquired about the infiltration pond on the northwestern portion of the property. He asked if there was an overflow for that. Ms. Giga responded there was an overflow for that pond. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 11 Councilmember Grant asked for a further explanation on the lighting plan. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the lighting might need to be moved slightly to the north, or additional covers might need to be added to diffuse the light and bring the plan into compliance with City Code_ Councilmember Grant asked if the original plan had two-story units in it. Mr. Lehnhoff responded he believed there were some two-story units in the original plan. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, responded they originally had 30 units with the center units being loft units and the outside units being rambler units. He stated the plans have not changed in terms of square footage except the rambler units are slightly large in square footage because the unit numbers got smaller. He noted they had two walk-out buildings and this was where the two levels came in. Councilmember Grant asked about the two units occupying the one building. Mr. Black responded they did not have a signed contract with the realty company at this time, but they had a company interested in taking that unit. He stated it was important for this company to have advertising on the back of that building facing Highway 96. Marcel Eibenhsteiner 14 Evergreen Lane, North Oaks, President of Royal Oaks Realty, stated they had no plans in occupying any units and the reason their name was on the building was for demonstrative purposes only. Mayor Aplikowski stated on the lighting plan, whatever they did on the comer needed to be extremely sensitive because that was the closest area to the townhome development. She stated she had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes and they had covered all of the questions she had. Councilmember Larson asked who owned the access along the daycare center. Ms. Giga responded it was an easement that was granted to the City back in 1988, so it will be maintained as an easement by the City. Councilmember Larson asked, given the fact that the Planning Commission had recommended a right-in, right-out only, it appeared to him they should put in a triangular island in that area. He stated he believed it had been determined there was not enough room for this. Ms. Giga responded it would be difficult for emergency personnel to get in this area if a triangular island was put in. Mr. Lehnhoff stated there also not sufficient room to allow people in and out comfortably. Mayor Aplikowski asked if the daycare had been asked about the right-in, right-out. Mr. Lehnhoff responded he has not heard from them, but they had been given the notice. Mayor Aplikowski stated the daycare center should be informed of the possible change to the access. She asked if they could post a sign for "No turns during peak hours" during rush hour. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that Ramsey County had offered that as an option. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 12 Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public Works Traffic Engineer, stated there were different ways to restrict access, but they would only be as good as they were able to be enforced_ He stated one of the ways to restrict left turns was with signs and the ability to control those turns would bc based on the level of enforcement. He stated in order to make the pork chop islands they needed sufficient space to prevent people from driving over them. He stated one solution would be to add a median on Hamline Avenue to block off all left turns_ Stan Harpstead, 1277 Nursery Hill Lane, stated he had a concern about the size of the project. He stated this proj ect was the incorrect size for this property. He stated this property would eventually be landlocked and the development would become non-marketable. Kingsley Hahn, 4365 Arden View Court, stated he was concerned about the environmental impact of this development. He asked if the Army Corp of Engineers had done a study on this to see what would happen with the wildlife. He believed the wildlife would be heavily impacted. He asked where would all of the oil, gas, and antifreeze from the cars run off to. He stated the garbage would need to be picked up daily also and expressed concern about the garbage that missed the garbage trucks and ended up blowing all over the neighborhood_ He expressed concern the parking area at night would end up having broken bottles and used condoms. He stated this was not the right place for this development. He stated this development was creating "bad blood" in the City_ He stated they needed something entirely different. He stated he did not believe any Councilmember would want this development in their backyard_ Mark Majors, 4521 Keithson Drive, stated this project was wrong and it was too large. He asked them to listen to the people and hold another public hearing to resolve the neighborhood's concerns. Gale Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, stated she has been a resident of the City for 20 years_ She stated she has obtained 268 signatures of residents who were opposed to this development. She noted this was 100 more signatures than they had last year. She stated their concerns were traffic, access on Hamline Avenue, reduction of property values, etc. She asked why this property was not offered for public sale. She asked why they did not have another assessment of the property. Major Aplikowski asked Ms. Buskirk to speak to the issues at hand and not past issues_ Ms. Buskirk stated people were suspicious that this sounded questionable_ She asked the Council members if they or their relatives would be benefiting from this development. Councilmembers Pellegrin and Grant stated neither they nor their relatives were benefiting from this development. Councilmember Larson stated he had never spoken with Mr. Eibenhsteiner before and tlle only time he has spoken with him was at public hearings in front of the residents. He stated the information Ms. Buskirk had received was incorrect. He noted he was not benefiting from this development. He stated they had received a second appraisal. He asked Ms. Buskirk to be more careful about the accusations she was making and the things she was saying. He stated nobody on the Council had any relationship with Mr. Eibenhsteiner. Mayor Aplikowski stated neither she nor any of her relatives were benefiting from this development. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 13 . Ms. Buskirk preseuted a "cut and paste" suggestion on how to improve the Royal Oaks development. She indicated they could eliminate the Hamline access. She noted this would reduce a lot of the asphalt because the road would not be there. She stated the access could be added to the northern part of the property and put in a signal at Keithson. She stated this would assist this development, as well as the residents on Keithson. She noted if they did not want to put in a signal on Keithson, they could speed up the signal installation at North Heights Church_ She stated they could flip-flop the building by the townhouses, which would provide better screening for the townhomes. Ms. Buskirk asked if Mayor Aplikowski's son worked for ReMax Realty. Mayor Aplikowski stated her son worked at ReMax as a real estate agent. He was 36 years old and was independent of her. She stated she would not receive any benefit if her son's office was in tbis building at some point in the future. She stated if the agency he worked for decided to move into this building, she would not at all benefit from her son working for this agency. Councilmember Larson stated he resented the innuendo Ms. Buskirk was putting forward; He stated his vote was an independent vote and it would be based on what was best for the City. He stated the Mayor did not tell him or any other Councilmember how to vote. He noted in this case the vote would require a 4/5tbs vote. . Mayor Aplikowski stated she had not given Mr. Eibenhsteiner an "inside track" and Mr. Eibenhsteiner has been aware of this property since they took down the City building. She stated Mr. Eibenhsteiner was the Met Council representative and she has had two breakfast meetings with him to discuss City matters, but she did not discuss this development. She noted there had been other developments proposed, but staff did not feel those developments were appropriate and recommended this development. She stated the Planning Commission recommended this development and she had no influence over the Planning Commission decisions either. She stated she would not be benefiting from this development. Ms. Buskirk stated they care about their community and she urged them to deny the PUD and work with the residents. Diane Phillippi, 1442 Arden View Drive, handed out and read from a prepared statement to be put into the City's file. She stated she would prefer they not approve this plan, but if they did approve the plan, she recommended seven conditions with respect to eighteen wheeler access in and out of the site and the landscaping provided by the developer. Richard Roessler, 1261 Nursery Hill Lane, stated he lived in his home for 17 years. He acknowledged this development was a developmental challenge. He stated in this case, they needed to sell the benefits to the residents, the City, and the developer. He expressed concerns about traffic control and management, the wildlife, drainage, storm water management, wetlands, and infiltration systems. He asked the City to slow down the development. He stated he was in favor of a development on this property, but they needed to take the resident's concerns into account. . Larry Stark, 1460 Arden View Drive, stated the main focus on traffic issues so far has been on volume and access, when he believed the real issues were traffic flow and safety. He presented and explained photographs he had taken regarding his traffic concerns. He asked how traffic from . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 14 the south would get into the development. He believed this development would create a lot of accidents in the area. He stated the traffic patterns should be considered in a lot more detail and a lot more care before they approved this. He believed this development was too large and would be landlocked. He stated they were taking too much risk with respect to traffic to approve this project at this time. Jan Stodola, 1281 Karth Lake Circle, stated she has had business dealings with Marcel Eibenhsteiner and she was impressed with his work. She noted she has lived in the City for 25 years_ She stated this proposed development was wrong for this location. She stated many residents at the Planning Commission expressed concern about the loss of trees, loss of wildlife, increased traffic, etc. She agreed there would be no degradation in the traffic because the intersection was already rated at an "F"_ She stated what would change though is the length of time people would have to wait to make turns off of and onto Hamline Avenue_ She stated the residents did not mind developing this property, but this particular usage was wrong. She stated the residents worked very hard on this and she encouraged the developer to come up with a different usage for this property. She stated this was not the only usage for this land and encouraged the City to look at this further and listen to the passion of the residents. Elwood Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, representing