Loading...
1990 09 10CHANHASSEN CZTY COUNCZL REGULAR MEETZNG SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the flag. COUNCZLMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dtmler and Counc£1man Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann 01sen, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to make a public announcement regarding the bus collision today and under council Presentations, comment on water concerns at a new home on Bluff Creek Drive; Mayor Chmial wanted to add under Administrative Presentations, National League of Cities in St. Peter and a letter from Her Council. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried unanimously. PUBliC ANNOUNCEM[NTS: Councilman Johnson: ! spent most of the morning this morning with the children from the bus collision. Don and [ went out, Don Ashworth and [ went out. Since I knew a lot of the kids, I got on the bus. I'd like to share something with the audience here. This was a really close to a tragedy we had here in town. Fortunately due to the skillful driving of Hiss Fays Robertson who was the bus driver here, she kept the bus upright as she was hit by the van and forced into the ditch. If she had rolled that bus, we would be now with a lot of children still in the hospital but as it is, we had some 50 children be processed and out of the hospital by noon today. I'd like to beyond thanking Hiss Fays Robertson for excellent skills, also thank the Carver County Sheriff, Minnesota State Patrol, Chaska Police, Eden Prairie Police, Chan Fire Department, Chart Public Safety, Chaska Fire Department, Excelsior Fire Department, Waconia Ridgeview Medical Center's emergency staff and St. Francis Hedical Center and the DNR who had an officer at the site helping to do traffic. This shows the cooperation that we have between our neighboring cities and the effectiveness. [ was very' impressed with Waconia Hospital. A small regional hospital having 50 patients show up on their door at 10:00 on a Honday morning and how well they took care of them. Kept track of them. [t's hard to keep track of 50 Lst thru 5th graders under any circumstances but in a hospital with all this going on. The funny part is they were going to have a drill with about 10 to 20 casualties on Thursday of this week. They've now canceled thetr drill but they did an excellent job and everybody involved should be commended for their hard work on this. Especailly Faye Robertson, the bus driver. Mayor Chmiel: [ also understand that there was 1 adult for every 3 children which is sort of neat too. To take care of them. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. The volunteers came out all over the place. It was amazing how many people they were able to get from the cafeteria staff, the physical therapy staff. Everybody from the hospital, director on down was City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 working with children out there. It was really great and when one of the mothers who happened to be hospitalized that day and her 2 kids were involved in the wreck and they were able to get the information rlght up to her room that her kids were okay and stuff. It was really a well run, fortunately tn this case almost a dr111 because the lnjurles were so mlnor. I'm really impressed. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think we all are. CONSENT aGE~DA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendat ions: a. Approve Plans and Specifications for Lake Susan Hills West 4th Addition, Project No. 90-14. e. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for Summit at Near Mountain, Lundgren Brothers. f. Approval of Accounts. g. Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 27, 1990 Plannlng Commission Mlnutes dated August 15, 1990 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. B._ APPROUE pLaNS aNI;I SPECIFICATIONS FOR_ aUXILIARY TURN LANES ON TH..1,0,1, aT CHOCTAW CIRCLE aND SaNOY HOOK ROaD aNO aUTHORIZE_ADVERTT'$1'NG FOR BZDS. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't need the paperwork on it. I mentioned this before to Gary Warren. I've had an extensive discussions and we've worked on some water drainage problems out on Cheyenne. The plan calls for auxiliary turn lanes on TH 101 at Choctaw and Sandy Hook. I have no disagreement wtth that. I just feel we grossly mlssed an opportunity to maybe take care of Cheyenne also. Specific concern that I brought up was one, cars traveling north on TH maklng a left 1nrc Cheyenne are getting rear ended because cars feel they can get around and to what extent we can put a passing lane there, I think that's part of the problem we had at the major accident. Cars.trying to pass each other. But I am looking at a map. Cheyenne is so close to both of these roads comlng onto TH 101, I'm kind of unsure why we dldn't go ahead and look at that intersection also. And I d£d ask Gary Warren, the City £ngtneer to look 1nrc that for us wlth the help of MnOot for the future and I don't know where he's at wlth that. I wanted to re-emphasize that if we're spending $32,000.00 or so, total project for both those turn lanes, that doesn't sound like a lot for safety and maybe we need to look a 11ttle close at Cheyenne. I'm just re-emphasizing that and I'd move approval. Councilwoman Otmler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Plans and Specifications for auxiliary turn lanes on TH lO! at Choctaw Circle and Sandy Hook Road and authorize the advertising of bid8 with direction for the City Engineer to look Into Cheyenne. all voted tn favor and the motion carried and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 O. AUTHORIZE PREPP, RRTTON OF FF. AS~/~LTTY STUDY FOR H/NNEtIASHTA-~Y UPGRADE.. Hayor Chmiel: I'll hit it real quick for some of the concerns I have. First concern that I have is that a portion of this road ts also within the city of Victoria. Hy concerns are whether or not we've had discussions with the city and knowing what position they may be taking on that. -That's the first thing. The second thing that I have here is it's saying that the timing schedule, tn 1991 the City Council initiate a feasibility study to look at the upgrade of wh£ch I don't have any concerns with. In fact I fully agree with that. One part that I do have is in here, the concerns of the project design, the recommendation is the firm of Bill Engelhardt who Is a good engineer, handle as' he handled the Frontier Trail project. I guess some of the things I thought with the new engineers that we had on board, Charles. A question I have is, why can't the city do this without the involvement of a consulting engineer? Being that winter's coming on, there might be some timeframe there that this might be looked at as a particular project. I guess that was the only concerns that I had on that particular one. Ursula? Councilwoman Otmler: I didn't pull this one. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Councilman Workman: I dld have a point. Don, you covered the one about the Victoria. I think that's a very important portion of the parkway. And you touched on the magnitude of the project. My specific question would be, ts this a bid situation for services ever? Are we going to be spending a, I guess I'm not expecting you to answer right now but what the cost of that is and tf that should maybe be looked at and ['d prefer Oon's suggestion that we do it in house if we can. That's all I had. Councilman Johnson: I think the first part of this ts in the resolution. The last sentence of the report. The City shall contact the City of Victoria for their input and participation. Do you have a page missing? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilwoman Olmler: It's on page 2. Councilman Workman: I guess are we, should we go ahead and do with this with that missing? Councilman Johnson: With what missing? Councilman Workman: If in fact that is not agreed upon by Victoria, is that something that's going to affect this or not? Mayor Chmiel: This is a County Road for one. Of course they're within the city so it still has to be done and that does need that upgrading. Councilman Workman: But are our State Aid dollars going to be used to repair that portion? City Council Meeting - September 10, lggO Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Johnson: It's not on our 'State Aid map. Councilman Workman: It's Victoria's. So you're committing Victoria's funds? Councilwoman Oimler: If Victoria doesn't agree, what then? Councilman Johnson: We only lmprove to thelr border. Councilman Workman: That's what I'm asklng. Are we going to go ahead with this project? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll do it as far as our responsibilities are. Councilman Johnson: I thlnk Victoria, we've gained a good worklng relationship with all of our cltles lately and I think we won't have much problem and thls ls one of the most important street projects we've got going. I wish we could have done it thls year but we just dldn't have the State Ald money thls year to do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that I'd like to move, are you going to say something? Oon Ashworth: I was going to say, the Council's asking good questions. I see no reason thls 1rem couldn't be tabled to the 24th to resolve those questions. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Johnson: Especially about the in house capability. This is a fairly large project. Frontier was a lot shorter. Maybe what, a fourth of thts project in length but it was very complicated too. A lot of surveying golng into a project like this. That's one of the hardest parts. Mayor Chmlel: l'11 make a motlon to table this particular item. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Nayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table authorizing the preparatLon of a feasibility study for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade until the next City Counci! meeting. A11 voted in favor and-the motion carried unanimously. SET BUDGET. WOR~SESSION. SEPTENBER 17, 1990. Councilwoman Otmler: On item (h) the only thing is that I am not available on the 1?th and if you would agree to another date that I would really want to make rt. I'm available on the 18th. Mayor Chmlel: I'm open on the 18th. Councilman Johnson: Is the 18th a Tuesday? Councilwoman Olmler: Yes. C~ty Council Heet~ng - September Councilman Johnson: ! might be a little late coming in from refing a soccer game. Councilman Workman= 7:00 ~n the morning works. Councilman 3ohnson: Yeah, 7:00 Ln the mornLng works for me too. Councilwoman O~mler: That's fine. Councilman 3ohnson: Our C~ty Hanager La not an early riser. Hayor Cheie~: Okay, shal! we move Lt to Tuesday at 7:00 p.a.? Councilwoman OLm~er: Okay, I move approval. Councilman Workman: At what tLme? Councilman 3ohnson: 7:00 p.m.. Councilman Workman: I was serLous about 7:00 a.m.. CouncL~man 3ohnson: Oh, you're not available in the evenLng? CouncLlman Workman: Yeah, but I'd just as soon get Lt over wLth. Oon Rshworth: That's fine. I had proposed to bring tn Barton aschmann who had been the consultants on TH 5 and to contLnue theLr, they're ready to bring back some of the desLgn e~ements that we had talked about from a month ago so I had hoped to take and combLne this potentLally with a meeting with the HRR or at least ~nvLte thee to Lt. I don't know .how their morning schedule wou~d be wLth Barton Rschmann's. Hayor Chm~el: I think Lt'd probably be better Ln the evenLng. I don't ~Lke g~vLng up any more evenLngs than you do Tom. CouncLlman 3ohnson: Would it be better ear~ier Ln the evening? Councilman Workman: Ooesn't matter Lf Lt's Ln the evening what time. Hayor Chmiel: 7:00. Okay, do you want to move that? Counctlwoman Otmler: I move approval with changLng the date to September [Sth at 7:00 p.m.. Councilman Workman: Second. CouncatZ~oean O~a]er coved, Councllean IJoriman seconded to set the budget ~orksesslon for Septeeber 18. 1990 at 7:00 p.e.. /LLt voted In favor and the motion carried unanteously. City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Z. COHHUN[TY_CENTER REFERENDUH.__RE$OLUT/ON RPPROVZNGB~OT GUEST/ON. Councilwoman Oimler: Item (i) has to do with the Community Center referendum resolution for the ballot question. Especially on page, let's see. They're not numbered. Well the bask of the first page there. It's l(a). The City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the health, welfare and safety of the City and the residents that the City acquire, construct, and equip a new municipal community center (Project). ! guess ! don't like that wording because it does not take into account all of the things that we said earlier. That being that we would make sure that the citizenry was well informed as to the facts regarding the center and I don't believe that that states my position. Don Ashworth: I agree. As you can see, this was faxed over late on Thursday and I did not get a chance to proof this before it went out in the packet. The wordage as it would appear on the ballot is pretty set by State Statute. going to be difficult for Council to change that. The resolution however, if the Council would wish to delete l(a) tn it's entirety. Relabel (b) to (a). Change (c) to simply state that the question of placing the question onto the ballot in the amount of $4.1, Just change that to the factual position as to the amount that would be placed. [ think (d) is alright is it not? (e). The rest of it should be fine. Councilwoman Dimler: The other concern is that it doesn't give the location. Councilman Workman: Should the ballot question have the location Don? Is that possible? Don Ashworth: You can place it lnto the referendum. You are then bound by that location. Councilman Workman: We are anyway aren't we? Mayor ChmteL: No. Councilman Workman: I mean there's no other, real other optlons anyway. Don Ashworth: In all likelihood, probably not. The more you put into the ballot, you are then set wlth what tt ls you put In. Councilman Johnson: There's been cases In the past, which this may not be too appplicable to that, where by uslng general statement in it, that when there was I think there was something about building of parks and we were able to purchase a park less than what the bonds were for but lnstead of saying specifically what park we were going to do, we were then able to use that money to purchase some other parklands. Here if somebody comes up wlth a donation of land or something that's in a better position, we may be $4.1 million be able to bu£Ld it elsewhere or for less. By being more specific all you're doing is tying your hands and there's no use in tying your hands at this time. Is (a) necessary by State law? Don Ashworth: No. City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I mean it sounds Ilks one of those legaltes type of things that lawyers have to throw in here In.order .to meet State Statute. Don ashuorth: Roger? To the best of my knouledge, Dave Kennedy who drafted this uae solely atteaptlng to embellish the resolution as much as possible. Roger Knutson: There'd be no legal requirement to have (a) tn there. Councilman Johnson: Okay, if there's no legal requirement In there, then scratch that. Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. [ guess one other things is how are we going to address the concerns then? We were going to have a fact sheet that was from the Council and the staff to the voter. Zs that going to be separate from this? are we still going to do that? Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: The fact sheet dldn't come through-. Don Rshworth: Well no. The Council suggested various changes .to that and asked that that be submitted back to the City Council before it was sent to the voters. [ did send a notice to community center task force members. [ suggested that we sent out information approximately 2; and !belleve 2 and 4 weeks In advance of the referendum. [ would hope to have to the Council the revised fact sheets prior to that deadline. Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. So this is separate from this? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. Councilwoman Dialer: I just want to make sure that we're sit11 doing that. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. Then I would move approval. Did you want to discuss It? Mayor Chaiel: No. You covered everything I wanted to. Go ahead. Councilman Johnson: I'll second. Councilwoman Olmler: ! wove approval of 1(1) with the deletion of 1tea l(a). Councilman Johnson: And modifications to (c). Councilwoman Dialer: And modif/catiotra to (c). Resolution e90-107: Councilwoman Dialer. ~oved, Cou~n 3ohn~on' seconded to approve the resolution for_ the Community Center Referendu~ ballot-question a~ended to delete item X(a) and aedAfying. [tea 1(c)' per. the City Itaaager'e recommendations. ~11 voted in-favor;and the est-Ion, carried u~arrtaouely.. City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 ¥IS/TOR PRESENTATIONS: Conrad Ftskness: Mayor Chmtel, I'm Conrad Fiskness. President of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed O£strict. If you'd indulge me with about 30 seconds here ! would like to present a check to you in the amount of $757.00. Something in excess of a year ago there was identified down on the bay on the southwest side of Lake Riley a build up of a rather substantial amount of sediment creating an unwanted delta in Lake Riley and between the City of Chanhassen and the Watershed, a plan was worked out to have that situation corrected. Not only to remove the silt but also to correct the sedimentation basin so that we would be able to eliminate the problem in the future. At least control it and we have now been certified by your city that that work has been completed. It was a 50-50 cost sharing project in the amount of $1,514.00 and so I have a check of $757.00 that I'd like to give you and point out that within the limited constraints of our budget, where we can work with the City on solving problems, we like to do that and also show you that we also try to put our money where our mouth is when water issues are involved. Hayor Chmiel: Great. Thank you Conrad. On behalf of the City we'll accept your check. Councilman Johnson: Is there any more checks out there? Mayor Chmlel: Could you put a few zeros behind this? Thank you. Any others? Loren Habegger: Member of the Council, my name ls Loren Habegger and I'm a representative of Wanegrin, Incorporated out of Bloomington, Minnesota. I appeared at your last Council meettng and the final conditions for mlnlng and excavating permit, our grading permit were finalized by you people. We received the letter here last week and I'll make thls brief. The conditions, after we reviewed them with our attorney, we do feel there's a big problem here and there's some discrimination on the part of what was passed. At this ttme I w111 turn the podium over to Mr. Wanegrln who is in charge of operations. We did meet wlth our attorney thls afternoon and he w111 brlef you on the situation. Blackie Wanegrln. Blackle Wanegrln: If there's anybody In here that don't like the construction language, I'll give you a couple minutes to excuse yourself. Councilman Johnson: Is that related to Marine language? Mayor Chmlel: We are on TV. Blackle Wanegrln: Good. Let everybody know. Shut your TV off because you don't dare put it over the air. This letter should have never been sent out wtthout your City Attorney looking at thls. You're acting as the County here. You're acting as everything. We had a permit for this job. We spent months, thru Watershed and everything. We had a permlt. We went out there. We was doing our work. Somebody got excited and wanted to shut us down. Your engineering staff cannot go out on a job and poke a little stick tn there and say job, shut down. 1972. Wanegr~n vs. Edina. They haul us all into jail. We got reimbursed handsomely for that mistake. When they don't like something that's doing and we've got a permit out there, it's up to the City Council to City Council Meeting - September LO, 1990 hold an emergency meeting and shut tt down and put up a bond because that Job Is committed for another Job when I got that permit. If you want to cut her down, then give us a few hundred thousand dollars and we'll move elsewhere. We shut It down because I didn't want the harrassment. We had a meeting In there and sald we'll shut It down for 30 days. all you've got to do is bring In a plan that shows how you're going to cut the hill off. Now It's 3 months. We showed them the plans, and then they come up with all this bullshtt on top of It. Now I don't know If your attorney Is misrepresented.you or what but this Is the most discriminating thing against the gBa contractor I've ever seen tn my life. I- work In the 5 state area. We have never had this. $43,000.00 letter of credit. You guys have got to be sick up there. Then you've got to haul roads by County and City staff. You want to charge for a permit and then you want the guys to come out there and pay around $30.00 an hour on top.of lt. ! mean look at th~s thing, and you've got the County. You've got nothing to ck~ ulth the County. We're not hauling one ump of dirt on a city street. Mayor ChmleL: We realize that. Blackle ganegrtn: and we're Licensed for that County road. I've been hauling on It most of the summer. No complaints Is there? I hauled [00,000 yards from another site. If I go half a mile that way, you guys got no Jurisdiction over it and then you're worried about the wetlands. Go look at that farmer across the road we're hauling that's got dune buggies In there on weekends Just going Like mad down in that bottom. Nobody says nothing about that. Then you want a professional engineer all the tlme. Professional engineer. That's another $20,000.00 you want Just to level a hill off. I've probably got later equipment than you guys have tn this shop of yours here and you're, Paul Krauss and'those guys. On vacation aLL summer when this Is supposed to get done. There's a $5,000.00 a day deal on lt. If you don't pull all of this Junk out of here and give us the permit like we had that meeting that day to give you the plans which you got to level the hill off, put the erosion control, put the black dtrt on so the farmer can get on it. You're In a lawsuit for discrimination on about & different charges. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger, did you have an opportunity to review that? Roger Knutson: I've not seen the letter. Councilwoman Dlmler: Could we see copies? Roger Knutson: But I'm very familiar with the 81rust/on. Mayor ChmleL: Good. That's our only concern. Some people get a little excitable. We want to protect the city as best we can. Therefore ue moved on that particular one as we did. at that particular time we were very content. End of gospel, anyone else wishing to sake a formal presentation? Oon ashworth: Mr. Mayor, as long as there were various charges sade and allegations that the City may be In some legal problems, I' would suggest that you have the City attorney respond to the City Council with his opinion as to whether or not there is a problem and Include with that the letter that was referred to by Mr. ganegrln. City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilwoman Dialer: Did we get that in our adsinistrative packet? Oon Ashworth= No. And [ would further suggest that as potentially, at least the statement was made, that we may be in court, that the City Attorney use his client/attorney privledge In ur[ting to the City Council so that opinion would go directly. Mayor Chaiel: I agree. Paul, did you want to say something? Paul Krauss: Mell just a point of clarification. [ believe the letter that's being referenced is the letter with all the conditions that were approved by the Planning Commission and then yourselves. The $43,000.00 was a recomputation of the original $30,000.00 proposal for the letter of credit which you asked us to take a look at. There is an itemized sheet that was attached to that letter as to why it was $43,000.00. Mayor Chmlel: Good. Roger, we'll wait for a response from their attorney. Likewise, get back to us and let us know. Thank you. Councilman 3ohnson= I think It's interesting they're still claiming this is for agricultural purposes. Mayor Chmlel: There's a lot sore to the story than meets the eye. Any other ¥is£tor Presentations? PUBLIC HERRIN6: U~CRTION OF R PORTION OF RI6HT-OF-WRY OF K/RKIL~ ROM3 LOr~TED TO THE ERST OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. W~Y N3DZTZON. (3801 REO C~ POlllT). HTCtlAEL' N~ID CYNTHIA ENNER, Public Present: _._ Name _ Kathy Paradise Louis & 61adys Zakariasen Claudette May Mlchael Menner ,nthony Ebert Bddr~s 3755 Red Cedar Point Drive 3861 Red Cedar Point [5490 Norraine May, Eden Prairie, NN 10[ Canary Avenue, Mayer, NN 4500 Viking Road, Wacon[a, NN 30 Ann Olsen: The applicants are requesting vacation of 30 foot right-of-way to K[rkham Road in this location. It is part of the gay Subdivision and a part of that subdivision, a 50 foot right-of-way located in th[s area was provided for future street Improvements may be necessary. K[rkham Road as it's located is not servicing any land that can be future subdivided. It's all wetland back here which ts protected by the City and the rest of [t has single family residence on it. Me could not find any reason the City would want to maintain this right-of-way. Me feel that any future street access can be provided by the ...as part of the Way Addition so we are recommending approval of the street vacation. Mayor Chelel: Okay, thank you. As I said, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this specific issue? Please state your name and address? 10 City Council Heeting - September 10, 1990 Kathy Paradise: Kathy Paradise and I live at 3755 Red Cedar Polnt. When I had checked with the City about the Klrkham Road, they had said that 15 feet ~ould be d/v/dod among each property owner. Basically I want to check with that and I also wanted to know if the property line uould actually be chan~ed on both of our properties or if the 30 feet would be vacated...? Paul Krause: Can we refer that to the City Attorney? Nayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger? Roger Knuteon: First the City is not in a position to tell people after they vacate a right-of-way, who owns lt. They can tell them what the general rules are. Generally speaking it divides at the center 11ne. One half the property owner on one side and one half the property owner on the other side. That's the general rules. There are a few exceptions. What we're doing, to vacate an easement we're repelling our use of it. Our right to use it. So the fee ownership underlying real estate title goes back to where it was. before essentially and we cannot give anyone a quick claim deed. We Just give up our right to uae it. Hayor Chmtel: Okay. Thank you. Rny questions on that? Councilman Johnson: Is this an easement versus a right-of-way? Roger Knutson: Right-of-way is an easement for a specific reason. Councilman 3ohnson: Okay. So the City in effect o~ns this property and their property lines are adjacent to it? Hayor Chmlel: Right. Roger Knutson: We own an easement. A right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: Where does their property Line begin? Roger Knutson: It probably goes down the-center line. ! don't know anything about this particular property but it's probably doun the center line. One half one way and one half the other way. Councilman Johnson: That's not the ~ay it's shown on our zoning per se. Os they have to apply to the County or something then to get that. done? To get that ~5 feet if they want it? Roger Knutson: No. They can do certain things if they want to depending on how they own their land. They could start a quiet title action. If their land Is registered already, torrens on it, they could try and bring that up into their torrens legal description. There are processes they can do or they don't have to do anything. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Nayor Chmiel: Do you understand that? City Council Meeting - September [0, [990 Kathy Paradise: Do the property lines change or just stay as ts unless you go through the legal...? Roger Knutson: They would probably change. Councilman Johnson: But nobody's going to come out and put any survey stakes unless you hire somebody to do such. Kathy Paradise: Okay. In building on that property then, would they need to build 15 feet from the property line or from the middle of the road? Councilman 3ohnson: The middle of the road will be the property line. Kathy Paradise: Okay, but that won't change, legally...there's no problem tn building beyond that line? Mayor Chmtel: For whatever setback requirements are. Whether that's your back yard or your side yard or whatever. Councilman Johnson: That'd be the side yard. Mayor ChmIel: [s there anyone else wishing to address that? This Is as I said, a public hearing. Councllnan 3ohnson moved, Councilman gorkaan seconded to close the publ/c hearing. R11 voted In favor and the motion carried. The public 'hearing was closed. Mayor Chmlel: any discussion? Councilwoman Oimler: I'll move approval. Councilman Johnson: Yes. [ have some discussion on this. Looks like we're going for a 60 foot right-of-way with taking a 30 foot right-of-way off of Red Cedar Point on one side and there's 20 on the other side so tt looks like we're working towards trying to get a 60 foot right-of-way there but then on the small drawing £t shows, It looks like we're going from the corner up to the corner of the other property which ts a transition to a 40. I would say that we should take our right-of-way. Continue It in a straight line to where we actually have a jog tn the right-of-way so we maintain on Red Cedar Point the full 50 foot width all the way across what we're giving up so that sometime In the future we don't end up haggling with somebody over 20 square foot of land in that corner. Mayor ChmIel: Yeah, but you presently have that now Jay .... Red Cedar Point Road is now is :30 feet. Councilman 3ohnson: There's 20 foot too on the other side. So It's 50 foot. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Right. Councilman 3ohnson: With this resubdtvlsion we're going to 30 feet. probably was less than 30 before this subdivision? 12 c~ty Counc£1 Heating - Septenber 10, 1990 Hayer Chain1: But the only thing ~e're doing La vacating Klrkhae Road of that- 30 feet and ]:'e not sure ,bather that extends all the ,ay up Lnto there or not. 3o Ann olean: ...keep it do~n here rather than... Hayer Cheiel: Oh, a[rJ. ght. Councilman 3ohnson: See, aa La they had a dIagona! 11ne going across the 30 feet up to the 40 foot right-of-.~ay which then gave us a tLttle triangle. That if we ever resubdlvtded sane other land we'd want that cor~er. Kathy Paradise: The reason there was that line ,aa when...~o that was Klrkham Road. Counctlnan 3ohnaon: That's our effort to try and get' to a full 60 foot right-of-way ,hich la the hemal right-of-~y for a city.. If Other people subdivide, we'1! do the same thine. Hayer Chalet: ! have a notion on the floor. Counctlnan 3ohnson: I'll second that with the change. Hayer ChnJ. el: Os you have any d~atances at all .there 3o Ann aa to 'what that would be? Councilnan 3ohnson: Will they have to bring in. that. to ua? 30 ann O].sen: Right. #e can still ~ork-on the legal description. Resolution ~90-108: Cou~cll~oaan-Dialer eared, ..Comm/~ 3ohneon ascended approval of vacating · portion of Kirkha~ Road located ·lon~ the ~eaterly lot 1lee of Lot 2, Block 1, ~ay ~kJ/tion with the--follo~tne comtttiee: The applicant shall provide the City with the [egal descrLot~on of the portion of Klrkhan Road vacated and shall malntaln any requtred dralnage and utility easements. .- voted In favor and the motLon carried u~ardmm~ly.. PU~LZC HE~RZNG: 9~Td~TZOll ~ND RELOC~TZON OF-it .DI~R]]M~E. ~ND UT/LITY EAS~iENT LOCATED itT 15 CHOCTMJ CZRCLE, R/CK HURRItY-'.- . Public Present: Address Rick & Bobi Hurray 15 Choctaw Circle_. 30 Ann Olean: The applicant went through an adeinetrattve ~ubdlvlalon~ He proposed a property with hie hone on it and then the outlet. He shifted the lot line over to neet the aldeyard setbacks for an addl-tloo-to hla garage. But prior to that there ,aa a utility easement .that would need to be relocated. He has added that to the new lot 11ne but he has to go through the. public hearing 13 C~ty Council Heet~ng - September ~0, ~990 to vacate the existing one so we're recommending approval.. Mayor.Chm~el= Thank you. anyone w~shlng to address that? Councilman ~orkean moved, Councilwoman Oieler ~econded to close the'public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public-hearln~ m Resolution ~90-109: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman 3ohnoon .seconded to approve Vacation Request 190-4 to vacate a & foot drainage and utility .easement adjacent to the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, Lotus .Lake Estate~ aa .described in Attachment ~1. ~11 voted tn favor and the motion carrled-.unanieoaaly. PUBLIC HEN~/NG: NETE$ ~ BOUNDS SUBO/UZ$ION REGUEST TO DIglOE R 1.8 PNK:EL ZNTO TgO PP~CELS OF 1.1 .N lO .7 ACRES LO~TEO SOUTH OF LAKE GREAT PLAINS BOULE~RO. #~LTER ~ IMRTJ~-PRUL~.. Public Present: _ Name Rddress I~alter & HarJ. an Paulson Al Klingelhutz 8528 Great P[a[ns Blvd. 8500 Great Plains Blvd. 30 Ann Olean: This property Is located on TH ~01 Just south of Lake Susan. The applicant ts proposing to subdivide the parce! Into two by a metes and bounds description cutting it essentially In half.., apparently'TH 101 rune through the south and the existing parceZ ks being serviced through a private drive and a 20 foot private drive easement. There are 3 other Lots that are on that for a maximum of 4 lots on a private drive permitted by the ordinance has been amt. There currently Is a 33 foot easement crossing the southerly portion of the that are being served by a private drive. They are propostng...an additional' new 20 foot roadway easement be provided that wou~d connect up to the 33 foot easement to provlde prtvate drive access to Parcel B. Then it would be on It's own private dr/ye. ~e are aLso...actual entrance from TH t01.be the same. don't want a traffic area going onto TH 101 In such a dangerous location. Other than that, the tao lots do meet the zontng codes. The appL£cant does have to extend the sanitary sewer line from where It's located now to-Parcel B. It has to be enlarged from a 6 inch to an 8 inch and the applicant understands those conditions. Hayor Chela1: That's all part of the reco~mendat/on. 30 ann Olsen: Yes. Hayor CheieZ: ~lth 7 spectftc items on Lt. Zs there anyone wlshlng to address that Issue? as ~ said, this ks a public hearing. .~f seeing none, Ls there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman O~ler moved, .Couacllean ~lorkean ~econded .to clo~e the ~bLtc hearing. All voted in favor and the eotlo~ carried'. The public hearing ~ae.. closed. 14 C~ty Council HeetLng - September 10, 1990 / councilman Johnson: I'm a 1Lttle confused on this acc-ess. We're addlng 20 foot easement ~nto 41's property, uhtch ! .don't.kno~ .~I he agrees.#Lth yet. Out we're sayLng nobody's going to use that. Use the other. 20 foot-easeaent that's already there. #hat's the purpose of the second 20 foot eaeaaent Lf ~e're not going to use Lt? 3o hnn Olson: Just using the curb cuts .... using the curb cut. Not actually the same easement. CouncLlnan 3ohrmon: So there are currently 3 houses on that.. 3o ~nn OLeen: 4. Councilman 3ohnson: There's currently 4 houses on the driveway? 30 ~nn OLeen: On the drLve~ay and there wLiZ be $ on the curb cuts and* th~ rest w~11 be on the second drive,ay. CouncLlman 3ohnson: We're splLttlng seas hairs pretty fine here. Saying that a drLveway doesn't start unt/l after the curb cut. [f you share a curb cut, you know the curb cut's part of the drive,ay. Basically you're putting 5, the purpose of 4. One of the purposes of-4-houses on a drLveway Le to LLnLt the amount of cars going out onto the road at one given point.. ~lso for uear and tear on the drLveuay ! assume. We're now goir~-to have 5 houses served by this drive,ay or curb cut, depending upon ho~ you cut that daf/nit/on today. ! have a ZLttLe quandry there that thLe Lo... Hayer Chmlel: Paul, do you have soaethln9? CouncLLwonan OLmLer: Has thLe been Looked at by PubLic SafetY? Hayer Chmlel: You look l~ke you ~ant to say ~omethlng. Paul Krauss: #eLL not reaLLy but given the opportunLty. The-ne~ private driveway ordinance allows up to 4 hones on a prtvate drLve~ay and you're right. There Lea L~ttLe blt of halt spLLttLeg on thLe. We have an exLet~r~ situatLon where you have 4 hoses on a prLvate dr/veiny. This new home, which ~ould be the f~fth and therefore, Lf It used the same drLveway, ~ouLd be LnconeLetent w~th the ne, ordLnance. No~ the new ordinance dLd not really effectively anticipate exLet£ng sLtuat~one where the statue quo-aLready exLets. ALoo, we don't ~ee that thLe Is the Long term solutlon-ov~ here.. #1th the relocation of TH 101, whLch has been offLcLaLLy mapped, that wLZZ shift to the-east away from thle area and one of the reasons we're, taking right-of-way, off of th~ property is that we anticipate Lmprov~ng that to a pubZtc street.standard. No~ Lf you, here's the hair spllttLng part. We could theoretically sa~ that thLe 1~ a varLance sLtuatLon. ;f Lt'e using the sane drLve~ay as those exLetir~g 4 homes because you're only allowed 4 on a private driveway. Skirting that, we're mov£n; thLe drLveway over except at the curb cut. We also Looked at the poselbllLty of paving the 'thlng for the flrst,.! guess it's about ~o or so feet to a 7 ton standard 20 feet wide whLch La what the ordLnance requ[re~ but that doesn't go anywhere. Zt wouldn't serve, anybody. It rea/ly wouldn't satisfy the goal of the ordinance. So yeah, there Lea aodicun of'haLt eplLtting here but we felt that thLe w111 provide a legitimate drive,ay Into this hose.- It also .15 City Council Heeting - September [0, [990 .' provides for the future construction of a public street that will wipe out the . need for many of these private driveways in. the future. Councilman 3ohneon: Two things to follow up on that. One, ! see the property' owner who has to grant this easement's in the audience. [ wonder-if he's got a problem: Hayor Chmiel: We'll ask anyone If they have any specific concerns. No one indicated at the time. Councllean..3ohnson:' Yeah, he didn't-and he had the publlc.-section. Then also ask our attorney. I don't Like setting a precedence-of this kind of hair splitting to sold the definition to fit the circumstances. I'd rather go for a variance on this personally and call it a driveway if it's a driveway. I.aean you know. Oo we get tn trouble with this Roger? The first 2 feet of-these 2 driveways overlap. Roger Knutson: If you had a similar situation, precedent means'you treat It similarly so If the sa4me th£ng happens again, I would assume you would probably consider it in a similar way... If this one is in trouble, ! guess, you could say the next one wouldn't be troubling eld'her because you found It acceptable. Ooes it appear that you have a section anyway, yes where S homes are using a little bit of this driveway, I would guess I'd say yes but there is such a thing as a diminimus rule that if it's too small to bother about, I guess that's your judgment call. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Tom, do you have anything? Councilman Workman: No I don't. Councilwoman Dialer: ! have one question. If we call that a separate driveway, is there a possibility tn the future for 3 other homes along there? Paul Krauss: For 3 other homes? Councilman Johnson: To get to 8 on that curb cut? 4 for each driveway on the curb cut? Paul Krauss: Well we did look at the potential for future lot divisions tn that area and several of those lots have already been divided In half in a similar manner, additional subdivision of some of those properties ts possible tf YOU... go down to [5,000 square foot lots which is somewhat unlikely given the layout of the homes. Hr. Kltngelhutz also retains property on the south side of that easement area. That's available for subdivision but probably the best time to subdivide that is In the future when TH 101 relocates at which tlme we envision having a public cul-de-sac back In there anyway which will eliminate the concern. To be honest, we did look at the practicality of providing a completely removed driveway to eliminate that shadow of a doubt type of thing and we could put ti, ! mean Mr. Kltngelhutz would probably grant a different location on TH [0[ but then you have a safety hazard so you're satisfying the letter of the ordinance but you"re developing a new problem. City Council HeetIng - September Councilwoman Dialer: I'd rather ese us be safer and not have another cut on TH .LO.L. Councilman 3ohneon: Well I don't want a cut on TH 101 but I think we could, due to the safety problems, due to the uniqueness of the situation, I'd be more in favor of the variance and I'm on that board too. But I would, that to me would seem to be the standard solution versus calling a curb cut not a driveway. The sase thing's going to happen in an industrial area then you know. Well ~e've got two driveways here but only .one curb cut and we may not want Industrial clients to do that same thing. But we do it here, then we're opening up that a curb cut is different than a driveway and that we will allow more than, so I really think that we ought to go the variance route on this. Paul Krauss: If I may, I guess we wouldn't be opposed to that. I think there's some rationale to support what Councilman 3ohrmon's saying. We did consider the possibility of a variance.' Oepending on how you perceive it, hardship exists in this case In that the 4 homes that currently use that private driveway are on 3 different Iota. RII under different o~nership from the party that's before you tonight with this subdivision and given the lay of the land, there really are few options to providing service, hence ~he hardship criteria. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, in lieu of what 3ay has said, do you have a second opinion? Roger Knutson: It's a close call. Councilman Johnson: Good opinion. Roger Knutson: No, ! will stand by what ! said. ! think you could call it a dim£nimus situation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. a small portion of It which ls...okay. Councilman Johnson: Would it transfer into our IO~ or anything like that when we're calling for 2 driveways and they put tn 2 driveways with I curb cut? Actually we already do that in the IOP at some time. We have people share like Mr. Burdtck's sharing some driveways there. R1 Klingelhutz: How Iohg Mould it take to get a variance? You have the names of all the property owners in the area already. Mayor ChmleI: We're not sure whether we're going that way yet RI. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure ! understand at this stage what the variance process is going to do. I don't know that It's going to change ay mind on where I'm at. Mayor Chmtel: No, we'd probably go along with the same thing. !th[nk the only thing that 3ay Is saying Is that a variance would sort of clarify It but ! agree with what Roger's saying too. Being minimal with that portion being that insignificant, I don't know whether that's a requirement of either. City Council Meeting - September 10, ~990 Councilman Johnson: What we're doing is granting a variance without granting a variance. If we vote on It tonight as such, we're granting the variance but we didn't go through the formal variance process. And being a diminimus case, I don't know. I don't know, maybe our variance rule should have a dimJnimus statement in it that there's such a thing as a dImintmus variance. That we don't go through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the 4 of us or the 5 of us, when we get $ again, Just do it. Roger Knutson: I think the, I haven't even'~[scussed this with staff but I bet there ts. [f someone comes tn and you require a 10 foot setback and they're really 9 foot 1[ ~/2 inches, you know I bet that's rounded off. Councilman 3ohnson: Here ~e're 25~ you know. 5 ls 25~ more than 4 you know. We're not rounding off and edge here. I think It's a good way. It's the only way I would say, if I was going to do it for safety purposes and for that curve, if someone's going to bu[ld that Lot, it should exit at that point. And with that area with multiple houses and a lot of the driveways are like that. I've got a friend on this particular property, I believe. Mayor Chmiel: They may not be after you get done. Let me throw it open for a motion of some kind. One or the other and I guess I don't feel too uncomfortable in going through this. I think you've got a valid point. Councilman Workman: I guess I would feel uncomfortable If there were a shadow of a doubt that what we're going to probably approve wouldn't be approved anyway eventually. It would be simply putting these folks through a hoop that would help to make up the budget shortfall with their fee. councilman Johnson: I think on variances we lose money. Mayor Chmtel: You're right. councilman Workman: I think we're looking at something that's going to be done anyway and common sense would teii me to dispense with it. Mayor Chmtel: Would you like to make a motion Tom? Councilman Workman: T'd move the staff recommendation with the 7 conditions. Councilwoman Otmler: I'd second that. Councilman Johnson: The only discussion is, is there anything in here that prevents any further, ! mean prevents A1 from subdividing hie little corner off there and saying I've already got a driveway there and put a house in in that little low area? Paul Krauss: There's nothing in there that would prevent that, no. Councilman Johnson: That's already a bad corner. It's not really one of the best places tn the world. Now we're at 4. If we went to 5. '6o to 5. Go to &. Creeping up there. A1Klingelhutz: Can I say something? 18 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmtel: Sure. Why don't you come up here Councilman Workman: Al, you know I get down to those county meetings and I never' say a peep. A! Klingelhutz: He has got the 30 feet... Zt don't come out tn the best place and it probably wouldn't be a good viable place to put a driveway. That 32 feet for an easement runs all along the bottom of those lots out to TH 101. Zt comes out on this little hill where 8&th Street coess out and.it isn't the best intersection. Councilman Johnson: It crosses tuo more driveways. Al Klingelhutz: When this driveway here was put in, originally the driveway was over here. They came to ay dad and purchased this little triangle piece of land in order to have a better place for a driveway. This is the extent of the driveway going to this point where it ~/ll be Lore than 5 houses. More than 4 houses going up. Then you take it over 'to this property. The rest of these people live up in here. This ts where Bud lives up here. So it's this little piece here from TH 101 to his 33 foot easseent that gets... Rnyplace miss in here, we looked at this. I didn't care for that because It's pretty nice land in there for future development. Looked at this. Bud and ! agreed on what could be done there. Councilman Johnson: See what I'm saying is that land you talk is good for future development. Now you divide that into two lots and put thee out on that driveway, we're up to 7. R1 Klingelhutz: [f I divided them out, they would come out on the old TH 101. don't know. [f I decide to eubdiv/de my land, It's... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rny other discussion? Councilman gorkean sowed, CouncLl~n OJ~ler seconded to appro~ the ~etea and Bounds Subdivision Request ~90-13 ulth the Tollo~tng condttL~: Parcel B shall use the existing access to TH 101. No additional access to TH 101 shaIl be permitted. 2. The applicant shall dedicate the 33 foot Ingress/egress easement through parcel B as public right-of-way. 3. A 15 foot sanitary sewer easement extension to the newly created southerly parcel shall be acquired. 4. The existing & inch sanitary sewer ohs11 be replaced with an 8 Inch sewer and be extended west to the proposed southerly parcel. Future ~velopment of this parcel will require connection to the sanitary sewer. 5. The proposed southerly parcel shall gain access rights through the ex/sting shared driveway easement to the point of the existing 33 foot ingress/egress easelent. 19 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Both of the proposed parcels shall connect to city water when it becomes available. 7. The applicant shall provide the City with necessary securities to ensure proper installation of the sanitary sewer line. voted in favor and the mot%on carried unan[mouely. PUBLIC HEARING: ~JOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS; Public Present: Name ..... ~ddress Bob Ha~k Chuck Magnuson John Cowley Tom & Loft Krueger Peter M. Held Richard Martens Clement Springer Bob Worthington B.C. "Jim" Burdick Herb Bloomberg Clayton Johnson Doug Haneen John Ward 770 Pioneer Trail 274 Highwood Orive 8080 Marsh Orive 7136 Utica Lane 8201Grandview Road 295S Regent Rvenue No, 6olden Valley, MN 3601 Minnesota Orive Opus Corporation, Htnnetonka, MN 426 Lake Street, Excelsior, MN 7008 Oakota Bloomberg Companies 17001Stodola Road, Minnetonka, MN 5916 Hanson Road, Minneapolis A. DO~NTO#N REDEUELOPflENT. PH~E II-- PRO3ECT NO. 86-11B. Gary Ehret: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The item you have before you tonight is the proposed adoption of the final assessments for three projects. Phase II as you mentioned. The north side parking lot and Lake Orive. These projects were all ordered previously. Have gone through construction. Most of them are in the completion stages of construction. The bonds were issued in general last year and call for the projects to be assessed this year for certification on payment next year. For a way of bookkeeping the projects were all advertised in the local paper, the Villager approximately $ weeks ago for the first time and 2 weeks ago for the second time. Individual notices were sent to each of the affected property owners in mailed, stamped envelopes and I think your packets contain copies of those mailings. Procedurally I would concur and recommend as you do as described Mayor in terms of handling each project on it's own merit. What I'd like to do is Just briefly describe the first project, Phase II. Hold the public hearing section. Oiscuss the project and ask for Council action. The one other thing I'd like to stress. The assessments must be certified to the County by October lOth. There's a 30 day pre-payment period which essentially needs to start today or tomorrow so adoption of the roll is quite important. There may be issues that come up which would affect the assessments. I will do my best to answer those as I can but the assessment rolls are pretty complex and there's a lot of parcels so there may be a need, Mr. Ashworth may have some input on this. There may be a need to consider some of these assessments with staff and the property owner later on. With that I'd briefly describe Phase II. Phase II assessments primarily Involve 2O City Council Nesting - September 10, 1990 parcels, adjacent to West 79th Street. What ~e called Phase II of the downte~n. South of the railroad tracks, north of TH S. Your packet or the previous packet, when you accepted the rolls 2 weeks ago, had dlagrams which Illustrated each of the assesments and how they were to be hand[ed. In general, the Items that were assessed or are to be assessed are san[tary sewer, watermaln, storm drainage, roadway, street l[ght[ng and landscaping. The sanitary ~ewer proposed for assessment only agalnst Lots I and 2 of the Crossroads Plaza which ks going to affect the property on the northeast corner which was discussed as the Crossroads Bank property. Watermatn Is similar. There are no other assessments for either sanitary se~er or watermaln to any other properties. Storm dralnage ts proposed for assessment against all of the properties wlthtn the area. A SOX credit which [m cons[stent with the downtown policy wac so the cost of storm sewer was reduced by 50~ and then the assessments calculated. Street lighting [s proposed for assessment against a[l of the adjacent parcels as well.as landscaping. Landscaping similar to the storm se~er. The cost of the landscaping was reduced by 50~ and then the assessments calculated. There are a couple of peculiarities ! Just want to point out relative to the Phase II assessment. The first Is that two corner pr~ert[es, the Sorenson-Enrlght property, whtch'ls on the northwest corner of 6rest Pla[ns and West 79th and the Holiday stat[on are In the assessment ro[! but only for street lighting and landscaping. Roadway and store drainage were asse~ed ~ast year, or 2 years ago under the downtown projects so they have already paid for storm drainage and roadway. The second Is that this project also carried out improvements to the parking ~ots around the O[nner Theatre, the Hardware store up north of that complex and those assessments to the Blo~berg properties or the current property ownership are also Included In this project. That Includes parking lot lighting. Store drainage Improvements ~htch were built specifically for the lot and then the parking lot repair Itself. glth that I guess with a brief description of P~ase I! of the pro~ect. Nayor Chmlel: Okay. Thank you Gary. Is there anyone wishing to address this one specific Item on the downtown redevelopment Phase II, ProJect No. 8&-1lB? Clayton 3ohnson: Thank you. I'm Clayton 3ohnaon representing the Bloomberg Companies and ! have filed with the Mayor previous to the meeting tonight our notice of objection on the special assessments, gulte ~engthy but ! think that I don't uant to bore you u[th tt but I think the only concern ue have La we have not been able to satisfy ourselves with the amount of the assessments and the allocation betueen the parcels Is consistent with the original feasibility study, ge have not had a chance to rev~e4m that u[th staff. ~ayor Chmtel: Thank you. Would you like to address that before we address someone else? Don Ashworth: I'm not concerned that the engineer w111 be able to sit down with Bloomberg Companies and make the apl[ts as they have requested. I know of nothing tn the project that tn any way has changed. Staff would recommend that the Council adopt the roll, at least In this particular case, subject to the right of Bloomberg Companies, or that staff would re-present the Item on the 24th ~f we are In any way Incorrect. Hayor Chmtel: Okay. After discuss/one? City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Don ashworth: Right. We have spent the majority of our time calculating the rolls and it would be nice to be able to get back to each individual parcel owner and go through the mechanics. ! see that this ts the question on this particular one and [ feel comfortable that we can do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing on 8&-lIB. Councilman ~orkman eovod, CouncLt~oean Dlmler seconded to close tko public hearing. ~11 uoted la favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~a8 Mayor Chmiel: any discussion? I would like to say that I'd like to see this moved as to what Oon Ashworth had said previously, adopting subject to staff review and come back with something on the 24th of September. Don ashuorth: as it deals with questions presented by Bloomberg. Mayor Chmtel: That's correct. Councilman Workman: Have we gotten the concerns of Hr. Burdick straightened out? Councilwoman Oimler: That's next. Mayor Chmiel: Next item. If I could have a motion to Just what I had said. Resolution I~0-110: Counc/Lean ~orkean moved, Councilwoman Die]er ~~ to ~t t~ ~amnt ro11 for proJ~t ~. ~-1~ for p~ [I of t~ ~nt~n RePlant ~%th t~ ~ition t~t staff r~l~ uAth Bl~rg ~~ea a~ r~rt ~ck to t~ C~ty C~~1 on ~tmr 24, 1~. all ~t~ ~n fair and t~ ~tion carrl~ u~nl~ely. B. NORTH SIDE P~RK/NG LOT - PflO3ECT NO. 87-17.. Gary Ehret= I would like to again give a brief review of this particular assessment roll. The project, I believe as you're aware, essentially runs from the Rlveria restaurant down to Great PLains Blvd. on the north olde of West 78tk Street. Proposed for assessment under this project are sanitary sewer, uatermains, storm drainage, the parking lot, landscaping and sidewalk improvements. The parcels proposed for assessment are ail within the project area. There are no residential properties Included. The dry cleaners, HcCarville property on the northeast corner is also not a part of this assessment. Zt does Include the Colonial Center, the Medical arts building, the Riveria, Town Square apartments and the Heritage Park Retail Center. Relative to the assessments themselves, the sanitary sewer la Installed primarily to serve the Medical arts building so the assessments for sanitary sewer are only to the two medical arts properties. WatermaIn Is assessed to several parcels. The watermain was hooked up behind the Heritage Park Retail Center. Run through the project area and tied into West 78th Street. Storm drainage ts assessed to the adjacent parcels. Landscaping and sidewalk are also assessed. Landscaping was given a 50X credit. Sidewalk Is assessed tn full but on a percentage basis and the same with the parking lot improvements. Just spending a minute on that. 22 City Council HeetLng - September 10, 1990 The parking lot Improvements to the north side were a little unique. Typically #e try to do them on a front footage baeLt or an area batLs or something Like that but because of the mixed use we found those to really be what ~e felt would be not necessarily fair so the parking l~provements are set up on a basle of' supply and demand. Zf there's questions on that basle, ! would have to refer a little blt more to Fred who did the peculiarities of that particular approach but Lt Lsa little different.than normal but it's not a normal situation. The landscaping and sLdeualk are also on a percentage basis not necessarily by land area but more by attributable sLdesalk and/or landscaping to an individual parcel. With that. Councilman 3ohnson: ! don't knou If It makes any difference but one minor correction. Heritage Park is the apartments and Town Square Center le the shopping center. Whenever he #as saying Heritage Park Retail, It was Herttage Park apartments. Gary Ehret: I apologize there. Hayer Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Zs there anyone uLehing to address the north side parking lot Project 87-177 Richard Hartens: Hy name Is Richard Hartens. I reside at 2955 Regent Avenue in Golden YaZley. I'm a partner In the Chanhae~en Retail Limited Partnership which is an owner of Town Square. I have a letter which I'd like to file the top copy here... Hayor ChmLel: Thank you. R/chard Nartene: Our center of about 18,000 square feet was co~leted about 2 years ago. We've been in operation for around 2 years. The center itself requiring by city ordinance 5 parking spaces per 1,000 requires about' 89 parking stalls and ue have provided 102 on site. During the tiaa of the development of the center we supplted by agreement with the city, and ! believe by agreement ~lth the RLveria, temporary parking until the east side parking lot was developed and even during that time we really didn't have any overall excess parking requirement. We could provide all the parkir~a requirement on our site. ! have with me Clem Springer who Is with Weiss Asset Hana~ent C~any who managed the property and he has indicated that ~n hie relations with the 'tenants and tn managtng the property, we've never had excess demand for parking.. Town Square, as ~e point out in the letter, Lsa convenience oriented center.. It has a ely of uses but in fact that mix of uses serves to.provide a situation that allows our parking to be more than adequate because of the balancLr,~ out between tenants. But for the most part, the tenants are convenience oriented coming there 2 or 3 at a time to Individual stores and turnlm~ over ver~/ quickly. And at any given time, I've been out there many times and Z've never seen that parking lot more than half full. We're also saying that because we're supplying adequately for the demand for parking on that site that. we really can't see any benefit from the parking to the east of the Rlveria. Our. pe(~)le are convenience oriented. They're not going to park there and shop over at the Brooke's or over at the florist or the gift shop. If ~e didn't have enough parking, they probably wouldn't shop there. On the.store sewer, there's no oAestlon that we receive some benefit although the front part of our parking lot drains through catch baslns. The rear does utilize that drainage system so. we're prepared to 23 CLty CouncL1MeetLng - September [0, 1990 acknowledge and accept that portLon of the assessment but we do want to offLcLaLly appeal the balance of Lt. Thank you. Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. [$ there anyone else wishing to address this speclfLc Ltem? Don Ashworth: Mr. Hayor? For the record we should acknowledge that ! did receLve a, I don't want to call Lt a protest but a concern raLsed by Lou and Tom Krueger. I consLder Lt very sLmtlar to the question raised by Bloomberg. Zt's not necessarily beLng agaLnst the assessment. They sLmpLy want to verLfy that that La the same as had been presented to them a year ago, 2 years ago. So they did not come In to protest. They sLmply dld ask that we re-verify that amount. Mayor ChmJel: Okay, thank you. Jay? CouncLlman Johnson: I guess we mtght as well contLnue the pubLLc hearLng. Mayor Chmtel: Anyone else? If not. can ! have amotton to close the public hearing? Council#omen Oimler moved, Councilman 3ohn~on seconded to close the public hearing, fill voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing mm closed. Mayor ChmLel: Any discussion? CouncLlman Johnson: Just one. On Town Square, assessed units. They say 23. Is that like 23 parkLng spots? The only thtng I see, and I get over there quite a blt and ! also drive through that whole north parkLng lot quite a blt, ts there's I don't know, maybe 5 or 10 spots added to the east sLde behind the Rtv and besides the parkLng and besLde thLs particular lot that ts probably dLrectly utLILzed by employees or whatever of the shopping center. I can't see there's just a small section right there that to me appears to be used by the people Ln the shoppLng center from, basically from the hours that I've seen cars parked there, the Rtv probably isn't the people using those parking spots but It's probably employees of the shoppLng center but [ don't see a fu[l 23 there. 5 or 6 cars parked on the end of the shopping center. Fred HoLs£ngton: Jay, do you want me to expLaLn that? Councilman Johnson: That and rationale. I thlnk somebody from the group has an explanation too. Clem Springer: Clem SprLnger, Wise Asset Management, 3601 Minnesota Drive. I manage the center for the partnershLp. The parking that's going on behLnd the Rlverla ts the Rtverla employees. Our employees and our owners have been directed by letter where the parkLng La to be done for our center and it's In the front rows of the center. They have no reason to be on the lot to the east of our center. Thank you. Fred Holstngton: This lsa little different sttuatlon and one really that was not contemplated when the first assessment rolls were done and they were done a long t/me ago. When we first started there was an agreement between the RiverLa 24 City Counc£1 Meeting - September 10, 1990 and Town Square Center Interests that Indicated that &8 of the 100 spaces that are provided on To#n Square would be used by Town Square and the remaining 32 would be useable by the Rlverla. What happened was, tn the Intervening couple of years, the Town Square Center ended up with Anh Lee'e and the parking demands changed. The parking demands went up to 91 instead of 68 leaving only 9 stll! available for the Riv. Now [f you subtract one from the other, you can see that It's 23 spaces and so the Impact Is, or the effect Is that we do not have 23 spaces that we originally thought we ~ould have attributable or useable by the Riv so It's a little different. Something that we had not earlier anticipated and something that resulted later because we simply didn't have the parking available that we thought we did. Councilman 3ohnson: Fred, can ! ask you a question? ! don't know Lf you know the answer. Haybe Oon would. In the ortgtnal agreement for the 68-32 split, was that a perpetual agreement or was that up until what ties that the R~v had it's own parking lot because the RIv, ue were basically had a gravel lot and a door on the opposite side of the building. Was that a temporary agreement with the &8-32 or was that a permanent agreement? Fred Holslngton: Jay, ue never understood Lt to be a temporary agreelent. Now I don't know the answer to that questlon but we dld not understand It to be temporary. Councilman 3ohnson: During your analys~s? #hen you say Fred HoLstngton: ...analysis, that's correct. Mayor Chmlel: Don? Go ahead. Oon Ashworth: I guess I would l~ke to hear what Nr. Hartens has to say. Richard Martens: I don't know the answer to that either for sure. I know we always anticipated that the R~ver£a wouldn't continue to use parking on the east 'side of our parking ~ot the way they did for a period of time. 3~m W~nkle$, one of the other partners In Town Square would know that better than I. He's not here tonight. But the other thing la the ratios. I don't know where those numbers come from. To say that now we require 91 parking stalls. The fact of. the matter la, the real world that we live ~n says we don't need the amount of parking that we have out there. The Codes say $ per 100. We are more than meeting that. The Codes as I understand them, but I'm not an expert on that, really anticipate a m~x. Some uses. I mean you take the Brooke's Superette. 3,400 square feet. You would have about 17 or 18 parking stalls. When do they use 17 or 18 parking stalls? Mayor Chm~el: The other night that I was there. Richard Martens: 17 or 187 Mayor Chmlel: I had to park far enough away to walk over to the end of the store. It was Just probably a coincidence but. Richard Martens: Regardless It's st111 a balancing klnd of situation and I had been there many times. You know, we know In a center'l~.ke th~s, we know If we City Council Heeting - September 10, [990 even have remotely close to a parking problem. We do not have any klnd of a parking problem so to suggest that we need 9[ parkLng stalls, I don't know where that comes from. We don't need that amount of parking. That's the practical reality. That's the practical fact. And we can't afford lt. Mayor Chmtel: ! think what we should do la pretty much what we had discussed with 81oomberg's. Accept the assessment roll. as we have them right now subject to Mr. Marten meeting with staff and see what can be resolved with a report back to the Counc[! on the 24th. Councilman 3ohnson: But that doesn't get, if we get rid of the 23. Mayor Chmtel: I'm saying accept it tonight with some resolve. And If there Is, then that can just be. Councilman Workman: I'm a little confused as to why, I think this has been published twice right and we're kind of In the eleventh hour now and now we've got all these major objections to this and Gary says we have to have this done tomorrow and now we've got, we're going to approve and we're going to have admtnstration take care of all this maybe? Don ~shworth: The £ntent would be to take and come back to the City Council to inform you as to our recommendation. You could make any changes at that point £n time. The only reason that you'd want to start the clock this evening Ks each of those owners have 30 days, under State law, to pay off an assessment prior to the time It's certified down to the County. You take 30 days from now. You're up to October lOth which Is the date we have to certify. So if we start the clock this evening, you can turn around and modify It on September 24th or on October 6th and we could delete It at a future date but we can't go back and restart It tonight. councilman Workman: So maybe we need to, rather than to even have discussion, have this looked at by staff In further deta£[. Councilman 3ohnson: No, we have to certlfy It tonlght. Councilman Workman: Right. I understand that but certify It and get the clock going and then discussion on these particular points made the next time. I don't, I have a little difficulty understanding how we can get a project up and now we're going to decide, now we can decide how many parking spots you need. That's kind of looking at It from the backwards. I don't think we're going to go and pave them over and put grass tn there. I mean ! think a half a lot ts advantageous to a shopping center. It looks like there's room there. Whether there ts or not, I don't know. Those things need to be looked at by staff I guess. Councilman 3ohnson: We would, tf we took the $23,795.00 and took that off, It wou[d then be spread against the other properties and that would change everything because we're increasing rather than deletlng or would we be, would the City be or HR~ or somebody looking to eat that $24,000.00 because we've already certified? Don ~shworth: I don't like that alternative. C~ty Council Meeting - September Councilman Johnson: No, I don't either. Oon ashworth: It's difficult for ae to answer that question, again, with the Bloomberg questions, I think It's simply a matter of clarification. Splitting of the roll. Krueger, It's simply a matter to pull the sheets that we have from a year ago and show those to Tom and Lou. I am a little concerned with the questions as presented by Mr. Martens. I'm not ~ure If staff will have a good solution for you on the 24th or not. But ! guess we'll Just have to meet with them. Councilwoman Dtmler: What would you propose to do? Would you Just go back to the development or the original plane? Don ashworth: I'd have to total back up the sheets that Fred Is talking about. In other words, the orlgnaL computations that were completed. Mr. Martens le correct. There was a special assessment agreement that was entered into between the HRa, City and his shopping center development. I'd like to see If there was any leeway as a part of that document to resolve some of these problems. Councilman Johnson: Would they be qualified for special assessment reduction where the HRA's going to pay this $23,000.00 anyway? Don ashworth: as a part of their development within the downtown, they did see a special assessment reduction and they did enter Into an agreement with the NRa to that. But into that type of agreement. Councilwoman DimLer: Does this assessment reflect that? Reflects that already? Mayor Chmlel: No. Don ashworth: This assessment ts not Included tn anything that had been done and the question La, Is that alternative still there. Mr. Martens has opened the door, If I correctly read his letter asking that we do that and ! can't answer that question this evening as to whether or not It's possible or not. Councilman 3ohnson: If we certify this roll tonight, and then tt comes out Logical that we don't add the $24,000.00 basically to Town Square and that has to be split agalnst everybody, do we then since we're Increasing the amounts of these assessments, not deleting thee, does that mean they don't get assessed untll another year? Don Ashworth: No. It would mean that If staff were making that form of a recommendation, we would have to contact each of the property owners likely to be affected notifying them that on the 24th the Council would be considering actually Increasing the assessment roll from what they saw here 4 weeks ago and 2 weeks ago. Councilman 3ohnson: and they would then have 30 days from then to pay It? Oon ashworth: Well, the 30 day clock literally would be starting as of today, the lOth. 27 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: If they paid it tomorrow, and then we increased it on the 24th? Don Ashworth= You're starting to get into some bizarre. Councilman 3ohnson: Has anybody ever paid it tomorrow? Don Ashworth: The fact remains that ! do not think that that's going to become one of the alternatives. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We've discussed this. ! think what I'd like to see is a motion for the adoption of that assessment roll for 87-17 with the condition as ! indicated previously. Councilwoman Oimler: I so move. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Re~o~lut[on ~90-111: Councilwoman Dl~ler ~ovod, Councilman Norkman seconded to approve adoption of the as~ee~Nnt roll for the North SLde Parktn~ Lot, proJect 87-17 with direction to staff to meet with concerned parties and report back to the City Council on September 24, 1990. A11 voted in favor and the ~otlon carried unanimously. C. LAKE DRIVE. TH 101 TO CSPJi 17. PRO3ECT NO. 88-2~_~, Gary Ehret: Mayor, the roll before you for this project reflects assessments for the Market Blvd./Lake Drive project which runs from CR 17 on the west to new Market Blvd. on the east and from TH 5 to about 1,000 feet south. The assessment for this project as proposed in the final roll are consistent to the best of our ability with the preliminary assessment roll with a few exceptions which I'll go through briefly. The assessments are based on the final construction costs as were the assessments for the other projects. On the Lake Drive project, the sanitary sewer is assessed on an area basis against all of the adjacent properties who will be served by sanitary sewer. Watermain is assessed on a front foot basis. Storm drainage is assessed against a contributing area and I will touch on a couple of other items on that but the storm sewer is assessed at a 50~ rate similar to the other projects. The roadway assessment is on a front foot basis as well as street lighting and landscaping. On this project there are a few peculiarities I guess is the word I will use. Probably the biggest anomaly if you will is the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ on the hill. They had a very large portion of frontage and at the time that we went through the initial public hearings about a year ago, the church expressed a number of concerns about this project and specifically about the assessments. The roll that you have in front of you has given the church 2 particular credits. The first is that the waterma/n assessment was reduced the equivalent rate of a normal or what we would expect to see as a normal residential rate. The useage of the church is very limited as compared to the businesses in the area. The church also received a credit to the extent that the rate is consistent for roadway, more consistent with a local residential type street rather than a 36 foot commercial. And to be quite honest, ! can't" 28 City Counc$! HeetLng - September 10, 1990 remember. ! believe we also gave them a credit on the sanitary seMer because of the reduced useage. The other major credit If you w[11 [e that the cost for Harket Blvd., because Harket Blvd. 18 such a large section, the assessable cost for Harket Blvd. Mere reduced. The properties abutting Harket Blvd. Mhlch specifically are Lot 1, Block 3 Mhtch is on the nort~est corner of the Harket and Lake Orlve Intersection. The Rosemount property and the Ward property. Those assessments #ere figured based on a 36 foot collector type street sectton compared to the 100 foot or more sect[on that's out there right noM. The last two items ! mentioned brtefly. This projiect essentially built the trunk storm seaer from Lake Susan. The large pond Me built In the corner, southeast corner of Lake Drive and CR 17. The system goes up Lake Drive. There's also a 36 Inch pipe that goes north on the east side of the Empak property up to the tracks. That pipe serves dralnage that come~ from the Znstant Webb property and the property's primarily Burdlck plat properties on the north side of TH S. So there ts a drainage area accounted for tn thte assessment roll that ts not Immediately adjacent to the project. That's briefly a synopsis of that ro11. Hayor Chmiel: Thanks Gary. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Project No. 88-22R, Lake Drive, TH 101 to County State Rid HlghMay 17. anyone wtshlng to address. Bob Worthington: Hayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob worthington from Opus Corporation. I'm here thts evening representtng not only Opus but also the Alscor Joint Venture Partnership which ts the owner of what we show on our subdivision maps as Outiot a and I'Ll refer tn the heartng nottce that property was descrtbed as Parcel No. 2S-1890050. When we were tn Mtth the, #ell our needs are relatively simple. We MouLd lLke an opportunity to att down Mlth staff to get clarification on what assumptions were made relative to the developablllty of that parcel and tf Indeed as a part of the assumptions that were made, the benefits that were assigned to that'lot ~ere apporttoned accordingly. When Me were tn Mtth the Rosemount devetopment, thts parcel came up for extensive discussion princtply because half of it's covered by a wetland. As a matter of fact, tn the Planning Commission presentation by the staff, it was indicated that this property ts probably undevelopable. We protested that language and requested that tt be strlken from the staff report because Me felt that there Mas value on this property and that indeed Me should be able to come back with a plan Mhlch Mould alloM the Ctty to evaluate and then make a final deterlmnation as to Mho much of the property is developable versus how much not developable. We have not done that as yet. We were over Last week to see if we couldn't have that clariftcatton. Unfortunately the people who were most knowledgeable about the project were not avatLable. We dtd send a letter late Friday Indicating our Interest in further clarification. We're not asking you to hold up the assessment roll this eventng but we certainly Mould Like clarification on the assumption that was made relative to the developablltty of this site and If Indeed adjustments tn the fores of credtts or reductions ~ere made as a part of the assessment. So that's our came. ~ayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you Bob. Rnyone else? Bob Haak: Hy name Is Bob Haak and I'm Prestdent of the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ tn Chanhassen. Hy address ts 770 P~oneer Tratl. In Oecember of 1988, the Lutheran Church of the Living Chrtst received an esttmated assessment for the Rosemount construction of $170,000.00. ~e thought that Mas very htgh. 29 City Council Heet£ng - September 10, L990 It was completely out of the question and we met with BRW, the City staff and members of our congregat£on and we tried and thought we had a reduction in that assessment. The only question that still remained was the city had proposed that they eight buy Outlot A on our property to further reduce our assessment. ~eil to this point we really haven't seen anything from the City as far as a formal offer on Outlot A. Just last week we received once more the notice of assessment for $108,000.00. I must point out again that we've met with BRW, with the City staff and we thought we had some sort of a ballpark agreement which was in the neighborhood of $20,000.00 to $40,000.00. Councilman Johnson: What'd you say your notice was for? Bob Maak: $108,000.00. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Because we've got $50,000.00 here plus there's two lots. Are there two lots? Bob Haak: The one ! received says $108,000.00. I'll bring it up when finished here. So we don't understand the difference and we would like it resolved and we do hereby officially and strongly protest the special assessment 88-22 for our parcel 25-013&200. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bob. Don Ashworth: Mr. Hayor? Mayor Chmlel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: ! did suggest to Bob that they submit the letter that you have in front of thee. Staff continues to work with the church. The Council did give staff basically instructions to work with the church and to bring that assessment down to a more reasonable level. The $40,000.00 figure that Bob did refer to is one that we have continued to look at. a delay that he referred to, if you recall there was an original division of the property. [n the meantime Robert's automatic came in with the rear portion of that property. In fact, if you look at the map that was presented by Hr. Worthington you'll see that part of what was the old Robert's automatic hooks around the back side of the church and it solely made it more or better for both the church and whoever would own that property directly to the west to consider some type of a division where each would get part of that property. Negotiations basically occurred between Opus, alscor, Roberts Automotive and the church. The City was not really part of that but recognizing our interest in seeing the overall plat complete, the timing was de[ayed simply to resolve the issue as It arose with Roberts. So [ do not see where there is any difference in the negotiations from basically where the Council had instructed staff to be tn late 1988, early 1989. It has simply taken that long a per[od to get all of the plat issues, resolved. But again I did advise the church to present this letter. That preserves their opttons if for any reason the City does not meet the obligations that we previously have stated we were willing to enter into with them. Ooes that make sense? Councilman Johnson: To get it down to the $40,000.00 range, we're looking at buying part of the[r property. 3O Council Heeting - September 10, 1990 Hayor Chmtel: Purchasing Outlot a. Don ashworth: Wel! part of It also gets dropped off as a result of Roberts. And then the second factor, the proposed roll in front of you already has taken off that portion that has been purchased by Roberts. Correct Gary? Gary Ehret: Yeah. Don ashworth: And the remaining portion shews the distribution between the lot proposed to be purchased by the city and that proposed to be retained by the church. The amount to be paid to the church for that piece that Is being purchased would then drive down their assessment to the amount that was looked at by the City Council tn late 1988, early 1989. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. ! guess ! had one quick question, ge have a lot of Outlot a's but the one that you show here Bob, that Is your Chanhassen Lakes Bustnsee Park port[on? Don Ashworth: Right. Hayor Chmiel: That ts not part of the Lutheran Church? Don Ashworth: No. A new plat comes something like this with this piece here now going back, my line should be over here a little bit further. But this portion would go over to Roberts. This portion behind goes to the church. And this section in here that does deal with the wetland area, under the new plat something Iike that. It's that piece that !beIIeve Bob ts referring to ae the outlot that we're proposing to purchase from the church. Xayor ChmIel: Okay. Now tt makes sense. See that Tom? 3ay? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And on here the outlot is what's being assessed $50,308.007 Don Ashworth: Correct Gary? They're both about the same right? Councilman Johnson: One's 58 and one's SO. Gary Ehret: The Outlot a is the one that would be split off and would not go back to the church. Don Ashuorth: And Is that the 50 or 58? Gary Ehret: 50. Councilman 3ohneon: So we would be purchasing an outlot of wetland or whatever that's being charged $50,000.00, so we would take that $50,000.00 as the property owner? Don ashworth: Yea. You have to realize that the street construction did occur [n it's entirety along that entire length. ! mean that is a cost factor. 31 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: And that was one of the most expensive parts right in there because of the poor soils. Don Ashworth: The surcharging. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, is there anyone else? B.C. Jim Burdick: Good evenlng ladies and gentlemen. B.C. Jim Burdtck, 426 Lake Street, Excelsior. On the lot on the north side of TH 5 I'm being assessed about $42,000.00. Now I heard a previous speaker up here from BRW say this ts the south side of TH 5 project and I most certainly agree and assessments should be based on benefit, it's my understanding and beneftt only. Now I had a nice discussion with Gary Warren. Very capable on his part and he did show that some water goes down that way from my property and I believe I'm willing to accept that but my protest is based Just on benefit. If I can be shown I get $42,000.00 worth of benefit, fine. $52,000.00 ts better because I'm $10,000.00 ahead of the game. $142,000.00 would be still better. That'd be great but I just don't thtnk I'm being benefitted by $42,000.00. So they can say your water goes down there. Okay. But so can the Minnesota River area. Say your water goes down that Minnesota River so you must pay for improving the Minnesota River. Then we get to the Mississippi. Well pay for Improving the Mississippi. Then get down to Iowa, the...locks and things, assessed for that. Pretty soon there'd be no...so I just don't think that water business is valid. And a sem£ protest ls only Just that I'm not belng benefitted. Mayor Chmie[: Thank you Jim. Anyone else? Doug Hansen: I'm Doug Hansen. I have the office/warehouse down here in Burdick's, I think It's Lot 4 and 5 so I'm In a sImI[ar situation with Jim Burdlck and I wondered, number I I had a question. I guess I was supposed to give you my address. 17001 Stodola Road, Mlnnetonka. I had quest[on about square foot cost assessments. Is that the same over all the watershed area in this project? Is that right? Gary Ehret: The project, all properties within the project area uere all assessed, I think It's 7 cents a square foot. It's a uniform rate. Mr Burdlck's property, Hr. Hansen's property, Rosemount, Empak. Mayor Chmiel: 7 cents per square foot? Gary Ehret: Yes. Doug Hansen: I guess being on top of the hill I also question what value I get out of that for that amount. I realize that there's an assessment there In the watershed and it seems like tt shouldn't be the same all over but that's Just my question I guess. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Doug. Yes sir. John Ward: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name Is John Ward, 5916 Hanson Road, Minneapolis regarding the M.J. Ward Estate. Two years ago we were presented with a feasibility study regarding the roadway that's been completed and in that a figure in the $60.00 range was used for our portion of the 32 City Council Heetlng - September IS, 1990 assessment whtch we have been planning on for the last 2 years and we were quite surprised a couple of weeks ago to receive the Letter from the City Indicating that the actual assessment would be a'ltttle over triple that. We feel that the street that ass put In Is actually, well It clearly Is, It's a highway and It serves no additional benefit to our property over the existing TH 101. Zf a street was to be put In on that end that would benefit our property,' a standard street would create the same benefit as putting tn a hlghuay of the standards that sere put in. Obviously It was put In to service the Rosemount property and we don't feel that the benefit to our property Is anywhere near what has been assessed against lt. We would ask the Council to defer action to give us sore time to discuss this with the engineering staff and the consulting people that the City's using. Having them discuss It with our people because we do think there's some real problems here as reflected by the fact that the actual assessient Is 3 times higher than the feasibility study that us'vi been planning on for 2 years. So I'd like to present a letter to that effect to you Hr. Hayor. Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: anybody else? Mayor Chmiel: Ts there anyone else wishing to address this public hearing? [f seeing and hearing none, [ think I'd like a motion to close the pub[Lc hearing. CouncLtman 3ohnson moved, Councilwoman ELtmler seconded to close the public hearing. All uoted Ln favor and the motion carried. The pubUc hearlnQ ~ma closed. Mayor ChmIel: I see quite a blt of discussions going here with all these additional Items. Oon, what could we do If we Just basically tabled this until all these things are really done? I kno~ there's a clock started on It but I think potentially maybe this Is something that should be done. Don Ashworth: With the number of owners Involved, it goes back to a question from the previous one, what If there's an adjustment and we have to notify the other owners? I felt quite confident In the prior two that that would not be the case. I think with the number of owners who have questioned the roll and the potential that there may be changes tn this particular Instance, you may be better served tabling the item. Having staff research the Issues that have been presented with the Idea that adopting would occur on September 24th. We would still certify by the October lOth deadline and If an owner then paid after that timeframe, the County Auditor could remove that particular parcel. ! know this sounds different than what was done-In the first two but again with the number of owners Involved, I would feel more comfortable doing that. Mayor Chile[: Okay. any discussion? Councilman 3ohnson: Well, a little blt on the property lying north of TH 5. There uere previous agreements that ue had two options In designing the property north of TH 5 and the store seuer system. We chose either to run tt to the pond. Option a [ believe uae run It to the pond at Eckankar site that the City ts going to be developing and trying to acquire. Or running it to this site. The choice uae to run It to this site versus the other site so ! mean this Isn't 33 City Council Meet£ng - September lO, [990 anything new that the store water system for this area was going to include being run to Lake Susan through this series of systems. You can't bu£[d Just the north half of the sewer and not build the south half and say we're through building the sewer. So in this case I believe everybody within the watershed need pay their fair share on that. Rs far as the Ward's property, it does concern me when you go 3 times. I think we've answered the Church pretty well. But 3 times the feasibility study is a lot but we do need to point out at this point Like we did earlier that it was not assessed for the [00 foot wide right-of-way but a standard 36 foot wide right-of-way was what was actually assessed against the Ward property. So in comparison to what that big street was, you're only paying for one lane of it. So those are my only comments. think tabling would be a good idea at this time. Mayor Chmiel: ! do too. Rather than having other discussions, ls there a motion to table? Councilman #orkman moved, Counctlean Johnson seconded to table adopt/on of the assessment roll for Project No. 88-22~, Lake Drive, TH 101 to CSRH 17 untt! the next City Council meeting. ~11 voted In favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmtel: This wll! be back before us on the 24th so you'll have at least another opportunity to come in and enjoy our company here. EUBLZC HERRZNG; ~HENDNENT TO THE YERR X9 ST~TEHENT OF PRO3ECTEO USE OF FUNDS FOR THE URBRN HENNEPZN COUNTY COfl~UNZTY OEYELOPHENT BLOCK GRRNT PROGRRU, Paul Krauss: Rs you're aware, our Year X¥ Block Grant allocation had provided $[7,000.00 and some odd dollars for housing rehabilitation. [ reported to you last spring early on that nobody had sought those funds. We speculated at the t£me that it was probably because the income cut off is so Low that Chanhassen residents didn't qualify for it. ! still believe that's the case but based upon your request, we republished that in both newspapers. The newspapers cooperated with us. Ran stories about the availability of funds Just to make sure that everybody had a Last shot at it. We had no takers which tells us that it's encumbant upon the City Council to reallocate those funds because with Block Grant dollars you either use it or lose it. [ think you're all aware that there's very limited categories that are fundable under Block Grant funding. It's for low income projects, projects for elderly and projects for handicapped. What we've proposed to do for you is to reallocate that funding into two separate projects in the same park, Lake Susan Park. Under a different Block Grant category we've already allocated $7,500.00 in funds to construct a fishing pier. R handicapped accessible fishing pier in Lake Susan Park. This would be similar to the one that's recently been completed in Lake Rnn which ! believe is quite successful. We've since found that the actual cost to build the pier that's desired for Lake Susan is something on the order of $18,750.00. No~ that's a pier that's approved or designed by the ONE and it's built at relatively low cost through Minnesota, and ! forget what it is but it's the prison industries over in Stillwater. They build it as'a rehabilitation project. So what we'd like to propose doing is taking a portion, $11,250.00 of that $17,000.00 and change. ALlocate that in combination with the $7,500.00 we've already appropriated would be used to get the 84 foot fishing pier which 34 City Council Heetlng - September 10, 1990 we think is warranted for Lake Susan Park. That leaves us with a balance close to $6,000.00. [f you read the report, my math was ~rrong. ! had thought ! had found an extra $3,000.00 that we could spend and I listed 9. I was wrong. We have $5,890.00 in the ba[ance. What ~e've proposed to do and we talked to our parks people about this, is tn Lake Susan Park there Is a recreational facility In there and Hark Koegler, of course who works with us on our park design, has suggested that we use it to begin work on a handicapped accessible play structure. Now with $&,O00.O0 we can't build the ultimate one but we can build a useable one and these things are modular and if we get some block grant money in the future years, we may be able to add to that. With that, both projects we thlnk are kind of unique. They're targeted for handicapped people but both the fishing pier and the play structure are equally utilizable by able body children and adults. We think tt will provide a unique amentty and a unique facility in our park system. One that's going to be useable for many of our residents who rlght now cannot access the equipment that we have. Therefore we're recommending to adopt a resolution reallocatlng those funds to those projects. Hayor Chmiel: I like the idea of both. ~ccessibllity of the fishing pier but I also like the part about for the handicapped. I think that's a neat Idea. There's only one question that I have. Is it legal? Paul Krauss: You mean will they allow us to transfer the funds? Yes, they will. Hayor Chmiel: alright. ! was Just going to throw it open for discussion. That's all I was going to do and if you had something to say, go ahead Tom. Councilman Workman: Yeah. I don't think like a handicapped person so it's very difficult to Imagine what's needed, are we running Out of ideas a little bit? Paul Krauss: Well to be honest, you know they keep coming up with more and more guidelines under the Block Grant program that are used to restrict communities from being real flagrant about this. In the early 70's there were cities that built golf courses with these funds. It gets tougher and tougher to find fundable programs for them particularly since we're not talking about a tremendously large allocation of dollars. We only get, I think last year we got $35,000.00. Of that we spent $7,000.00 for the South Shore Senior Center. We undertook a seniors need study. I guess that's funded out of our previous year and we've got something on the order of $26,000.00 sitting for as yet unnamed senior activities and hopefully the senior group has been working on the study is going to have some ideas as to how that money should be allocated. In the past we've tried to be creative and come up with ideas. I recall Councilman Boyt was interested in a book mobile. ! found out that was not fundable and at different times some of this stuff, some of this money was funneled into planning efforts. One section of the comprehensive plan was funded under allocations several years ago but that is now not allowed any longer so yes. The long and the short of it is, it's getting tougher and tougher to find fundable projects. Xayor Chmiel: Let me just interject something. As you're talking I was thinking a little bit more of that fishing pier as we're proposing. Will that be handicapped accessible? City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Paul Krauss: Yes sir it will. It will be just like the one we have in the park right now which is, when you go out there it's over aide so that you can wheelchair access out there. The flshlng positions have cut down bollards so somebody sitting down and unable to stand can still cast. Mayor thais1: The second question ! had ts, should it be wJthln the big park at Lake Ann Park for the handicapped accessible for some playground equipment or should it be at Lake Susan? I'm try/rig to determine as to why would we be looking just to Lake Susan being that we have more numbers going to Lake Ann Park and accessibility there would-be pretty much the same. Councilman Workman: We can charge them a fee at Lake Ann. Paul Krauss: That is a point. One is a fee for service. I don't know the answer to that honestly. This was done in consultation with our parks people and I'd defer to their recommendation on that. Councilman Johnson: Can we make this non-specific that the funds would be used either at Lake Ann or at Lake Susan because I had the exact same question. Lake Ann is used by so many more people, it makes more sense to me to put a handicapped accessible at Lake Ann which is used by more people than Lake Susan which you know. It's like saying okay, let's take our handicaps and send them over to Lake Susan here and everyone else can go over to Lake Ann. As long as our primary focus is developing Lake Ann and then Susan and these other parks are secondary, I'd like to see handicap accessible at City Center Park. At Lake Ann Park. At all the parks eventua[[y. City Center I'd like to see more. Paul Krauss: Well at this point I don't believe that you'd be hamstrung by the Block Grant regulations. I mean It's a fundable activity. I don't think they cake which park we put it in as long as it's a public facility. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay but that brings up the point that Lake Ann already has the pier. Councilman Johnson: I'm not talking the pier. The play structure. Councilwoman Oimler= Oh, the play structure? Okay. Councilman 3ohnson: Any pier we put In should be handicap accessible on any pier on any lake, tn my opinion. Councilwoman Dimier: Alrtght so you're leaving number 1 as is? You're just talking about 2? Councilman Johnson: Exactly. Giving us a little more option In where we put it. Has Park and Eec seen this or Just park staff? Paul Krauss= I belteve just their staff. We can ask them to resolve this for us at their meeting on the 24th I be[isys. Mayor Chmiel: Let's do that. Let's refer it to them. I'd like to move staff recommending that Clty Council approve resolutions supporting the recertiftcation of Hennepin County and authorize staff to enter into a Joint 36 City Counci! Meeting - September 10, 1990 Cooperative Agreement. Councilwoman Olmler: I'll second that. Resolution 1~0-112: Ilayor Chatel coved, Counctl=n 'OtaLer seconded to approve a resolution supportung the recertlflcatlon of ttennepln County and authorize staff to enter Into the 3olnt Cooperatl~ Agreement. All voted In favo~ and the sotlon carried unanimously. Councilman Johnson: And your motion did Include at either park? Mayor ChmieL: Yes. I should back up. I should have asked If there was anyone that would like to Interject anything In on this? I moved a LittLe too qutckly. councilman Johnson: We never closed the public hearing did ~e? Mayor Chmtel: No, I didn't do that either. I got a little excited. Councilman 3ohnson moved, CouncJJ~maan Dialer eec~~ to clo~e the public hearing. Rll voted In favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. N~RD OF BIDS:.. IfftRKET SaUNa[ 72 XNCH STORIJ SE1JER EXTEMSXON. PI~CT NO. 90-13. Councilman 3ohnson: ! move we approve NorthdaLe Construct[on for $87,290.00. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. CounciLman Workman: O[scuss£on? Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Toe? Councilman Workman: Does this need to be done regardless of what happens out there? Don Ashworth: ! was going to suggest that the Counc11, as we had received a request that this be re-considered La that correct CharLes? Charles Folch: That's correct. Don ashworth: And ! would Like the City Attorney to vet/fy that there wILL not be a problem associated with po(ent[ally assessing Lt. In addItlon. Councilman 3ohnson: Who requested the reconsideration besides CounciLman Workman: We don't have anybody to assess, do CounciLman 3ohnson: [f there's no shopping center, ~e don't do the project? Don Ashworth: That's what I'm basically saying. I Just uant the City ~ttorney to ensure that that in fact happens. Roger Knutson: I'1! take a look at lt. 37 City Council Heetlng - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman 3ohnson: So tf we award the bid, we don't necessarily have to award the contract? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Johnson: Us approving the award of bid does not mean it wtll be built. Don Ashworth: Does not mean that it would be signed. The City Attorney has to ensure that the requirement that we Just put on there is met. He would then advise the Mayor and myself that we can or cannot sign that document. Roger Knutson: Approve it subject to. . Mayor Chmie~: Right. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I modify my motton therefore to approve the award of bid subject to those condtt£ons. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Resolution ~90-113: Councilaan 3ohrmon aoved, Councllmman DJ~ler ~econded to award the bid for Zmproveaent Project No. 90-13 to Northdale Construction In the amount of $87,290.00 =ubJect to approval by the City Attorney. Al/ voted In favor and the aotlon carried unanimously. PRELIHINARY .PLAT ~ND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO ~fE AND FOR ~ 11,822 SQUARE .FOOT RETAIL HALL BUILDIN~ LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD fiND LOCATED ON LOT Z, BLOCK 1, BLOOttBERG ~ODI.TION, FRONTIER RETAIL CENTER, BLOOHBERG COflP~NIES. Paul Krauss: The applicant's requesting approval to construct a 16,116 square foot retail addition to the Frontier Center complex. It wou[d contain 11,822 square feet of new space with the balance being contained tn the extstlng Antmal Fair building which would be incorporated within it. The Center as being proposed fits lnto a long established concept plan of anchoring retail in this Frontier complex with the hotel at the west end and the Dinner Theatre at the east all of which would be connected by a pedestrian, weather enclosed hallway. At the completion of this project a reconstruction of the remaining portion of the existing Frontter building or some rennovatlon of that structure would be required to achieve that concept which ~ouLd require a skyway connection or at least It would appear so at this point and that's something that Mr. Bloomberg has talked conceptually about but there's not a time schedule for that at this point. Staff supports the general concern being proposed. The retail component we believe is important for the well being of Chanhassen's central business distrlct and also to support the planned additlon of a 5,000 square foot restaurant believing It to be a benefit to the CBD as weLL as to the hotel ltself. Architecturally the building ts consistent with surroundlng structures. Our primary concern with this proposal has been with parking adequacy. Since 38 City Council Heating - September relatively few parking stalls will be created on this particular parcel, cross parking on adajcent seres is required if the plan is to function. The C[ty retained Fred Holsington to undertake a parking study on this project and he is here tonight to present his findings. Fred has been involved with parking on this site for several years and we believe he was best placed to help us resolve these issues. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on August 1Sth and shared many of staff's concerns and did recommend approval with a number of revised conditions that have been proposed. Staff is recommending approval with appropriate conditions. We should note that we've further revised some of the things that, some of the things have changed since the Planning Commission looked at it. We are recommending some of the Planning Commission conditions be changed themselves based on merits being discussed. I'd also note that there's been some omissions in corrections. Basically the Planning Commission and staff agreed that there would be no conditions placed on the Olnner Theatre proper since that is no longer in the control of Bloomberg Properties and we had agreed to that but the conditions were not appropriate worded. Staff is recommending approval with appropriate conditions. Fred's also been working with the city and the developers to gain agreement on several outstanding conditions that have been points of contention and hopefully he's worked out most of them and can describe them a little fully in his presentation. With that I'd like to defer to Fred. Fred Hoistngton: Your honor, members of the Council. I can go into the parking calculations and so forth. I won't spend much time unless you'd really care to have us do that. What I can tell you in sort of a summary fashion ts that there is a potential parking problem on the south side of ~est 78th Street but you're not going to see it for a long period of time. What ~e're telling you is you have some time to work out the kinds of problems that we've been trying to ~rk out with the Bloomberg Companies in this particular case. However, there are some things and I guess I'm sort of the obJect~ve third party in resolving some issues that have been-difficult to resolve. A couple of them which were simply oversights and really don't amount to anything but let me Just summarize those quickly for you. The cross easements question for parking was only an oversight in the sense that we were also requiring that they be over the Olnner Theatre and of course no commitment can be made for Dinner Theatre properties. There was a question however as to whether we should have those easements included in the chain of title and what We found from the City Attorney today was that we did not have to do that in that we could require that those remain in effect for as long as the project is there. He's very comfortable with that so I think we needn't worry about including those easements in the chain of title. Including the City as part of the chain of title. As far as the second item lo concerned, Paul was recommending that the 40 additional parking epacse behind the building and that they be paved. I agree with that but it's a very difficult kind of situation. What we're suggesting to you in lieu of that is to accept Paul's other recommendation which is to require leases, require that the Bloomberg Companies require leases that require employee~ to park behind the building and that there be an acceptable pedestrian access or way for tho~e people to get to the front of the building or to get to the building itself. Another thing that was merely an oversight was that there be no food establishments, additional food establishments and of course no commitment can be made for the Dinner Theatre and that was purely something that we needed to work out so really what it boils down to is the fourth one. City Council Meeting - September LO, 1990 Hayor chmiel: Fred, on that 3. No new food establishments? Fred Hoisington: Yes. Hayor Chmiel: What's being proposed in this for the 5,000 square feet? Fred Hoisington: No. In the Olnner Theatre itself your honor. The 5,000 is in the shopping center es. Councilman Johnson: Os we want to discuss number 47 Hayor Chmiel: Haybe we'd better let Fred get into it first. Councilman Johnson: Well, I'm not sure. Fred Hotsington: Jay, let me just cover this one Just briefly before you get into that. This is a tough one. It seems like a very small matter to ae and yet it's not as small apparently as. Don Ashworth: Maybe Councilman Johnson ham a point in that we get into discussion, are we not to a point where we then might be forced into acting one way or the other? I mean maybe the issue is not worthy of discussing at this point in time. Councilman Workman: Good point. Councilman Johnson: It's going to resolve itself very quickly. Oon Ashworth: The City always retains it's right to take care of whatever the issue may be at such future time. Councilman Johnson: It's not germane to this property anyway. It's a neighboring property. Oon Ashworth: ...germane to this particular issue at this point in time. Fred Moisington: You don't have to argue with me over that. Don Ashworth: You did an excellent job on ! thru 3. Councilman Workman: I do have a problem with 2 if you want to go with it quickly. The minimum of a gravel surface. How visible is this walkway? Is that something we want to allow downtown? a gravel path. Councilman Johnson: No, it's the parking that will be gravel isn't it? Paul Krauss: If I could explain that. You know we're not exactly sure how it will lay out because it's something that Clayton and I have to come to agreement with but what we're talking about is the probability of using parking that are in Bloomberg's control either here or over here. Now one of the earlier conditions pertained to repaying this driveway. That's being done under the City parking lot improvement right now. In fact it's paved down to this point. The question is, how do you get from there to these stalls or these 4O City Council Heetlng - September 10, 1990 stalls? Right now there's loading docks over here. There's trucks parked that are blockLng Lt. There's a blt of a muddy area down Ln here that makes Lt Lepassable whenever the weather's Lnclement. ! think we've come to an understanding that Clayton Ls wLllLng to put Ln the lease that they'll obligate employees to park down there and we Just want to make sure that it's a reasonable place for them to park. So we're lookLng to have some sort of a better surface connection between the parking stalls and the paved driveway. Councilman Workman: But usLng gravel as a mlnLmum tm something that we're? Paul Krauss: Well, It's tn a very concealed location. It's not something that's going to be visible to anybody unless they happen to be driving around In the back area. Councilman Johnson: There's no internal connections where they could come Lnto the Filly'e and make theLr way back through there somehow or another? Paul Krauss: Not effectively, no. That gets to one of the things that we discussed In our report. Long term It's our goal to see this entire area come In In some sort of an overall concept where those klnds of thtngs could be addressed and ! believe that Bloomberg Companies has Lndlcated as theLr long term goal as well to develop such a plan. We don't have such a plan right now so we're left with what Ls basically a more temporary arrangement. Councilwoman Olmler: Boy I don't like that when it snows and stuff. I mean I feel sorry for those employees havLng to go through those kinds of condltLone In Inclement weather. Councilman Johnson: I'd hate to have to walk up that little roadway when it's snowing and cars coming do~n sideways. Councilwoman Dialer: Right. Paul Krauss: Well the concern we have of course la that there la Insufficient room to have the employees take up the upper parking lot because that's where the customers are going to be. When you're, you know you can make, well you have a lot more flexibility making employees park where you'd prefer than you do a customers. And clearly If eomebody's goLng to be hassled with having to park behind a building, we'd prefer It be employees and not customer traffic. Hayor Chmtel: That may also be a condition of their employment. Councilman Johnson: Well If they hurt themselves in the parkLng lot, they apply under Workeen's Comp. The employer's pay under Workmen's Comp and they sue the City for, because we tell thee to park back there. Councilman Workman: Yeah I guess, you know we're talking about trying to clean up that area back there. This might be a good place to start. I Just don't see that as a eInlmum standard for downtown. Let alone the Industrial park or anywhere else. Fred HoIstngton: We don't disagree at all except that If you look at what's back there, we can't figure out where to pave 40 parkLng spaces for example and 41 city Council Heeting - September 10, 1990 make it work and connect it up. It just doesn't work. It's all going to work itself out as a matter of fact over time but in the short term, it's already substandard on the back side. On the other hand, it is possible they could park a little bit to the west and there may be an access through and to the building through the courtyard. We've looked at that. We don't like that particularly but if they can encourage their employees to park there and then walk through that area. It will be hard surfaced, even the walkway so what we're saying is have them deal with their employee problem now and it will correct itself over a period of time. Councilman Workman: Z guess ! don't follow that quite. I mean we do have ordinances that say how much parking this should have correct? Paul Krauss: We do have ordinances that have specific standards for parking. The problem is when you get into multi-tenant centers and multiple ownerships which is what you have over here. It gets very difficult to figure out exactly what you need and what you normally do is you undertake a study such as the one Fred's performed that tries to assume when you're going to have peak traffic at say the hardware store versus peak traffic in a restaurant and figure out that those same parking stalls will be used at different times of the day by different tenants. Cross parking plan. Councilman Workman: But if we've got a blighted situation with semi-trailers parked back there. Who's semi-trailers are back there and who's getting the rent to park the trailers there? Haybe the trailers should be removed to let some parking is freed up back there. I don't know. We're allowing the unfavorable situation to continue and there may be some remedies but we're not going to, I think we're saying we're not going to go after those. You know what I mean? I don't know how many trailers are back there but they've been back there since this spring. Paul Krauss: There were about 8 this morning. I fully understand your concerns and I guess to be honest, working in this area is always kind of frustrating because you've got different ownerships and different overlapping interests and different previous arrangements from redevelopment proposals. Councilman Workman: But there's really only one owner in this whole complex isn't there? Paul Krauss: Well apparently not. You have the Dinner Theatre which has been sold to different parties. Councilman Workman: Yeah, but the buildlng hasn't has ti? Paul Krauss: Well I believe Hr. Johnson can explain that. And you've got the hotel that's ina different parternshlp. Then you've got the bowling alley. Councilman Workman: I'm Just thinking of Herb and that's all. I'm thinking Herb and work it out somehow. That's the simple theory of it all so there's all sorts of situations going on back there that can be remedied too you know. Paul Krauss: Well in past discussions, we didn't raise that point on this project but we've looked at that warehouse use of the building which has been 42 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 it's historic use but long term clearly it's desired to have that removed and replaced by something that legitimately belongs In the central business district. Councilman Johnson: In fact we want to get the whole south side of the building to a more retail/commercial aspect. Not Industrial aspect as It Is now. Hooked on Classics ts probably the first attempt on that. Mayor Chmlei: Yeah, and that's something that they've not gotten into as yet. It's hard to determine. Councilman Johnson: There's also in the past been some talk about a parking garage on the Olnner Theatre site if they expand there. I guess that's getting too far away to be germane on this issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Oimler: What is the possibility of putting in a temporary parking lot? I've seen that done before. You know to be dug up later tf we don't need it there anymore. Paul Krauss: ! think it's a real possibility but then you get into conflicting interests you know. When we originally started talking about this and it may in fact work out this way but one of the easiest places to put in the parktng lot is in front of Hooked on Classics. I'm not sure how their lease arrangement works though but I know that they use some of those exterior stalls tn front of the former lumber yard, hardware facility down there and I don't know how many stalls they're entitled to use but again, you deal with all these overlapping interest and different lease agreements and everything else and It gets rather cumbersome. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Hayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: If I may. Haybe there's another way to look at that. I look at it from the standpoint that I don't think that there's going to be a parking problem there. At issue is, we've taken some very conservative positions regarding the number of parking stalls that would be used by the hotel and the availability of those stalls back for the restaurant facilIty. I think that the developers would like to take and hope that they have 100~ occupancy on Friday and Saturday nights which would probably be your biggest demand for a restaurant. The fact Is Is that probably won't happen. Oaytime type of use, which ts where you might have employees, etc., ie not the time that you're going to have htgh parking associated with the hotel. I guess my point is, and then we look to those same type of standard statements ae they would deal wlth the parking that may be associated right now with the Villager space and some of those other tenants that rlght now really do not put a high demand on parking. [ think the only thing that we need to be worried about is insuring that through potential sales that if one of the merchants or group of merchants that end up owning this facility, the individual, that If they have a problem that they can go back to Bloomberg and potentially look to employee parking at another location. I don't know that we necessarily have to define exactly where that's 43 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 going to be at this point in time but I think we can place it into writing that if a problem does develop, that Bloomberg will help in finding the solution. My point is that I really do not think that there's going to be a parking problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I agree with some of that analyzation. Councilman Johnson: In the short term I don't think there will be a parking problem. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: lO years from now that might be a parking problem. Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say 15-20. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, well either way I'm not sure if tying it to Herb 8loomberg 20 years from now. Herb's going to be still kicking around here in 20 years but he may have sold off all of his assets at this point. Who do you tie it to? Councilman Workman: So with the parking issue resolved, we don't have any problem, By the way, the hotel Looks really nice. i've gotten compliments on it so, for you guys it looks really nice... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: ~re you just talking about the parking? Mayor Chmiel: Parking. Yes, we're still at the parking. Councilman Johnson: Only discussing the parking. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess my feeling is, it's time to look at the longer term because the downtown redevelopment is at least halfway done if not further and we need to start thinking about the longer term rather than saying in the short term. I guess I feel that there Is aparktng problem there. I think there ts already traffic movement problems. I really think that our ordinance spells out what we need and I think we should try to get as close to that as we can. Mayor Chmiel: One of the thlngs that I think Don was eluding to was the fact that a lot of these businesses close at a specific time. Therefore those needs are not there. There's one day out of the week they stay open, those needs would be there and how's that really going to be addressed. Councilwoman Dimler: My other question I had Is, wlth these new requirements are we really meetlng state standards on handicap accessibility and parking? Paul Krauss: Yes we are. That's researched every time a butldlng permit's pulled. Councilwoman Otmler: Okay. Right now we have the 2 in front of the pharmacy. Now is there any others. 44 C£ty Council Hem[lng - September 10, 1990 Pau! Krauss: There wll! be more handicap parking with this proposal. ! believe t here' s one... Councilwoman Dlmler: Any other handicap considerations such as inside? Paul Krauss: Building Code requires that all construct[on, It has for a few years, be fully accessible so there will be ramps, yeah. Counc£lman Johnson: Through the skyway would be the only prob[em. Boy are we really going to get someplace if we get a skyway. Councilwoman Dim[er: We'll be on the news. Hayor Chmlel: Okay, any other discussions? Jay? Ursula? Tom? Councilman Johnson: You mean Just parking or everything? Hayor Chmiel: Well anything now. Let's move on from there. ! think we have some of those specifics pretty well addressed. Anything relating to the landscaping or. Councilwoman Oimler: How about the subdlvtsIon? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, let's talk about the subdivision. Councilwoman Oimler: We need to talk about the subdivision. I guess my comment was, you've Indicated Paul that Bloomberg Companies have not been very responsive. Could you explain that? You've gone through some processes here? Where are we at with that subdivision? Paul Krauss: Well basically we've Indicated for quite some time that some sort of reallocation of property lines Is required here since we've actually got an existing property line that will go down the middle of this restaurant and for building code reasons and for planning, ordinance reasons, you can't have a negative 18 foot setback. You can have tt come down a common building wall and then there's building code adjustments you have to make. When this Issue was raised at the Planning Commission, Hr. Bloomberg's attorney Indicated that they were willing to do a metes and bounds division but did not want to go through a formal subdivision process. ! indicated that they should get us a copy of what they're proposing to do so we could run It past the City Attorney and see If it's satisfactory. We've not been given that. I still believe It's a relatively simple matter but It's one that you're going to have to approve so that item will have to be brought back to you. Councilman Johnson: Since we have no application before us from the applicant, there's no way ! can see that we are going to approve a preliminary plat tonight. [ don't have a plat drawing In front of me to approve. Until we get a metes and bounds description or anything, ! think we should, ! don't think we should do anything. We have no application. It was published as a preliminary plat but there's never been applied so no building permit can go up until It's done. [ don't think we should take any action. There's nothing to table because It's not even. It as a published Issue but show me the application on what 4S City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 we're acting. Mayor Chmiel: Oo we have one Paul? Paul Krauss: No sir, I don't believe we do. We took the liberty of publishing it anticipating that it would be required but I could be mistaken. I see the application form in here but I don't believe there's a plat. Councilman Johnson: So basically what we'd be doing is making a condition that a preliminary plat be applied for or that a plat be applted for and at some future meeting we should approve the plat but there ain't nothing to approve tonlght. Councilwoman Oimler: Are you saying we should table the whole thing until we get it? Councilman Johnson: No, we can put it as a condition to the site plan approval that the area be replatted before any kind of construction or anything can go. Z don't know what that does to thelr time table. Well we can make that as a motion and there's other. I don't remember what I had to say about lighting. Mayor Chmiel: That's right on page, signage and lighting is on page 9. It goes 1nrc page lO. The number of signs is excessive as I can see here .... currently only 5 tenant spaces. There's really no detail provided for a total sign area to be acceptable as a sign style and that is not normally part of preliminary or is it7 Paul Krauss: Well of course they're asking for site plan approval so that would be the, and normally that would be the final action to be taken. When we raised that concern wlth the Plannlng Commission, they asked that a formal sign plan come back before them so they could act on that separately. Mayor Chmiel: And also regarding site lighting. We don't have any details on that at a11. Paul Krauss: No we don't but typically we don't and lighting is a relatively mlnor issue here. Most of the lighting in the parking lot is part of the city project. We just wanted to get a handle on anythlng additional that was belng proposed. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: And another concern was the detail on the trash storage and the truck access. How is that coming along? Paul Krauss: Well the applicants agreed to that. That's typically, a lot of times it's a detail we get at building permit. Mayor Chmiel: Paul there was also something regarding some brick, as I remember readtng this and I can't quite find it. Councilwoman Oimler: Condition 17 City Council Heetlng - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Face brick. Paul Krauss: It was a condltlon that I had proposed to the Planning Commission that they had asked to knock out. Basically there's 3 different architectural styles running across there from the existing Animal Fair building to the new section to where tt turns Into something similar to the hotel which Is the corridor. There's face brick along the Anlmal Fair building below these windows here. We had originally proposed that that be extended under those windows there to provtde some continuity. We do have archltectural review tn the site plan but it's something of a subjective Issue. The Planning Commission again deleted that condition and we went along with their wlshes. Hayor Chmtel: Alrlght. Is there anything Councilman Johnson: What specifically are we saying on the slgnage? You really think It's too much? Mayor Chmtel: Well It seems excessive. Councilman Workman: It hasn't changed has Mayor Chmtel: Not unless somebody can. Councilman Workman: That sign is there now I thought. councilman 3ohnson: We're almost talking about denying stgns on the front of the bu[ldlng. Mayor Chmiel: ...I think that's a 1title excessive. I th/nk you should have one per each tenant rather than. Councilman Workman: What's the Justification for 9 signs I guess? Clayton Johnson: Is there 9? On the fac[a? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Paul Krauss: I believe they're up on the mansured. I don't know tf they show very well. Here's the sign pane[s here. Mayor Chmiel: If we were to say I for each tenant, I wouldn't have any problem. Betng 5 tenants, that means S. If they have Paul Krauss: We would st111 ltke the Planning, well the signs on the rear. Councilman Johnson: There's a few details on the signs we'd like to know about too. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they have to be consistent with the rest of downtown think. Paul Krauss: Yeah, the stgnage on Town Square being an example of where they're all in un[form type but they're different co[ors and somewhat slaL[ar size but 47 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 they suit the individual tenants and that would be acceptable. But it's a sign package that you approve so when you issue permits, you know what you're issuing it against. Councilman Johnson: Of course in certain cases like a restaurant, if it's a chain type restaurant, they're going to want their type of sign out front. Paul Krauss= Typically you give some sort of recognition to the fact that you have a major tenant and they get more signage than the other folks do. Mayor Chmtel: Yeah, Clayton? Clayton Johnson: On the signage issue. The agreement at the Planning Commission is that we would come back with a new sign package for the whole center. Everything stretching from this new development and including all the Frontier Center. In our submission we had asked to move the pylon sign that's already there. The one you're referring to. To move it to the center so it really designates the whole center and then put two entrance monuments indicating the entrances but we agreed at the Planning Commission that we want to come back wlth a slgn plan for everything on the north side of West 78th Street. South side, I'm sorry. Councilman Johnson: So you're moving that sign? Mayor Chmtel: Move it from the present location farther to the east. I don't have any problem wlth that. Paul Krauss: ! don't have a problem with that from a design standpoint either but for some reason our sign ordinance, which is one of those things that needs to be redone, prohibits monument signs tn the central business district. Councilman Johnson: Monuments or pylons? Paul Krauss: No, pylons it allows. I can't figure it but that's what it does. Councilman Workman: What are you saying? Paul Krauss: Well we may support what Clayton wants to do but it may take a variance to the sign ordinance. Councilman Workman: Doesn't the Medical Arts have a monument? Paul Krauss: The Medical Arts had a separate sign and it wasn't supposed to be a monument. There's something of an lssue with that right now. Councilman Workman: Wasn't a monument approved? Paul Krauss: I don't believe it was and I believe that Mr. Johnson's going to be coming back before the Planning Commission to get that resolved. There were 10 signs approved on the building. Councilman Workman: I remember the monument though. 48 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: I can remember it too. The sign package. Paul Krauss: I'll update you on that. Mayor Chmtel: Okay, good. Councilman 3ohnson: The pylons are, ts mov[ng this one or putting tn a nicer one with a shopptng center more appropriate? Paul Krauss: You know ! guess I'd like to withhold Judgment on that until we get an overall package and see how we want to. Mayor Chmiel: I would thtnk that we should move this unless there's some other discussions. If I'm not getting any, [ would like to have a mot[on for the preliminary plat and site plan review with some of those conditions also that you had indicated Jay plus some of these that are here with staff. Councilman Workman: I would move that. Councilwoman Oimler: Hove what? Councilman Workman: Basically the only condIt[on was that Jay wanted the. Councilwoman Oimler: That we need a replat of the property. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was one of them. Councilwoman Oimler: And that something about the signs. A new sign package. Councilman Johnson: That's already tn there. Mayor ChmIel: They're going to bring that. Paul Krauss: Although you should clarify condition & that the revised sign plan for all of Frontier Center for Planning Come[ss[on approva[. Councilman Johnson: Do you want to modify item 2(c) by deleting the bold type at the bottom and removal of 2(d) altogether. Mayor Chats1: Okay. And we're going to go with the existing parking requirements? Clayton Johnson: Can I speak to that? Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. Clayton Johnson: I haven't been heard on that one. Paul, can you put up the map showing a11 the parking spots downtown? It's not a matter of not agreeing to build another 40 spots. I guess It's our feeling that our primary concern to satisfy our tenants and their employees. We have, and If somebody can tell me where to build these 40 spots, we're open to It. I guess if you're going to look to the rear of the building for employee parking, If you're going to do that, then the situation where parking is a problem. Right now tf you go talk 49 City Council Meeting - September 10, lggO to those tenants over there, they all encourage their employees to park in front of the building because it creates activity. But if at some future point in tlme we have a parklng problem, we're golng to encourage our employees to park to the rear, we own this building. As the owners of that building, we have cross parklng easements on 313 spaces. We have in the Immediate rear of the Frontier building, there is a hard surface area that's currently covered by the lease agreement with Hooked on Classics. Now there are all of these parklng spots over here that are accessible now through the new stairway, directly Into the building. All of these parklng spaces are available by the hard surface driveway up there. If somebody could tell where these 40 spots are to be built and they're going to have merit long term, we'd be happy to consider it but I don't know where it is. Councilman Johnson: Clayton, you keep saying you've got cross parking easements and we keep saying show them to us and you haven't shown them to us yet. Clayton Johnson: That's not an issue. All the cross parking. The City owns the building. Who on the clty staff wants to verify that? These cross parking easements exlst. Councilman Johnson: What about for the bowllng alley where you polnted at their parking? clayton Johnson: Yeah, all of thls area here ls covered by a cross parking easement between the hotel and the bowling center property. I mean Paul puts in hls letter that it hasn't been produced. Well, we've been worktng on thls since July 2nd. If it's going to find it's way into the Council packet on Friday noon, ! guess I'd 11kw to know about it sometime prlor to Friday noon. There's no problem. We'll furnish those cross parking easements. And as far as the boundary... Councilman Johnson: You said that at the Planntng Commission too. Clayton Johnson: Pardon? Councilman Johnson: Didn't you say the same thing at the Planning Commission a month ago? That you'd provide those cross parking easements. Clayton Johnson: To the extent that they have been requested, we will provlde them. Mayor Chmiel: I think it was in the Plannlng Commission Minutes Clayton. Clayton Johnson: Sure, and what are you missing Paul? Councilwoman Dlmler: There aren't any. Clayton Johnson: There aren't any? Paul Krauss: I don't have any. Clayton Johnson: Rice hasn't? 5O City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Paul Krauss: No he hasn't and I'd also say that when Clayton lays claim to the privledge of parking over 300 some odd parking stalls (a), I'm not so certain that's the case. (b), those parking stalls are being used by somebody else. (c), they're awfully inaccessible to this shopping center. ! mean this is a very complex issue ah[ch is why we brought Fred into this. ! mean if you're going to enlarge the un[verse of available parking, there's probably enough parking someplace inside that whole complex from Market Blvd. to Great Plains to resolve all these situations but the fact of the matter is, people will not park a quarter mile away from where they want to go. Clayton Johnson: Well if you want to get into the analysis of the parking, we did an extensive analysis of the parking and the parking on the south stde of West 78th Street is a mirror image of what we have on the north side. A mirror image. We have 18,000 square feet of retail. 5,000 square feet of restaurant. What you have on the north side of the street is 18,000 square feet of retail, 5,000 square feet of restaurant. We have 149 spots. On the north side they have 158 spots. We don't envision a parking problem but if there is a parking problem and somebody can identify where those 40 spots should be, we'd be happy to consider it. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. Fred. Fred Hoisington: We continue to argue over those 40 spaces. Mayor Chmiel: We're not arguing, we're discussing. Fred Hoisington: Yeah, I know. Clayton does a little bit more than that. My concern is that in calculating parking demand, we don't need those 40 spaces. We have enough parking that we don't need them. The fact is, the only concern I have at all is that the employees, if they park right in front of this retail center will use parking that the customers should be using and really that's the only thing we're trying to accomplish is get those employees someplace else. The parking is there. We're Just not convinced it will work very well someplace else. But our recommendation in that case is strongly to you to approve the parking as it is. The beauty of how this all works is because it's shared parking and that's what makes downtowns work. Mayor Chmiel: But if your employees were to park out there, you'd be 40 spots deficient so we've got to make sure that those employees are parking somehwere else? Fred Hotsington: Yes. And that's what we're saying your honor. To include as a condition that the leases that they enter into with those folks require that that parking be behind. Mayor Chmtel: And who's going to police that once that takes hold? Paul Krauss: That's a tough problem. We frankly rely quite a bit on the cooperation of the butlding owner. If there's a shortfall tn parktng out front there, we're going to know it. anybody who drives down 78th Street is going to know it. We'll have complaints by the Fire Marshall. Then ae will have to go into a sorting out process trying to figure out what's gone wrong. If we conclude that employees aren't parking where they're supposed, #e'11 ask Hr. City Council Heeting - September lO, [990 Bloomberg for his cooperation because he'd be obligated to do that. If it goes beyond that, at that point we've got a difficult situation. But it's been my experience that it becomes a self-enforcing situation. If we provide the ability for people to park back there their employers, if there's a parking shortfall up front, their employers are going to make darn sure that their employees are not taking up their customer spaces. Councilman Workman: That's the bottom line. Well not specifically but the bottom line is that private business doesn't provide enough parking for their employees, they're going to take up valuable customer space and that's to their detriment so I don't see Clayton wanting to do that. But the worry iS iS that there's going to be quite a walk for some employees up a gravel path behind 8-15 old trailers. That's not maybe very lit and that's the only concern I have but the concern, I've got a concern about our parking ordinance. I don't get excited about our parking ordinance. If there's a daycare center and you want to provide 1 parking stall, you're clientele are going to have a serious problem and they're going to go somewhere else. And so I'd let the private business kind of decide that. But ultimately that back area, because of some of the clientele that frequent a night club, it's got to be the number one spot for thefts and problems and everything else and so we're going to have employees or somebody parking back there. Is that our liability or is that the business' liability? I don't know but it's not the best situation in the world but I think the bottom line is, we have to decide whether or not this business wants to allow their employees to use up front customer spaces on top if they've got a problem or don't feel comfortable parking back there. And if they don't, that's what they'll do. And that's money out of their pocket and not our WOrry. But I don't like the aesthetics of it back there and that's a long range plan which we need to fix up and Z think the HRA and the City Council should all take a walk back there and see what we can do. But if the safety issue is the problem, the lack of space is their problem. Councilman Johnson: I think the main thing you say is self policing. Everytime I've worked in retail, they have been very strict on where the employees parked. I was in a major shopping center in Omaha working as a youth and you had to give them your license plate numbers and son of a gun if Parking Sam wouldn't catch you out there. He knew who the employees were and he knew your cars. They would get you and almost lose your privledge of even parking there at all so. When they start losing sales because of employee parking, they do something about it. Mayor Chmiel: Let's not keep hashing this back and forth. Let's either move on one thing or the other as far as the parking requirements are concerned or leave that to the discretion of the individuals. Paul Krauss: If we could clarify a few things. Fred's got some revised language in hls conditions that I think ls appropriate and they can either incorporate Fred's or modify the language that's in there. I think we know what the lntent ls. Hayor Chmiel: Why don't we do that so we get some clarification. Councilman Johnson: So we're going to leave cross easements but delete Oinner Theatre from 2(a)? 52 City Council Meeting - September [0, i990 Paul Krauss: The Dinner Theatre language is eliminated from 2(a) and from, they were talking about the restaurant. councilman 3ohnson: Yes. Paul Krauss: Oh, in 2(c). Councilman Johnson= Right. Okay, we're getting close here folks. Paul Krauss: and Fred had the revised language for 2(b). Councilman 3ohnson: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Where on 2(b)? Councilman Johnson: Fred's number 2. Replaces 2(b). Okay, so should we start a motion here? I'll move approval of Site Plan Review and not the preliminary plat. Just the Site Plan Review ~90-70 under the following conditions. Condition [ as shown, is that correct? Condition 2(a) with the deletion of the Dinner Theatre in the list of cross easements. Cond[tton 2(b) is replaced with leases will require that employees park at rear of buildings, acceptable ...access should provide mlnlmum gravel surface. 2(c), the bold area at the bottom will be removed and the section indicating that the Oinner Theatre will be in that should be removed. 2(d) removed in it's entirety. No changes to (e) or (f). (g) Is okay. (h) has been removed by staff. Condition 3 as revised by staff. Condition 6 revised to say, revlsed sign plan for the enttre complex. of course condition 4 as stated. Condition 5 as stated. Condition 7 as stated in the staff report. Condition 8 as stated. Condition 9 was that the applicant submit their preliminary plat. Councilman Workman: Second. Clayton Johnson: The issue on the preliminary plat I thought was addressed at the Planning Commission. I thought the word was that our attorney was here at that time. Said that this could be accomplished by a metes and bounds description. I want you to be assured that the property that this building will be built on will be one piece of property and we did not want to go through the formal platting process. And Paul, I thought that was going to be. Councilman Johnson: Heres and bounds ts fine but submit it. Clayton Johnson: Submit what? Councilman Johnson: The metes and bounds subdivision request. Clayton Johnson: To? Councilman Johnson: To the City. Clayton Johnson: Okay. And what happens after that point? Councilman Johnson: Then we do a subdivision. 53 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Paul Krauss: We either, depending on how it lays out, we either have to approve it adminstratively if it conforms to the limited ability we have to do that, or we'll do as we did earlier tonight which is bring it back to you under that metes and bounds division for the second home. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, we did one tonight. Clayton 3ohnson: Where are we at on the building permit then? Paul Krauss: We can't issue a building permit until that property line's relocated. Clayton 3ohnson: Okay, and how long is that process? Councilman Johnson: It could be at the 24th meeting right? Paul Krauss: We'll schedule it as qulck as possible. It's a fairly simple routine. Councilman Johnson: But your lawyer has not submitted what he said he was going to. Clayton Johnson: Well I don't know Jay. I'll accept that but I guess the discussion at the planning commission. Paul Krauss: Not here. Clayton Johnson: Well the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was that you were going to discuss it with Roger if in fact it could be accomplished with a metes and bounds survey. Mayor Chmiel: But yet we have not received that Clayton so you can't base any judgment unt11 you have that in hand. Clayton Johnson: So it comes back to the Council for further action on the 24th of September? Mayor Chmlel: I think we can possibly schedule it back onto the 24th. Paul Krauss: If we get something. Mayor Chmiel: If we have that information. Don Ashworth: There's no hearing requirements where it's got to go to? Paul Krauss: I've got to look at that Don. No, metes and bounds divisions we can either, there's a limited capability for us to do it adminstratively which would hasten thlngs along or at the very worst we'd have to brlng It back to the Council. Councilman Johnson: But before Roger can see if it's adequate, he has to see the document. 54 City Council Heeting - September 10, 1990 Paul Krauss: Well, we've already held a public hearing. ! don't kno~, this gets complicated but the Planning Commission already held the public hearing on the plat. Now ! don't know if that satisfies if that comes through as a metes and bounds. Councilman 3ohnson: Without a plat in hand or an application, they held the public hearing? Don Ashworth: Just so everyone is aware, the concern from Blooaberg Companies, as we look over there there's a large pipe structure that's exposed. That's the primary ftre service 11ne for the bowling center and that entire structure. If we in any way are going to get into fall, winter, freezing, they need to start thinking about burytng that pipe or doing something different. If they can get through the approval process, it would be housed in this new structure. Clayton Johnson: It's got to be accomplished by November 1st. Mayor Chmiel: I think that could probably be done. Councilman Johnson: ! think it's going to be extremely simple. It's one of those public hearings where nobody says anything and it gets approved rather quickly if it has to go the full public hearing route. ! have no problem with even calling a special meeting on that and getting it done. But it's hard to act without any. Councilwoman Oimler: It has to be done. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We have to take the proper and legal steps. Councilman 3ohnson moved, Councilman gorkaan seconded to appro~.e Site Plan Review t90-7 subject to the following conditton~: Revise architectural plans to carry face brick below the window line to the west end of the building. Oemonetrate to staff that adequate trash storage facilities are being provided in an acceptable location. Exterior trash storage facilities shall be screened by a masonry wall designed to be compatible with the new construction. 2. Parking requirements: a. Permanent cross access and parking easements shall be filed over all properties that comprise of the Front[er Center/aloomberg/hotel complex. b. Leases will require that employees park at rear of building. Acceptable pedestrian access shall be provided, (minimum of gravel surface.) c. No new food establishments shall be considered over and above the current restaurant, anywhere in the Frontier Center and the hotel complex. This condition will be enforced until an overall development plan described below has been prepared and accepted by the City. d. Deleted. 55 City Council Heeting - September lO, ~90 e. The owner will ensure that no snow will be stored in the parking lot. As necessary, snow shall be removed from the affected area. f. No new additions or modifications to buildings or uses of any of the involved properties will be considered unless they are part of a coordinated development program that addresses the design, access and parking needs of the entire complex. g. No truck delivery parking will be allowed anywhere in the north parking lot of the Frontlet Center between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on weekedays. h. Oeleted. 3. Revise parking plans in accordance with staff's recommendations. 4. Revise utility plans as follows: a. A separately metered, privately owned and maintained water service shall be installed and connected to the existing 8 inch watermaln under the proposed parking lot (see attachment). The proposed building factlity shall disconnect and remain permanetly d£sconnected from the existing water servlce extending from the bulldtng to the east. 5. Provide final site and building plan as consistent with the recommendations of the City Flre Harshal and Buildlng Official. Provide a revised sign plan for the entire Frontlet Center complex for Plannlng Commission approval. Provide details of any proposed exterior lighting for staff approval. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the site must be given final plat approval and the plat flled with all required easements unless city staff and the Ctty Counc11 determine that metes and bounds subdivision is acceptable. 9. Applicants shall submit their Preliminary Plat. voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Paul Krauss: You may not want me to ask this but I guess I've got a point of clarification and you can tell me to drop it if you wish. 8ut it concerns the issue about the rental equipment. The Planning Commission directed staff to do something about it. Councilman Workman: Isn't it an issue that can be brought up at the next meeting? Councilman Johnson: I think it's an enforcement issue. It's not. con Ashworth: I think Councilman Johnson is absolutely correct. $o everyone is 56 City Council Meeting - September 10, ~990 aware, we're all aware of the fact that we're attempting to move Mary Mervyn's over to a new structure. We have no Intention of going out and try£ng to put out of business an existing businessman es to the extent that we can monitor things and ensure that we can help him move over to a new facility. Not have the outside storage or at least the type of problem that exists right now, fine. The necessity to immediately go out and start issuing citations [n that particular instance. He's been there for a long time doing what he's doing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Johnson: But we don't want to see it Increased any. It seems like in the last year it's really increased. Paul Krauss: ! spoke to Kent Ludford and he indicated that over the last couple of months there's more equipment out there than there was formerly because of the construction activity tn front of the store. Some of the stuff that I believe he had on the sidewalk or in a graveled area has been displaced. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, ! think we can handle that next time too. Thank you. CONOITIONAL USE PERHIT FOR A CELLt~R T_E_[I~ FKILII~ (TOUR ~ E~~T BUZLOI~) TO BE L~RTFO 3~ ERST ~ ~LP~ B~~ ~ ~TH ~ L~ BOULEVARD A~ THE ~ZC~ ~H~K~. ST. ~ ~ ~~IC ~~. H~IS ~NS~ L~Z~D P~TNER~ZP. Paul Krauss: The applicants are coming before you to get conditional permit approval to build a cellular telephone antenna over on the Volk property which is near the intersection of the railway tracks and CR 18. The antenna itself it used for cellular telephone transmissions. There's a lot of background information provided in the staff report by the applicant indicating how the system works. I've had some experience working with these things before and have concluded on my own that they are, or appear to be what's represented which is relatively benign. Very low powered structures. They also have a fairly good ability to withstand storms. The question for staff in reviewing this before the Planning Commission was whether or not this was an appropriate use. We became concerned that the area being proposed for this tower is designated as future residential on the draft land use plan. Of course now that draft land use plan has not yet been approved but that la the determination at this point and since it's been this way for quite some time, we didn't feel it was likely to be changed, ge did not feel the tower was terribly appropriate given a future land uses of residential, ge did concede however that if one had to pick a site for a tower, that this is not altogether a bad one. Zt's relatively secluded, it's up against a railway tracks, it's fairly far removed from virtually all residential properties and it's been our experience that when you view these things on the great expanse of the horizon, they tend to visually disappear. They're relatlvely skinny. The height ts significant but there's not much on them. They're not lighted. They don't have to paint them red and white or anything else. They're not tall enough to require that. ge took this before the Planning Commission In August and the Planning Commission essentially disagreed wlth the staff's position. They concluded that yes, they have been working on a comprehensive plan for quite some time but two things. That the ordinance does not state that you cannot, what the ordinance states right now Is 57 City Council Meeting - september 10, 19gO that towers are a permitted conditional use in agriculturally zoned property. It doesn't say anythlng about potentially guided something else in the future and they indicated that in fact that isn't even the case. That it's not potentially gulded until that plan's adopted. They looked at this site and believe it was an acceptable one based on the various lmpacts or potential for impacts that were cited and they recommended on not quite a unanimous vote, almost, that it be approved. We are passing forward thelr recommendation for approval. We added some conditions. The Planning Commission In reviewing this tried to develop conditions with staff that evening. We would like to provlde an additional condition though and in reviewing this we realize that there was always an implication that they would be subdividing off property, a parcel to surround the tower and in fact we have a survey of how that might be done but there has been no plat application for that and we thlnk that tt needs to be platted to subdivide it off. It's probably also going to take a variance because it's in the agricultural distrlct and only golng to be a 3 acre lot. Or 4 acre lot. They have to enlarge it somewhat now because the tower's a little taller than it was originally proposed to be but since the only use on this thtng would be for non-residential type of structure and the I per 10 ratio only applles or ls supposed to apply to residential structures, we'll have to read the language but it may take a variance to do that. $o with that we are passing forward the Planning Commission's recommendations with that one additional condition pertaining to platting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. John Uban: My name is John Uban. I'm here to represent U.S. West. I'm a consulting planner with the firm of Oahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. We've been worklng on this property for some time and wlth me tonight is Dave Hellerman, who's the englneer wlth U.S. West that can answer any technical questions you might have and also Merle Volk that is the land owner and he ts here and can answer any questions you might have. In talking about the platting, tt is our intent to lease the property and so in that case we are not antlcipat£ng a plattlng off of a separate lot. I have put together just a quick response to the various conditions that the Planning Commission asked and part of the approval and we agree wlth every one of them. Thls ls Just to confirm that agreement. The primary issues that we wanted to confirm was basically that we would be building a building that conformed wlth other buildings the clty had put together. In other words, It wil1 be brick. It will hay some lime stone trimming. Zt will have a gabeled roof and will be then compatible wtth all the aesthetics of the other structures that the city has produced. It will be landscaped qulte nlcely and what ['d 11ks to do ls answer any questions you have. I know that this has been looked at very thoroughly at the Planning Commlssio level but you may have some very speclftc questions. We have located it in such a fashion that It follows within the search area. I have slides here if you would like to see them that shows the process of flnding a site. Why the sites work together. Cellular phone systems are unique in how they locate antennaes because they are based on a grid system rather than Just a stngle tower that broadcasts over a very large area. They're very low powered. They're really lntended to provlde use to all ottizens and that way they are licensed and meet very specific criteria and only two companies can operate In any one area. So there's some concerns with how it operates. It has to fulfill tt's license requirements of serving a11 the people in that area and that's why we're here. To locate another antenna. To add capacity so more people can use 58 City Council Heeting - September lO, 1990 it. To make the system work better so you get better reception and so that the uho2e systea Is completed. Cellular phones are changing. Many sore people are going to what is called a hand held. A smal! pocket telephone. They actually pull out. Although many people have units in their cars. The small ones have very low wattage so they don't have much power and this antenna will help create a better pattern of coverage for those types of phones. And we are also interested and why we're here today ts that we would like to get the tower erected and operational by the spr£ng of 199~ which happens to be the time the U.S. Open is happening at Hazeltine. We Just want the very best service we can possibly give at that point. There are going to be a lot of people fully communicating out on that golf course. You can imagine ~00 of these phones running around and everyone talking to each other and so we really want to make it something that people don't complain about on television and so forth. U.S. West is out there to make the best name possible for the community and themselves of course. And that is one of the things that has brought us here at this point to ask for your approval. I have a picture of the site. First the location. ! don't know if this is the best way for you to see this. Haybe should I bring it closer? Hayer Chmiel: No, It's fine. Councilman 3ohnson: We've got a stand usually .... So our cable viewers can see this. John Uban: This is the general area in which It's located. And part of the area is Chaska with a great deal of Industrial development In the area to the west. The area all around at this point is agricultural. There's a railroad tracks of course that runs through and here's the basic site. There's a long row of trees. What we wanted to do is locate the to,er right on the edge of the trees so it mould tend to blend tn and become a little sore obscure. Also It's right at this intersection of the railroad tracks and the CR 18. It's quite busy. There are trains through there and trucks and It really Isn't appropriate we think for residential. So this is a good buffer so that Hr. Volk who owns a~ these woods and pasture through here, tn the future will develop this as single family and he feels comfortabie and actually wants to have a buffer of a quiet use in this corner. In looking at all the criteria the City has, the ordinance, we feel it's an appropriate use. We've met all the conditions so we're here asking for your approval tonight. If you have any questions, we're here to answer them. Hayer Chmiel: 3ohn, I have Just a first question that always keeps coming into m~nd. Being that the U.S. Open Is coming to Chaska, this Is going to provide a better kind of communication for the use of those phones. ~hy don't you locate it closer to Chaska? I know you're saying that because the United Telephone In that particular area. The other question that I ask is, that there's nothing that really governs either or as far as a public utility comm£sslon or anyone else so why can't that specific tower be located sore in that direction where you have more concerns? 3ohn Uban: Perhaps some of the slide show might help answer that but maybe can try quickly to see if that will suffice. Number one, we can't Just move these towers around anywhere. Ue have looked throughout the area. 59 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: What's the radius that you have to go to? John Uban: The rad£us that we were working on was about a quarter of a mile and thls was just about in the center. And tn that radius, whtch is on the, lt's more fully developed tn the handout that we gave you. This locates the site wlthln the center of a cell and the oell then ls matched together. We have a s£te in Shakopee. There's another site in Eden Prairie so these cells match in. It's 11ks a honey comb system where the center is qulte preclse. This ts not just to meet the needs of the U.S. Open. That is just why it came before us at this particular tlme. We want to make sure that we do have good coverage at that particular ttme next year. But this is to serve traffic on TH 5. We want it to be in place so that lt's equally spaced or almost equally spaced to new 212 that will come through tn the future. It can't be too close to Eden Prairie or too close to Shakopee because then you start getting interference. You want them evenly spaced. When you look at all the criteria, you look at the elevations. They do computer runs looking at the coverage and how it operates, this turned out to be the best place to locate it. Obviously we can move it somewhere else but we really get hindered in the klnd of coverage we can produce and we might have to do other towers instead and it really is not efficient. It really won't meet the needs of the community or U.S. West to try and move this out of the search area. This really is the best place for that. U.S. West, why can't you do it somewhere else? For the Open itself, obviously being closer to it would help but this really has to be here for another 20 years plus. 40 years. However the 11re of that system's golng to handle and so we're here to serve a much greater area than just that Open and that's why we need tt in this specific spot. The other lssue which ls really outlined on thls drawlng by a red line, this ls United Telephone. This is a different telephone company. We want to stay wtthln the U.S. West because they've basically a competitor and we want, we have to be in our own region. Our own telephone system because they interconnect ground lines. Ground line systems wlth the radio broadcasting to each individual towers so It's a combination of both the ground line and the antennaes and mobile phones. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Did you look at the west side of Merle's exlstlng property which is slightly outside the half mile area? John Uban: In here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, in there. Towards the back of this property 11ne. Behind this tree. Behind his big pile of black dirt and go behind that and behlnd the trees rlght on the Chaska border there. John Uban: I'll have Merle answer that. It's his property. We cannot tell a landowner exactly. He tells us where he wants the facility. How tt's going to work with his future plans. We don't have the right of emmlnent domatn. We cannot go out and bid. Councilman Johnson: We understand that but you're more compatible within an industrial use which is what that property probably will eventually be versus the property you're looklng at. Elevation wlse you're, geographically you're so far, so close to your half mile ideal that you're 99~ of your ideal. I don't thlnk your engineer's golng to leave you too much trouble. You might be actually topographically a little higher there. Not need as high of an antenna. 60 City Council Heetlng - September Herle Volk: The questlon I had on that was, where would we put it? You know that's for future development. What would you put on that spot by the railroad tracks and 177 I certainly don't want a home tn that corner. With the trucks and the traffic going over a railroad tracks. And the other side, you're talking tn the future of maybe going Industrial. Now you've got a tower right below there. So what are you going to do? Councilman Johnson: It's compatible with Industrial though. Put a bullding down next to lt. Herle Volk: We have Industrial rlght across the street all the way around and in that particular corner with this tower and with landscaping around It, I think would be a good barrier between the railroad tracks and the highway there. I just can't visualize anybody building a home on that corner. Councilman Johnson: No, but ! can. Herle Yolk: And what are you going to use the property for? Councilman Johnson: A quarter mile north of that corner In that big cornfield there. Herle Volk: What would you use the corner for though? Hary HarrIngton: Houses. Councilman Johnson: Some places, Eden Prairie put a whole mess of houses and there's a lot of satisfied people living right on that same railroad track right across from Lyman Lumber. Same track. Same kind of location. You know where Lyman Lumber is on TH 5? Herle Volk: Doan here? Paul Krauss: Building Components by The Press. Councilman Johnson: The Press. All those. Herle Volk: That's Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: That's Chanhassen but the other side of the rallroad tracks, which Is the same track I believe. Nerle Volk: But you don't have a 9 ton road there either do you with trucks running by all hours of the night? Councilman Johnson: You've got TH 101. You've got the Industrial park on the other side. It's similar. It's not exactly you know. No two things are going to be. Herle Volk: See we've got County Road 18 where they come off. Trucks going by and they end up at Preferred Products and back and forth pretty much all week long. There's a lot of truck traffic. A lot of activity tn there. [t's an Industrial area and farther back [ could understand. [eean by the tracks. That &l City Council Meeting - September 10, lggO I can understand but right on that particular corner, there's got to have to be something come up for that use and I feel that this tower is a good use. And a good battler. It wtll generate some tax revenue for the Clty and what does the City, they don't have to do nothing. No street to maintain. No nothing. Councilman Johnson: Z don't know what klnd of tax revenue tt generates. Merle Volk: Pardon? Councilman Johnson: It wtll be interesting to see what kind of tax revenue that generates but. Merle Volk: ...tax generates? Councilman Johnson: I said I'd be interested to see how much it would because. Merle Volk: Well every little bit should count I would think. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. ! would think that In the other locatton it would generate just as much and it'd be in a future lndustr£al park like most their towers are. A lot of thelr towers. Merle Volk: But what happens down the line when you want to develop that Industrial park? Councilman Johnson: Then lt's there and it's compatible. Industrial users don't care. Merle Volk: Rlght now what's there in the building, you push them over and you start over with a decent Industrial park. Now we're going to put In something that's not golng to flt. Z Just think that... Mary Harrlngton: Houses would fit. Mayor Chmlel: You'll have an opportunity to discuss this. Merle Volk: But my feeling is that the buildings out there really don't allow for that muoh on the other slde of the street. And at the tlme that it's developed, you have a clean piece of property. We get rid of them and you have a clean plece of property. Here you're setttng with a tower. I wouldn't even have the slightest idea where to put the tower because there's water retatnage to work out. There's dralnage problems. There's streets. All them things down the line. I run into that once before on a lot that I wanted to keep. It dldn't work out right on Hltchell Lake. That was a bad one and I am not for breaking out a little chunk of land. councilman Johnson: We're not going to subdivide thls at a11. It's only gotng to be leased to them and he's going to lease a portion of your land. Merle Volk: We're going to lease the corner. I'm leaning for the lease because I still have control of it. If the thing doesn't work out, we still have the land. And a lot of that property could be left as green area. 62 City Council Heetlng - September 10, 1990 John Uban: ! think it really Is a good site. We have a substation down here tn industrial, and this real~y can be done nicely so that ~t holds as open space as a buffer on that corner. Especially when in the future Mr. Yolk will be developing or selling for development this piece for residential uses. and he's very comfortable with this and that's...tnto these large trees on the edge, we think It really is not an obnoxious visual Impairment to development. To put It back in some interior portion on this other property, number one we'd have to build some sort of access road back there that doesn't exist today. Here we have straight off the existing county road and It would be long. Zt has to be paved by your ordinance so it's expensive. The...has to be locked in also by an easement and so those are the kinds of things that to impact on his portion or his property over here is harder for him to produce because he has other plans over there, and we, as U.S. West, really have to go where the landowner wants us to go and those are the concerns that we've had to address and this Is really the spot that he wants us and we really do feel it works out quite nicely for him and for us also. Mayor Chmiel: John you keep saying we, as U.S. West. John Uban: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that there's no affiliation betueen U.S. West and Cellutar Is there? John Uban: U.S. West New Vector ts a sub-company of U.S. West. Mayor Chmiel: This Is a separate company though Is my understandIngL John Uban: The actual ownership of the touer Is yes, ts a separate joint venture. The operation and equipment and that part Is U.S. West. Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to address on It? Councilman Johnson: The ownership Is under a Joint venture that's not U.S. West? John Uban: It's a limited partnership. Councilman Johnson: Between U.S. West and who? Dave Hellerman: There are some other minority partners. Ny name Is Dave Hellerman. I'm the project manager for U.S. West. We're the managing and operating partner. There are some other minority partners. Councilman Johnson: Other corporations? Dave Hellerman: Other phone companies basically. Cents1 ts one of them. To be honest with you, because each of the territories that we serve has a slightly different partnership mix, I don't know them all by heart but they're all phone companies. The license that we have Is reserved for wire line operation companies and so the wire line companies and phone companies are partners in lt. We're the majority partner, the operating partner. &3 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: But United's not in there? Dave Hellerman: I don't. Councilman Johnson: Since you can't cross that magic line. If they were a partner, I would think you could somehow cross that magic line. Mayor Chmiel: If there's nothing more, I'd just as soon throw this open for some of the people here who may like to address this specific item. Anyone that wlshes may get up and please state your name and your address. Mary Harrington: I'm Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood which is the development just north of that proposed problem. As you know there lsa petltion out with 85 signatures on it. Only less than half of them are actually in Timberwood. The rest of them are tn the western area. You'll have to excuse me. I'm going frog tonight. Among our concerns is that we do not wish to see any more industrial or non-residential uses in the area that is existing already for residential. And as I talked to you know Jerome Carlson's wife and the neighbors who are next to that and what not, a few of us showed up at the Planning Commission meetlng and went away very cynical. Nobody spoke in favor of it and the Plannlng Commission decided, except for 1 descenting vote, to pass it on. One of the things that we feel is very inappropriate is that this should be earmarked for residential people who 1lye along hlghways and people 1lye along railroad tracks without any difficulties. If you look in history, people have lived along busy hlghways first and the businesses showed up later. Traffic does not bother that many people. There are people who will not live on it but people live there. We 1lye near the rallroad track. The railroad track does not go by that often and it doesn't deem to be a nuisance or anything by the people in limberwood. Thts is an industrial use. It belongs in an industrial area. That is not an Industrial area and we do not even want to see this property across the street south of Jerome Carlson's house turn industrial either. Needless to say we would not be in favor of that whloh I'm sure the Planning Commission probably is aware of. We'd like to see residential stay in there. People are mentioning that these thlngs are not noticeable and that's true. They may not be noticeable where they're presently planted in other cttles but you remember that they're planted among the ugly eyesores of cement block buildings wlth flat top roofs with oondensors and pipes and your brain has already said, these are ugly. I'm not going to look at it anyway so you don't pay attention to the tower but you plunk tt In next to some beautiful landscaping and trees where houses are going to be, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. This lsa prlvate enterprise and we don't have to have it in Chanhassen. Why do we have to have an ugly tower sitting uglifying our town? I'd rather have something pleasant looklng and a house would sit there. Maybe it'd be a twin home. With Chanhassen's tax structure the way it is, we'd probably...lower taxes on a house If you're golng to look at it from that perspective but there were no residents in the area who were in favor of it and we're the people who live in t'he town and we care about our town you know. What's golng to be here. These folks, obviously they have a business enterprise and they care about thelr bustness and I understand that but I could not get any of our disgruntled, cynical neighbors to show up anymore to meetings... I do care about the place even though I don't 1lye down in that corner, I just don't think it's an appropriate use in residential. We have such little residential land that they're plannlng for. I'd 11ke to see it In an industrial area. And City Council Meeting - September he did mentton that yes, sure we could possibly move it someplace else. He did sake that statement. Haybe we can find him someplace else to put It. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mary. Anyone else? Herle Volk: Yes. As part of the tower that she brought up. Mayor Chmiel: 'If you could Just state your name and address. Merle Volk: Merle Uolk. There's a lot of houses next to towers. Next to water towers. Now to me a water tower is a lot more bigger to look at than one of these little towers and I really urge you to, If you could come up with some better use for that property, I would llke to know. 'I really urge you to give it a good consideration. Thank you. Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, if hearing none. Councilman Johnson: Hr. Mayor? Mayor Chmtel: Jay? Councilman Johnson: Since Z took the earlier attack, I should now go In my efforts to move this thing a little bit. I think these guys really know where we're at. Our current ordinances allow it. It's a conditional use. They"meet a11 the conditions. We have a future plan of this being residential but currently it is not planned residential. I prefer to see it elsewhere. I think I've got a good Idea of several different places but they don't seem to be working for various reasons. I think our hands are tied on this one as they have been on a few others where, I don't know where our attorney had to leave It looks like tonight. Either that or he fell asleep and fei1 off his chair. I'm not sure which. Don Ashworth: He's within shouting range. Councilman Johnson: Oh, he's within shouting range? But I think several times it's been, in conditional use permits as I remember, if they meet all the conditions, we're pretty well tied to granting the permit. I think that is basically they've done their homework. They've come in. If they came in a year from now, this would probably be planned as residential in the future and we could accept staff's ideas that we can deny thts based on the planned future use but we have a proposed future use. We don't have a planned. Planned future use in our documents is agricultural. We have a proposal that in the future tt will become residential. At this point we don't even have an Inkling from Met Counctl as to what they will allow or not allow in our new comprehensive plan. [f we were in the final weeks of this comprehensive plan rather than the final months, ! think we might have another leg to stand on but we're pretty short of legs to stand on right now. So with that [ think that we probably don't have a choice. Councilman Workman: You're not committing my vote are you? Councilwoman OImler: Yeah, I have a choice. &5 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Johnson: No. In my considered opinion, isn't that what legal beagles say? Councilman Workman: You're saying we. Councilman Johnson: Well me and the mouse in my pocket believe that our hands are somewhat tied if we're going to follow the rules by which we're supposed to govern this town. Or if we're going to make up our zone up as we go, that's something else. Councilwoman Dimler: If ! could, I do have a few questions. ! wonder if John, could you answer. Do you have any plans for future expansion or could you explain to us as your system grows, the tower could possibly get smaller and do you have plans to do that? John Uban: Dave could answer some of the what's been happening in some of the other areas but as the grid system matures, tn other words, more users, you need more cells. The cells get smaller and the actual tower, or the antenna gets less because if it stays the same, they start interfering with one another so the tower gets smaller. And lt's to the point that in downtown areas and so forth, that the towers could range 60 to 80 feet tall. In England they're putting together a system where they're getting rid of most of the 11nes, normal telephone lines and they're going to almost a complete cellular system in which they'll have some power almost on every block and that's about 11ke a 11ght post or something so it just starts blending away and the technology is changing considerably too. So what happens ina mature system, the antennaes get smaller and I think Oave could tell you of a few that are happening right now in the Twin Citles where they're reduclng the size of the tower. And there wtll be more towers but much less noticeable. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you'd have more towers on this site but they'd be smaller? 3ohn Uban: Not on this site, no. They'd have to be somewhere else. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And this particular tower could get smaller? John Uban: Yes. Councilman Johnson: If we held our breaths, how long would we have to hold our breaths before it got smaller? Councilwoman Oimler: Long time. Dave Hellerman: It depends on the growth rate of the system. To give you an example of one that we just lowered. We just lowered one In Arden Hllls that we have that was at about 430 to 450 feet. In that range and we dropped it to, thls was a rented tower. We dldn't actually own this tower but we want on a rented tower. We dropped to 150 feet so we dropped more than half of the height went away. Originally when the system was originally butlt, we liked that height because it allowed us to cover a lot of ground with a single antenna. As we get, as the system gets more dense and there are more facilities, not on the same place but spread is different. Yeah, excuse me. It's late. Hy mouth is City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 tired. What happens essentially is that as you start out with big cells and then you divide them up into little, smaller sub cells as you have more and more traffic., so to answer your question specifically as to how long it would take. If the growth rate continues as it has, [ would think we're looking at 5 years. You know that's. Counciluoman Dimler: It's a long time to hold your breath. Councilman 3ohnson: For an individual but not for a city. Dave Hellerman: We've been surprised by how quickly our business has grown frankly, ge're scrambling to keep up with it. That might continue and we eight get a shock and next year the bottom sight go out of it you know. We sometimes feel like we've got the proverbial tiger by the tail just trying to keep up and that's the way things are going now. Who knows. Councilman Johnson: Until some new technology comes out that beats you out. Everybody I turn around there's somebody with one of these stupid things in their briefcase. Dave Hellerman: Well that's possible although a lot of the new technologies that are being proposed would still require some kind of tower structure like this and we might end up changing out the equipment in the equipment building to a new technology without any real apparent changes and provide the service with the physical facilities that we'd have. That would be my guess. Councilwoman Dimler= Thank you. Okay, then I have one sore concern and I guess I don't quite agree that our hands are completely tied. ! think this comprehensive plan has been in the working for quite some time. Our intent has been stated and ! guess ['d just like to check with Roger how do you see that. As far along as we are in the process, how does that hold up? Roger Knutson: It gives you something to talk about but like the legislature you know. The bill hasn't been passed. You haven't adopted that comprehensive plan yet so right now it's an idea that's being. Mayor Chmiel: It may become a reality. It say not. Roger Knutson: Yeah, discussed at staff and Planning Commission level and worked on there but it is not the policy of the city at this time but it is some indication, as Paul and ! have discussed of what the plans are for that area. ! would be concerned about... Councilwoman Dialer: Can we change our plans as a result of this? Is that a possibility? Roger Knutson: Change your Comprehensive Plan? Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah. Paul Krauss: We looked at bringing an ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission last week and couldn't do it for time reasons and the Planning Commission then asked us not to rush into this. But I think there's some 67 City Council Meeting - September 10, lggO loopholes in the existing ordinance. £ven if we had adopted our comprehensive plan, if we had not changed the ordinance, this tower would still comply because the ordinance slmply says land zoned for agricultural use. It doesn't say anythlng about guided for something else. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, Thomas. Councilman Workman: Can these towers or antennaes be mounted on water towers? Oave Hellerman: Oh yeah. We can do that. Councilman Workman: Wouldn't the Hazeltine water tower be kind of convenient? Councilman Johnson: United Telephone. Dave Hellerman: That's the one that's southwest...? Councilman Workman: You can see it for miles. Dave Hellerman: They're in the United Telephone service. Councilman Workman: That can't be done absolutely? Dave Hellerman: Well the other problem wlth that one, in addition to tt belng a United Telephone is lt's right next to a cellular telephone tower... Councilman Workman: Where's that tower? Oave Hellerman: I believe just north of the water tower. Councilman Workman: In the Chaska Industrial Park? Oave Hellerman: It is In Chaska, yeah. Councilman Workman: Who's ls that? Dave Hellerman: That's Cellular One. That's our competition. They provide a slmllar service uslng thelr bi-frequencies so we have to maintain some separation from them. Councilman Workman: Well you're probably just as close? Mayor Chmiel: But isn't there filters you can put on that too? Dave Hellerman: To some extent. We haven't had, the results that we've wanted using the filters that are commercially available. It can be done. It's something we prefer to avold. I wouldn't tell you tt's impossible. We 11kw to try and stay away from them. Councilman Johnson: But they're allowed to go 1nfo Chaska beoause they are not a hard wire telephone company. Dave Hellerman: They're not associated with the phone company, rlght. 68 City Council Meeting - September KO, 1990 Councilman Johnson: So they can go anywhere. Dave Hellerman: Yeah. Councilman Workman: Sounds like red tape. Herle, anything you can do to get us more taxes, more power to you. Herle Volk: Well, there's going to be...on the building and the thtng Is ! guess that I want to point out. I'm leasing the property so I feel I still have control. Councilman Workman: I guess the Council has been tough on developers and organizations that have come into town on how things look to neighborhoods. That's my, well one of my few concerns about this. I think these towers are necessary evils and someday I'll get me one of them that things but it's, I guess the ultimate concern is Ttmberwood. I drove by this site. It seems fairly low and probably sheltered and shielded and everything else. Hy concern is what Is thls going to look 11ke from Ttmberwood. What are we golng to, if I owned a home in Tlmberwood, would I see this? This is :75 foot? Hayor Chmiel: 175 feet. Councilman Workman: If I owned a home up there and Mary Harrington says she has the highest elevated home out there, what would that look like to me? How high would that be sticking out over the trees? Now we've asked other groups, developers that have come into the city to get us an Idea of what it would look like say from a view from TH 5 or from CR 17. This ts a high, this potentlally can be a high impact thing. Should we be requesting that of this group so that we all know? Are we all taking kind of an Imaginary guess about how this will look. And Jay, you say our hands our tied, it sounds to me Ilks it's ambiguous at least in one area. I don't have the right handout here, as to how does It look. Is it detrimental to the aesthetics of anybody? Do we know that for sure? I don't know that. That along with the actual bulldlng ttself at the base, I think the construction of that ts a little bit ambiguous. I guess I'd be more tncltned to number one, see exactly what that's going to be on the plan or ask that it be built at least comparable to the one on TH 101. Are we saying that? Paul Krauss: Yeah. That uae the Planning Commission's. Councilman Workman: Okay, and then that's the only, that point I'm not worried about but if I do own a home tn Ttmberwood or anywhere else, and this ts 175 foot tower and there's no hiding that. What's it going to look like? I don't think we have any concept. Hayor Chmiel: Look at a butldtng 12 stories high and give you a good Idea. Councilman Johnson: Not really. 12 stories and 10 feet wide. Hayor Chmiel: I'm talktng just strictly height. Councilman Johnson: Strictly height... Ctty Council Meeting - September 10, lggO Councilman Workman: This is a high impact thing and that's no offense but it is. You know that and you've got this problem wherever you're putting up a tower. It's not a happy thing but we do have the ablltty in here to ask that question I guess. The facility will be aesthetically compatible with the area. I agree that it w111 be landscaped and maintained and that there will be a buffer and eveythlng wtll look fine down here but from a distance you can't buffer 175 foot tower unless you have low clouds. And so that would lead into the lower one, the proposed faotItty will not depreciate surrounding property values. I don't know that that would be true or not. It seems some dlstance from the homes. That seems to slope down lower and so you're losing maybe a 11ttle bit of a helght right there. But as we look over the top of those trees to the south of Tlmberwood, what do we see? John Uban: I can answer that question. Councilman Workman: Okay. John Uban: Number one, the tower, the width ttself ls very narrow when It gest to the top. You have to understand that when you look at It, here's Ttmberwood. Here's the lower portion of it up in here. There's a significant amount of woods you have to look not only through but over and that really intercepts all the vlews. When you're down in here, you really don't see what ls going on to the south at all. This is down at the lower spot. This rolls down and it will be right agalnst the exlsting trees here. So in essence what you will see, from a very long distance. For instance this house is 1,900 feet away. This house ls 1,900 feet away right here and this is right into the trees. From this property you'll have absolutely no view of it at all. It w111 be Impossible to see even in the wintertime. Councilman Workman: How about further back to the center? John Uban: This will be over, about a half mlle or more and at that polnt part of this ls about 12 to 16 feet wide with a few little antenna things on the top. You will not be able to pick it out over the horizon and the tree branches. mean you just won't see it at a half a mile distance. Mayor Chmiel: John, just driving today going to Monticello on Hwy 25 ! checked the distance to make sure because I come back that way. It's 2 1/2 miles and there are 5 towers that are depicted tn the skyllne. John Uban: Those were... Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they're much more than 175 feet. At least they're not marked wlth any aerial so they have to be under 200 feet MSL because that's a requirement. But those were very, very visible from that distance. Fortunately I got new glasses. Maybe that helped but I could really pick them out as I was driving through that particular. John Uban: I'm talking of only from a specific vantage point. Timberwood. Obviously on some of these roads you'll have a much longer vlew and you can see it more clearly when you don't have trees intersecting that view. You're talking about an angle and just a portion of that tower up over the crown of the trees. That's what we're saying. The very minimal and the impact Is really not 70 City Council Meeting - September 10, ~990 significant. ~nd you find it everywhere tn the metropolitan area. Rnd we gave in our submittal to you, [n the report on studies that towers do not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties. ! know you can say that's not right but we've given you, an official appraisal of that situation to show that It doesn't happen. ! have slides and pictures of many other communities here and I'll show you if you'd like or we can give you copies of that for the record of other towers in neighborhoods. Towers that existed before neighborhoods. Towers that came in afterwards and everyone ks co-habltating quite nicely. It's part of the urban fabric and quite acceptable and part of the conditional use process that we've met here. It's zoned appropriately and so forth and we believe we have the right to be here and we hope you will continue with the approval process. Hayor Chmiel: Anything else Tom? Councilman Workman: Yeah. We're saying to the city that what the NSP substation down here and how this tower, that's where we're going to put this stuff. No doubt about it. It's not going to be pretty. We need highways are a part of the social fabric of America but that don't make them pretty. You know we need a freeway through town. We're going to get one eventually but that don't make it pretty and so those are the concerns of the neighbors and it's going to change somebody's view somewhat and I'm not going to be the judge of how much or how l~ttle that disturbs them but if we're saying, you know we're kind of saying that we're going to put substations and towers and everything else. See it's not going to bug Chaska but with the Comp Plan hanging tn the balance, this is going to be one more thing. Haybe it's best to have all the stuff here before you build. I'd like to have Redmond Products build before we get the neighbors across the street. I wish Tlmberwood wasn't there so we wouldn't have some of these problems but they're there so we've got to addres those concerns and if Council feels comfortable that we've fully addressed those concerns and we're going to say well, cellular phones are a part of our American fabric, then that's all there is to it and we're going to so to speak, roll over or tie our hands or any other euphemism and that's the way it is, then that's what we've got and we're going to continue to get It. I don't know if that's good or bad. That's not a judgment but that's another big move I think. I don't particularly care. I've got a ticket to the U.S. Open and I don't particularly care if they can talk on their phones or not out there. As long as the beer's cold out there. You know so they probably won't see it up there. Haybe not but I don't know if we know that. That's the concerns that I think I have to voice and now I have and Hr. Hayor, I'd like to hear what you have on your mind. Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. ! guess I have one, well I have several questions. How are these cells, originally on the concept coming in it used to be 125 feet. That increased to ~50 feet. Why? Dave Hellerman: ...the application got made before we completed our engtneering...detailed engineering that we needed and we got tt done before the hearing and real£zed that we needed a few more feet to do what we intended to do. Zt was just a timing situation. We do some computer runs and some studies... I think the specific thing that maybe caused us to underestimate with our first guess is that some of the htllier terrain to the south of the site. In order to fill in those, you have to get up a little bit and look down. 71 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: How much are we looking up above to looking down into with the additional amount of footage? Dave Hellerman: There are quite a few of the little lows there. Some there and a couple out on TH 5 where it goes up and down where it makes the difference between a useable slgnal and not useable slgnal. That came out pretty clearly once the computer runs were done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can you address to me about fiber optics as to the useage of those in comparison with your subject. There are so many thtngs that fiber optlcs can do in providing connections and line locations and hospital to just about anyplace that you wanted. Dave Hellerman: Yeah, we do use fiber optics to do the connections into the cell sites in a lot of our locations but fiber optics now is a technology that still requires the physlcal flber. There is no, we are uslng fiber optics more and more for the circuits in but those are circuits that the phone company, U.S. West, the mother company provldes us so when they get ready to start providing fiber optics, we'll certainly be using them. We do use some fiber links out of our main switch downtown 1nrc some of the local substations. Mayor Chmlel: One of our optics are right now available within the city of Minneapolis and also St. Paul. Oave Hellerman: Yeah. Well we are using them. We have fiber links into Orchard Substation and 24th Street. Is that what you mean? Mayor Chmlel: I guess communication channel as to bring the voice across. In other words, havlng your towers. They're necessary because of the hetghts in order to get you directional of your transmission going through space. Okay. My other question is, Dan It be done through fiber optics being under the ground? Dave Hellerman: Well not and get to a moving vehicle just because you have to connect to the vehicle direct. Mayor Chmiel: It's something that's really catching on. Oave Hellerman: I'm sure if there's a way to do it, we'd like to do it. The problem that most systems have that have tried to use optics to go through the alt is that ratn and things llks that, you know they block light and they block optlcal systems. So that's been a problem. You need something that's gotng to get through it. You'd also have to, you'd stlll have to put the light source up high. Now we're talklng sclence fiction, here at thls point but it's an interesting subject for sure. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've worked on a fiber optics, that's why I'm asking the question. Dave Hellerman: Yeah. We certainly, we'd still have to put the fibers up high to get the line of sight. 72 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmlel: Well, that's the questton I had. That was never explained to me. Whether it did have to go high or it could be contained within duct work in the ground and st111 have that probability of getting those signals out. Councilman Johnson: Fiber optics doesn't receive a signal unless it's directed directly into the end of the line. It can't come in perpendicular to the line through the ground. Mayor Chmiel: Yes it can. You bet it can. You'd be surprised at what it can do. Councilman Johnson: Through the ground? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. The other quest[on I have. Being that that tower is going to go up in that particular area, if there ts a fatlure within that tower, how close would that tower be to the railroad? In the event it fell in that particular location. Dave Hellerman: I think some of the material that John distributed has some information from an engineering firm. Mayor Chmiel: ! know. Zt talked about the property owners. Paul? paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance requires that it be the height of the tower from the property line. The original proposal was 125 feet away from the property line. [ believe Mr. Uban indicated at the Planning Come[ss[on that they would increase that setback for the higher tower. Councilman Johnson: To the railroad? Paul Krauss: Now strictly speaking, the ordinance talks about tower's designed to topple or designed to break and this tower probably fits. The information we have is that it fits into that progressive falling type of design. It doesn't shatter catastrohpically. It typically kind of bends at a point tn the middle so it probably conforms to that standard that doesn't require the full setback but they indicated they would meet it in any case. Councilman Johnson: 165 feet to their property line, the railroad beyond that probably another 50 feet. Dave Hellerman: The failure point of this type of tower is about 80 to 100 feet above so everything should faLL within 80 feet of Lt. That's the way it's designed. ! should say that we've never had one of this size fail nor do we know of one that's ever gone. It takes a tremendous amount of ice Load. Where you can get it go is if you load it up with ice and then get the wind and that's a pretty rare circumstance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the other question I have In relationship with that proposed tower. What additional things could be connected onto that tower at a later date? Dave Hellerman= Well one of the conditions is that we'd have to come back and do that. 73 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiei: But what I'm saying is, what additional things could be attached to that tower or be self contained on it. I'm thinking of a microwave system. Dave Hellerman: Well anything that requires an antenna. A tower is just an antenna support structure so technologically it's anything. Our normal policy ls that we don't rent tower space. We're just not set up to do it. We don't like to do it. It's more grief than it's worth basically. Mayor Chmiel: I look at it from a city standpoint. If you can have maybe 2 or 3 ktnds of communication channels on lt, it'd be much better than putting up 2 or 3 more towers. Dave Hellerman: Well technologically there's no barrier to that. I guess that's a business question. Mayor Chmiel: Had you ever considered putting up a steel pole structure rather than the lattice tower structure that you proposed? Dave Hellerman: On a pole? Yeah, at this height they get a little bit iffy. You're kind of getting to the upper limit of what we like to do with them on a pole. It can be done. You don't have as much excess strength. You're getttng closer to the deslgn 11mits of the tower and it gets quite expensive but It's, we have used them. You generally around 140 or 150 feet is what we feel ts the limit of where we like to use that slngle steel monopole structure. Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking from a standpoint of structures as such with tornadoes. They have a better change of remaining standing than what a lattice would and the type you're proposing. Dave Hellerman: I haven't seen those studies. Mayor Chmiel: I've seen those specific studies with tornadoes and with electrical pole structures. Steel structures. And they have withstood the tornado aspects of it. In fact it happened in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park area. Dave Hellerman: That could very well be. Mayor Chmiel: So was there any consideration in using a single steel? Dave Hellerman: Our normal procedure is we don't go to, we don't use monopoles much above 140 or 150 feet. We Just found they haven't been efficient. So the lattice tower is our normal way of going for thts helght. I suppose It could be considered. Mayor Chmtel: I guess that's all, those are the only questions I have. Any further discussion? OD I have a motion? Councilman Johnson: As I said, I don't love the site but I think it's as obtrusive as a lot of people think it's going to be. I know that when I built my house, just to digress slightly, I had a beautiful farm behind my and the farmer told me that he'd be taken out of there feet first. He now lives over by St. Hubert's and I've got 4 houses bullt on a h111 that was raised up behind me 74 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 several feet. Now instead of a view of a farm at sunset, I have a view of houses at sunset and I've gotten fairly weIl'used to that. Tt's a fact of life. The tower's not nearly as intrusive as having those houses built behind me at a higher elevation than my house. Councilman Workman: Are you making a motion Jay? Councilman Johnson: So, moving in towards the motion, I also believe that they meet all the requirements of a conditional use permit given our extsting comprehensive plan and the existing wording of our ordinances in order to follow the rules by which we're supposed to operate this city, that I move approval with staff conditions as stated. Were there any other additions? Mayor Chmiel: The one on page 7 or page 8? Or 97 Councilman Johnson: And 9. Page 9 conditions I believe are the conditions. Mayor Chmlel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: ['11 second it. Councilman 3ohnson moved, Councilman #orkman ~econded to approve Conditional Use Perm[t ~90-3 for SNSA Limited for a cellular transm[as[on '-: ~ubJect to the following cond[tions: Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit ~90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building permits are issued. 5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site. The tower shaI1 be painted a fiat color so that it blends in with the background. Ail voted in favor and the aotton carrted unan/mouely. CounciIman Workman: I'd move adjournment. Mayor Chmlel: We have two quick ones here. CounciIman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are you willing to suspect CounciI rules? 75 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, let's suspend Council rules. Councilman Workman: I'm not making that motion. Mayor Chmiel: I'll make the motion. Councilman Johnson: We have a motion and second before us. No discussion's allowed on a motion to adjourn. Mayor Chmiel: It was a joking one. Councilman Johnson: It was a joking motion? Councilman Workman: But it was spoken. Councilwoman Dimler: And ! seconded it. Mayor Chmiel: We have just two more. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to suspe~ Council rules to continue the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ESTABLISHMENT OF 1991. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION F_EE~.. Councilman Johnson: I move approval. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ~90-114: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the park dedication fees at $2,500.00 per acre for commercial/ industrial property; $500.O0/unit for residential single family/duplex units; and $440.O0/untt for multi-family and maintain the trail dedication fee at one-third of the cost of the park dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR LAREDO DRIVE AND HARKET BOULEVARD AT HEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTION, Charles Folch: I'd just like to make a brief summary of the report contained in your packets. It's come to staff's attention that many vehicles are experiencing problems accessing and crossing West 78th at the intersections of Laredo Drive and Market 81vd. at various times throughout the day. In an effort to try and determine the severity of the problem, traffic counts were taken at pertinent locations on West ?8th, Laredo Drive and Market 81vd.. It was found that the traffic volume at the intersection of West 78th and Laredo Drive ls high enough to meet the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control requiring full signalization. However, the intersection with Market Blvd. did not produce this high of volume at the present time. Nevertheless, it may be premature to signalize the intersection at Laredo Ortve and Incur an estimated cost of approximately $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 at this time. Major improvements to TH 5, TH 101 and the vacant property west of Market Blvd. in the near future will likely have a significant impact on trip generation and traffic volumes at these intersections. In fact the complete trafflc control plan on West ?Sth 76 City Council Heeting - September 10, 1990 Street from TH 101 to Powers Blvd. may be needed tn the future pending ultimate development in the area. However, tt ts the general consensus that something should be done at this time to try and Improve the situation. Thus the option of a mult£-aay or 4 way stop Installation was Investigated. In evaluating the data acquired, tt was again found that only the intersection of West 78th at Laredo Drive was able to meet any of the 3 common warrants for a multi-way stop as described in and governed by the Hinnesota Hanual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In fact this intersection at Laredo OrIve met at least 2 of the 3 requirements including the warrant for serving as an Interim solution at intersections meeting warrants for signalization. A multi-way stop at Laredo would also help to stagger cars westbound on West 78th, thus allowing easier access for vehicles at Xarket Blvd.. Thus It is staff's recommendation that a multi-way stop be installed at the Intersection of West 78th and Laredo Drive as an interim solution to the traffic problems currently being experienced and that further, no U turn signs be Installed throughout West 78th between TH 101 and Kerber Blvd. to discourage these types of hazardous movements that are presently occurring. Also, please note the City Engineer's comment on discretionary solicitation of the Publ£c Safety committee's review and comment on this Issue. Councilman Workman: I'll start. Are we still in the process of getting our traffic study? Complete traffic study which was generated by the Target/1~arket Square development, are we still in the process of that? Charles Folch: The exact status of that I'm not sure at thls time. I know that there was some work being done on that. I'm not sure if that program's on hold right now or exactly what that status Is. I know at least in the Interim It was deslred to try and provide some sort of temporary solution to the problem out there. Councilman Workman: ! think this is another one of those rub things. ! don't disagree that we need something somewhere on West 78th but those Is one of those rubs that the problem's been created and we're going to, ! think try and put on a lot of bandaids on it and then it's going to go away. We created a situation where people have to U turn. If you come out of Anh Le and you want to go east, you've got to go out Laredo so we've kind of funneled people Into that area and/or, and Z've done it. I've gone out right by the Rtv there. I've gone west and I've made a U turn and it ts difficult even with my car to make that turn so we've make it too narrow and we've been harping on this for a long time. There are those in the community who feel that that median should be removed and that might take care of a lot of the problems. I think we need this traffic study done because we are funneling traffic. I don't know If we did this study on Kerber but I think we need just as much of a stop sign at Kerber because there's going to be an accident there if we aren't already having it. We're funneling a lot of traffic down Kerber, at least as much as Laredo and it's a huge intersection and traffic ts coming up from Powers. Taking a short cut through town like we've funneled people. We're not funneling them out to TH 5. And you've got to make this big wide sweeping corner and then it gets sharp at the end up West 78th. We've created a situation with these medians that makes it totally uncomfortable and impractical to move on this road. I think it's bad for businesses. It's bad for visitors. It's bad all around. It looks nice but it's bad and I think we need to take some quick action to take, at the minimum, the ends off of these medians. Hove them back so people can make these movements without doing this. You know what I mean? Come out of Laredo, you've City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 got to make it sharp and it's the old story from dozens of people in town that there's no way that hook and ladder can get around that corner without wiping out everything on it. So I'm frustrated. It's late. I think we need to do something but I again, like earlier, I said we missed an opportunity at Cheyenne to fix that intersection on TH lO1. I didn't see anything in there on Kerber. Maybe we're going to get that but we're funneling a lot of traffic down Kerber and there's no way that I'm going to go. It just seems so strange to me that we're funneling people down Kerber and then we've got another major road over at Market Square. If Kerber connected right up with something that went to TH 5, maybe people would go right up to TH 5. You'd have a situation there but people are not going to go down Kerber and take a right and go out to TH 5. They're going to go right down main street. They're not going to go down Market Square to get out to TH 5. They're going to go all the way through just like I do down to the Taco Shoppe. And so we're funneling these people through there and now we're going to put stop signs, which we need to do obviously but we don't have enough room down there for what I think a situation that we created. We created a funnel down there and now we're going to fix it with U turn signs and stop signs and it's going to further aggrevate the problem. We have a grave transportation problem on that road that this is just really going to be a temporary fix. Councilman Johnson: And staff admits it's going to be temporary. We don't have the full study. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should give it to Public Safety and have them take a look at it. Councilman Johnson: I think so too but I think that if Public Safety believes that a stop sign is warranted there, that they have our pre-approval to put it in because I'd like to see a 4 way stop at that intersection as soon as possible. Councilman Workman: But we don't know what Public Safety's going to decide. I don't want to give pre-approval. We do that all night here administratively. Councilman Johnson: I don't want it to have to come back to us and wait another 2 weeks. That's an accident waiting to happen. As people get less and less patient on there, they go out in smaller and smaller holes. Councilman Workman: I'd like them to look at Laredo. I'd like them to look at Kerber and anywhere else. One stop sign's not going to stop people from coming through downtown but it's going to give people an opportunity to Jump out at the bank. To me that's a minor ftx. That can walt 2 weeks. Councilman Johnson: You don't drive Laredo every day. Ursula and I do. Councilman Workman: I drive Kerber every day. Councilman Johnson: You drive Kerber every day. Kerber is nothing. I spent half my tlme dolng Kerber and about half my trips. If I'm going to Chaska, I do Kerber. If I'm going east, I do Laredo. I'll guarantee you. 78 city Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 Councilman Workman: When you go to Chaska you're taking a right out. You're not making a left. That's a whole different ballgaae. Councilman Johnson: But I never see the line up of 3 and 4 cars waiting to turn left on Kerber that I do on Laredo. Councilman Workman: But I see near accidents of people who are going to 45-55 up from Powers and it's very difficult because now people are accelerating out of town also so it's an even faster situation than Laredo. Councilman Johnson: I agree. I think the long term solution here Is going to be, and I'm predicting the traffic report, is that we're going to signalize Market with a 4 way stop light eventually with all the new shopping centers going in. And when TH lO1 in about a year gets pulled off of West 78th Street and put on TH $ where it belongs, even though I wish they wa~ld do it earlier, that's one thing I requested that we check with NnDot and see If they will actually reroute that now. I don't know If we've ever made that Inquiry. Then we would again have control of the St. Hubert's intersection and so the ~ way stop sign will go up there again like it used to be. With this combination, it's going to, as the original traffic studies many years ago were indicating, is going to try to funnel the people to TH 5. When they have to start hitting these stop signs and these other barriers, they're goEng to go on down to TH 5 on Market instead of playing going through. Councilman Workman: No way. No way. Go through the stop sign and then go down, go through 3 or 4 stop signs versus sitting at a[tght at Narket and then hitting 3 more lights on TH 5, ! don't believe so. Charles Folch= [ guess our initial Intent here is not necessarily to discourage the use of West 78th. [t's just to allow easier access out Laredo and help to stagger the cars so that people at Market and even as far down as Kerber, although Kerber seems to have a little bit easier access. I'm not sure if the distance allows for more spacing of cars and more time to be able to turn in front of them but it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem. councilman Workman: When people are traveling west on West 78th, and I'm guilty of this. Oh yeah, ['m going to make a turn. You signal. Cars are trying to judge and they're kind of coming out and then all of a sudden somebody well come around and pass on the left. [t gets wide there and so they go around you on the left. That's what we had happen at Gaipin today. And so it's a whole different situation than Laredo I think and it's only a block away but it's a whole different situation. Councilman Johnson: But we don't have the traffic counts or anything at this time on Kerber. We're going to have to set up and do all the traffic counts, etc. before we can do anything on Kerber. We've got them on Laredo. It's justified the use so I don't want to wait another month. We're just waiting for an accident to happen. I'd like to prevent an accident for once instead of being reactive to it. We're being proactive here. We've looked at this intersection every 6 months and finally the volumes were up there and it warrants the stop sign. When the Minnesota Uniform whatever actually warrants something, it's warranted. It's not one of these things that's, we've got a lot of places we've looked at them where we thought stop signs were warranted but City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 the State requirement said they weren't and we were very frustrated with that. Now us'ye got intersection that the State requirements say is warranted. There's a iarge portion of the population that are yelling for this and we're saying let's delay it another month? Councilman Workman: Yes. I'd iike to. Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is we send it back to Public Safety and let them review it. Let it come back to us and then move from there. Councilman Workman: If that's a motion, I'll second it but I'd rather, if we're golng to have 3 stop slgns, I want them all at the same time. Not part and parcel. I think Public Safety needs to look at the ends of those medians, if not removlng the medians completely and so that people have a freer turning movement because I find those turning movements totally unnatural. Councilman Johnson: So are we referring only Laredo at this time or are we dolng everything? Are we putting a package of everything that Tom's suggesting together? Is that, what's your motion Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: My motion was to present it to public safety. Let them take and review thts. Councilwoman Oimler: Just Laredo. Mayor Chmiel: Excuse me, Laredo and have them review the Minutes, or a copy of the Minutes be provided with the discussion that Tom had. Councilman Johnson: I'd like them to separate out Kerber and everything else from Laredo and let's get Laredo decided on as quickly as possible and not delay it wlth looking at Kerber and medlan cuts. Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we should look at Laredo first and review those others as well. I would make that motion. Is there a second? You seconded it. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I understand. So they can't discuss any other intersection besides Laredo? Mayor Chmtel: No, no. Councilman Johnson: No, they can take action on Laredo. Councilman Workman: And we're going to allow them to make the decision? It's not going to come back to Counctl? Mayor Chmiel: It will come back to Council. Councilman Workman: I'd second that. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to refer consideration of traffic controls at Laredo Orive at West 78th Street first and then the remainder of West 78th Street to the Public Safety Commission for their consideration and recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 8O City Council Meeting - September [0, [990 COUNCZC PRES~NTATZONS-' Mayor Chmiel: Jay, you had something on new homes, Bluff Creek Drive. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I don't know if you guys have had a chance to get out there. There's a new home about a half mile down Bluff Creek Drive from where it hits Pioneer there on the left side. It's I believe Hr. Redmond's daughter's home. They've got a stop work order right now from our Building Inspectors because it doesn't meet the origir~l blue prints but Conrad hit me up Saturday at the Post Office. He says you've got to go look at this place. I think everybody should. It's right over the edge of Bluff Creek. If you can imagine all the water that's going to be coming off the roof of this and hitting the hill in the back, we're going to be washing out this hill. We need to do a little additional engineering study on it. I think Chuck's already involved in this or Dave is or somebody is. That side of it, the erosion control is already failing on the side of the hill. There's some areas without erosion control that need to be there. The watershed's going to be out looking at it but I want to tell the other Council. You go out there and see this foundation. It's one big house that's going to go in there and it's Just right up on the edge. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Charles Folch: Excuse me Jay, what is the location of that? Councilman Johnson: It's down, well basically it's the first home as you go down. The first new home that's being built as you go down Bluff Creek from Pioneer. Maybe a quarter, half a mile down. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that should be reviewed. We've had it known where homes in Eden Pralrle have slld down considerable distance and depending upon what soil conditions and what the soils are, that would dictate whether it was needed. Councilman Johnson: People were talktng about planting and stabilizing but this is in woods. You're not going to get much grass to grow on the side of this hi11. It's mostly just dead plants and a few vines and stuff. You start putting 4,000 square foot of roof up there. ADHINXSTRATIV~ PRESeNTATiONS: Mayor Chmlel: ! have just two things I wanted to bring to your attention. The regional breakfast meeting for local official in Carver County Is being held by Metropolitan Council, Steve Keels. He's going to present the Council's priority projects for next year and some of the metropolitan issues the Council thinks the legislature may address tn 1991 and it's going to be on Wednesday, September 26th at 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. at Jay's Family Restaurant in Chaska. Costs are $5.00 and if you'd like to, you can RSVP by on or before September 21st. The number is 29[-6500 and I'll give this to Oon. I plan on going to it and maybe you can have Karen. Anyone else who'd like to go? Councilwoman Dimler: I already did. I RSVP'd today. Councilman Workman: So did I. 81 City Council Meeting - September 10, lggO Don Ashworth: Dld everyone recetve a copy of that? Councilwoman Olmler: You bet. Mayor Chmlel: The other thing is, we had the League of Minnesota Cities regional meeting which is going to be held at the City of St. Peter and they're looklng for councilmembers and mayors to come to thls speclftc meeting whlch ts going to be on Wednesday, September igth. It's going to be a dinner beginning at 6:i5 and what are they golng to talk about? They don't say too much In here. I think what they're going to have is some disoussions as to what the city of st. Peter's done wlth some of their water tf I'm not mistaken. Somewhere I had seen it but it doesn't say here. There are dinner ticket applications if you choose on going. I'm going to leave thls all wlth Don. Councilman Workman moved, Nayor Chmtel seconded to adjourn the meetLng. voted in favor and the motton carried. The meetlng was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Don Ashworth city Manager Prepared by Nann Ophetm 82