1987 08 24249
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETI~
AtK~UST 24, 1987
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~ne meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MMMBE~ PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, C~ry Warren and Roger K~utson
Mayor Hamilt(x~ moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to
include discussion of the Special Goose Hunting Seasor~ All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: ..~about what we actually decided and it's certainly not
clear to me and it hasn't ~ clear to the property owners exactly what we
decided. I do recall we asked that the item be sent to the Public Safety
Commission for their review and they reviewed it last Thursday. I was there
and I do recall that Mike Gorra in particular requested a hunting license,
or that he be allowed to hunt om his property which is adjacent to Lake Ann
Park and the Public Safety (~ommission felt that that would not be an
acceptable thing to do and that the recommendation coming back fr~n them would
be that he not be allowed a permit. Then we also had a request from Chuck
Dimler who leases the land adjacent to Mr. Gorra's to the west and Chuck
wanted to, he wasn't here at the last meeting but I've talked with Chuck and
he's here this evening. H~ wanted to put some blinds on his property ~ to
certainly recover his costs of doing that by charging the people who would
come there for his costs to hunt on his lar~t. That was one of the questi(~s
that wasn't clear to the Council I think, or certainly our response wasn't
clear as to whether or not that would evem be considered. Commercializing the
hunting and whether or not it should be allowed so I just wanted to discuss
that briefly and perhaps clarify the Council's feelings so Ch~ck and other
members present here could have a little better understar~ing of what our
position is.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this Tom. You indicated that Mr. Gorra, in
his request was recommended that we demy that or~ for the reasons that you
stated. What was the reaction from the Public Safety Commission on Mr.
Dimler' s request?
Mayor Hamilton: I was hoping that Jim Chaffee would be here this evening
because honestly I can't remember. I know that there was as much concern
about that and I guess if I had to take a position I would probably have said
that it was alright to go along with the DNR special hunt as long as they
maintain the distances that the City Ordinance requires. ~here really isn't
Councilman Geving: The difference between Mr. Gorra's request ~ Mr.
Dimler's was the fact that, I believe Mr. Gorra wanted to hunt the entire
season and Chuck just wanted to hunt commercially during the special lq day
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
goose hunt. That was the difference as I recall.
Mayor Hamilton: The major difference was that Mr. Gorra's property abuts Lake
Ann Park and Lake Ann itself and he indicated to us that he would probably be
trying to hunt on Lake Ann which is unacceptable to me personally and it was
also to the Public Safety Co~ission.
Councilman Horn: It seemed to me, as I recall, that this was something, a
special permit that the DNR was putting on but was it for, we were asked to
expand our areas of allowable hunting in the city. Is that primarily where
the hunt was to be or what was the primary purpose of the special hunt and
where was it to be?
Mayor Hamilton: It was a special 10 day season called by the DNR, not by the
City, to attempt to reduce the goose populations in the five county metro
area.
Don Ashworth: You have an ordinance that has been passed that states that the
City Council may allow hunting as a part of that program. It really does not
designate an area so hypothetically you can allow anywhere within the
community. My recollection was that the item was sent back to Public Safety
to verify the two areas proposed were safe for hunting. The Public Safety
Cc~ission endorsed on Dimler ' s but denied Gorra' s.
Councilman Horn: So other cities and other municipalities would be able to
allow hunting within their boundaries also based on this, at their discretion?
Don Ashworth: If they had a similar ordinance. Ours came about through the
establishment of the shooting area in the "~' area of the lower portion of the
cc~muni ty.
Councilman Horn: So only municipalities that previously allowed hunting were
allowed to expand their areas or was it for ~ areas that were originally
authorized to be hunted because what we're talking about here is an expansion
of the approved area.
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Mayor Hamilton: For the 10 days only.
Councilman Horn: I understand that. What I was looking for was the criteria
to de~y is established so what you're saying now is if they had hunting in
their municipality, that this would allow you to expand the area that hunting
would be allowed in for a 10 day period?
Don Ashworth: Tnat special section that we have in our ordinance which allows
the Council to designate areas for this special hunt. I doubt other
communities have that. They would have had to have passed some ordinance
which would similarly opened up areas that they previously didn't have.
Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question?
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have a good feel for who's doing it and who
isn't ar~ where they're doing arz] where they're not doing it in other parts of
the metropolitan area. I don't think we got any history on that at all. As
we said, it caught us totally off guard. I have no problem with the concept.
My only concern is equity and being consistent with something that's going on
in other metropolitan areas of not allowing a special type of game farm
setting here in Chanhassen.
Mayor Hamilton: It wouldn't be a game farm. It's only 10 days and they would
know that.
Councilman Johnson: To follow up on what Clark was saying, I don't think the
DNR is saying their rules are going to allow goose hunting outside of the
normal goose hunting sea__-~oru 0nly within the metropolitan area. They're not
saying Chanhassen, you can't allow no shooting in the shooting area, they're
not even tied in to that. We happen to have a no shooting ordinance. An
ordinance that if the DNR is having a special hunt that we can't go in no
shooting areas and that's the only time our ordinance allows hunting in the no
shooting area which coincides with what Mr. Dimler wants to do. At the
meeting I think I brought up commercial versus non-commercial. Mr. Gorra was
lookirg at only himself with a specified weapon, his Brownie Automatic and
that was what he was going to shoot with. We had no application actually from
Mr. Dimler. All we had was the letter so during our consideration we do not
realize that be's going to build the blinds and lease them out to a hunting
organization or club or some sort, that he's going to operate those for their
members. Basically we would be saying that such and such, some unknown club
is coming down to hunt on your property. I would like a lot more information
personally. When I was under the impression that it would be Chuck and Mr.
Klingelhutz and a few neighbors and friends to do sc~e shooting that was one
thing. It's a new ballgame to me in that we have no idea who's going to be
coming iD. As I understand it, DNR also, the application is to be allowed in
the special hunt, had to be in today, is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: As I recall we talked about on Chuck's application that there
would be like five spots, if I remember correctly from last week, there would
be five blinds or trenches where you could hunt frc~ ar~] there would be five
people in each one.
Councilman Johnson: Say what? I never heard five people in five blinds.
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly recall hearing five blinds. We'll have to look
at the minutes. Chuck is here, maybe you would care to clarify for us what it
is you would like to do, if you want to.
Chuck Dimler: I'm sorry I couldn't be here last week so I called and I know
Mike was here and explained what be could on my behalf. F~ went away frown the
meeting, as I spoke to him when we got back, he didn't think there were any
problems with it but then I met ar~ in talking with the Public Safety
Director, there was an interpretation that there shouldn't be any commercial
so I made that decision really today because it was the last day we could get
these applications in. It isn't that important to me that I want to make a
controversial subject out of it ar~ get a lot of people upset. My intention
..2-5?
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
was originally that I would have just a control hunt out there and it was like
five blinds with one or two persons in each blind. They would probably hunt
five days. What they would do is hunt every other morning of the 10 day
season. Generally the neighborhood would not have known we were there and I
know when the public thinks about a commercial hunt, and I use that word
positively, commercial hunt, it's really not something that's evil or bad or
anything but nicely done and much easier than just opening it up. I've
experienced that as well and you have no control and everyone running all over
your property and it's very difficult so my intent was to do that
commercially. I said that upfront and I'm sorry I wasn't here again last week
to speak to that. We kind of lost t_hat effort. I wasn't able to get back
today to a couple of parties and inform them that I would have an opportunity
for them so I kind of dropped it because I had the sense after speaking to two
or three persons today that the Council wasn't in favor of that so I thought
well, I'm not going to, it's a little lake to change that so I'm accepting
whatever happens but I do want to state that. I hope people don't have bad
feelings about that because I think we as farmers, as anyone else in any other
profession, often have the opportunity to decide how to collect for the use of
our property. I do appreciate your considering that. Not in this particular
request but I hope you would think about that and I would be happy to share my
experiences with you. Do you have any other specific questions? Have I
answered that?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you have.
Councilman Geving: I think I was concerned about the numbers. I was thinking
5 x 5 but that's fine. One or two people in a duck blind is pretty normal.
Chuck Dimler: Absolutely and it has to be done that way. And to address some
of Mr. Johnson's concerns, just looking through the information provided from
the special groups permitted, it's an upland hunt. There is no water hunting
allowed. You have to be 200 yards I think from the water. In fact, you can't
hunt on the water. Upland fields hunting. You're not allowed on right-of-
ways, roadways, public property and other things so it' s pretty decisive.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnose were some of the things we were missing. We didn't
have that information.
Chuck Dimler: I don't think we did, the information wasn't out.
Mayor Hamilton: Kind of hard to address an issue when you don't know what
it's all about.
Chuck Dimler: I fully understand.
Councilman Johnson: They also mentioned the times of opeation that we're
talking here.
Chuck Dimler: Tne season allows from sunrise to sundown. What I was planning
to do, the club, we would have hunted only from 6:00 to 8:30 on every other
morning and no evening hunt because that manages the best hunt. As it is now,
I appreciate it being open ar~ we may just go out there and hunt it ourselves
253
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
and ~ may still have the comuercial thing s~metime.
Mayor Hamilton: There ~s another request about the other property.
Councilman Geving: Could I ask one thing before we get into that? I think
maybe this Inga Stockdale had a complaint on this particular item. Not
just in general but was there a complaint on Chuck's request? Is she here
tonight? Maybe w~ could here from here tonight?
Mayor Hamilton: This wasn't a scheduled item so I wouldn't suspect that she
would be here.
Councilman Geving: She wouldn't have even known about it? Okay.
Mayor Hamilton: The only other thing and theft we can wrap this up is that
there was another request about adjacent property and my comment was that
you, I spoke to you anti we didn't have a request and I know that there are
property owners coming into City Hall to request their property be opened for
hunting or that they get a permit and we can't do that unless we've got a
specific request on a specific piece of property and I just wanted to have the
Council address that to everybody's understar~ing.
Councilman Geving: Are you talking about Mr. Gorra in other words?
Mayor Hamilton: No, there's another. This doesn't deal with either
situation.
Councilman Geving: Ckay, let's talk about this situation. If there is
anybody out there. Maybe it's already too late. Would it have gone back to
just the 10 day hunt and do it the way fhuck is indicating. Either personally
or as a club, then they probably would have gone for this kind of an idea.
What turned me off with Mr. Gorra, the fact that he was going to hunt on the
lakeside of his property and he wanted to hunt the entire season north of T~I
5 and open to either side so there were several different issues there. If he
would have come in with a request that Chuck had here, no commercial hunting.
NOt on the lakeside. Away from Lake Ann Park. He has over 10~ acres there,
he could easily have hunted for the lq days special goose hunt and I would
have had no problem with that but now, as I understand it it would be too late
for Mr. Gorra since we don't have his application in for that particular
rour~, is that correct?
Mayor ~amilton: We had it but it was recommeoded by the Public Safety
Commission as not being grante~ Ih talking about a separate issue
completely and that's additional properties in that same general area, there
were other property owners are requesting t/~ same thing. We haven't received
specific application and that's all I'm saying is, it's my understanding...
Councilman Geving: There are others?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, there are others that have requested. My understanding
is and I just wanted to hear from the Council also, that unless we have a
specific parcel of property to deal with a specific request, we can't deal
254
City (]ouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
with it at this time.
Councilman Geving: I agree.
Councilman Johnson: And no shooting areas, the ordinance says it has to be a
DNR hunt or we have to move for a variance. One of the conditions was that
we notify all the neighbors and I think that's where Ms. Stockdale becomes
involved. When it says public notice, it requires that all the adjoinin~
property owners be notified of the hunt.
Mayor Hamilton: I think in Chuck's case he did do that. He talked to all the
neighbors and there was one person who did get upset.
Don Ashworth: Staff did distribute notices to the surrounding owners and this
is one of the owners that we did distribute it to.
Councilman Horn: Before last Monday's meeting?
Don Ashworth: No, after last Monday's meeting.
Councilman Horn: That's the point. This whole thing was done backwards. I
think people didn't ur~ers~ the ground rules. One person happened to
conform with what turned out to be the acceptable criteria so he gets a
permit. Other people who weren't aware of it, didn't even know they had to
get a permit until it was too late. Somebody else asked for the wrong thing
because there wasn't any clarification. I don't think the Public Safety
Committee acted on the same kind of information that Chuck gave us tonight.
The whole thing that he gave us tonight would mitigate many of their concerns
and we're making decisions on that without any information.
Mayor Hamilton: Obviously the Public Safety (]ommission acted on the
information that they had which wasn't anlm~ore than the Council had.
Councilman Horn: But now we do tonight and to me, that sheds a whole
different light on Mr. Gorra's request and as far as others that didn't get a
chance to request because they didn't know about it. I guess typically I
would follow that position that if they had an opportunity to put their
request in, fine, I would go along with that but I think you have some special
circumstances here in the way this thing has bc_---n administered which in my
opinion was very poorly. I think we need to take that into account.
Mayor Hamilton: By the DNI~ I think then that we should, I'm not sure how
the mechanics of this works completely but if there's an opportunity to hunt
sometime within that 10 day period, the City probably should be made aware of
what the rules and regulations are. When you can apply? What specific so we
have information to deal with so we know what we're doing and I think we need
to move on.
Councilman Johnson: Chuck, is there a December hunt also? Is that regular
application?
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Chuck Dimler: Yes there is. I think it's December 18-27 or something like
that. I really don't have the dates. They haven't even set up a date yet I
don't think to cut it off. We really don't know what the weather is going to
do and they may be snowbanks ar~ that was true o~ this. I might just add too,
people are limited as well to using two shots and a shotgun shell and less
Councilman Geving: Do we have to act on this Mayor?
Mayor Hamilton: No, there wasn't anythir~ to act o~ I think Chuck needed to
know for his information and the other property owners what our position is.
I think Chuck know. You didn't apply but he can hunt on his property.
Himself and his family.
Councilman Johnson: What are we going to do with Mrs. Stockdale's complaint?
Don Ashworth: Staff has explained that they would inform the Council of her
Mayor Hamilton: I would guess that ooce she knew everything that's involved
in it, she wouldn't have those objections. Perhaps we should send, if you get
a copy of tt~ E~TR rules and regulations of how this whole thing is taking
place, send her a copy of it.
Councilman Johnson: I wonder if it would be good to give some feedback from
the DNR in that their timeframing on how they worked on this has really did do
injustice to the city.
Councilman Horn: They'll know.
WEST 65TH STREET/CRESTVIEW DRIVE/WHITETAIL RIDGE SEWER SANITARY SEWER,
I~ATERMAIN AND STREET IMPROgq~4~T PRfI/19CT 86-7.
Mayor Hamilton: I believe that all of us are familiar with all these
projects. We've looked at them several times. I've asked C~ry if he would
give us a brief overview on each one of these so we can review what's
happening and the Council can ask any questions they would like.
Gary Warren: As was mentioned, I think it's all pretty clear to the
neighborhood. Larry is correcting a little bit of septic problems. The
feasibility was in November, 1986. Oonstr~~ this year. We're basically
completed with the project with the exception of some minor restoration in all
areas and also placing the wearcourse on the Whitetail Ridge which will he
done next year after the building inspection is out of tt~ way. The
assessment approach for the project with it's own feasibility was to assess on
a per unit basis ar~ eventually we dealt with Crestview ar~ 165th Street ar~
subsequently with the change order we ~dded to include the Waldrip's Outlot B
2nd Addition for Mr. Palmer. Toe_~l project cost is $2~4,65~.~0. The project
it is 100% assessable with the exception of the $7,~0.~0 that the city had
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
indicated we would accept based on the savings of the road maintenance cost.
The assessment rate is 8% with a 8 year term.
Arnon Reese, 2080 Crestview Drive: I guess I'm speaking for eight of us.
Seven didn't show up but you hear them complaining so I'm going to do it. We
object to the high cost of the road. We feel that the road was given to the
City at no cost. This was in 1973 and I personally caused that because I paid
it off Mr. Banks for my property and he owned it and we caught a discrepancy
in my deed so anybody who would have bought it would have cut me off because
there was 2 feet he had to give me on a quit claim deed and that's how it came
about. The Attorney insist that we give it to the village, the road, which he
agreed to do and you accepted it as such. It would have been their own road
but at that time, I don't know if it was the City Engineer or whatever, that
they have narrower roads than what we had. All that was ever done was just
patching. Now we feel, I guess I don't know why I'm saying this but we're
buying the city a new street. I realize that we have to pay for it but the
cul-de-sac isn't finished which you insisted on having when the road was
turned over to the village. It's not completed. The sodding is bad. My main
complaint, they lowered the road. Whoever did it, degree or not, you can see
with the naked eye it isn't going to work. They wanted the water to run down
the road. We lived there for pretty near 30 years and we never had a water
problem on our yard. The road was level. We came out where our driveways
were perfectly level. Now, you would have to have a mountain goat to get into
them. To the driveway. They lowered the road. Tne snow hung up around my $
curve as it was level but it blew off but now with 3 to 4 feet lowered so
where is the s~ow going to go. It's going to hang right in there and you used
to spin coming up the hill. Believe me. I used to have truck line. I used
to sneak by truck home everynight. I'm not in the business anymore but I
backed down that hill many, many times waiting for the snowplow to come. You
just spin out and all my neighbors, if they would just level it with their
driveways they would make it in but now you're going to spin and you've got
that incline, that's where they're going to stay. ~ney're not going to make
it. Why the idea was to run the water down the road is beyond me and I can
see why it's going to do when it melts. It's going to be a long CR 117 and
we're going to have a frozen mess along CR 117 which is getting heavier all
the time. Tne application of the basecoat, now do we have a wearcoat that's
going to go over it? Alright, when is that bill going to cc~e?
Mayor Hamilton: Tnat's all a part of it.
Arnon Reese: I'm in construction and I happened to be home when they laid the
road around that $ curve and that's where it was really broke up. The soft
clay, it was heaving. Now, when they laid that, and I could have either one
of you come out and I'll dig it up and I'll pay for the patching but it's an
inch thick right where that is. They didn't watch their machine when they
laid this. I've worked with blacktopping people and I happened to be home.
It was 5 inches thick in the middle. They were laying a 4 inch base,
supposedly and they came around the curve and they weren't watching their
machine. Now I hate to squeal on these but I don't want to pay for something
that's going to bust up next spring arid all we're going to have is a patched
up road again and I really don't care for that but they came through there.
In the middle it was 5 inches. It overlapped the other lap they put down
257
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
first so they covered it over and they had some chunks of wood from brush that
they had cut up and they shoveled it out and it was only an ir~_h thick on the
south side on Mr. Nicholson's side and Mr. Miller's. I know next spring we're
going to have a junk road again ~ if we have to pay over $5,000.00 for
something like that, I think I'll have 100% on my neighborhood. Is there
anything we can do about this?
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do you want to respor~ to the sod, cul-de-sac, lowering
of the road and the thickness of the road?
Gary Warren: Yes. Let me address a couple of them and Bill Engelhardt is
here also and he may have comments. The wearcourse, as commented, is not put
down. It has been our city policy that we allow the basecourse to weather
over a freeze thaw cycle. We had extreme soil pressures that we had to do on
city roads to improve the bad soils ur~erneath and as a result we put a lot of
extra gravel and a lot of extra fabric in there to address some of these
problems and we definitely are holding off until we see how the base weathers.
If there is a problem, the contractor is obligated to repair the base and
correct it before we allow him to go ahead and put the w~arcourse down.
Bill Engelhardt: The cul-de-sac is a large cul-de-sac and the majority of the
cul-de-sac was not damaged during the sewer and water. We felt that in order
to keep the costs down, that it wouldn't be appropriate to replace all of the
blacktop in the cul-de-sac...0nce the wearing course though is going to blend
in nicely, it's going to pick UP and blend into that cul-de-sac. As far as
the thickness of the blacktop ar~ the base, I will certainly check. If it is
determined that there isn't enough base we'll correct it. The roadway I
think, a good test with the extreme wetness and we feel that if we can get
most of the houses hooked up and a majority of them are starting to hook up
now, maybe we _~_n draw some of that water out of the water ~ahle ar~ from t~
septic systems and get that water problem corrected. We're going to see some
break-up ar~ we realize that on blacktop...
Mayor Hamilton: What about the lowering of the road?
Bill Engelhardt: The road was lowered and the reason for that was we went to
a sort of semi-urban section and the compromise betw__----n the bituminous curb
versus concrete curb amd gutter, we used bituminous curb. We dropped the
grade so you can get the adjoining property to drain under the road and the
road carry the draining versus creating a rural section of ditches alongside
of the road. As far as I know, everything looks to drain pretty well. One
thing with the road too, we had extremely bad soils here and by subcutting the
road or moving the road we were able to get a majority of the bad soils out.
Mr. Eidem, 2050 Crestview Drive: Before I complain I want to thank you for
putting in the sewer because we had Norex hook us up two days before that 10
inch rain. Otherwise we would have had a basement full of water and we would
have had to move out so we thank you for that. I agree with Arn0~ that the
road was lowered too much and now we have inclines to our driveways so I don't
know what engineer projected this but I think it was the wrong thing to do. I
don't know what we can do about it but that's about the only complaint I have.
Now, you say once you put this on an assessment you can't pay anything off, is
:258
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
that right?
Gary Warren: You have 30 days to pay it off.
Mr. Eidem: After 30 days, there's no incentive to pay it off earlier like
sometimes they have a few hundred dollars off, a thousand or two?
Don Ashw~rth: Pay it off within 30 days and there's no interest charged.
Mr. Eidem: No interest charged and then there's no incentive, just the
interest you save?
Councilman Johnson: After the 30 days you have to pay over the 8 year period?
Mr. Eidem: It stays on the 8 years? You can't pay any part of it?
Don Ashworth: You could pay it off in full at any point in time but you
couldn't make partial payments on it.
Mr. Eidem: Okay. That's what I didn't understand in the letter.
Don Ashworth: In two years you could pay the whole thing off.
Mr. Eidem: And you just have interest for those two years?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Clarke Nicholson, 2051 Crestview Drive: I have to agree with these two
gentlemen primarily about the grade but somebody did mention sod. This is
picky I know but there's no way that I could cut my boulevard. They laid sod
over blacktop, over brick, over concrete, over branches. It's unreal. I did
call one day and ask that somebody come out and look at it and they said they
would but I haven't had any response. I did have a nice ditch. Another
thing, as far as the water running off of my yard onto the road, it won't get
there. My bank comes down and there's the sod so I'm going to be creating a
new ditch. I really wish somebody would come out and look at it. I'm
thankful for the sewer. I want to thank you for that but sod isn't that
difficult. A roller would have helped. A rake, anything.
Councilman Geving: Who did you speak to when you called in?
Clarke Nicholson: I'm not certain who.
Gary Warren: He spoke to me. I did pass it on to our consultants. We are
generating a punch list in general. Cbviously we'll take the notes from
tonight on clean-up before the contractor will be allowed to move on.
Clarke Nicholson: My neighbor is more conscientious than I am. He lifted his
sod up and he took out I don't know how many wheelbarrows full of branches.
The trees and bushes were there with low lying branches, they just laid the
sod right over the branches and he went in and trimmed everything off and
found the concrete and the blacktop and boards and everything else. You can
10
259
City Council Meeting - August 24, 19B7
hardly walk on it.
Arnon Reese: I was going to say, the water going on the road, part of mine
that was on that road but Mr. Miller's won't run on the roa~ Mr. Nicholson's
won't run on the road. Mr. Eidem's won't run on the road. Mr. Nickolai's
won't run on the road. That's about 5 out of 7 that they lowered the road.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've got that ar~ we'll go out ar~ address that
issue and try to figure out what's going wrong.
Paul Palmer: I'm owner of Whitetail Ridge, the six lots and I sent a letter
to the City. Basically you know my comments, I just wanted to make sure that
we had a clear understanding in regards to a couple of matters. One being the
black dirt that was stockpiled on the right-of-way that we took out of Lot 6
when we excavated that site. That dirt was moved over there so we can add a
drainage swale through there and that's good black dirt that we would like to
use for other lots in the frontyards because all we've got out there is clay
so I just wanted to he clear on that. We intend to move that sometime in
October. In regard to the other things I mentioned in the letter, I talked
about the mistake made by the surveyors out ~e and it just brings up an
interesting question how we as h~meowners pay for these mistakes. It sure
would be nice to be able to run your business knowing that if you made
mistakes you got paid for it. I think we would take a whole different
attitude about how we would run our business but in essenoe that's kir~ of
what is happening here and I just want to kind of get your reaction to that.
Councilman Johnson: This is on a fixed price, fixed bid at tke time where if
they messed it up, they fixed it up so a surveyor mistake would have ~ at
the developers cost? Not the developer but the construction company.
Paul Palmer: Mr. Norex rebilled it. He got paid to move that service, that C
and P over because I asked him specifically whe~ he was going to do the work.
When we dug that basement, the C and P, the corregated metal pipe had been
laid on the line that we had laid out in our drainage plans, it wouldn't have
been a problem but because it was laid over 10 feet too far, when we dug the
basement then the whole thing slid dowru The surveyors then had to come in,
lay the new line down for us. We then removed the black dirt that was over
it. Moved the C and P over and baically...
Bill Engelhardt: They did not get paid to relay the culvert and I think what
Mr. Palmer is referring to was about $30~.~ to restake the culvert and that
cost was passed through the project. We thought that was.more than fair
because there was a lot of time spent trying to get the lots to fit out there
and he didn't cba_rge for that time so basically we felt very comfortable..~ut
actually the relaying of the store sewer did not actually cost.
Gary Warren: 7his is what we're talking about where we anguished quite a bit
over whether this could he a buildable lot or not ar~ it wasn't a real
straight forward... The alignment question, I guess it had to be restaked.
Paul Palmer: But it was a cost that was passed through, myself as a developer
and ultimately became a total cost of the road and everything that went out
11
:260
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
there which ended up being $3,000.00 per lot, almost $18,000.00 that we paid
for that so I'm just being clear on those matters. We do have approval, or we
did have Brown Engineering come in and do the soil test on it and it is now
qualified for an FHA home to be built on that lot so everything is up to specs
for t_hat lot for your general information.
Councilman Geving: Is this last item completed then? This removal of the
black dirt that is stockpiled there?
Gary Warren: He' s saying he' 11 do it in October.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so you don't have any problem with that?
Gary Warren: No.
Councilman Johnson: I was hoping to take a look at this driveway issue as far
as, I don't think there's a lot we can do about the street being lowered now.
Once it's been done, it's been done. It's extremely expensive to raise a
street. I did not go out and look at it. I wish I had gone out and looked at
this one. Is there anything we can do for the homeowners on the driveway? Do
they now have a very steep grade right at the beginning of the driveway before
it flattens off?
Gary Warren: It's on an individual basis. I think we need to go out and
there are restrictions in certain areas on how far we can expand the slope of
the driveway but we will certainly go out and see what we can do.
Councilman Johnson: Hopefully you will work with the residents and help
alleviate that problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Any issues that the residents have raised, Gary and Bill are
going to have to respond to those and I think we should see those coming back
to us as consent item or something so we're at least aware of what the
disposition of each of those items was so we don't have to continually talk
about them here tonight. We know that they're going to be taken care of and
they're going to be reviewed.
Councilman Horn: I was just a little discouraged to see that in 10 years we
have the same kind of probl~ that we did when we got our street put in.
Mayor Hamilton: My grass still won ' t grow.
Councilman Horn: Neither will mine. I still have a puddle in the back.
Mayor Hamilton: They did the same thing at our house. They put the sod right
over the blacktop and it won't grow.
Resolution #87-90: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the West 65th Street/Crestview Drive/Whitetail Ridge Improvement
Project #86-7 and the assessment noted on the attached assessment roll.
Further that the assessment term be set at eight (8) years at an interest rate
of 8%. All the items that were brought to the Council's attention by the
12
26!
City Oouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
homeowners shall be looked into by the City Engine_rs and the disposition
brought back on a co~sent agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried.
LAKE DRIVE EAST, PHASE III, ~Y IMP~ PROJECT 85-8.
Gary Warren: ~he project takes Lake Drive East takes your southern frontage
road from TH ~ ~nis project, the feasibility was done in November, 1985 and
was built in 1986 and is basically wrapped up at this point with some minor
retainage for... The project was proposed to be assessed on front foot basis
and the project, the City had intended to use it's Municipal State Aid Dollars
on the roadway. The original proposal was for $168,~0.~0 of the $209,000.00
to be State Aid with a front foot assessment of approximately $54.00 per foot.
There was a subsequent charge order to the project recognizing that the
Chanhassen Estates property and plat had it's own access and therefore did not
benefit from Lake Drive East and therefore the City had a further change
approved for the utilization of State Aid fur~s for 100% of that road
·
constructioru The city also, 90% of the store sewer improvements on the
project here is being picked up through State Aid funds. The actual project
assessment rate $177,409.00 is proposed to be 36% of the project cost. The
remaining funds will be picked up by the State Aid Funds which is about
$318,868.00. With a front foot assessment proposal is $46. F1 per front foot.
the City also is per a charge order, paying for the right turn improvements at
TH 101 which is a charge order to the project. We therefore recommend that
the feasibility front footage assessment approach be adopted at this time for
assessnent.
Nate Caskins: I'm the Pastor of the Family of Christ Church in Chanhassen
here currently and enjoying our occupancy in old St. Huberts and anticipating,
for your information, beginning to build either late this year or early next
year on property which we own your parcel number, I can point it out to you,
Lot 7. I'm personally quite pleased with how that road looks and I think
members of our building community are too. We have a number of, two concerns
in particular which I addressed in the letter which I can give to you then one
questioru First of all I guess is the question regarding the rate at which
our property was assessed because in some conversation that one of our
building committee members had this afternoon, we understar~ that not all
property owners are assessed in quite the same way due to direct advantage for
this street. That's a question that I have.
Gary Warren: Yes, I spoke with Mrs. C~alley, I spoke with her today and tried
to explain. The Hidden Valley, first let me start with this, basically abuts
in this area down to the south. This being Lake Drive East, your property is
here. This is Hidden Valley subdivision takes up 109 properties. They, and
this was part of the feasibility, all received a certain amount of benefit
from the improvement of this road ar~ the property abuts the front footage up
on top here. That front footage is assessed the same rate that your property
does so there is consistency in the assessment policy of $46.00. Tt~ dollar
amount for the front footage here was then divided by the 109 properties to
give an average assessment rate to the participating or benfitting properties
on a per lot basis here. Likewise, if you want to look at it in your case as
an outlot, if it was subdivided you would have a right to take your total
13
26'2-
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
assessment and divy it up amorg these southern properties there. The same
logic here that was done here with the developer so it's still consistent with
the same front foot rate that we've ~_n assessing.
Nate Caskins: And those properties that abut the street there are residential
properties?
Gary Warren: Yes, Hidden Valley is residential.
Nate Caskins: So we were assessed on the residential basis rather than
cc~mercial or otherwise?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Nate Caskins: I have no problem with that then. Tne other concern that we
would like to raise is that we know and have be~n in conversation with people
in the city regarding a proposed realignment of TH 5 and TH 101 which could
significantly affect our properties. I guess we would hope that perhaps at
this time this assessment could be deferred because we would anticipate this
assessment then for us being very inaccurate. Either up or down. We would
suggest that if you would choose not to defer this at this time, that we would
want to reserve our right to comment upon and negotiate or to raise objections
to whatever assessment would then result from a realignment or a change in
front footage on our property. Am I clear about that?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a real problem and certainly one that I've
troubled with. Perhaps Gary can address that also.
Gary Warren: The realignment of TH 101 in the future, I guess we should know
a little bit more as we move along but we have a concept plan that BRW is
preparing. I think that's due early September for our review here and exactly
what duplications and the actual timing of the project I think still is in
some question as it relates to the TH 5 improvements which at least in this
area may be 1992 and you know how that keeps moving along. I think and maybe
Roger would like to comment on it, the assessment that goes against the
property specifically as it relates to this project I think is proper and I
think that's one thing that the Council is dealing with here and how, in the
future if we have a realignment, whether it taking a property for an easement
or whatever, at least as it relates to the church here, what happens to that
assessment, the piece of property is taken off, I would assume that the
assessments become an issue of negotiation for the sale of the property and
they don't lose what they have paid or accepted on an assessment. Am I
correct?
Boger Knutson: If we acquire part of the property for any reason, then the
assessments have to be spli~ Divided equitably. It's premature to talk
about that.
Mayor Hamilton: The point is they're not going to lose anything.
Nate Caskins: And we'll have the opportunity to respond to that as we are
now.
14
263
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Roger Knutson: Sure, when we come to acquire your property, if that's the
case, deal with it.
Councilman G~ving: I think the important thing Pastor Nate is that tonight's
action, regardless of what happens with tt~ assessment, I think the assessment
is going to stand. The important thing for the church is the notes, and the
questions that you're positS, will be writt~a~ into the record so if this does
happen, and the realignment of TH 1WI does affect your property in the future,
the written record, and hopefully people sittirg here at that time, will be
able to ~.--c what the intent was of the Council but as far as the assessment is
concerned, I think that's an entirely separate issue for our lalrposes tonight.
You will have the opportunity to negotiate with the Council at the appropriate
time and I would encourage you, if you've got a letter there, which we don't
have in our packet, we would like to have that for the record.
Nate Caskins: One last question, we noted with interest that the last item
was 8% interest and ours is 9%. Does that reflect...
Don Ashworth: Two separate bond issues.
Nate Caskins: JUst thought we might negotiate there.
Councilman Horn: It's the luck of the draw.
Nate Caskins: I'm quite satisfied with the answers that we've received. I
appreciate what you've done in your cooperative arrangeuents.
Councilman Geving: I think the assessment is actually about $3,~0~.0~ to
$4,000.00 less than what was originally proposed for tl~ property. As I
recall it was arour~ $36,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: I have no comments other than the TH 101 issue and that's a
difficult issue. It hasn't ~ resolved and I~ certainly anxious to see how
that's going to come out.
Resolution ~87-91: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving secor~ed to
approve that the Lake Drive East Phase III Roadway and Drainage Tmprovement
Project 85-8 be assessed in conformance with the method described in the
approved feasibility study as modified at the January 27, 1986 City Council
meeting. It is recommended that the assessment term be set at eight (8) years
with a 9% interest rate. All voted in favor and motion carried.
NORTH LOTUS LAKE FIRST ADDITION SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STREET AND STORM
SEWER IMP~ PROJ~ 87-10.
Mayor Hamilton: We have a letter here from Bloomberg Companies waiving their
right to a hearing. I think we can dispense with this rather quickly. They
are satisfied with the improvemm~ts and they have no cc~m_=nts to make.
Resolution %87-92: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve that the North Lotus Lake First Addition project costs be assessed as
15
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
noted on the attached assessment roll. That the assessment term be set at
eight (8) years with an 8% interest rate. Also, Bloomberg Companies waived
their right to a hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
KERBER BOULEVARD/COUNTY ROAD 17 TRUNK 9~ATERMAIN IMPROV~ PROJECT 86-14.
Gary Warren: The trunk watermain improvements, they were constructed this
spring based on a feasibility study that was done in May of last year.
Basically the project has ~--n completed with sc~e minor restoration. Waiting
for the grass to grow. ~ne actual cost of $340,788.00. In this project here
we are assessing the trunk benefit which will help from the expansion so we
are assessing the project on a unit basis consistent with the feasibility
study of 1.85 per acre. This is the assessment area. As commented in your
packets, we have had discussion with Mr. Murray, the builder of the
Saddlebrook development and Mr. James concerning their assessment rates and
there are some modifications that will be needed for the acreage on those
properties consistent with discussions. The City Manager has also had
discussions with Bill Jacobson as he noted in his report. Basically with
those exceptions here, the assessments are proposed based on the assessment.
We are recommending the 9% interest rate for the four years.
Charlie James: I had a meeting earlier this week and sent a letter in that I
see apparently didn't get included in the record. I had a meeting with Mr.
Ashworth and specifically what our concern was is that we are presently
assessed in the amount of $7,800.00 and some odd dollars for 4.82 acres of
watermain benefit along West 78th Street and I don't know what happened. I
have never had a copy of this feasibilty report. It may have gone to the
Brose's before I exercised my option to purchase t3~ property but I have got
exhaustive files back here on every project and I've never had this
feasibility report. I just saw some numbers arriving at 46 acres so I wanted
to elaborate on that and I guess I wanted to find out when this project would
begin to be payable or when it would first appear on the tax statement.
Don Ashworth: ~nis next year.
Charlie James: One of the concerns I have is by the time this evening is over
I could have as much as nearly $600,000.00 in assessments on this piece of
property and I have some horseback riding friends that say you never want to
say whoa in the middle of a mud puddle. I do have some concerr~ I'm very
thankful for all these improvements and I very much enjoyed working with the
staff here at Chanhassen and I do have some concerns as to how these
assessments will meet my time table and market demand for certain products.
Particularly I'm concerned with, right now single family is very hot area in
Chanhassen right now but it seems that the market for multi-family has taken
a nosedive. It seems like everyone is getting out of their condos and
apartments and trying to achieve the great American dream of their own home so
I'm a little apprehensive I guess, that all these assessments may become due
and payable before I ever have a project that tax increment can finance them
off so I don't know what the solution is to that. I understand that most of
these assessments will be levied on single individual lots and it's kind of
crazy to carry a $650.00 assessment for a long period of time but $65,000.00
16
265
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
is what we are expecting or somewhere in that range for this and I don't know
if there and I don't want to throw off the whole city bor~ cost but...
Mayor Hamilton: You're looking for a deferment in other words.
Charlie James: That sounds good. Those are my concerns.
Don Ashworth: Deferments become very difficult things unless you have a
certain bor~ schedule. I have offered to Mr. James the ability to work with
them. Most of the assessments that we're going to be looking at, especially
for his property, Kerber Blvd. and the relocation of West 78th Street, would
not occur as part of any collections for 1988. ~%e earliest those would occur
would be 1989. With the level of improvements that are being proposed by Mr.
James at the current time, I feel that we can move ahead with this schedule
ar~ will work with him and reduce the fiscal impact to him as it may occur in
1988.
Councilman (~eving: Prow would you do it?
Don Ashworth: He is in the process of carrying out the construction, or at
least has approval of the City Council, a new retail center of approximately
20,000 some square feet. Under the H~A policy, he would be eligible for a
special assessment reduction as a part of that new constructioru My point is
that by working with him ar~ using those dollars am] channelizing those first
to assessments coming in 1988 could give him the opportunity to see additioDa]
develo~a~ent occur in 1988 which could potentially help him out for things that
may be assessed in 1989.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess it's kind of a chicken-egg thing. You can't develop
the property without the sewer and water in.
Charlie James: I was confused by what Don said. You're saying 1988. When am
I going to first have to write out the check for this?
Don Ashworth: Is this going for 8 years. (~e-fourth of the amount would be
due and payable this next year. If you wanted to pay off the full ~nount.
Charlie James: No. Just stop right there.
Don Ashworth: Otherwise, what I am saying is, with the level of construction
this is being carried out, that could first be applied to this project. The
project such as Kerber Blvd. and West 78th Street realignment are not proposed
for assessment in 1988 and first would come on in 1989. That gives an
additional year and a half to see additional construction occur which may
offset those t~D projects.
C~arlie James: My concern Don is that I figured out, I looked at the proposed
assessment table for the realignment that will be discussed later, without
getting into that in great detail, the level of assessments that are proposed
against the one lot which I hope to build as soon as possible is $90,~0~.~.
Well, dividing that backwards by 7% I come up with I would have to build a
1.2 million of improvements o~ that property. Unfortunately, my improvements
17
266
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
are coming in right around a million dollars so, just what I'm building on
that particular lot will be insufficient just to do the West 78th Street
assessments for that lot. I thnk what you're suggestir~3 is like a leapfrog
thing where I hurry up and get this building built, pay off whatever is one
there and then hope that I get scmething.
Don Ashworth: Naturally the incentive is back to you. Bloomberg Companies
face a similar situation within their north/south street. They will need to
see some construction occur otherwise they are going to "~cc a massive
assessment. You have a large piece of property and it will behoove you to see
things develop on that property. I'm simply saying, I think we have the...to
significantly reduce your financial impact by I guess, if you want to use that
leapfrog idea, you may use that way to describe it.
Councilman Geving: The problem with that Don is that you're kind of setting
precedent for the rest of the business community. Anybody else along 78th
Street that we're going to be looking at tonight in these assessment rolls,
you have to take that into consideration.
Don Ashworth: And I think that we have. What we would be doing with Mr.
James is consistent with how we worked with Opus Development Corporation in
that segment. I guess what I'm saying is, he has one large piece of property.
There will be a number of assessments against that parcel and as a part of
that, you really have discretion in terms of saying you would like to see help
on this portion of the reduction versus another portion.
Charlie James: Don, Mr. Jacobson he talked to me earlier this week and
indicated that he was going to be sending a letter to the City requesting a
higher level of assessment to his actual density. Will that affect my
assessment? I'm being assessed over 40 some acres. Will that have the affect
of bringing my assessment down or does it only apply to those 6 acres that are
being sold to him?
Don Ashworth: Just those 5 acres. In that instance, per unit charges were
assessed on an acreage basis and what he would like to do is to see that
brought up to the actual density that he will have of approximately 12 units
per acre. He did send that letter in but it was too late for enclosure with
this packet.
Councilman Johnson: Don, are you recommending for Mr. Jacobson that we do
make this change?
Don Ashworth: Yes. He asked for that and staff supports it.
Councilman Johnson: And we're also looking at making some acreage changes to
some of these properties as mentioned in here.
Don Ashworth: That's really the point Mr. James had first brought up that
there appeared to be some acreage discrepancy. The actual plat needs to be
reverified.
18
City Council ~ting - August 24, 1987
267
Councilman Johnson: This will be coming back to us after any adjustments are
made.
Councilman Gevin~: How can we approve an assessment roll that is still in a
state of flux?
Gary Warren: Pending on those corrections of some acreage and then Roger can
address ~o
Roger Knutson: You've got to ~ the adjustments. Gnly you can decide.
Mayor Hamilton: You've got to approve them with cor~]itions ar~ those
cor~itions will c~me back.
Don Ashworth: This is one that I had talked to Mr. James about and I
apologize for not getting it in my report. We verified the bor~ years ar~
that was longer t/man the four years. I can't remit if it was 8 or 107
Gary Warren: 10.
Don Ashworth: We would not want to exceed the bond years. When we initially
put this in we felt that we had it right. We went back and it is a 10 year
period of time so the City Counci could go 8 to 10 years.
Mayor Hamilton: That would certainly see~ more reasonable.
Reslution #87-93: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
·
approve that the Kerber Blvd./CR 17 Trunk Watermain Improvement Project 86-14
be assessed in conformance with the met~ described in the approved
feasibility study as noted o~ the attached assessment roll. That the
assessment term be set at 8 years with 9% interest with the discussions as
indicated here by the City Manager regarding acreage adjustments that will
come back as refined assessment roll and also the comments regarding Mr. James
and Mr. Jacobsor~ All voted in favor ar~ motion carried.
Cff%NHASS~ HILLS TRUNK $~ATERMAIN IMPROV]~4]9~T PROJ~ 86-2.
Gary Warren: Very similar to the Kerber Blvd. watermain improvements, we
discussed the Chanhassen Hills improvements are proposed to be assessed trunk
benefit. In th~ feasibility study, the benefitting area proposed ar~ the
additions to trunk watermain...which does indeed come down Powers and to the
Chanhassen Hills development. The local benefitting properties, we call it
lateral assessment that are incluced in here for those properties that are
abutting the residential equivalent so likewise again, we're talking about
assessing the trunk benefit for the project at $650.00 per unit and the
density of 1.85 per acre.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess the o~e question I have, is this an area sewer
assessment or is this an assessment that would be against a property owner
that be could hook up to that sewer immediately?
19
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Gary Warren: Our $650.00 per unit assessment that has been levied against the
property was done as a total improvement project.
A1 Klingelhutz: ~ reason I ask that question is, I feel I'm going to be
assessed for one unit on my property. As far as I know, there is no lateral
or trunk line within 300 feet of any part of my property. I was wondering
without a benefit how I could be assessed at this time.
Councilman Geving: Tais is a trunk.
A1 Klingelhutz: If this is a trunk line, that's why I ask, is an area
assessment similar to what you put in on Lake Ann sewer?
Roger Knutson: That's what I would call an area assessment. That's what a
trunk is. If the engineers have determined that you are benefitted by the
trunk ar~ a lateral can be hooked up to that trunk to serve your property.
Gary Warren: I think maybe the sheet that I had on first Al.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could show us specifically how Al's property is
going to benefit.
Al Klingelhutz: This is my property right here.
Gary Warren: You're part of Chanhassen Hills.
A1 Klingelhutz: Originally I never was part of Chanhassen Hills.
Mayor Hamilton: This was developed before the project was even started.
Councilman Johnson: Was that resubdivided as a part of Chanhassen Hills?
Mayor Hamilton: He purchased it from them prior to their subdividing it.
Gary Warren: I'll have to look closely at the area. Right now, at first look
and I'm looking at this, it looks like it's not included in the overall
assessment area but the better maps we have will just confirm that.
A1 Klingelhutz: If it's an area assessment I have no objection but if it's
different than that.
Mayor Hamilton: Personally, I don't see how you're benefitting Al so I don't
see where your property is going to benefit.
Councilman Geving: I would prefer to remove A1 Klingelhutz from the
assessment roll.
Mayor Hamilton: If it's an area assessment he doesn't have a problem with it
and I guess that's why Gary should take a look at it.
Gary Warren: Basically as Roger is saying, it is an area assessment in that
we are talking about a lot of unplatted area that will be serviced and
20
269
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
benefitted off of the 18 inch main.
Councilman ~eving: Are you saying then Gary that he could benefit if he were
to subdivide t~se 6 acres and get water from the trunk?
Gary Warren: What I'm saying I guess is I would like to look more closely at
the original feasibility map. With what I have here, it would seem as though
he was not in what we call the service area.
A1 Klingelhutz: I have no plans to subdivide at this time. Maybe another
years down the pike.
Councilman Geving: On the other hand tl~mn if the fact that the trunk is there
ar~ it' s an area type improvenent.
Al Klingelhutz: If it's an area assessment then I have no problem versus
direct benefit...
Councilman Johnson: It sour~s like we should have the engineer review this in
more detail and bring it back on a consent agenda with or without Al o~ it.
Based upon the looks of the map, he shouldn't have been on it. It looks like
it was an error. I~n saying you better look at the whole rather than just one
page out of the feasibility study. Look at the whole feasibility study.
Resolution %87-94: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve that the Chanhassen Hills Trunk Watermain Improvement Project 86-2 be
assessed in conformance with the method described in the approved feasibility
study as noted on the attached assessment roll and that the City ~gineer see
if Al Klingelhutz' property should be included on the assessment roll. That
the assessment term be set at four (4) years with a 9% interest rate. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
CHANHASS~ LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADOITION, PHASE I, SANITAI~ SEWER AND STORM
SE~ER IMP~0V]D~ENT PROJECT 85-13.
Resolution %87-95: Councilman (~eving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve that the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, 5th Addition Improvement
Project Costs be assessed as noted on the attached assessment roll and that
the assessment term be set at eight (8) years with a 9% interest rate. All
voted in favor ar~ motion carried.
PARK ONE, PHASE I, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, ~ATERMAIN AND ROADWAY
IMPRfTVq~R~f P~ 85-15.
Resolution 987-96: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
that the C~anhassen Park O~e Develo~nent Improvement Project 85-15 be assessed
as noted o~ the attached assessment roll and that the assessment term be set
at eight (8) years at 9% interest. All voted in favor and motion carried.
21
k_
270
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
PUBLIC HFARING: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTH OF
CR 17 (POWERS BLVD.).
Public Present:
B.C. Jim Burdick
Charlie James
B.C. Jim Burdick: Cn the 78th study, first of all, on the assessement and
this is the assessment hearing so I will be very brief on this. At the part
down by the hank and then the part right out here, I'm being assessed, first
of all, both assessments are $136,000.00 for the whole thing for me and about
$40,000.00 for Charlie James but he can speak for himself of course, much
better than I can speak for myself. I didn't want 78th Street moved as you
very well know and that's one big reason why I do not feel I should be
assessed for the west half. Now the east half is a different question and I
don't think I particularly favor it but I'm not goign to object to that too
much. Probably about $50,000.00 in assessments there. For that west half, it
doesn't benefit me. If you're assessing the property owners just for the
benefit received. Sewer comes through, you hook up to it and you've got a
benefit. With a nice street in front of your house, you have benefit but I
got the through the street down to right now to the entire city.of Chanhassen.
The safest too. For one thing it's straight. The second street we shouldn't
be assessed down there is there's 5 or 6 reasons given for doing this, which I
think Charlie is going to go thro~h and can say much better than I can and
none of them are to benefit the property owners. Charlie James doesn't favor
his but he can speak for himself and I'm strictly opposed to it. The west
half. One more item, I've ~---n here at different times for 3 or 4 years and a
few weeks ago I saw the first completely ridiculous thing. Just ridiculous.
Mentally disturbed or whatever you want to call it and that is all of these
trees in the business district. I didn't say anything before because I often
get up and say something. On the east end and the trees going through the
main part of town. What is that going to do to the street? Rake up the
leaves. Shoplifters hide behind ~.
Mayor Hamilton: Jim, we're trying to stick to the Powers Blvd/West 78th
Street detac~ent public hearing.
B.C. Jim Burdick: The reason I understand for doing it down there is to make
continuity.
Mayor Hamilton: We haven't planned it for that far west yet.
B.C. Jim Burdick: But the drawings, the BRW drawings have trees all over the
place and they're dangerous. In the main street of Chaska, Excelsior where
it's 15 ml~h, perhaps 20 mph, it isn't too bad but this is a 35 mph curve
there. People will be driving 40 mph right next to trees. I'm particularly
touchy about this because both my father and mother were crippled because a
County highway put trees next to it. Someone just hit their hack bumper and
went about 5 to 6 feet and they're both crippled. If no one who has not
skidded into a ditch in Minnesota at some time, probably 3 or 4 times in their
22
271
City Oouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
lifetime and a tree there, most of the rest of us would be crippled including
me. I've gone off the highway 50 to 75 feet ar~ Ih not a reckless driver.
Had there been a tree there.
Charlie James: In general I think this is a very ambitious project that will
serve to tie Chanhassen together cohesively ar~ I think there are some very
good ideas involved here. I guess I wanted to comment specifically on the
certain aspect of the project. On Page 19 of your feasibility report there is
a project summary and you'll note that the first three reasons that are given
here in support of this project are, I'll read them, it's brief.
lo
As strong growth occurs in the downtown area, the need for an
improved West 7Bth Street/Powers Blvd./TH 5 intersectio~ becomes
apparent. Safety considerations dictate the construction of a new
detached intersection allowing for proper turning movements, traffic
stacking distances and through lane design.
.
Realignment of West 78th Street to the north is a key element in
improving the West 78th Street/Powers Blvd./TH 5 intersection.
.
Improvements to the Powers Blvd., particularly north of TH 5 are
vital in establishing the proper sight line, grades and alignment
with both West 78th Street a~] TH 5.
I think what thel~re saying here, on Page 19, is that there is a very strong
ar~ pressing public interest in having this project built and particularly
with TH 5 improvements contempla~, that it be necessary to have this
stacking distance from the intersectioru I guess what I don't understand
specifically is on page 19 they talk about the tremendous public interest in
this project ar~ yet on page 17 of the feasibility report when they show the
project fuming ~hle, they break down the improvements and construction costs
into sanitary sewer, watermain, drainage storm sewer, grading roadways,
traffic signals, lar~scaping paths, lighting and private utilities. First of
all I want it to be known that it's my intention to donate the entire 80 foot
right-of-way for this project should it come to pass and even so, with that
donation figured in here, for only the road portion of the project they have
a total cost of both general obligation and assessment of $607,400.00. What
is being proposed here is to assess 58% of that ar~ 42%. Ih only talking
about the road, would be picked up by general obligatioru I just want to make
a comment. I don't want to be speaking in a majority way about the project
here. I just want to make a comment that it ~cms contradictory to me,
somewhat, that the first three rea,ns for this project do not necessarily
relate to any impact that I am bringing to ChanhasseD, That I am bringing all
these bodies and automobiles or whatever, but that s~nehow this intersection
is related to traffic generated elsewhere in Chanhassen and the downtown and
through traffic on TH 5 ar~ it's not just related to the develoIznent of my
land. So if we consider that I'm already donating land for the right-of-way,
I guess I question the split of 58%-42% on only the road aspect of this
project. I'm not talking about landscaping, paths, lighting, private
utilities, drainage storm sewer, watermain, sanitary sewer. Ih saying the
cost of constructing that road it seems to me that that road is community wide
in it's importance ar~ perhaps the cost should be borne a little bit more on a
23
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
community wide manner. The only other issue is and I have Jim Hill, my
engineer here with me tonight, ihere are some ponds that are proposed on our
property and I guess one alternative that we would like to be considered by
Gary and the other people involved in this project and Jim can speak to this,
is we almost prefer to pay more on our part to increase the size of some storm
pipes and do away with these ponds that are being, we've always thought those
were temporary ponds and shown on as such until the City developed a
comprehensive storm drainage plan and this is what we've been waiting for and
now apparently the ponds are going to become permanent. I think there is an
alternative to that that Jim can speak to and I'll let Jim speak to that.
Jim Hill: When we planned, we hoped to have this area developed before the
overall storm water management plan for this area was developed. In the
meantime you now have the stormwater management plaru In your feasibility
report, that temporary pond was located here and the alternate proposes to
take the pond ing detention area here which we would pose as temporary and then
taking it over to the larger detention area right here. I had suggested to
staff and your consultant to look at an alternative to A wherein the temporary
pond is temporary. Can be eliminated and stormwater runoff taken to this
detention pond area and the 5 acre or less would have a much less effect on
this ponding area. We asked them to look at that alternative and I don't
think they've done that as yet but from a cost perspective point of view, I
think this makes more sense both for the City and the use of this property
here and the whole downtown area. That's what we're suggesting to do so that
we can review those costs versus the temporary ponding. They've indicated to
us they will do that. When they do do that we would like to have that
opportunity then to modify Alternate A wherein the temporary, that is
temporary and it goes away. I think it's feasible I think I heard the
consultant say.
Gary Warren: I'll just address that briefly. We did consider that and are
willing to look at that further. Gary Ehret and I have talked, in fact when
the feasibility study was being put together we discussed that issue and it's
a matter, as Mr. James is indicating, there is an added expense without that
temporary pond there to pipe the flow to the additional pond plus we haven't
weighed the impact yet as far as the Eckankar property is concerned and the
sizing of the pond so there would be some additional costs which we're willing
to work with them to do that and will become an issue as far as the
development contract for that project.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, did you want to go through any presentation or does
anybody want it?
Councilman Geving: It's probably too early. They don't have details in yet.
It's just a proposal.
Gary fb~et: At this point I do have some overheads just as a general concept
that we're considering that were included in the feasibility report.
24
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
273
Mayor Hamilton: I guess addressing the issue specifically of retention
podding. I guess you're saying that you can type that and that is something
w~ w~uld want to see ccming back as a part of the plans and specifications.
Gary Warren: Right, the detailed plan is appropriate where it should be and
w~ will discuss it.
Councilman Geving: The only question I have is, you're creating quite a large
pond there on the Eckankar property, the size of what I see portrayed here,
that's almost a small lake. We're talking about a few acres that we've got
down there now is a rather large ponding. How many acres are you talking
about there roughly ~ bow deep w~uld it be at any one time?
Gary Ehret: The projected requirement exclusive of the water that could
possibly come from the James property is about 33 acres feet. I believe
that's what was projected on Barr's report. Obviously the depth ar~ service
area go together but I think a depth of 3 feet, you're looking at 10 acres, a
little over and that is basically what we were figuring. I might address one
thing that came up at the time that you accepted the feasibility report that's
related to this ar~ that was the cost that we included for land acquisition
easement. Those costs, which were roughly $13~,0~0.00. A large majority of
that were specifically for those easements ar~ would use approximately 10
acres to develop that number.
Gary Warren: One consideration I think that is part of when we're dealing
with the James property and accomodating him without a temporary ponding area,
the land area that we will have to do...have another impact on the...
Councilman Johnson: In the feasibility study we talked about proposed
detention pond by others. Does that mean that the James property was
proposing a detention pond be included in the letter or we're proposing a
detention pond and they should do it?
Gary t~hret: Basically the former. They have been contemplating a storage
por~L In the feasibility re~ort we were suggesting that that pond be a
retaining pond. That was based on part of or additional development of the
Bart Report. However, as pointed out, it can be eliminated. It's technically
feasible to pipe that water over to the Eckankar property.
Councilman Johnson: Charlie, you want total elimination of this pond or do you
want to reduce it by three-fourths? (bviously it really impacts these two
blocks into parking area, whatever.
Charlie James: What I was suggesting is that we would like the opportunity to
review the figures that Gary and Gary can work on ar~ I'm willing to have that
incremental increase sized to the pipe pipe to eliminate that pond on my
property. I'm having that entire cost paid by me and not thrown into the
whole project but it would be benefitting my two lots here that I will pick
that up myself and I would want to avoid a pond because even though there are
additional, and yes there's a hole there with a 5 foot bounce in it and the
reaso~ that we have this hole with a 5 foot bounoe is that we had sewer hold
the water at predevelopment rate until it could run urger the existing culvert
25
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
on Mr. Burdick's property and that would flow across the property as it always
has until he developed and put a storm plan on his property. We've ~_n
waiting for the Comprehensive Storm Management Plan by the City. We would
like it to go away.
Councilman Johnson: I was looking at it being an aesthetic sort of developed
ponds downtown or developing the ponds here and ponds there where there used
to be an aesethical treatment could be utilized as a smaller version of this.
Partially utilize for storm water but also as an aesthetic point to your
property versus just the sterile business and parking lot forum but that's
only consideration for you. I do believe that we need to look into
technically... They won't be able to use the Eckankar pond. It's already a
huge pond so apparently it would be a 15% increase, 20% increase to the
Eckankar pond from what it is.
Mayor Hamilton: I just had one thing on Charlie's comment about donating the
right-of-way. I think we need to look at that and consider giving him a
credit for the donation which we've done in the past. Specifically on Milt
Stellar's development on Lake Lucy Road so it something we've done previously
and we need to consider doing that now I think. It's only fair to do that.
And I also think we should look at working with them on a retention of water.
If we can get off of there and it doesn't adversely impact the Eckankar
property, we can do it and then the Eckankar people don't complain about it,
we can accomplish that. However, you do need to be aware that you nc~ to
provide ponding for the water generated off of your own property and if
Eckankar won't go along with that then you'll need to use this alternative.
Otherwise, I think it's fine.
Councilman Geving: My only problem Mr. Mayor, if we proceed with the Plans
and Specs for this, we really ought to tie down how the assessment is going to
be done. It's a fairly good sized project. We've already heard from Mr.
Burdick on this. His opposition to it as well as Mr. James and this is going
to be a city street so maybe you could shed some more light on it Don as to
how this could be done as a city street with the donation of the 80 feet or
credit that we might give?
Don Ashworth: Staff can again work with Mr. James looking at those
alternatives. Remember this has ~ a massive project in terms of the number
of agencies and you may very well be back to this group again with some other
type of probl~n.
Councilman Geving: We've taken it a long way and gone through the county and
had it turned back to us as a city street. This has been in our plans for a
long time and certainly want to proceed with the project but I think we ought
to spend a little bit more time on the financing area of it before we get too
far down the road.
Don Ashworth: Staff will bring the item back to the City Council for
finalizing those numbers. If you want to approve it contingent on that or if
you want to simply table it, either way.
26
275
City Council Meeting -August 24, 1987
Mayor Hamilton:
ahead with it.
I prefer to ~ it contingent that they're going to move
Resolution $B7-97: Mayor Hamilton moved, Oouncilman Geving secom~ed to
authorize the preparation of Phase I construction plans and specifications for
West 78th Street detachment contingent upon finalizing the numbers. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PARKING LOT IMPrOVEMenTS ON T~ENORTH SIDE(]FWEST 78TH
STREET.
Public Present:
Clayton Johnson
Brad Johnson
Al Klingelhutz
Clayton Johnson: I represent Bloomberg Companies. We speak in support of the
project. There are some concerns that we have that if you have the'
feasibility study in front of you, the proposed assessments, I don't know what
page that is but we understand the method of assessment, that the improvements
are to be assessed back to the benefitting property owner. In this case,
since we have a number of transactions that are going to occur before all this
happens, including the HRA acquisition of some of these parcels, we're mot
sure if we agree with the assessment that's being levied against, there's a
parcel of Bloomberg property in here of 78,~ square feet. That's a parcel
that currently exists before a portion of it was needed for the housing site.
The net effect is that we're being assessed on about a 3~,~ square foot
parcel $253,0~.0~ which I don't think is going to fly.
Councilman Johnson: This isn't the assessment hearing. You won't be assessed
until afterwards.
Clayton Johnson: I just want to make sure that at public hearing that
everybody is aware of it. Don, we've discussed some possible solutions for
this. Everybody understamds that all of the parcels in total will have to be
assessed or that this is the right amount but we're not sure how we're going
to work through the allocation of that.
A1 Klingelhutz: Doug Hanson was here earlier and I believe part of the
discussion involved how the project on (~an View that's owned by Doug ar~ Tom.
He told me to fir~ out what the assessnents would be on that property.
Mayor Hamilton: For what property now?
Al Klingelhutz: Chan View housing project.
Mayor Hamilton: There' s nothing here.
A1Klingelhutz: He did get notice of the assessnent hearing.
27
City Oouncil --M~cting - August 24, 1987
Councilman Geving: He's probably in the area because he's adjacen to the
property.
Councilman Johnson: Everyone within 500 feet isn't it?
Don Ashworth: People likely to be assessed.
A1 Klingelhutz: He was wondering.
Mayor Hamilton: In our feasibility study on whatever page it is, Concept Plan
A, City Project 87-17, there is nothing listed as an assessment against them.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to close public hearing. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Just so A1 is clear, perhaps we could get him a copy of that
page that shows the assessments so when Doug asks him he can tell him.
Gary fhret: I assume most of you would like a little description of what it
is we're proposing to do and why we're doing what we're doing. This is an old
board that the Council might recognize. It did represent the disposition of
the downtown area. Again, just a quick orientation. TH 5, Great Plains
Blvd., West 78th, the area we're talking about adjacent to and north of West
78th Street on Laredo, Great Plains .... what we're looking at is the
feasibility of constructing a parking lot and development on that north side
together and cohesive and efficient manner. In the feasibility we address two
options. Concept A and Concept B. Again, this now reflects soon to be new
West 78th Street, Great Plains Blvd.. We looked at and worked with the City's
consultant Mr. Hoisington on developing the required number of parking spaces,
etc. and what we're really talking about here is a couple of items have been
approved previously by the City Council. One is a daycare center in this
location. The other is the Retail West center adjacent to Laredo. What we
looked at was the development for parking facilities that would attempt to tie
all those together. Two alternatives that are in the feasibility report are
very similar with the exception of what we call the center core. We've got
two options primarily because we just do not know at this time what is going
to occur here. There has been some preliminary discussions on medical/office
facility. We don't know yet the extent of that facility. How that facility
might be oriented so we took at shot of just a couple of different
alternatives. Probably a couple items I should mention is kind of what if or
based on plan. Based on the removal of businesses that currently exist along
West 78th Street. That's a critical element obviously of the plan. Not
knowing exactly what would happen in the center core of the plan, what we did
in the feasibility report was looked at phasing. Part of Phase I, the areas
which seemed to be further developed identifiable, that is the area between
Laredo Blvd. and what was left of the east property line of the Bloomberg
parcel which is in this area. That would provide a parking lot to serve the
Kenny's complex, the proposed daycare and Mr. Pauly's Beauty Salon. we also
looked at Phase I construction of facilities on the west side and back of the
east side of the Riveria Restaurant being Phase I s~mewhere in this location.
Those facilities would serve the Riveria Restaurant. The cost as identified
in the report are a little different but both concepts are fairly close in
28
City Oouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
277
terms of total cost. There is o~e other element of the plan that we looked
at. That was addressed in the report as the reconstructio~ of the facade of
the Kenny's complex. ~hat was we felt an integral item of develo~t of this
parking lot. Those costs are addressed in the report. I should make one
correction to the report which I discovered after it went to printing and that
is the cost for the facade reconstruction was estimated by the architect as a
total cost, including administrative of $12~,0~.00. I thought that was
construction cost so that cost is listed on the report of about $30,~00.0~ is
just a footnote of a correct on cost. We do show a landscaping, lighting
throughout this area. We will put in some kir~ of storm sewer system. I'm
sure I don't have to dwell on the fact that this area has a h/story of a
tremendous storm water problem. Most of it would either be addressed by the
new facility we're potting in this location or we would attempt to address a
syst~ in the parking lot. I think that's just a quick overview of the
project. I asked Jim to briefly talk about what he saw in terms of
landscaping.
Jim Lasher from BRW outlined the landscaping and lighting co~ for the
parking lot and the landscaping buffer along the rear.
Councilman Johnson: Some of these trees along the boulevard, were they
already included in the other landscaping plan for the street?
Jim Lasher: There are some trees that are presently included in the area but
you'll notice where I've left vacancies we've got trees proposed for the other
project. There are two trees shown on this plan here, there are three down
here, two, three so from that respect those work back ar~ forth all along the
edge.
Councilman Johnson: So this is an increase?
Mayor Hamilton: We want to have development. We want to have buildings
there where people will go and shop but we're trying to hide them at the same
time so we can't find them. It seems like we're trying to hide ourselves and
I'm not sure it's a good idea. You see market centers all over and they don't
~ to be too disgusting looking to me and people, you and I included, have
to go there and shop and when I'm driving along to see where I~ going to so I
can find it. I don't think you want to make this so hidden that nobody is
going to be able to find it.
Jim Lasher: That's a good point. I think I would refer you back to the
original feasibility study that proposed a 7 foot clear space betw.~--------n the
ground level and the first branching of the tree. These tree too, would be
about 15 feet betwee~ groups of trees.
Mayor Hamilton: How apart is each tree from the other?
Jim Lasher: 15 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: It -_c~ms like our forester told us 25 feet would be about
right. We had a forester in here last week and he said if you want trees to
grow up to the proper crown and everything they r~ to be approximately 25
29
278
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
feet apart. I suppose that depends somewhat on the trees and how big the
crown is going to get but he felt that was adequate width so they get enough
air ar~ whatever else they need to develop properly.
Jim Lasher: I think for a rule of thumb that probably is logical. I'm
showing more of a col%z%nar type tree so we' re putting ~ closer together.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm kind of curious about the grouping of trees you have
right in front of Kenny's also. We don't have an over abundance of parking in
this whole development so it seems to eat up valuable parking space with a
bunch of trees right in front of the store wouldn't seem to be too realistic
to me.
Jim Lasher: What we propose for not only to have planting are but an area
that is bumped out for picking up what's existing right now so it would be
glass right to the edge where the cars are. ..all the doors of retail would
occur at this bump out here. Be a door here, here and here and that would
service all the businesses in the area.
Mayor Hamilton: The problem is, when you have a convenience retail such as
Kenny's, one of the things that they require is to have spaces available right
at the front door. That's very important to their type of business. Strictly
convenience. People want to drive right to the door and run in and run out.
I think those people are going to need to be apprised of your plan and I
suspect that they have not been asked for their input.
Jim Lasher: Yes, Mr. Hoisington met with them and presented this entire plan
A and B and both of the owners were there. This is something that actually
came frcm the meeting Mr. Hoisington had with the owners.
Mayor Hamilton: The other comment that's being proposed, medical office
space that you have marked as open space in the front, I know on the original
plan there was parking intended in there. Tnere's also going to r~ to be an
emergency entrance someplace in that facility. If there's a medical facility
in there, which it appears there is going to be, one of the comments he made
to me is has to have a place where an ambulance or emergency vehicle of some
type can drive right up, virtually right into, almost like a garage type
facility rather than right to the door. I don't see provisions for that.
Whether it's in front where that open space would be or on the side.
Jim Lasher: Right now we're proposing a drop off condition right here would
be 10 right in lane for possible quick entrance and there could possibly be
something here. Once again, we just kind of made up the footprint as we went
along.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a missing ingredient too. I know the owner of
the property are here and I'm sure that they weren't, in fact I know they
weren't even asked which plan they favored until kind of after the fact and
how they perceived the parking. It would seem to me if we're going to look at
a footprint of how something might occur, the owners of the property ought to
be asked how they perceive it to be developed and I know they weren't asked.
30
279
City (3ouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
Councilman ~eving: How many parking spots are we taking away fr~ the
parking? 3 or 5? If we build the parking lot as a municipal e~deavor and we
see 12 trees right there in front of Kenny's and to the west there, how many
spaces are we taking away from our total parking plan with the addition of
those trees?
Jim Lasher: Four.
Jim Lasher: TWo on each side.
Councilman Geving: And then we'll go over to the other parking? Is that for
public parking as well?
Jim Lasher: Each time you have an island shown like this, you're taking away
two spaces.
Councilman Geving: Is there a light in the middle of that?
Jim Lasher: There is light in certain areas. A light in this location and
this location here, here and right about in this area here and scattering out
in a triangle so it's kind of doubling as a planting area as well as place to
locate lighting.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the ~roblems I had with those types of things is when
I go to shopping centers now I really kind of look at them to see what they
look like ar~ if you just go down here to ~en Prairie's mall, you see they
put islands in, they put trees in the~ ar~ they originally start out with wood
chips and now it's mostly mud. All the wood chips are gone, the trees are
mostly dead. Thel~ve just a mess. It looks nice on here. It looks
attractive but I'm not convinced that over the long haul those things are
going to he an asset to the project. I guess I have yet to see a center or
parking area where you put those blasted things in, that anybody keeps them up
and that t~ are a visual asset to the overall develo~ent. They er~ up
looking like beck. I realize this is going to be a municipal parking lot.
That means it more upkeep for the City to either go in with gravel or chips or
something to try to maintain that in an attractive looking way but I don't
know as though that's probably not your problem. You don't care what happens
after it's built.
Jim Lasher: Actually I do care. I understand your point and I've seen a lot
of ~ that look poor as well.
Mayor Hamilton: Trees die and they don't get replaced and I guess based on
what our forester was telling us last week, when you plant a tree in there,
the ground basically has to be not touched out to the drip line, which
depending upon the size of the tree is quite a wide area ar~ if it is, which
we certainly have here, you're going to 'have asphalt over it and you're going
to be driving over it, it's going to kill that tree. As he said, it's
definitely going to kill it. It's going to take a few years but it will die
because you can not cover the roots with blacktop and k.~-~p driving over it
31
.e8o
City Oouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
without killing them so I don't know, maybe you should consider an evergreen
tree or blue spruce or something which even grows to be quite a large tree
also but probably the area where the roots grow out to isn't quite as large an
area.
Jim Lasher: We're talking about a tree has a 8 foot wide crown and try and
keep the drip line within the area where the plants are...
Councilman Johnson: As far as the planting, I agree that I don't think it's
appropriate right in front of Kenny's. I was surprised even to see...the
parking lot improvements here really surprise me in that I thought we had
approved a feasibility study to make parking lot improvements on the north
side basically for the daycare center. All of a sudden that's being abandoned
for the entire north side of West 78th Street including the facades to the
build lng.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's two phases.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, but what I'm saying is I'm surprised, I don't know
who authorized the feasibility study and maybe I was confused as to what we
were authorizing and what we were voting for in that we were discussing the
daycare center and authorizing a feasibility study to provide parking for the
daycare center. I did not realize and you never even mentioned that we were
going to talk about the Riveria. They talked about the medical building but
the facade on the shopping center...I don't know who brough that up.
Don Ashworth: Staff did. One of the key elements in this whole process has
been one of trying to make sure that we get everything done. Control the
public improvement project when we build the street but too often everything
on the side is simply left and we present plans of how so and So can do
whatever but it never gets completed. You've got a daycare facility, they're
ready to go in. You could do the parking lot right in front of them but you
would have a beautiful island in the middle and what the Council did on there
was one proposed parking lot improvement. As part of that Staff had met with
the owner of the proposed center and we all recognized that that existing
area would not fit in at all with what we had going on in other areas.
Councilman Johnson: Right now I see the tenants are not the type of tenants
that want an enclosed front to a store with a walking hall in front of it
because they're not looking for circulation from the stores. Kenny's is not
looking to pick up traffic from the laundry and Chalet. They all are looking
at people to drive in, grab a pizza, drop some clothes, pick up some bread.
The owners of the shopping center may be looking to redo the whole shopping
center, I don' t know, that' s up to him.
Mayor Hamilton: That's who you work with is the owner not the tenants.
Don Ashworth: I was surprised with that green area as well. The only thing I
can say is, I don't know how much energy is being lost out of that with the
doors being open. Things presented in a fashion that would work similar
to the amenity is an enclosure. It's not a heated area but simply a spot to
trap hot and cold air. One of the things that he has in the orange area is
32
City Council Meeting - August 24, 19B7
28] -
that portion of the project will not go forward unless he signs a waiver
releasing the City from any claim against that special assessment. F~ waives
his right entirely to claim that that assessment was in any incorrect.
Councilman Johnson: I would prefer to see the trees and the open space
underneath it in the parking lot versus the evergr__----n as for safety and fire
prevention, whatever. Providing a better view of the lower level. You can't
have somebody hiding behind th~ trees which Chanhasse~ does not have that
problem right now. People standing behind the trees waiting for you like New
York City or something but let's not give the~ tt~ trees to star~ behind..
Councilman Geving: I agree with the project. I think we should do this as a
429 project and open it up for all the north side as a city project. My only
problem is with the plantings. I think you've gone too far. You just have too
much. You seem to want a lot of plantings. You did this in your other plan
and I commented it there too but I~m looking at what we've heard from the
forester here last week and his rule of thumb of 25 feet is a good rule of
thumb for plantings of any kind. . I think you have about twice as many trees
as I would like to see. Where you have them toge~ there, 15 feet apart, I
would like to see you reduce that to one for example. What you do in the
interior there where you have your lights and double trees, I personally would
like to see that reduced again to a single tree. That's my only problem with
the concept. I do approve of the concept.
Gary Ehret: Might I just ask in general what you think of the screening on
the backside?
Councilman Geving: The screening on the backside, I kind of like that. There
I do approve of the plantings, the evergreen plantings I think are
appropriate. It's just the front view that we'll get when we drive down the
main street and see all the trees~ Eventually tl~re going to he fairly good
size. I think you have just too many trees. Twice as many trees as I would
like to see but the backside, I think that's very appropriate.
Councilman Horn: As a pilot I get a little bit different perspective on what
your plan is because I know what trees look like from the top versus what they
look like when you're looking through them. I think in order to really do
your plan justice you're going to have to show the Council sighting distances
of what you're doing because this totally misrepresents what that's going to
look like. I don't think anytxxiy here can get a proper perspective of what
that looks like so until that is done, which is unfortunate that we don't have
that tonight, I don't think we can make a judgment on that densenes~ The
impression we get of those three trees in front of the door is that you won't
see the front of tt~ building. When you look at the side you won't give you
that impression at all but that's what you look at when you see this so I
think we're totally premature in making those kinds of decisions until we see
what this thing looks like from a front view.
C~ry Ehret: You want an elevation?
Councilman Horn: I take an aerial perspective of my house and I can't see it
but if I look from ~ street it's very easy to see so I think what you've got
33
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
here is something that's totally confusing.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm still concerned having owned a business that had trees in
front of my building and the city there tried to tell me the same thing, that
when they planted them that they would trim them up so far and you could still
see the building. They could see the building up so far but my sign happened
to be about 7 feet which was totally blocked out by the trees so ! still have
a problem with that. If you're going to have a business, people have to be
able to see your sign to find out what the beck is there. I still have a
problem with so blasted many trees that you can't see the business and signage
is important to a business so people know you're .there. The type of business
you have so they'll come in and shop there. You can't do that if people can't
find you there then you're going to go out of business so I guess I would like
to see some reconsideration of a lot of that. I think it's just too darn
much. A few trees here and there would go a long ways to beautifying the
project but hiding it I don't think is what we want to do especially when it
looks like we're using up a lot of parking spaces with trees to and I think we
need to rethink that whole process. Then on your trail system Gary you show a
trail coming through the apartment complex and I think the southern most part
of that, and I believe you haven't talked to the owners of that building, the
proposed owners and I think the way they have it proposed, you have that going
right through a hot tub area or deck or something they're going to have on the
back there. I think without asking the owners what they're proposing to build
there, I don't think you can start putting trails and paths across their
property. I'm just bringing it up so the Council will realize that they
probably will see a change in that and you'll want to hear from the owners of
the property to know if that will work or not. Clayton did you have anything
you wanted to add or Brad, anything you wanted to add to what's been
presented?
Brad Johnson: Our finding the facade in front of the adjacent property...they
want to be able to drive right up to the door. I haven't really worked
through that. Kenny's right now is a dominant tenant. Nobody likes glassed
in front corridors. They like the drive in convenience center unless somebody
says, like traffic back and forth and most of the traffic... You really have
to sit down but our finding on the retail right now is we can't build ours
without a front door, we can't rent it. We're not getting wide space. We're
getting 1,000 to 2,000, not 5,000. Kenny's is a very big tenant in
comparison. As far as the retail central area is concerned, I think we wrote
a letter and outlined where we're at. They liked the idea but we have to sit
down and talk about it, I understand the approving of that final phase...
Gary Ehret: I think it's important to remember that what we're just trying to
address was up to this area and how could it be developed. How could we
provide parking. How could we provide circulation and we really, let's say
the beauty salon to the west, we do not know exactly what's going to happen
nor does anyone.
Mayor Hamilton: I had just one other comment and that's the beauty salon and
that's Roger Pauly's property and it really doesn't fit into the overall plan
and that's what we're trying to work with him so we can't acquire that at some
point but it would be nice to have that out of there to supply some more
34
283
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
parking but so far he wants that. Bernie, did you have anythir~3you would
like to add?
Bernie Hanson: I just wanted to see what you were all talking about.
Mayor Hamilton: Don, you wanted to comment on Clayton's question about the
assessment.
Don Ashworth: Toe Council is aware, first of all the daycare didn't really
finish their whole process until July. We did accept at public hearing, as we
have tonight, is usually a 60 to 90 day process which moves it into a 30 day
presuming the discussions that we would nomally like to have didn't really
occur. As the Council is aware in the daycare center facility helped to drive
this facility. Cennex still sits in here as tl~ whole idea fits up into the
plans and specs area, where we're ready to confront it. The daycare center is
still hopefully coming out in February is the construction contract is ready
to come in, we view this portion of the project. Ano~ part of this is we
have...to provide temporary parking as a part of this facility. This will
allow us to do this. We don't really have to split $15,000.00 of the project
for the temporary parking. The Riviera we've ~ working with them. The
agreement there is they will donate that property. They need City Council's
action so they know they will have parking .... they still have difficulty in
assigning the assessments becuase you have to show a benefit back to property.
Show a benefit back to Bernie Hanson for his existing building to show a
parking lot and assessing him for something that's on top of his existing
building. The same way with Hanus. The same way wit/h. The way the
assessment roll is set up, it takes the cost associated with all of the
parking lot improvements and all of them as they relate to the medical
facility so what we would be saying to you is he has a very high cost for
parking lot improvements in association with a relatively small piece. What
we've done is we taken this whole parking lot improvement as it would benefit
the medical facility ar~ we put that against the Bloomberg property. I see
no reason why he can not come to a mutual agreement that basically says Phase
II, this entire Phase II is contingent upon ~ being able to acquire this
first. Therefore, if we don't acquire the parcel, the assessment doesn't
occur. If the HRA does carry out the parcel acquisition, the assessment then,
if we do the spread back o~ the vacated parcels, will assure that they could
be assigned back to looking...
Councilman Geving: I guess I never saw Concept A.
Mayor Hamilton: It's basically the same thing. It moves the building back.
B is more in the front.
Councilman Johnson: Before we talk about the motion, we ~ to go ahead with
this but I don't see how we can go ahead on Phase II at all at this point.
Phase I, with tree reductions, elevation drawings provided to us. Initially I
would like to remove the facade from Phase I. Right now Phase I we're saying
we're going to redo the shopping center. I would like that to be considezed
separately fr~n the parking lot.
35
284
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: So Phase I and Phase II you have to kind of consider Phase II
as part of Phase I to stay consistent and I guess as is stated here, the staff
should work with the property owners and the property owners are the ones that
are going to dictate how that's going to progress because if they come back
and say we're not going to be able to lease our property if we put that type
of a facade on, we're going to have to work within that and make some changes.
It's a nice looking plan and it might be a good idea but at the same time it
might not be workable so I think that's what we have to do and then work with
CHAEDA in Phase II just on an overall basis to see which direction they're
going in to put I together. Especially on the medical arts building. I guess
I agree with you except I think we need to be looked at, Phase I is the most
important phase right now and Phase II we can look at as we go through.
Don Ashworth: From a legal perspective, we're better off having approval for
the entire project and then authorize preparation of plans and specs solely
for Phase I. That way we have the entire portion taken care of with any
element dropped out of it, we will bring those back to you and say we have
been unable to work with the property owner on the facade, whatever the case
may be.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying approve the whole feasibility study and
authorize plans and specifications for Phase I parking lot improvements?
Don Ashworth: Authorizing the public improvement project. Authorizing Phase
I plans and specifications. Somewhere in the process the review of this
should be heard by the Council and RedeveloB~ent Authority.
Councilman Geving: I would like to see the landscaping revised some time in
the future.
*The motion was made and seconded at this point. The following is the
discussion of the motion.
Councilman Geving: ~hen a technical question on whether or not there is a
conflict with you personally on the approval of this.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there is. I'm not involved at all.
CounciLman Geving: Well, CHADDA is involved.
Mayor Hamilton: I don' t work with CHADDA.
Councilman Geving: As long as that's stated and that's your response.
Councilman Johnson: Does your motion also include the Colonial Shopping
Center improvement?
Mayor Hamilton: I think what I said was that the staff needs to work with the
property owners to find out how that's going to work. I think we need to do
that. It all looks nice, as I said before on the plans but personally I don't
think it's going to workable but I think we have to work with the property
owners and the applicant is going to have to come back to us and say this is
36
285
City Oouncil Meeting - August 24, 1987
how it' s going to be.
Don Ashworth: So you're saying subject to staff bringing back to you what Mr.
Mason is saying. His agreement subject to a review or rejustification of the
planting plan as to what he ~ants.
Resolution 987-98: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving secor~ed to
approve the feasibility study Concept B for construction of a municipal
parking lot to be completed under tax increment law as well as Minnesota
Statute Section 429 project ar~ to authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for Phase I parking lot improvements and instructing staff to
work with the property owners to accomplish the needed objectives to get Phase
I moving. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Gary Warren: One clarification from a previous agenda item. Council
approved or accepted the feasibility and authorized plans and specifications.
We had a Phase I and Phase II part of the project and it will be Phase I, I
presume that we're authorizing preparation of.
REVIEW PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CLOCK TOWER AND ENTRY MONUMENTS AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Mayor Hamilton: Do Council msmbers have any problens with these?
Councilman Johnson: Theatre is spelled "rW' and it's plural. It's
Chanhassen Dinner Theatres I believe. I don't know if Clayton cares whether
they spell it right or not. Do you prefer to see it plural, "res" or?
Clayton Johnson: Don' t ask me.
Councilman Johnson: But it definitely isn't "er"?
Clayton Johnson: No.
Mayor Hamilton: There was one question I had Gary on the clock tower. We had
mentioned previously the addition of the third clock which I didn't see in
here. We also talked about the elimination of the long loop thing at the
bott~n so for maintenance purposes. I didn't see that inclusion.
Jim Lasher: It's in the plans. We did remove that.
Mayor Hamilton: Just so we don't miss that. Council members have any
questions?
Councilman Johnson: On the retaining wall on the incoming there, Will a
standard water drainageway be provided so you won't have a problem with water
seeping through the back of that wall and getting inside the sign?
Jim Lasher: No. The sign will be completely sealed within the back in a box.
37
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Couniclman Johnson: Tnere won't be any seepage so there will be walls like we
see in a lot of places.
Jim Lasher: We've got some good drainage going down along the back of the
walls as well.
Councilman Horn: Where is the neon going to be on this?
Jim Lasher: The neon is going to occur right behind the cut out letters so
it's going to be a halo effect of the neon. Carrying all the way across the
letter and then at the base, these will be backlit with a florescent tube.
Resolution 987-99: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertising of bids
for the clock tower and entry monuments as part of the Downtown Redevelopment
Project. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion
carried.
Councilman Geving: How long will it be before you have something ready for
us?
Jim Lasher: If you look at the letter, we've got starting construction
approximately September 22nd. Completion of construction November 20th.
During the construction process, depending if the weather holds at least until
we get concrete poured and then we can build anything.
Councilman Horn: Just a point of clarification, I think the article on this
in the paper said those are going to be fiber optic.
Jim Lasher: It did. ~nat was erroneous at best. Tne problem with fiber
optics, is after researching there is a company in California called Webb
Enterprises that makes fiber optics for lighting and the cost is phenominal as
compared to neon system which is $8.00 to 10.00 per foot. Fiber optics is
$40.00 to $50.00 per foot and they are the only people who make i~ so it is
very cost prohibitive.
Councilman Johnson: Clark, I'm curious about your no vote because I didn't
hear you say anything about it.
Councilman Horn: You didn't bear my comment about the clock tower last time?
I don't this kind of clock. I think if you're going to have a clock tower you
should have something like the real clock type, not a modernistic clock. I
don' t 1 ike that as well.
TERMINATION OF INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, ALSCOR INVESTOR'S INC.
Roger Knutson: What you're doing is terminating the existing one and going
into a new one.
Mayor Hamilton: But did you notice that we're going to do this at a meeting
on April 24, 1987.
38
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
287
Roger ~nutson: I was hoping you wouldn't see that. I hate to say you're
late.
Mayor Hamilton: I presume that's to be August 24th?
Roger Knutson: What's happenirg is Opus is sellirg property to s~meor~ else
and they want to be off the hook for the present indemnity agreement. Say the
folks who own the property should be on the hook which makes sens~ I have no
probl~ with it.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the termination of
the indemnity agreement for Chanhassem Lakes Business Park I/Alscor Investors
Joint Venture and approval of the new Indemnity A~rccment. Ail voted in favor
and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY ON-SAr.R INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, MINNESOTA MOTION
PICTURE AND TELEVISION BOARD.
Mayor Hamilton: This is for the grand opening of Paisley Park, Prince's new
recording facility. What had to be done was it had to be a non-profit
organization that could get a license for it or they have a non-profit run it.
They did not want to have an open bar. They were concerned if they did that,
people would be having too much and they felt by having a pay bar and having
someone there taking the money it would reduce the problem with people
drinking too much so their reasoning seemed to be sourS. They just want it
for one day.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the temporary on-
sale intoxicatirg liquor license for the Minnesota Picture and Television
Board for the grand opening at Paisley Park Studios on September 11, 1987.
Further, that a fee of $25.M~ be collected. Ail voted in favor ar~ motion
carried.
Mayor Mmmilton: That was our last item but I would like to mention, and I
wish Don was here, I've ~_n hour~ing the staff unmercifully about tf~ signs
downtown because I've talked to several of the merchants downtown. ~heir
business has dropped off dramatically because we've done a lousy job of
signing the downtown area and how traffic can flow through it. I would
appreciate if the rest of you would get on ~ as I have because I5~ not
getting much response. The developer or the construction people in my opinion
are doits3 a lousy job.
Councilman Horn: I got a commitment at the HRA meeting from Todd that if he
couldn't get the signs changed to tip them over ar~ I drove by three days
afterwards and they w~re still standing up.
Councilman Johnson: They did get tipped over the momin~ t~ started
construction.
Councilman Horn: After the w~e~. Both weekends they w~re up.
39
288
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
Councilman Johnson: I want to know whether it's a day and a half, a week ar~
a half or a month and a half.
Mayor Hamilton: It was supposed to be a day and a half to two and a half.
Now something considerably more. My comments were, that I've bc~n~ hounding
you guys in City Hall about the signs for the downtown project and the roads
closing and I've talked to several of the merchants and their business is off
and they're concerned already that here we are, just starting a project. Like
somebody told me today, we're just starting but we're already two weeks behind
schedule. How long is the road going to be closed? Nobody seems to know
that. We went through a weekend with the road closed with inadequate signage
on main street to let people know that the stores are open. Tnere was a sign
put up across the street from Pauly's which isn't, in my opinion, for the
people coming from the west, they didn't know where the heck they were going.
They had no idea how they were going to get through the maze out here. I
don't know how many cars I saw drive into the old bank lot because we put some
crushed rock in there and that looked like that was probably where they were
supposed to go so they would drove through there and they drive in there and
then they don't know where the heck they're going from there. It would seem
to me to be a very simple process to get a few signs and arrows or whatever is
needed to direct the dang traffic. I don't care if we have to put up 100
signs. Let them know that the businesses are open at both ends of town. Not
just across the street from Pauly's. Let them know how in the devil to get
through the city. I know Todd's trying to tell people what's happening here
but I think his little update is totally inadequate. He should have a
checklist on here of things that are happening. List them, one, two, three,
four, down to 30 if you have to. Say this is what's happening this week. I
tried to tell him that and of course he wouldn't listen. As usual he's going
to do it his way so I wish that he would get some direction. Make a list of
things that are going to happen. Let people know exactly what's going to
happen and what dates, if possible. This is going to happen on the 30th.
This is going to happen on Wednesday. Thursday the road is going to be open
and let's be as specific as we possible can and nail that damm contractor down
because I think he's doing a lousy job. Todd says well, that's the way he
does it. Well, baloney, we're paying for the project, he's going to do it the
way we want it done, not the way he wants to do it. We can work together but
at the same time, dog gone it, this guy is working for us. This Greg Roy and
I think he better be made aware of that.
Councilman Geving: Have you talked to him Gary?
Gary Warren: We've had two meetings. We met with the contractor and the
engineer last Thursday and we are on the schedule for Thursday morning to sit
down with these guys to work with the schedule. ~he contractor's, is not
meant to let him off the hook. We have had challenges. We do not have the
MnDot permit yet. It has been restricted in just exactly what areas of
construction.
_C~ry Ehret: The other problem is the Burdick property drainage.
Gary Warren: ...so the contractors are as interested as anybody I think to be
able to blast ahead here but he has had difficulties because we have not been
40
2'89
City Oour~il Meeting - August 24, 1987
able to give him access to certain important parts of the project.
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, now you just brought up an interesting point and I
just heard this today from one of the business people downtown that you can't
move ahead with main street because of some hang-up with MnDot. Is anybody
here aware of that? I wasn't aware of it. Why don't we say in this note?
Why do we have to find these things out, why do I have to find out from a
merchant downtown that we can't move ahead with the project because there's a
hold up with MnDot? Why don't you say that? I've got a problem with MnDot,
we're trying to resolve it. It hopefully be resolved next week or whatever
you' re going to say. Let' s let people know what' s going on.
Gary Warren: I guess this was our first report ar~ I guess we're anxious for
your fccdback as to what should be included in here and we'll certainly do
that. The contractor is able to proceed ahead and we're looking at some
temporary issues, if we can't resolve the ponding matter ar~ permitting
matters, then we're going to require some temporary construction measures to
pumping the water but he can proceed along in the downtown area and that was
something that was resolved at our last mccting.
Mayor Hamilton: The Chamber has asked me to give them an update tomorrow at
noon and I think Gary Ehret better be there to give an update on some of these
things or Gary Warren because I don't know what to tell them. The business
people are frustrated. They want to know what's going on with this project
and nobody seems to have the answers. I certainly don't have any. I would get
up and try to tell them what I can but nobody is telling me anything so
perhaps both of you guys better be there and when I~ suppo~ to talk you'll
get up ar~ talk. I think you need some specific answers about when things are
going to be done. When they're going to be accomplished. When the street is
going to be opened. When they are going to start. Whe~ are we going to
resolve this whole issue with MnDot. What's the potential of resolving the
problems with Burdick. I guess we ~ to perhaps have some idea about that.
When it might go to court and what we're looking at a resolution there. Just
things like that. The more information you give people the better they're
going to feel so let's keep f~ing them infozmation.
Gary Warren: I don't think anybody is trying to keep the information away.
The permits are our biggest hang-up right now and we're trying to take some
alternative measures. We're also I guess very sensitive to giving, everybody
hangs on every word that we say and rightly so, so we're trying to be
conservative in what we tell them and be certain about some of the things that
we tell them so we aren't contradicting ourselves. The work out here, the
road to the old bank, I guess we recognize the diversion that we wanted to
improve some of that area ar~ we just cut in today a loop that we're going to
do some signing on here that will make that issue correct that you're talking
about.
Mayor Hamilton: Just remember that you're dealing with people's businesses
and their livlihood. I talked today with Tom and Lou Krueger and they're
really concerned. Tom says, there wasn't anybody in at the place at 1~
today ar~ he's saying lb losing business. He's said, what's happening. I
don't know what's going on and I'm really concerned. I might be out of
41
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
business before you finish the project at this rate so it's a big concern.
Councilman Geving: I think what Todd did in his first report is a start but I
do agree with Tom. There should be a detailed item. There should be a whole
page full of do's and don'ts that are going to come happening in this next
week before the next weeks report is due. All the things that are happening.
What the status. I like what T~m said here. What Todd tried to do is very
general. Just half a page but our people are looking for more detail than
that.
Mayor Hamilton: I called to Todd's attention that we've got Center Street
which is Coulter Drive. I said after all the least you can do, this is coming
out of City Hall and if we don't even know what the names of our streets are,
we got a real problem. Let's review these things before we give them to the
public.
Councilman Geving: Actually I would like to use the new map. The new concept
with the road shown behind Pauly's. The loop going over the railroad tracks.
Councilman Horn: I think some of the issues obviously with the contractor can
not be resolved but anybody who was in attendance at the August 13th HRA
meeting certainly would have gotten the impression that something would have
happened with the signage to route traffic. We had business people in
complaining at that HRA meeting that the signage was confusing and it took at
least two weeks after that meeting before anything was done to correct these
signs down here which said road closed. I got a commitment that evening from
staff that they would take care of that. They said it was a problem with BRW
and the wordage of the sign and I said I don't care what that is. If you
can't get the sign changed, tip it over because don't tell people the thing is
going to be closed when it isn't. We were committed it would be a 2 1/2 day
time period at that point. Nothing happened. The thing sat there for two
weeks. We went through two weekends after that in which those signs were up
that said the road would be closed and the weekend businesses, that really is
being talked about, is affecting the downtown business and we can't tolerate
that kind of inactivity.
Mayor Hamilton: The bowling center is an interesting place. I have not had a
complaint from the bowling center people but you had to really want to go
bowling or know where you're going this weekend to be able to get into that
place. There was one sign up and both of their driveways were blocked.
People found a way in there but it sure wasn't easy.
Gary Warren: ~ had a sign up but it blew down. I was out there Saturday
morning.
Councilman Johnson: He put it up himself.
Gary Warren: We had talked to him about it and he was going to do that so we
said fine, we won't worry about putting one up.
Mayor Hamilton: I hope we don't have to rely on people putting up their own
blasted signs. Between BRW and the contractor and the city, if we can't get
42
291
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
signs up, boy w~'re going to have a tough time getting through this project.
Councilman Johnson: Gary wasn't in here when we first started this, the other
Gary, and there was a lot of really tough discussion on the signage for ~aying
businesses are open and how to get to t~ on both ends. I guess the detour
on the west end, which I haven't taken because I know it's there so I take an
alternate route, directs people to TH 5 which totally eliminates them from
coming downtown. You were saying the Riviera had almost nobody in there for
lunch today which is a bit unusual because they have a go~d lunch.
Mayor Hamilton: When you get down there on Powers and you see the sign that
says West 78th Street closed at Laredo, most people, the average guy I don't
think knows, well if it's closed at Laredo, downtown is closed. It doesn't
say that the businesses are ope~. It just says it's closed at Laredo. I've
seen all kinds of cars turning around to go back to TH 5 when the~re going
down to TH 101. There's got to be a better way to state that.
Gary f~ret: I don't know if there's a sign on the west end but I know we have
at least two signs on the east er~ that say all downtown businesses are open
regular hours.
Mayor Hamilton: ~nat was one of the comments. You've got one on t_he east end
of town and you don't have any on the west end of towru The one on the west
end of town is basically telling traffic to go hack to TH 5 and find another
way that route.
Gary f~ret: If there isn't one on the west end of town, there's supposed to
be.
Councilman Horn: There's t~o on the east and none on the w~st.
Mayor Hamilton: It says it's closed at Kerber. Well, basically you're saying
that downtown is closed. You can't get through from the west side so find
another route and there should definitely be a sign there that says all
businesses are open and accessible from this way, follow the arrows or
somethir~3. Again Gary, going through the maze through City Hall here, there
are no arrows up on how to get through there. There's no directioru People
are so dang confused going throught here it's awful.
Clayton Johnson: Tom, the concern I hear most often downtown is they want a
very general schedule. They want to know what dates are we likely to be
totally shut off because of storm sewer and I don't think anybody is going to
hold the contractor to that schedule within a day or anything but I think
that's the thing that I hear most often. A very general schedule of how does
this next three months of building going to go ar~ there is a lot of
anticipatory spccch. Just come out with a very general schedule, I think it
will make help a lot.
Mayor Hamilton: We went through that before you came back in that I'm not
happy with the scheduling and how we're getting information out to the
business people and there should be a checklist of things that are happening
each week ar~ when they may begin and when they may be concluded. As much
43
292
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
information as we can possibly get out to the business community ar~ if it
needs to be updated every other day, then we'll update every other day but we
just have to get more information out. People are very concerned and I think
we certainly owe our business people that.
Councilman Horn: I think it's so important on this project, the history that
it's had, people have expected it for so long and now that's it finally here,
we better show that we can do it right because a lot of business people can
get spooked quite easily and in fact if their business is damaged so we have
to be very careful to this thing right.
Mayor Hamilton: All the business people I've talked to are very much in favor
of the project. They want to see it go ahead and are really excited and
enthused about it and they're just saying, let me know what's happening. I'm
for it. I want it to happen but I'm concerned. My business is being hurt.
It ' s my 1 ivl ihood. Let me know what ' s happening.
Councilman Johnson: If I was a businessman, I would look and see what's
going on down here and say, is that going to happen in front of me? I was
told that I was going to have access at all times, there's no way I'm going
to. All of a sudden everything is blocked up, I don't have access now from
the west. Another thing is no parking along the curves in here, inside on
Coulter here because this is now our main fire department route going west so
the big fire engines have to come through here and make these turns, we better
make sure there's no parking because right now it's not yellow stripped or
anything. Temporary no parking signs.
Gary Warren: There will be no parking signs up tomorrow on the parking lot.
The zig zag will be gone. That's what we cut down today to give them a
straight Shot.
Councilman Geving: I just have one quick item. The Fish and Wildlife Service
is proposing to buy some land in the, what we call the flood area down on TH
169 as you go into Shakopee. ~here is currently or was at one time an old
restaurant, kind of a drive-in restaurant on the corner there and I think that
it now is zoned fringe business, BF but the question is, from our standpoint,
and I'm not here as an official from the Fish and Wildlife Service, I'm here
as a councilman. The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to buy all of the
property up to the road and I don't know if we want to do that because I think
what we want down in that area is some fringe business. I think there is a
place for auto dealerships and for warehousing and the government has the
money and they will come in and make a proposal to buy that so I'm asking the
Council at this point whether or not you want me to go back and persuade my
people to lay off the area that is potentially a business environment down
there. All the taxes that are generated come back to the County of course but
I just want to let you know that that is actually going to happen. They're
moving in that direction so can I get a quick feeling from the Council on an
unofficial basis?
Councilman Johnson: I would like to know what the present owner wants.
Councilman Geving: The owners will sell.
44
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1987
293
Councilman Johnson: That to me is the basically a free enterprise system and
by us preventing us from sales isn't beneficial to the City's reputation
either. If we ~, if we got press on this, the City of (~anhassen is
preventing the Fish and Wildlife Service from getting more area for the
benefit of the country and also to the detriment of an individual landowner,
we might see some pretty bad press. I don't think it's that important as a
business district personally. If that guy doesn't want to sell, I'll back him
10~%.
Councilman Geving: You see, they have the ability to pick and choose because
if they really want to carry this out, they can go down to Statewide Auto
Parts and buy their whole thing but they don't want to relocate all the
vehicles at $2~.~ a piece.
Councilman Horn: I would just as soon that we keep it Business Fringe.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I~n usually, almost never in favor of government
buying more property. Thel~re got enough already. ~hey just suck up the land
and it takes it off the tax rolls ar~ the government should start looking at
how much property they own across the country, not just in Minnesota, but boy
they own a lot and I prefer to see it stay in private ownershil~ Once they
buy it, it's over so I prefer to keep it just exactly the way it is. They've
got enough land.
Councilman Geving: Okay, that's the message I'll take back to the Service.
Thank you.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor ar~ the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at lg:4g p.m..
Sul~itted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann 0~heim
45