the Board of Directors of Arden Hills North Homes Association, stated they have looked at the latest sign proposal and they wanted the signage reduced per their recommendation. He requested they strike the permission for extra signage on the north side of buildings 19-23 and replace condition 25 with their recommended condition. He recommended they look at their comments regarding gutters and downspouts. He stated while they were not happy about having the development, if this parcel gets developed, he encouraged them to keep their concerns and recommendations in mind_ Mr. Lehnhoff stated he had discussed gutters and downspouts with the City Engineer and it was determined it would probably not make a difference, but they could accommodate either one. Jim Hartso, President of Townhouse Villages Homeowners Association, stated their only access to get out was on Hamline Avenue and at 7:30 a.m_ they had to wait at least five minutes to get out of their development. He expressed concern that this development would add to that congestion. He stated the development was fine, but should be more limited than it was. Gerry Guzi, 1266 Nursery Hill Lane, stated this development did not work at this location. He stated this would be a nightmare for traffic and it would be a pedestrian safety issue. Larry Stark stated the kinds of businesses going into this development would bring into the City a lot of people who were not from the area and with the strange traffic flow they were proposing, people would get lost and create a lot more accidents. Jeanine Yates, 1394 Arden View Drive, stated she has almost gotten hit twice because people going south did not like the fact that people were turning right onto Arden View and passed them in the turning lane. She stated there was so much opposition that that she felt the Council needed to listen to tbe residents_ She stated traffic would get worse with this development. Mayor Aplikowski stated Council was listening and they acknowledged there was a traffic issue in this area. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 15 Ben Stevens, Rice Street, Shoreview, stated he understood nothing has changed hands yet. He indicated he was pro development and he liked to see development with jobs being created. He stated when someone owned property and it was zoned appropriately, they can do what they want with their property. He stated Rice Creek Watershed had not said yes to this development. He expressed concern the daycare would need to purchase a large sump pump. He stated all of the comments regarding traffic were right. He expressed concern about the added dangers of people trying to exit and enter the daycare center. He stated when TCAAP came in that would really add to the problems. He stated the residents needed the 6.38 acres as a buffer from Highway 96 and the arsenal. He asked what was wrong with leaving 6.38 acres as open space when they had all of the TCAAP property they can develop. He stated if the Council did not listen to its residents, the residents would make their decisions at the polk Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated they have been working with the City for almost three years and they were really trying to work with the residents_ He stated one message that has been sent was that the citizens had to participate in the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan, etc. because that was what the developers relied on. He stated they attempted to work within the zoning standards set by the City and they were not exceeding the zoning standards with this proposal. He stated according to the zoning guidelines, this development fit into the City's plan_ He believed this was an appropriate use for the property. He stated if anything had gone wrong, the citizens should have been working with the City on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning standards a long time ago. He stated if the zoning would not allow this type of a development, they would not be here tonight. He stated they had substantially increased their offer for the property based on the appraisal. He acknowledged these decisions were not easy. He stated they had no issues with revising the landscaping plans as requested. He stated they were willing to put in additional green space in the parking areas. He stated the issue of lighting was not an issue and they would work with staff on this. He stated they would look at the downspouts and drainage and work with staff on this also. Mayor Aplikowski asked if they could add a signal at Keithson or North Heights Church. She asked if this would make any difference. Mr. Soler stated obviously putting in a traffic signal at Keithson and 96 would make it easier to access Keithson and it would make U-turns easier, but traffic signals were not without problems. He noted traffic signals increased rear end accidents. He stated they had to weigh the benefits and negatives of adding signals at these points. Councilmember Larson stated he agreed the visibility off of Keithson was not good. He asked if the need warrants a no U-turn sign at that location. Mr. Soler stated if they find a location where a lot of U-turns were being made and there was a sight problem, a "No U-turn" signs could be added. He stated right now they were not seeing any issues with U-turns at this location. Councilmember Grant inquired about another access point on Highway 96. Mr. Soler responded he would prefer only one access, but they could work with two accesses with appropriate signage and separation oftraffic. Councilmember Larson left the meeting at 9:39 p.m. and returned at 9:40 p.m. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 16 . Mayor Aplikowski asked if the drainage was going to be appropriate. Ms. Giga responded it was common for Rice Creek Watershed District to request additional information after receiving the initial information. Mayor Aplikowski asked if there was some value to the "green" parking lots. Mr. Black responded there could be, but they have not looked at this option. He stated right now they were exceeding the open space requirement on this development and this was not a dense development. Councilmember Grant stated he believed a big issue was the signage and he supported four square foot signage. He stated he proposed they went back to the previous motion for four square foot of signage. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that the motion from last year permitted up to four square feet of signage, but this did not refer to the monument signage, which was 33 square feet. Mr. Black stated they had made a lot of compromises, but they could not have four square feet of signage if the City really wanted an office park in this location_ He indicated they needed the signage they were requesting. He stated they cannot and would not compromise on signage. He reviewed the signage they were proposing. He stated people who drove into these facilities, had to find the business they were looking for. He indicated they wanted a quality development. He noted the City Hall had signage facing Highway 96 on the building that exceeded four square feet. He did not believe their signage was out of character for what they had already approved in the corridor. . Councilmember Grant stated he believed the signage they were looking for was for cars traveling on Highway 96 at 50 mph, but he did not believe people in a parking lot needed those large of signs_ He noted 14" letters were too large . Councilmember Larson stated he was in favor ofthe project going forward. He noted they had a number of people who had expressed concern about this development going in their backyard, which he understood because he had a similar issue in his neighborhood_ He stated for him as a City Councilmember, he could not think of one major development that did not have a group of people objecting to the development because it did change their neighborhood, but he did not find the argument persuasive as to how he should vote on this property. He stated the City should not be in the business of land speculating and the City had always intended on developing this property. He indicated the City would realize approximately 2 million dollars from this project. He stated the City would also be receiving tax revenue on this property and to not develop the property would affect the entire City and not just this neighborhood. With respect to transportation issues, they have a proposal for aright-in, right -out on Hamline Avenue as well as a traffic study_ He stated he had to put his trust in the traffic engineers and their recommendations/decisions. He stated when he looked at this development, part of the value of the POD was that they could ask the developer to do things that under regular zoning they could not ask him to do. He believed this development was attractive and he had a difficult time understanding what argument was going to be made that they should not go forward with this development. He indicated he did believe there was too much signage on this development and agreed with Councilmember Grant. He suggested they increase the size of the monument sign on Highway 96. He stated the best way to make decisions was to use his best judgment and weigh all of the arguments and listen to what the people had to say and then cast a vote. He stated he did want to see less signage on the property. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 17 Councilmember Pellegrin stated he lived in a similar situation where a wooded area was being subdivided. He stated he had approved this subdivision, even though he would like to see it remain as it was, but he could not do that because the subdivision was the best thing for the City- He stated he supported this development and it was the right thing to do_ He agreed the signage needed to be reduced. He acknowledged change was never easy and it would not be accepted by everyone. He stated he had heard a lot of emotion, but not very many facts and he had to look at the facts. He believed the right-in, right-out was a good compromise for the traffic on Ham1ine Avenue. He stated no Councilmember would have any personal gain from this development and there was nothing further from the truth. He stated the Council had spent many hours on this development. He noted "one man's freedom, was another man's hardship" and they needed to do the greatest good for the entire community. Councilmember Grant stated he was reminded of a couple of other developments in the City (County Road E2 and Cleveland specifically) where the residents opposed the development. He stated the perceived amount of impact of traffic, environment, etc. was great. He stated the development had gone in and there had been no concerns about traffic and he had received positive comments regarding the development. He noted the fears were larger than the reality. He stated another development of great concern for the residents was off of County Road D and Cleveland. He stated once the development went in there was also no negative comments. He noted the perception of what was going to happen was far worse than the reality. He stated they needed to make their decision based on the best interest of the City. He indicated the property would be developed and would not remain open space. He stated they had to make a decision and it appeared to be a reasonable use of the property. He stated the question they needed to determine was how to make this happen in a reasonable manner. He stated he had issues with signage, as well as many other issues to discuss. Mayor Aplikowski stated she also had concerns that needed to be addressed. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-023; Master and Final Planned Unit Development & Preliminary, Plat Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., 1440 - 1450 West Highway 96 subject to the plans submitted and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended by the City CounciL Councilmember Grant stated there was too much signage on the project and it cheapened the development. He recommended signage of 10 inches x 8 feet. Mr. Black stated they were only asking for one sign per tenant. He noted if a building was occupied by one tenant, there would only be one sign_ Mayor Aplikowski stated she was having a problem with the 14" signage. She asked if the letters would have to be 14". Mr. Black responded if they had to go to smaller signage, they could reluctantly do that. Mayor Aplikowski asked if Councilmember Grant would be willing to allow them 12" letters. Councilmember Grant stated he believed 10" lettering across the parking lot was reasonable. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 18 . Councilmember Larson stated he could live with the signage as it was proposed now, but he would like to not see the lettering on the sides of the building. Mr. Black stated if they had to go to 10" letters, they could consider that, but they needed the signage on the end units. Mr. Filla asked what was the date of the completed application. Mr. Lehnhoff responded July 25, 2006. Mr. Filla noted Council needed a motion to go beyond 10:00 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Mayor Aplikowski seconded a motion to extend the meeting to no later than midnight. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to amend his motion that the signage proposed adjacent to the entrances be allowed as proposed, but the signs on the ends of the buildings be removed facing Highway 96 and they approve the larger sign on the outside of the single building that has its back to Highway 96 recognizing there is no signage on the south side of the building. . Mr. Lehnhoff noted under Condition 25a. 2'xI0' would need to be changed to 14"xI0'. Under 25b. 2'xI0' would need to be changed to 14"xlO' _ Condition 25c_ would be struck. Condition 25e one square foot would need to be changed to two square feet. Conncilmember Larson withdrew his motion. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to amend Condition 25 to be amended as follows: Paragraph 25a. be revised to state...each unit shall be permitted one 14"xlO' sign_.._ Paragraph 25b. be revised to state .,. shall be permitted one 14"x 1 0' sign. . . .Paragraph 26c is struck. Paragraph 25d to remain as proposed. Paragraph 2Se to be revised to state.. .permitted up to 1.3x1.6 square foot. The motion carried (3-1 Councilmember Grant opposed). Councilmember Grant stated he wanted conditions added for the downspouts. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to add Condition 33 to add the downspouts consistent with the 2005 amendment. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to provide sufficient space for landscaping in two islands in the western parking lot and six islands in the central parking lot subj ect to approval by the City Planner. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 19 MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to move units 19-23 be moved to the south and the parking lot be placed to the north thereby removing the parking lot facing the townhome association and the Hamline Avenue access still remain. Mayor Aplikowski stated she did not see any rationale for this. Councilmember Grant stated he was not proposing to remove the trees or the green space. Councilmember Larson asked what the developer's reaction was to this. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this was a total deal breaker and if that is what they wanted, they would not build the development. He noted this put the buildings farther from Highway 96 and it would eliminate the walkouts. He stated they wanted them to vote on their proposal presented_ He stated this would require them to reengineer the entire project. The motion failed (1-3 Councilmembers Pellegrin, Larson and Mayor Aplikowski opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to add a condition number 35 the design of the retention pond to flow only toward the County ditch. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add a condition number 36 to require the retention pond have an aerator, water feature or decoration so the pond remains clean_ The motion failed (2-2 Councilmember Larson and Mayor Aplikowski opposed). Councilmember Grant asked if any drainage would go to the City's storm sewer system. Mr. Black responded there would be some drainage into the storm sewer system, but it would be a small amount. Councilmember Larson asked for comments regarding the citizens who had a concern about 18 wheel vehicles. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this would not be a problem because they would post a sign that there is no construction traffic allowed on Hamline A venue, so the only access would be off of Highway 96_ MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add condition number 36 that all construction vehicles entering the site enter from only eastbound Highway 96_ The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Grant asked what types of trees they were putting in for barriers. He asked if they could put in all coniferous trees_ Mr. Black responded there would be a mix of trees and they would be willing to work with staff on this. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it was staff s recommendation to put in a mix of trees in the event a disease killed one tree species. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 20 Councilmember Grant asked what the material of the canopies would be. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded they would be plain canvas in color to coordinate with the rest of the materials. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved a motion to remove the canopies from the project. The motion failed for a lack of a second. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add condition 25h. to state the canopies shall be without numbers or words. The motion carried (3-1 Councilmember Grant opposed). Councilmember Grant asked how long did the Council have until they had to make a decision. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they had two months with a 60 day extension. Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe they should vote on this motion because he did not believe they would have the votes for this and they should wait for Councilmember Holden to attend the meeting. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved a motion to table this decision to a Council meeting when all Council members are present. The motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to have a ten minute recess. The motion carried unanimously (4-0)_ The meeting was recessed at 11:01 p.m. and reconvened at 11:12 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to remove Condition 25_h. and add condition 37 that there shall be no awnings/canopies. The motion carried (3-1 Mayor Aplikowski opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to amend items 25a. and 25b. to read 10"xI0' rather than 14"xl0'. Councilmember Pellegrin asked how the developer felt about this. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this was a deal breaker. Councilmember Pellegrin stated he did not see Councilmember Grant's concerns regarding the signage. Mayor Aplikowski agreed. She asked Councilmember Grant to explain his rationale. Council member Grant stated large signage would not blend into the development and he was concerned it would look like a strip mall. Councilmember Larson stated he was an advocate of the City establishing expectations different from other cities and signage was part of this. He stated he agreed that this was a place they were going as a destination and not a place someone would happen on. He stated the signage was there to guide someone to a location and he supported the amendment. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 21 Mayor Aplikowski stated while it might be thought the tougher a City was the better development they would get, but she did not believe this was always the case. She stated signage in the long run really did not make a difference and she would vote no on this amendment. The motion carried (3-1 Mayor Aplikowski opposed). Original motion carried unanimously (4-0)_ C. Extension of Closinl!: Date for Unit Development of Royal Oaks Mr. Filla asked the developer if they still wished to have the closing date on the Development Agreement extended to September 29, 2006. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded he agreed to the extension of the closing date, but he wanted the City to realize he still had the option to not close on the property_ MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve extending the closing date to September 29, 2006. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). D. Celebratinl! Arden Hills Recap Ms. Olson recapped the Celebrating Arden Hills event for the Council. Couucilmember Larson asked if there was anyway to gauge an increase or decrease in the event by ticket sales_ Ms. Olson stated she had tried to come up with a system this year with log sheets, but she believed the bad weather was a big factor this year_ She stated when it started to rain, attendance fell off, but the event started out very well. Mayor Aplikowski stated she liked the idea of getting more volunteers for this event in the future. She thanked staff for all of their hard work at the event. She believed this was a worthwhile event for the City, but they needed to increase the revenue. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Motion to Approve the Chesapeake Property - Brownfield Remediation Grant Contracts Ms. Barton stated at the April 24, 2006 City Council meeting, Council approved Resolutions 06- 31 and 06-32 authorizing the application for contamination clean-up grants from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), Ramsey County, and the Metropolitan Council, on behalf of Chesapeake Companies for Brownfield remediation at the former ATS site, 1901 Gateway Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a secured reimbursement agreement between the City and Chesapeake Companies, in a form approved by the City Attorney; 2_ Execution of a performance agreement between the City and Chesapeake Companies, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 22 3. Chesapeake Companies must apply for a Final Plan approval prior to any grant-related remediation work being started on the site. MOTION: Councilmember Pellegrin moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the DEED and the Met Council grant contracts for the Brownfield remediation at the Chesapeake property, located at 1901 Gateway Boulevard, and authorize staffto execute said contracts. Diane Fredeen, representative of Chesapeake, updated Council on the Chesapeake development. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. TCAAP Uvdate Ms. Barton updated on the Council on recent TCAAP developments. 9. COUNCIL REQUESTS None_ Mayor Aplikowski adjoume~ the Regular City Council meeting at II :45 p.m_ ~~' JAUW1t~~ Beverly Ap ow i Michelle Wolfe Mayor City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, September II, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers.