6a. Approve Plans and Specs for West 78th STreet Detachment Project 92-3 1 •
6 6t.,
1 r„eji
C ITYOF ---�-
i
1 CHANHASSEN
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
<«
1 MEMORANDUM rk on by City �
IS
darte.--_—
Rejected_
DetP S - ig -
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager )Date Submitted to Commission
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer I ' , \ \A � ' k " Date Submitted to Coosa
DATE: March 17, 1993
1 SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications for West 78th Street Detachment and
Downtown Improvements; Authorize Advertisement for Bids
1 Project No. 92 -3
I The project plans and specifications for the West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown
Improvement Project No. 92 -3 are now in a completed form. The plans have been
disbursed to the appropriate City staff for review and comments received have been
I incorporated into this final addition. The plans have also been submitted to the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Carver County and other permitting agencies for their review
and approval. It is anticipated that some minor changes may occur as a result of other
1 agency permit processes.
I have attached copies of the previous staff reports and City Council minutes pertaining to
I the pertinent project approval steps that have occurred for the Councils reference. The
project's primary elements involve reconstructing and realigning the segment between
Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to a four -lane divided urban
1 section, implementation of strategic road widening along the segment from Kerber
Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard to better facilitate emergency vehicle access, the
installation of six traffic signals at the primary intersections between Great Plains Boulevard
1 and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and the installation of street lighting and
landscape plantings. The plan set consists of 75 sheets and could not feasibly be included
I with the Council packets. Therefore, the project engineer, Mr. Jim Dvorak of Strgar-
Roscoe-Fausch, will be present at Monday night's Council meeting to provide presentation
of the primary elements of the plan.
1 The current project schedule has been devised with intermediate completion dates for
priority work items such as the opticom and improvements needed for the opening of Target
1 in early September. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the plans
1 ivy
t • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
I
and specifications for the West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown Improvements and
d sp ca p
1 authorize advertisement for bids, Project No. 92 -3.
jms
1 Attachments: 1. Letter from Jim Dvorak dated 3/16/93.
2. Staff Report.
I 3. Council Minutes dated 10/26/92, 10/12/92 and 9/28/92.
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
I Jim Dvorak, SRF
Dennis Eiler, SRF
Dick Koppy, RLK
1 Charlie James
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I Cf 3 1
gae (to ok ) (p i
- SRF STRGAR- ROSCOE - FAUSCH, INC. S ►tee
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
TRANSPORTATION • CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • LAND SURVEYORS I
March 16, 1993 SRF No. 0921634
Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. 1
City Engineer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147
RE: WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD
1
CITY PROJECT NO. 92 -03
Dear Charles:
1
We have previously submitted final plans to you and are requesting final review and
approval of the plans by the City. We have also submitted the plans to Carver County
I
and the Mn /DOT Office of State Aid. Once we receive comments from the County and
State and receive final approval from the City we can resubmit the plans to Mn /DOT for
final State Aid approval. We anticipate that this process would be completed by late
April and would recommend tentatively scheduling a bid date for the first part of May. 1
The construction of the improvements is anticipated to be phased so that portion of
West 78th Street west of Kerber Boulevard and all of Powers Boulevard is complete in
I
September in time for the opening of Target. Construction east of Kerber Boulevard to
Great Plains Boulevard would then be completed in the fall.
We have also enclosed a copy of the latest engineer's estimate. The project costs, 1
including a 35 percent additive for administration and engineering are as follows:
Segment Estimated Cost I
Powers Boulevard $ 864,250
1
West 78th (Powers to Kerber) $1,376,480
West 78th (Kerber to Great Plains) $1.058.560
Total $3,299,290 1
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. 1
Sincerely,
STRGAR -RO COE- FAUSCH, INC. I
i CITY OF CHANHASSEII
i a @ENO 1
o mes R. Dvorak, P.E. Marl 1 1993
- . ssociate
Attachments �G DEPT.
ENGINEER
JRD:bba
I
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612/475 -0010 FAX 612/475 -2429
Pg6zi,/A/4e' ,PD2_6
W. 7881 ST/POWERS BLVD.
COMM- NO.. 0921634 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS BY PROPERTY OWNERS
PREP' DJJ
DATE: 1 -13-93 (REVISED)
1
SANITARY SEWER WATER MAIN STORM DRAINAGE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
PROPERTY PROPOSED PROPOSED TOTAL
TAX OWNERSHIP/DESCRIPTION FRONT GROSS RATE - RATE- RATE- RAT - - RATE-
NUMBER FOOTAGE SO. FT. ASSESS- LATERAL ASSESS- LATERAL ASSESS- TOTAL ASSESS- TOTAL ASSESS- TOTAL ASSESSMENT
FRONT ABLE AMOUNT FRONT ABLE AMOUNT SQUARE ABLE AMOUNT SQUARE ABLE AMOUNT FRONT ABLE AMOUNT
FOOT FR. FT. FOOT FR. FT. FOOT SO. FT. FOOT SO. FT. FOOT FA. FT.
VILLAGE WEST TOWNHOUSES LOT 1 0 119255 827.74 0 93.00 $29.00 0 90.00 50.088 103220 59,099.88 90.074 0 WOO 3181.00 0 9000 9909988
VILLAGE WEST TOWNHOUSES WT 2 0 138725 827.74 0 90.00 329.00 0 90.00 90.088 138725 512.053.68 50.074 0 3100 9180.00 0 93.00 312,053.68
0125000 WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 231 -1,1071 285 93373 327.74 135 37,905.90 329.00 285 98,285.00 90. 088 93373 38,231.76 90.074 93373 38,941.72 500.00 285 551.300.00 382.644.39
0125000 WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2.90 L 1,2072 118 63199 327.74 3 18 33,273.32 329.00 118 53,41 200 30. 088 83199 35,571.82 90.074 63199 34,896.47 3180.00 118 321,240.00 338.205.41
0125000 WEST.V1LLAGE HEIGHTS 2$.1.2073 182 77115 327.74 182 35,048.68 329.00 182 35,278.00 90. 088 77115 36,796.46 93.074 77115 15,733.04 3180.00 182 572.760.00 955,81818
0125000 WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2$1.2074 1040 561532 327.74 0 30.00 328.03 338 39,60200 90. 068 561532 549,504.66 31074 561532 341,746.54 3160.00 1040 3187,200.00 5238,253.20
0125000 WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 8L 1.O-L B 750 832533 327.74 0 93.00 329.00 0 37.00 90.088 275045 324,247.97 30.074 0 30.00 3180.00 0 30.00 324.247.97
CHAPARRAL ON L/( ANN LOT 8 1030 759694 327.74 0 90.00 829.00 0 90.00 90.088 0 30.00 30.074 0 300) 3180.00 0 30.00 30.00
25. 1500060 BURDICK PARK 80. 2, LOT 0 30485 327.74 0 30.00 529.00 0 30.00 33.088 0 30.00 30.074 0 30.00 3180.00 0 9100 30.00
25 30
1500070 BURDICK PARK 8L 2. LOT 4 0 32180 527.74 0 90.00 329.00 0 9000 30.088 0 00 30.074 0 30.00 3180.00 0 30.00 90.00
25. 0500070 BURDICK PARK BL 2, 2075 0 31045 321.74 0 30.00 329.00 0 30.00 $0.088 0 90.00 351074 0 30.00 3180.00 0 93..00 90.00
25. 1500080 BURDICK PARK 82.3, LOT 1 283 53300 327.74 0 90.00 329.00 0 90.00 50.068 0 90.00 30.074 0 91.00 3160.00 283 350,940.00 350,940.00
25-1500090 BURDICK PARK BL 3, LOT 2 0 42880 327.74 0 9000 339.03 0 90.00 908 0 90.00 30.074 0
.08 30.00 3180.00 0 31.00 30.00
AM 0140500 CHANHASSEN RETAIL ADD. 8L 1.107 1 790 448257 327.74 0 33.00 929-00 108 33.13200 90.068 0 30.00 30.074 449257 333,399.58 3160.00 790 3142200.00 3178,751.58
0140.500 CHANHASSEN RETAIL ADD. 13.1... B 505 208222 327.74 505 514.008.70 329.00 505 314,645.00 90.088 104019 $0,170.32 30.074 208222 815,480.06 _ 5180.00 505 390,900.00 $144.204.07
1090 330.236.60 1536 344,544.00 1414228 3124,878.31 1452898 3107.999.38 3203 3578.540.00 3883.198.32
•
- 1111. - - 111111 - - - - 1111111 - - - 11111 NIB - -
. .
CITYOF ---J
i
ritlio 0 ,
. i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Aclb• by Ot y Adminletret0
✓ DMA 1 bdarsed
MEMORANDUM �
• Ilelecte?
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager to 3ubmittild to motes 1
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer v Date Submitted to car 1
/ o - a - 9 '---
DATE: October 20, 1992
SUBJ: Approval of Access Locations and Discussion of Assessments on West 78th 1
Street Detachment Improvement Project No. 92 -3
1
At the City CounciI's previous meeting the revised alignment for the detachment project and
the overall scope of improvements to West 78th Street between Powers Boulevard (County
I
Road 17) and Great Plains Boulevard in Chanhassen, Project No. 92 -3, was ordered;
however, discussions concerning the access locations and assessment methodology for the
roadway segment between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) was 1
postponed until the Monday, October 26, 1992 City Council meeting in order to allow Mr.
Charlie James to be present for the discussions.
Attached are the minutes from a 4-hour long meeting between the Ci , Tar et, Jim 1
Burdick,,Charlie ajnp ac RI K re presenting Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota
which was held on Sep 30 . 1992 to discuss these issues. The minutes do a very good 1
job of summarizing tl cey points of discussion and positions held by each party on these
issues. On the matter .�' e�s locations, the City's position continues to be one which
recommends that the westerly most - access intersection be located at the intersection 1
with the proposed public road to serve Target, Outlot B and the common_pro line of
s a n of West Villa H i ht s. Mr. James has expressed a desire to have full access
' -L 111 ots 1 and 2 of West Villa a Hei hts with no access to tot at ocation. Staff
cannot support ful access • • location from both a safe and a fairness star point to
rg er 2 i pr operty o w lla ners e eights. . Staff w • • • • • • • however a ri _ • • t -in ri _ • t -out access to Lots 1
of West Vi
At this time onl the full - access intersection to the public drive between the Target site and
Out of is pr posed,for a mid -block traffic si al installation. In the future, 'Upending on
traffic vn a e g and development of the James property to a north, a traEc sti may also
be warranted tithe mid-blo . entrances to the'Target site. 1
ifs PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1
1 Don Ashworth
October 20, 1992
Page 2
1 On the matter of assessments, staff continues to support the preliminary assessment roll
presented to the Cour„sLon September 28. 1992. The proposed front -foot rate for roadway
assessment is $180. This, by the way, is consistent with the per front -foot assessment rate
which was implemented to the easterly owntown improvement per ject back in the mid -80s
employing annual a u� us ments for the engineering news record construction cost indices.
Some monx. has been given by the affected property owners that the previously
resented feasibility studyproposed a lower roadway assessment rate. The previous design
' studies for this project, durin - - . - :1, and earl 90s were based on . coin • letely
different roadway section. Given the location of the Tar et site on the Bur • ick roperty,
potential for nother maTor retailer r on t e. James property an other ture appurtenant
retai service- oriented devel • • •• - • • n these • ro • erties, significant revisions tot e roadway
•esi:n were necessa in order • • • %• - . • • • - •uate ev- is - .ace or i ese 1 -
' types of uses. Staff continues to,support the assessment methodology for this project wit
the ejception that the cost for the mid -block traffic signal would not be assessed since traffic
signal assessments are not plopose4 for the Market Square grocery store development or
' other downtown businesses.
In summary, staff does not support a ful,1,.g_ccessmechan_cut to either the James property or
Outlot B, a_oximately 300 feet east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). Staff would
s port a right -in /ri ght -out access at this location for the James property to the north, Staff
supports Tocating a mid -block traffic signal at the common access to the Target site, Outlot
1 arido t e ames property to the north. A future mid -block traffic signal
ma also be necessary at the main drive entrance to the Target site., Staff supports tTie
current pre iminary assessment roll with the deletion of assessment for the mid -block traffic
signal.
ktm
Attachments: 1. Letter dated October 1, 1992 from Dick Koppy of PPY o RLK.
2. Staff report dated October 7, 1992.
c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
' Jim Dvorak, SRF
Dennis Eiler, SRF
Dick Koppy, RLK
Charlie James
Jim Burdick
1
1
1
RI 1k 922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933 -0972
\ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933 - 1153
October 1, 1992
CID OF �h�f A E
OCT 14 1992 ,
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager ENGItirERING Di t1T
. '
City of Chanhassen r i
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Results of the City Meeting at 9:00 a.m. on September 30 on the West 78th Street
Realignment
Attendees: Jim Tseusch, Jim Burdick, Dennis Eyler, Jim Dvorak, C. James,
Charles Folch, Dick Koppy and Don Ashworth ,
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
Pursuant to the meeting 1 attended on September 30 with City staff, I have drafted the
following comments for the informational use of all the meeting participants.
Access: Dennis Eyler stated that if the alignment of W. 78th Street shifted toward the west on
Pow: rs Boulevard, there may be public right of way left over for a landscaping node area.
Charles Folch stated that alignment nos. 2 or 3 would not preclude the right in and out from
W. 78th Street. This could work under either situation; however, the City staff and SRF would
recommend against the inclusion.
C.James strongly recommended that Ryan's voice on this issue should not be heeded if they are 1
not going to purchase Outlot B. They should make it clear what their position is on Outlot B.
James also commented that he would not allow Target to go ahead with their development
project without getting the access and alignment situation agreed upon. James basically agrees
with Plan No. 3 as shown by Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch; his main concern is the access situation
from the adjacent property based upon retail competition.
Jim Burdick would favor the right inlout if he owned Outlot B, unless the City purchased the
parcel from him. Then it would be up to the City to make the access decision.
Don Ashworth felt Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch's plan provides a fair competitive position. He felt
this would be fair to James and doesn't feel the City should give a competitive edge to the
owner of Outlot B. Ashworth is sensitive to James and Burdick's position on Outlot B access.
Since Ryan is not a property owner, he is not sensitive to their position. He feels there are two
access alternatives. One, allow full access to the James Parcel and the Outlot B parcel; or two,
use the current SRF layout no. 3 as they have shown the limitations to access to W. 78th
Street.
1
• Civil Engineering • Transportation • Infrastructure Redevelopment
• Landscape Architecture • Construction Management
t •
1 Mr. Don Ashworth
October 1, 1992
1 Page 2
I C. James felt the need to move the signalized intersection toward the east to facilitate access to
his property. Don Ashworth is in favor of the SRF plan. His focus is the best design for the
roadway. SRF will argue the turns are allowing traffic to move across traffic, both left and
right - thus, the recommendation of prohibiting movements. Jim Burdick agreed with Don's
1 position on this issue, relative to providing the best design for W. 78th Street.
Note: Don Ashworth is trying to facilitate Charlie James' access situation and is sympathetic
I to the competitive advantage between the Outlot B /James property. Don stated the City will
pay James' replatting costs. Charlie James stated he has room for flexibility for the intersection
location that will be signalized. The final intersection location and design should be based on
1 the grading of his site.
A meeting was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30 to meet at SRF offices to
1 resolve the alignment for W. 78th Street.
Access Summarization: Don Ashworth will make the recommendation to restrict access as per
I SRF's Plan No. 3. James will speak to the left turn movement. Burdick will speak to the
access problems to Outlot B. The City Council will then make a decision.
I Burdick's Position - Right in/out; then when the City buys the property they can close the right
in and out.
James' Position - Left turn access to his property on the north; restrict all access to Outlot B.
'
Elevation /Grading: Charlie James stated minimal soil correction will be necessary under the
new 78th Street alignment based upon his previous correction work. Don Ashworth indicated
1 the City can handle the soils that James thinks will be made available by the Target/W. 78th
Street elevation drop which is estimated at 30,000 cubic yards (estimate was verbalized by
James).
I Jim Burdick requested the entire site south of W. 78th Street be looked at relative to grading
and let him know what it will take to grade it all at one time. At a minimum, Burdick would
1 like to grade the two lots on Monterey at the same time as the Target site is being graded.
Don Ashworth requested an agreement be drawn up by Charlie James that the City could agree
I with for removal of up to 30,000 cubic yards. This is to be done by the next Council meeting
to be held on October 12, 1992.
I Assessments: Jim Dvorak presented revised numbers on behalf of SRF. He proposes that the
roadway costs be assessed the same as the downtown project; SRF indicated the total cost of
downtown project adjusted by the ENR Cost Indices is $177 while the cost of W. 78th Street
I roadway plus Powers Boulevard divided by the available front footage is S180.00 These
numbers were very close, so they used the $180 per front foot. No traffic signal costs were
assessed to the Burdick Parcel because his two lots do not have their primary access from this
I location. The traffic signal assessment planned for the new grocery store is $0 per Don
Ashworth. He was not convinced the Target signal could be assessed based upon other
development precedents within the City of Chanhassen.
1
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 1, 1992
Page 3 1
Summary (Action steps agreed to by the City, James and Target at the close of the meeting): 1
Assessments: The City Council meeting scheduled for October 26 will be the forum to resolve
1 the costs issues regarding the special assessments for W. 78th Street.
Don Ashworth will recommend that traffic signal costs not be assessed. Charlie James is to
allow his original subdivision agreement to be reviewed by Roger Knutsen, City Attorney. 1
Based upon the City Attorney's recommendation, Ashworth will finalize this roadway cost
assessment recommendation. Nothing will be resolved at the October 12 City Council meeting
on this item. 1
The access between the traffic signal location and Powers Boulevard will be discussed further at
the October 26 meeting. 1
Acquisition - At the October 12 City Council meeting Don Ashworth will recommend
condemnation and acquisition of the James and Burdick property.
Alianrnent - This will be resolved today at SRF's office. A copy of alignment will be shown to
Charlie James with objective being to get his concurrence. James' main concern is to protect
access to Lot No. 4 on his property north of the proposed W. 78th Street.
Grading - Charlie James will get a draft agreement to Don Ashworth on removing surplus earth
material available from his site by the next City Council meeting. Consider grading the entire
PUD at one time - requested by Jim Burdick. RLK will review this detail and communicate
directly with Jim Burdick.
Target Entrance, Outlot B. James Property and Burdick Property - The openings will be
discussed at the October 26 meeting. SRF will leave all of the current access openings as they
are on Layout No. 3. 1
As I understand the proceedings of the meeting, these were the issues discussed and the
agreements that were reached prior to adjournment. 1
Sincerely,
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1
1
Dick Koppy, P.E.
cc: Attendees 1
Dick Brooks, Target
Bill McHale, Ryan ,
•pJJ /chavarealwot 102
1
1
CITY OF
--=-
i ' 04‘11
ciatillAsg
1
I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager , ‘tp .
I FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer /
DATE: October 7, 1992
1 SUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing on West 78th Street Detachment Project No.
92 -3; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize
■ Condemnation Proceedings for the Right -of -Way
I Due to time constraints associated with last minute revisions, the latest supplemental
feasibility report for the West 78th Street Detachment Project was not presented to the City
Council until the public hearing held at its regular meeting on September 28, 1992. This,
l coupled with public testimony given by the developer of the Target site, Ryan Construction
Company and adjacent landowners affected by the project, the City Council continued the
public hearing to Monday, October 12, 1992.
I On Wednesday, September 30, 1992, staff and the project Y P p� engineer, Strgar- Roscoe•Fausch
(SRF), met with Mr. Charles James, Mr. Jim Burdick and representatives of both Ryan
1 Construction Company and Target, Inc. The primary project issues which were discussed
were the road alignment, access locations and potential assessments. Following a great deal
I of discussion, a refined alignment more or less consistent with that proposed to the City
Council was established and generally acceptable to all parties. The issue of access
continues to be one of general disagreement. Staff continues to recommend a controlled
I access scheme which is considered the safest scenario given the defined project constraints
and allows for equal access opportunities to adjacent parcels. The proposed project
assessment methodology was also discussed in greater detail. Mr. Charlie James gave
I testimony at the September 28, 1992 public hearing that the City had made previous
commitments related to future roadway assessments to his property. This contention is
being researched.
1 Most of the September 28, 1992 public bearing discussion focused on the improvements to
the segment of West 78th Street between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard.
1 Therefore, the project consultant engineer did not have adequate opportunity to discuss in
s
1 %41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
Don Ashworth
October 7, 1992 1
Page 2
greater detail the proposed improvements to West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard 111
and Great Plains Boulevard. 1 have asked Dennis Eiler of SRF to prepare a large -scale
drawing of the overall proposed improvements to West 78th Street which will be presented 1
to the City Council on Monday night.
Unfortunately, due to previous commitments, Mr. Charlie James will be out of town for the 1
October 12, 1992 City Council meeting. Since all of the parties involved are in mutual
agreement as to the alignment for the roadway, it would be staffs' recommendation that the
City Council authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the overall improvements 1
to West 78th Street between Powers Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard. The issue of
access location is considered to be more of a detail design element of the project which can
be addressed further during the preparation of the plans and presented to the City Council
at a future date when Mr. James and all other parties involved could be present. The same
can be said for the preliminary assessment roll which is basically a guide in determining
project financing. The official assessment bearing is not expected to be held until the
project is completed in late summer of 1993. This issue could also be discussed further at
a future Council meeting when all affected parties could be present.
It is therefore recommended that the preparation of project plans and specifications for the
West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 92 -3 (formerly Project No. 87 -2) be authorized
and that authorization also be given to initiate the condemnation proceedings for the
acquisition of the needed right -of -way through the James property.
jms 1
Attachments: 1. Manager's memorandum recommending a contingency.
2. Letter from SRF dated September 28, 1992.
3. Staff Report dated September 23, 1992.
4. Letter from Charlie James dated September 30, 1992. 1
c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
Dennis Eiler, SRF 1
Jinn Dvorak, SRF
Charlie James, property owner
Jim Burdick, property owner 1
Dick Koppy, RLK
1 1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
O
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: October 8, 1992
SUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing on West 78th Street Detachment Project 92 -3;
Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize Condemnation
Proceedings for Right -of -Way
As noted in the Engineer's report, a five hour meeting with the property owners concluded in the
agreement that the city should move ahead with authorizing the roadway project., that the city
should initiate the condemnation of the Charlie James property necessary for the roadway and
' the remnant parcel to the south of the roadway, and that the issues of interim access points and
assessment methodology would be left to the October 26 Council meeting (see letter from Charlie
James requesting to be present to discuss these issues).
I should note that the negotiations regarding completing a redevelopment agreement between the
HRA and Target/Ryan is currently at an impasse position. I would hope that such can be
resurrected. All parties are in agreement that we should move ahead with authorizing the
roadway project to ensure that Target's timing for starting grading can still be met if current
disagreements are overcome. However, I would ask that the City Council, in acting to authorize
the West 78th Street Detachment Project, include in such authorization that such is conditioned
upon Target entering into a Development and Redevelopment Agreement within sixty days with
the city and HRA.
1,
1
A
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
ST RGA R - OO UH, INC.
•
CON SLLTING ENGINEERS RSC & C
TRANSPORTATION ■ CIVIL 1 STRUCTURAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • LAND SURVEYORS 1
SRF No. 0921634
September 28, 1992
•
r
Mr. Charles Folch, P.E.
City Engineer
CITY OF CH ANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT/POWERS BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3 (OLD CITY PROJECT NO. 87-2)
REVISED: UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT ,
Dear Mr. Folch:
In February of 1992, we were directed by the City Council to prepare an updated Feasibility 1
Study for the referenced project. After completion of the updated study, a major development
proposal was brought forward for the property on the south side of West 78th Street. Because of
this proposal, the project has changed significantly. This revised study updates costs and I
assessments based on the latest alignment of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and includes
costs for that portion of Powers Boulevard south of West 78th Street that was to be constructed
by Mn'DOT.
Enclosed with this correspondence is a revised layout, a revised table of estimated costs, a revised
project financing table and a revised preliminary assessment roll. All of the project features
proposed in the original update are still included in this update ( lighting, signals, landscaping, etc.) I
and an additional traffic signal has been added to the central entrance to the developments north
and south of West 78th Street,
Also included in the revised project cost and project finance tables are those costs associated with I
the signal and roadway widening improvements proposed between Kerber Boulevard and Great
Plains Boulevard.
The project proposed herein is feasible from an engineering standpoint. We would be pleased to
meet with the City Council or other interested parties to review any aspect of this report.
Respectfully submitted, 1
STRGAR- ROOSCOE- FAUSCH, INC.
es R Dvorak, P.E. 1
Associate
JRD•bba 1
Enclosures
1
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612/475.0010 FAX 612/475.2429
M MR r ■r r it ■EI • UM i E I I NM - OM r M MI
•
‘
I '• %
sr) \ .
_
1 z
� �
1 ilil: ,r1 , L go. I c-
I I .911
-------------7:)---81 I ._. _ - .... _ ...-------_ - . _ - - - '-'-----_...----'
1 1 �1�
1 1 ' 1 c ---
, .....„.......
t
„, ,
/ .
I •_ • M
,...... 1
•
i /
L
SRF S1RCAR -ROSCU .FAUSCR, INC CITY OP CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1
.11111C
•wean• • • u. • Lei+• Milb+• tsars PROPOSED STREET
Suite 1Sfl,0aeGibsw Mum Nod% W. 78TH STRE ST / POWERSSLVD. IMPROVEMENTS
MI._ _palb, MN 55417
Kill MOM CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3 SRF NO.Ol2tOS
I
' I 1
gi y I
• . ,
I , I
t E O
,: . 01 a
�
1 1" N t
1 I'
/ i i 1 :
, ; r, , Attlieirl 1772d
i / 1 j
• i
• t
g ' /1 : ,:'. / 1 6 I
4.„„,... 1 I I :
/ 1 I
/ , 7
....,,,,,z, , /
3
.. ..
,,,,,
1
•
/ l /
1
f i
. ,
I ; it es 1
/ / r
I / / 1
II
T , ' / \ / ii I ji:
all Ell MI OK I MIN .Mill w OM MS NM r M MN NM r N— r
5 q ,,,
sTs
1
L
i l
w 78TH SIMI J I ......
- 1., ,`" --------- -- - - -- f; - --- ---
I it 1 .. r ,....---- w '
lIl p
)[i
w 1 .
m beart
.�
•
SRF STRCAR- ROSCOBFA lISt7L INC
1lI' CONIMI c mamas CRY or CHANHASSEN FIGURE 3
-...r • a •....a •.I.• Wlrgn.
PROPOSED STREET
Sube150.Owe Game hAagrNodh W.7WI11 STREET/ rennin sm. IMPROVEMENTS
MMse.polb, MN S5147
11121 475-41010 CMT PROJECT NO.92 3 SRP NO.0921631
III ..
.. E ,....10., I 3
. 10
Z ty I
i a 1
��. ! li
• ' : I 1 4
__A . _..„ , 0 9,,,,,,:.,,, 1
2L1 i
«
y
1 g t
u.
aksffl7"4 i
Z H t
i U1 N s i I
'
g i
1 $ g 1
. 6 I i
1
i g1 i
), : I I
----,, !
----.: i
%, . I, ,, . :I V 1
Aral%
i r
11
, , . g I
' f 1
III J ll
. !I
P ism i
1
1
1 CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3
WEST 78TH (POWERS BOULEVARD TO KERBER BOULEVARD)
1 • • POWERS BOULEVARD
I PROJECT ESTIMATED COSTS
(Revised 9/92)
1
I West 78th Street Powers Boulevard Total Project
Grading S 116,700 5 158,700 S 275,400
1 Soil Correction S 20,000 S 0 S 20,000
1 Paving S 260,100 S 198,500 S 458,600
Drainage S 145,700 S 39,000 S 184,700
1 Detention Pond S 189,800 S 0 S 189,800
1 Sanitary Sewer S 22,400 S 0 $ 22,400
Watermain S 33,000 S 0 S 33,000
1 Landscaping/ S 340,600 S 197,600 S 538,200
Traffic Signal/
1 NEscellaneous
Construction Subtotal 51,128,300 S 593,800 51,722,100
Leggy
I Administration, S 394,900 S 207,800 S 602,700
Fiscal
(35 percent)
1 TOTAL ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST 51,523,200 S 801,600 52,324,800
1
Note:
I The estimated total cost for the first hase of roadway widening and ts
P Y 8 pg� � p� vemen
between Kerber Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard is 5784,000.00.
i
1
1
i
September 28, 1992
CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3 1
WEST 78TH STREET (POWERS BOULEVARD TO KERBER BOULEVARD)
POWERS BOULEVARD
1
1
REVISED (9/92)
1
PROJECT FINANCING TABLE
1
General
Improvement Assessable Amount Obligation Amount Total 1
Grading, Paving,
Signals, Lighting S 684,540.00 S 1,059,930.00 S 1,744,470.00 1
and Landscaping
Drainage and S 124,680.00 S 124,680.00 S 249,360.00 1
Storm Sewer
Detention Pond S 0.00 S 256,230.00 S 256,230.00 1
Sanitary Sewer S 30,240.00 S 0.00 S 30,240.00
1
Watermain S 44,540.00 S 0.00 S 44,540.00
TOTAL PROJECT S 884,000.00 51,440,540.00 S 2,324,840.00 1
The cost of the improvements proposed between Kerber Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard is
proposed to be entirely funded by the City. 8784,000.00 would then be an added General
Obligation amount. 1
1
1
1
1
i iii iii iiuu PI "1
P RRRRR� !'� 11111
1
s •;::: :.H • .
1
11.1...1b1...1.. I 1 J
1 I1ii fill lill1iii Hi
1 !1!:!I!!!!!Ifli1
ii 1 III
I iiiiiii111111111 s 1 1 1
i
i
1
�p EE 1 li iimmilitim li I
;
1
1 zg si s
1 1 hiumiiiiiUI! 1
111 Iiiii..g11 1
1
iIJ;ii:vuUlIJt, 1
1 iIHhIIIIIIIIHIfl
1 iiiiiumilitili Il
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
1
. 3
1
.. CITY OF =
t.
CHANHASSEN 1
i
041 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ii
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by Ciry Adminisint,
f,;—see ✓ .bwA
MEMORANDUM a°e r4 NOW 44
Wit: - ma y -9Y
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Otte Samtbet to ComTissi°' 1
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer _ 4e1e s °''"`q, 10 (.0.11
DATE: September 23, 1992
' SLBJ: Public Hearing for West 78th Street Detachment; Authorize Preparation of ,
Plans and Specifications
Project No. 92 -3 (formerly Project No. 87 -2)
I
At the Cin• Council's regular m on March ,�2, a public hearing was held
concerning the supplemental report to the easibili study for the West 78th Street ,
Detachment Improvement Project No. 92-3 (former City oject No. 872). ollowing both
public and City Council discussion, it was apparent that there were a few issues that I
warranted further study and discussions with adjacent property owners, particularly as it
related to access s __ scontrol and locations along the proposed roadway. Therefore, the Council
acted to con t_ the publice�armg until these issues could be resolved 1
During the time eriod that followed the blic heating, Wbecame aware that Target was
interested in eve oiling at a site imme late v south of the detachment roadway. Due e 1
potenti - ' •• - .• . or retail develo •meat such as this, staff coat uded that •
e -'.ili ' stud could not r - ti -1 • eo••••leted • : - •et •a. ()if. call chosen a site
location and su.mitted conceptual site plans to the Ci for review. These submittals have 1
since trans and on , until gave conee tual PUD approval for
the Target site plan. nmitft ow vote • __ .
During the planning and development process for the Target rite, specifically as it relates
to the acquisition of the Burdick property and a portion of Charlie James property, a
proposal was made to revise the West 78th Street Detachment intersection with County I
Road 17 approximately 120 feet south. There were a number of issues involved which led
to the proposed alignment change. Thus, staff and SRF were charged with the task of
investigating the potential impacts.
1
L s
ii 4, PRINTED ON REMLED PAPER 1
1
Don Ashworth
1 September 23, 1992
Page 2
1 From the City's standpoint, the revised alignment P rovides some advantages in terms of
eliminating the reverse curve along the roadway, reducing impacts to the wetland west of
1 County Road 17 when the future extension of the road occurs, and improving the financial
negotiating aspects of the land acquisition. During this very limited time period, contact has
been made with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and with the Carver County
1 engineer to discuss the revised alignment. Both MnDOT and Carver County have given
preliminary indications that this revised alignment would be approved with appropriate
design considerations on County Road 17 at Trunk Highway 5 and submittal of supporting
I traffic analysis documentation.
A large scale drawing of the proposed West 78th Street Detachment alignment and overall
1 improvements between Great Plains Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17)
will be presented to the Council at Monday night's meeting. The plan proposes to
reconstruct West 78th Street along the revised alignment as a four -lane divided urban
I roadway section with Left and right turn lanes. This roadway segment will incorporate turf
medians and landscaping consistent with the theme east of Market Boulevard. In addition,
I the northerly segment of Monterey will be realigned to match the Kerber Boulevard
intersection.
I The majority of this improvement project will occur on the segment between Kerber
Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17); however, the plan also proposes to
construct street widening and median nose improvements to the portion of West 78th Street
I between Kerber Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard. These improvements would yield
a four -lane divided roadway segment between Kerber Boulevard and Laredo Drive and
along the westbound segment between Great Plains Boulevard and the entrance to the
I Riviera parking lot. This plan also shows future widening improvements which could be
implemented to the segment between Great Plains Boulevard and Laredo Boulevard at
sometime in the future when traffic volumes warrant a four -lane, divided facility. In effect,
I this is a master plan which would ultimately yield a four -lane divided urban roadway section
from Great Plains Boulevard to Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and still maintain the
landscaped median treatments. .
During the ast few months, the City's consultant engineer for the project P � p oleo and central
business district downtown traffic study, Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch (SRF), completed a
1 downtown traffic signal analysis and justification report for the primary intersections along
West 78th Street between Great Plains Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17).
At their regular meeting on July 13, 1992, the City Council acted to authorize signals within
I the downtown area and asked that public informational meetings be held prior to awarding
bids for the signals. These public informational meetings were advertised in The Villager
1 and held on August 24 and September 14, 1992. Although public participation at these
meetings was very limited, relevant, pertinent information received from downtown business
1
1
Don Ashworth
September 23, 1992
Page 3
1
representatives, the Public Safety department and the general public have been incorporated
into the revised feasibility report and plan for the overall improvements to West 78th Street I
between Great Plains Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17).
The plan displays the installation of traffic signals on West 78th Street at the intersections I
with Great Plains Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard, Laredo Drive, Market Boulevard,
Kerber Boulevard, Powers Boulevard and at the primary access shared by the Target site
and Outlot B. These traffic signals are proposed to be interconnected and Operated by a r
master controller unit which could be programmed to efficiently move traffic in and out of
the downtown area and control speeds along West 78th Street. It should also be noted that
a master control switch is proposed to be installed at the Fire Station to control both the I
signals at Laredo Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The switch would turn the signal at
Laredo green (stopping West 78th) while simultaneously giving east and south movements
a green light by the clock tower. This should allow traffic to clear West 78th Street before 1
the fire truck(s) get to West 78th Street. The project also includes installing remote control
units in all police and fire vehicles to activate all signals within the downtown and on
Highway S. 1
Due to time constraints, revised cost schedules and preliminary assessment roll for this
overall West 78th Street Improvement Project will not be available prior to packet
distribution. I would anticipate that this information could be given to the City Council at
the public bearing during the formal presentation of this improvement project. The special
assessment methodology for the roadway improvements is proposed to be consistent with
that implemented for the previous West 78th Street improvements east of Market
Boulevard.
At the close of the public bearing, if there are no further, relevant questions or concerns
that warrant investigation, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
supplemental feasibility report for the revised West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 92-
3, authorize the preparation of project plans and specifications by the consultant Strgar-
Roscoe-Fauscb and authorize the condemnation of the right -of -way needed for the revised I alignment east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17).
inas
1
c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
Dennis Eller, SRF 1
Jim Dvorak, SRF
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
September 23, 1992
Page 4
Manager's Comments: As noted by the City Engineer, we met with the County Engineer, Roger
Gustafson. Although wanting to review Sugar's traffic counts/projections, Mr. Gustafson is
prepared to ask the County Board to endorse the revised project plans. Although he did not state
that he would deny the project if a right - in/out (for Ryan) or a left - in/out (for James) was
included, he was clear in stating that neither of these would be preferred and both had the
potential of increasing traffic accidents for motorists coming off of County Road 17.
DWA (9- 24-92)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JAMES
September 30, 1992 ,
Mayor Don C7uniel
- 7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Ursula Dimler
7203 Kowa Circle
0wn h o c ce r,, MN. 55317
Mike Mason 1
833 Woodhill Road
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Richard Ting
3481 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN. 55331 1
Tom K'brkman
7233 Pontiac Circle
Chanhassen, MS. 55317
Dear Councilperson: 1
I will be unable to attend the City Council Meeting scheduled for October 12 as I cannot realistically change my
itinerary, appointments, and the five airline tickets that 1 purchased earlier this summer in anticipation of a resolution
of the Target/West 7 &h Street matter by September 2&h. I will be ow of the country on a combined business and
pleasure trip until October 22. At this late juncture, it is impossible for me, in the war twelve hours, to bring either
a member of my firm or my legal counsel up to speed on all of the manifold, corapla, interrelated and byzantine
issues that have informed my various discussions with staff and the representatives of Target over the last two years
and more particularly over v e last 9tl days.
This morning I attended the first meeting at which representatives from Target, RLK SRF, Don Ashworth, Charles
Folch, Jim Burdick and I were all in the same morn at the same time to discuss matters of mutual concern. I felt
that I was being pressured from all sides to quickly accede to tracts and conditions that would haw an immediate
benefit for Target (and the HRA) but which had the potential for long tom negativw bnpaets on that remaining
portions of my property that would not be acquired by the City through condemnation.
After nearly five hours of discussion, it was agreed that the alignment of West 7&h Street and the location of the
signal were items that could go on to review by Council on October 12th.• l allowed Target, R K and SRF to select
the road alignment that, in their opinion, best suits t e needs of the HRA, Targe and C01 Country.
I also acquiesced in the determination of a signal location to serve common driveways to be located along the
property line between Target and Outlot B on the South, and along the property line between Lots 3d 4 on the north
( which property line I gave RLK & SRF some license to adjust as might be necessary to achieve the best design
geometries).
1
- r F James Company PO Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 626.9000
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
A ,
JAMES
1
September 30, 1992
1 Page -2-
I was told by Mr. Ashworth that the outstanding unresolved issue of fill access to Lots 1 & 2 of the lames property
(as provided in the Developers Agreement of 1988) would be a matter for council review and consideration on
October 26 as a special agenda item.
Further, I was told that on October 26th, 1 could speak to the issue of assessments as currently proposed and as
1 originally contemplated in the Developer's Agreement of 1988
It was explained that the key maser to 'resolve on October 12 is the kgal description of the aact alignment such that
1 a notice of condemnation can be gra ven and an appraisal arched on the desenbed area.
My wish to address the Council on October 26 should not delay or impair resolution of the alignment; the right of
way contains adequate width to provide a lift turn lane if such an accommodation is granted by the City Council.
As I have previously stated my concerns are as follows :
1. A fair price for my land that reflects the costs I expended for engineering soil tests and corrections, site
grading utility plans, architectural plans, loss of business opportunity, and posstble diminution of access
to my remaining property. This issue cannot be solved by Council on October IZ this will take some
patience and trust on my part and goodfaith on the part of the KRA.
2. Fair and reasonable access to my property. I am told by SRF that the right of way and alignment will
accommodate almost any plan so the Council can approve the alignment on the 12th without committing
to the issue of access to the fames property. I would ask that we resolve this matter, as it pertain to lames
access only, on October 26 when I can be present to answer your questions.
3. Fair and reasonable assessments that acknowledge the costs incurred by James in correcting the soil for path
the old and the new proposed alignment; and that acknowledge the Developer's A wnent of 1988 I am
told that the proper time to question assessments is at the assessment roll hearing nex t year, so I do not
1 think this issue should constrain the Cciuncil ore October 12th. I would however, appreciate the opportunity
to briefly review my concerns with you on October 26th, if you dean it appropriate.
4. An expeditious resolution of the condemnation so that I can fnnally; after over 4 wars of uncertainty, begin
1 to market my property.
1 I very much appreciate your careful consideration of these issues; and I thank you for your patient understanding.
Sincerely
1 14. 1 f
°tarles Wm. James
1
1
1
1
,City Council Meeting • Ictober 26, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I appreciate that because it took me that long to put
my signatures on those approvals.
APPROVAL OF ACCESS LOCATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF ASSESSMENTS ON WEST 78TH STREET
t ^ ' DETACHMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92 -3.
Piv
,{` Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At the last Council meeting
the revised alignment for the West 78th Street detachment project and I think
the overall scope of improvements to West 78th Street between Great Plains Blvd
and Powers Blvd was ordered. However, discussions concerning access locations
and assessment methodology for the segment of the roadway from Kerber Blvd to
Powers Blvd was delayed until tonight's meeting in order to allow all property
owners the opportunity to-be present to speak on the issue. - Staff, the project
engineer, representatives from Target, Charlie James, Mr. Burdick, and RLK were
all present back in late September for a meeting to discuss these two issues.
There is an attached Minutes from that meeting which does a good job of
addressing the key points of discussion. At this point I'd like to introduce
our project engineers. Dennis Eyler and Jim Dvorak of Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch to
present the City's, the access issues and then once they're finished, I'll come
back and speak on the methodology for assessment and the access._
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. 1
Dennis Eyler: Thanks Charles. The figures you have in your handout shows the
previous version of 78th Street west of Kerber where we shifted the roadway
south from the old alignment and had an alignment that was sore or less on
tangent and there were some issues regarding the location of the James driveway
and access to Target's, the west end of the Target parking lot. There was also
the issue of the James driveway that's located immediately east of Powers. What
you don't have in your handout is a drawing that looks like this that shows the
revised alignment where we've addressed the issue of bringing the James
driveway into his property...two lots. We've accommodated the setbacks that
Target requested for their parking lot and aligned those two. To do that we
introduce a slight curve in the roadway. And we're also showing the current
proposal as our recommendation and staff recommendation for the access to the 1
James property is simply a right -in and right -out with a solid median through
this area. Some of the questions that have come up have been other possible
configurations of that intersection. .Whether a median opening should be
provided. Whether access should be provided to the south. That's where we are
to date. This is our recommendation. This is staff's recommendation also. I'm
sure the developers are going to talk to their recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Staff continues to support the
planned alignment and access control that you see presented tonight. We believe
that this presents, of the alternatives considered, this presents the safest
design for access in and out of the two developments north and south of the
roadway. We also believe that this design maintains fairness between adjacent
property owners as far as fairness to equalization for access and opportunities
for retail development. So this is the alternative that we're recommending
tonight. As far as assessments go, we continue to support the assessment
methodology which was presented to you at the last meeting. The only change is
23 11
11
II City Council Meeting - Octe .. 26, 1992
I that the proposed traffic signal at the full intersection that you see there at
mid -block between Kerber and Powers was initially proposed to be assessed but
given the fact that neither the Market Square development nor existing retail
I development of the downtown is proposed for any traffic signal assessments, it i
seems only fair that we continue that and not assess -the signals in this segment ,
here. So that's basically the only change to the previously presented
assessment role. _ - -
I Mayor Chmiel: Did you say not to assess?
II Charles Folch: Not to assess the cost of the signal, that's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: These signals are lights, run roughly anywhere from $100,000.00
II to $120,000.00. ,
Charles Folch: Depending on their phasing, Denny you might be more familiar
what they run.
II Dennis Eyler: These intersections will probably be more along the line of
$80,000.00. The ones out on Highway 5 because of the higher speeds...would run
II over $100,000.00. These would be a little bit less because they're smaller
intersections.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll take your word for it. I just got through putting in
last year ago a stop and go light on Rice Street and that was supposedly not to
cost us that much and we wound up where it was $127,000.00. And thereto the
assessment was thought to be close to maybe $80,000.00- $85,000.00 and it really
11 I But I
threw a hook at us as well at that time when I was working. just want us
to really be cautious enough to know exactly what we're going to be spending on
these.
II Dennis Eyler: Well we have a few other mitigating features in that we're also
putting in several others and the underground is going into the roadway
construction so those are all.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so some of that cost may be...The question I have with that
road change as we show that south from the previous one, is this going to line
11 up directly with our frontage road on the opposite side of County Road 17 which
will be paralleling TH 5 going west?
II Dennis Eyler: This has the old east stub design so they don't quite overlap but
once they reach the intersection with Powers, they're on the same alignment.
This would connect down to match. This is actually a little bit further south
than was originally planned. The frontage road was going to be here so we're
11 actually staying further away from this wetland... We feel in that respect this
is a superior alignment as far as the wetland is concerned.
il Mayor Chmiel: We'll be coming out with 4, 6, 6 actual lanes. One for a right
hand turn there as well on the west side, or the east side of CR 17. And then
we're going to balance into on the opposite side as it's shown. Is that just
going to be a two lane?
II
II 24
11
City Council Meeting - nctober 26, 1992 ,
Dennis Eyler: That would be two lane for a short distance to divert the traffic
back down to a single lane roadway. This will be a two way, two lane roadway
once the island disappears in this area down here. We don't quite have that
drawn up to show that. The intended lane useage here would be a left and this
just shows a left arrow but that would actually be a left... That would be a
thru only at Laredo so there would be two lanes which you could go through. A
right lane would drop it... --
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles is there, Jim did you have something?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. There's one aspect
here. That word used fairness a couple times tonight but there's one aspect
that is not fair. If I can, while the drawing is up. There's a driveway going
to the James' property with a right turn in, right turn out relatively. close to
Powers but there is not to Outlot A and I feel that should be made equal. With
all due respect to Charlie James, his argument is the City's being so hard on
me. They're putting Target not on ay property and this and this and this so I
should have a closer driveway to Powers than Jim Burdick. I just can't agree
with that and this actually happened. And apparently over time here he's
persuaded some people to agree with him. But just how they can rationalize that
they should compensate him by giving him a closer driveway than I have, if I end
up retaining Outlot B. Now of course if the City ends up with Outlot 8, then
it's up to the City as to where they want that driveway or not. But you'd be
decreasing the value of the City's property relative to the value of Charlie
James' property by doing that. Now if neither of us have a driveway, if we go
down to that full intersection there, that is okay too. I just don't feel it's
right to, with two people right across the road from each other, under very
f similar circumstances, for one to have a closer driveway to Powers. And of
L course what we'd want is a left turn in, left turn out. .Now the same basic
design. Are there any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: A left turn in and a left turn out? 1
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Excuse me, a right turn in and a right turn out. Yes, the
same but on the opposite side of the highway. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I don't have any questions Jim.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: To me it just seems fair to have them across from each 11
other.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's no way of course that can be done across there
because of the center median portion that's there.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, but I meant the right turn in and right turn out across
from each other. And Charlie, Charlie and I get along fine. There's been
quite...said, it's going to give me an economic advantage but under the
circumstances I deserve an economic advantage. Yell, I say not over me. 1
Mayor Chmiel: How's the stacking coming off of TN 5? Does that cause any given
problems in making a right turn in on 78th Street with that, if that driveway
were to go in there?
25 1
1
II City Council Meeting - Oc`'ber 26, 1992 •
Dennis il Eyler: Putting that access in? •
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ±
y 1
II Dennis Eyler: The distance is 300 feet which is the normal standard for such a
point of decision. And the fact that this signalized intersection here will be i
meeting the traffic signal file, that really shouldn't be a major problem from
II that standpoint. However, Carver County looked at this plan with respect to
what we were doing on Powers Blvd and also the moving of this southward from
what they had previously agreed to and they liked what they saw here and so they
I tentatively agreed to this. They haven't entertained any alternatives at this
point. That's not to say that they wouldn't be acceptable. This certainly
meets their criteria because it does avoid any potential for somebody slowing
down as they leave their intersection.
II B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Incidentally, I haven't waited until the last minute here
or anything. I went over this oh two months ago. One month ago and this fine
II engineering firm in Hopkins, I went to their office. What is it? Well anyway,
I was in their office and went over it and wanted them to change the drawing
before they went to the County so it isn't something I just come up with at the
last minute.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jim. Any discussions?
Councilman Wing: While we're on that particular subject. Charles, can you tell
us a specific reason whether that's slowing down? Why we don't want that there.
You've chosen not to put that in. Have you got a very specific reason why?
II Charles Folch: Well, in addition to some of the comments Denny has provided,
the intent has been as of late with the creation of the public road at that full
intersection, that that would be the primary servicing road and access to the
II outlots that would be created on Outlot 8 in the future. Mr. James certainly
with that validity contends he needs separate access on the common lot lines
between Lot 1 and Lot 2 up there, and again on a common line between Lot 3 and
II Lot 4. Therefore justifying the need for having additional driveway access at
the mid -block situation. Again, the primary thought at this point in time is
now that we're creating a public road to serve Outlot 8, that that's the primary
I access in and out of the development.
Councilman Wing: So we're not into a tit for tat here?
I Dennis Eyler: One thing that we discussed too was the, getting back to the
standpoint of fairness. The fact that a person leaving Powers Blvd and getting
to these properties just makes a series of rights. Whereas to get to the James'
11 property it would either involve a U turn or a left and come back through a
cross property access. So it was felt that this was a balanced access
arrangement. Mr. Burdick has been hitting on that... That was one of the
discussions and that was felt that that did provide as equal treatment as we
II could provide in a safe manner.
Mayor Chmiel: I just said is Mr. James _here too and I seen his hand go up.
II Would you like to come forward?
1 26
II .
City Council Meeting October 26, 1992
Y 9
Charlie James: I'd love to. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I suspect your vacation was quite pleasant. You look happy.
Rested.
Charlie James: Well I think my blood pressure is a little bit lower than it was
the last time I was here. But we'll see, it might go ballistic again here. I
heard Jim speak here tonight and I guess one of the first things I think we
should resolve here tonight is who's doing this PUD. Who's going to own this
outlot out here? Is it going to be the City or Ryan or Jim? I'm confused about
that but I want to go on here. If you refer to the staff report from Mr. Folch,
dated October 20th, you'll see that I'm being forced to give up a prime corner
lot and expected to accept even sore restrictive access to the property that I
will retain. I guess my question is, is it unreasonable to ask that since I'm
being condemned to facilitate the Target PUD, that the City shows as much
concern for my needs as the City is offering to Target. I'd like to illustrate
my predictament here. I want you to know that in preparing these elaborate
exhibits I've spared no expense in the cost of the Magic Markers that I bought
here. I don't know if these will work on here. Well I'll hold them up. Okay,
4 years ago I platted the land out there in conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan and according to the advice and consent of the Planning Commission and the
City Council. And we put West 78th Street where you folks wanted it at that
time and I prepared the base. Did all the soil correction for a realigned West
78th Street and I donated the right -of -way for that. And at that point here, as
you can see on this illustration, I had two corner lots and we had full access
300 feet back from the intersection here that served these three lots and we had
a full access at this point served these two lots and Mr. Burdick down
here. I thought that was pretty gracious of me at that time to create this
outlot here to get access to Mr. Burdick down here. And we also had an
agreement at that time about what might happen if that street would be vacated.
Now you can see from this drawing here, I hope, that I'll have one large tract
on the corner and the dotted lines here is kind of a tracing overlay I did of
this.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. We're listening with the other ear.
Charlie James: This is what I'd have proposed under this new alignment. I'd
end up, these dotted lines represent the former location of our lots and I'd be
granted this full access point here, which is- pretty much where that one had
always been intended to be. And that will serve Target and this area out here
that I guess we don't know who's going to own this. And I'm expected I guess to
serve three lots with one driveway and that will necessitate an interior service
road and additional expense and I guess in discussing this matter with the
staff, it became evident that the major problem is the manner in which the
question was framed to se. It relates to the instructions that were given by
staff to Strgar. Basically the way the question was put to me was, do I want a
right- in/right -out or do I want full access to both Target, the Target side and
my remainder? And I guess I don't know how to answer that question. I've been I/
thinking about that these last couple weeks because that's the way the question
was put to me before I left. The question was put to me, do I want a right -in/
right -out here or do I want a full access on both sides of the street? I guess
that kind of reminds me I feel like, I hope my folks are listening tonight.
They're probably not but they always tell se they wasted all this money on my
1
27
City Council Meeting - Oc + 26, 1992
11 education and I had a classics professor that, when we were reading Homer's
Odyssey, I was going you know. What's this all about? And he says, oh you'll
have an opportunity to use this and by golly, tonight I found a chance here.
Remember that Ulysseys or Odesious had to sail between Shrybdous, which was the
whirlpool and Sycela which was the monster that had 6 heads and 12 feet. Well
I think if we can speak metaphorically here, Sycela's been kind of all the
people that have been involved. The 6 head monster of all the planning and all
the parties that are going in here and Shrybdous is probably going to be all the
U turns and the people spinning around on my property trying to figure out how
to get to Point A to Point B.
Councilman Mason: I hope you thank your professor for this.
Charlie James: He told me I'd have a chance to use this. I've had to wait 20
years. At the same time the Sirens, remember were calling. Going come on you
know and that's kind of the city staff going, it's going to be okay Charlie.
Don't worry. Trust us. So I'm trying to.
Mayor Chmiel: Can you keep to the script?
Charlie James: Oh I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep my ship sailing through the
middle here. And I guess as I said, the question was, how that question was
framed to me. Originally when I had talked to Strgar, if we went from the
standpoint of you know before I had full access out here and gee, Charlie's
going to have to roll over to facilitate this Target PUD thing and how can we
keep him whole up there on the north side and kind of minimize the impact of all
this. In talking to Strgar, we could enumerate a series of worst case scenarios
from best case to worst case. I guess one case scenario might be to give me the
left turn movement into my property at that point 300 feet back from the
intersection and there is width in the island there. I have seen a design that
would allow that but unfortunately the instructions to Strgar were not to draw
it up that way. The choice was, either right -in /right -out or full access to
both sides and I'm the one that's, I still own both sides and I'm the one that's
being expected to give up my project down there so I didn't think that was too
11 much of an accommodation to see that I could retain an access point there
without getting into this kind of devil's bargain here. So I guess if the
question is framed that way, I don't know what the answer is. It certainly
would work from an engineering standpoint but that's not the alternatives that
staff has presented to me so I don't know how to surmount that one. As far as
assessments go, I've covered this ground before. I'll just be brief. You know
I spent a lot of money out there according to the development agreement that I
signed with the City that provided where my access points were going to be and
what I was supposed to do. And now this road's being relocated and so all that
work that I did out there is sort of for naught. I had thought that perhaps the
appropriate place to see that reflected was in the assessment role because the
development agreement I had with the City recognized the money that I spent out
there originally and came up with a formula upon which I'd be assessed for when
the street did go in. But I guess maybe that is not an assessment issue at this
time and maybe that's more of a condemnation issue and recognizing the money, if
this is where the road's going to go, I guess if the amount of money that I
spent out there fulfilling the development agreement isn't going to be reflected
in the assessments, then maybe the appropriate place for that to be addressed is
in the condemnation. I don't know how to respond to what Jim was saying here.
1 28
1
City Council Meeting ctober 26, 1992 1
I guess I don't know who's going to own that land out there. I guess if the 1
City was going to own it, maybe that's a moot point. Then the City has it in
their power to do as they wish on this and if they felt that.
Mayor Chmiel: My understand is the City was going to buy that piece of 11
property, but Don.
Don Ashworth: If I may. Did you want to finish Charlie in terms of, I've been r
kind of keeping a list so I could maybe hit each.
Charlie James: I've got the sneaking suspicion Is finished. Literally and
figuratively. -
Don Ashworth: If I may. Ownership, I don't think that there is any question.
All of the discussions to date have been the City will purchase Outlot 8. Mr.
Brooks will come to the podium I think on another item and he will, I hope say
that as far as Target is concerned, all of the work done has been under the
premise that Outlot 6 would be owned by the As it deals with providing
I/
options, how the questions were worded to owners at that meeting and some of
the feelings that maybe Charlie has, states it correctly. Those were the
options that we did throw out on the table because we did feel there was a
fairness issue that was at :So he's absolutely correct. That was the
question we asked you: If we're going to allow a left in on yours, will you
agree then for full access over for on the other side the property? And the
continued position has been, I I Mr. James tell me at a
meeting we were at, was that if a vehicle gets that traffic signal and he has
an equal opportunity to come back to Mr. James' property or to go interiorally
into what would be Outlot B, it's an equal advantage for both owners. We will
{ have an interior road that will serve our Outlot B property and so I
think it is an equal issue. As far as assessment rebate or adding to the value
of his property through the condemnation, I think that he should pursue that. I
think that that's, if he has improved and there's no question in
my mind that he has, but I mean that simply then the value of the
property. That part that taking. - I think that that's all of the issues
that I heard. - - -
Charlie James: I'd just like summarize briefly if I could. You'll note that
these driveway spacings here are fairly, I don't have any problem with this
or this. This is going to control in a large degree I'm able to do over
here. Target's there first so•I'm going to have to live with that in the
future. This driveway here to line up with what Jim's got. That was a
mandate from before in the development agreement: There wasn't anything,
correct me if I'm wrong Jim, - Did BRW drive a driveway at -that point for you
or was it just shown on my side ? -- I don't know. I don't remember. But the
obvious reason for that there.was that there was a property line there across
the street so we've got fairly equal'spacing here. And I guess there is
room in the right -of- way create left turn movement and I would even,
I guess if we went down the wish list here you know, we're talking about a
tremendous amount of increase in traffic. you go back to the original PUD
application you can I know like 10,000. There's a lot of
traffic that's going to be coming this way and when I expressed a concern about
losing my full access point up there,•I was toad people could come up here and
make a U turn you know. - And if don't want•to do a U turn, then I'm going
29 1
1
City Council Meeting - Oc' er 26, 1992
11 to be forced into a replat of my property. I had the foresight I thought to
plat small lots, share driveways. We could get users in there bang, bang, bang.
Now this thing is coming into a, I'm being forced into some kind of, with this
plan, service road that's going to cost more money to connect to get over to
these three lots so I guess if I had a wish list, I guess what I'd like to see
first is just a left turn lane in here and we wouldn't even need anything out.
I talked to Denny about that today and I forget how that might be drawn in there
but. Okay, this one here would just allow a left turn into my property at that
point 300 feet from the intersection. Now keep in mind too that the
intersection is going to move even further to the west because they're pulling
County Road 17. They're kind of taking the bend out of it and they're pulling
it farther so this would end up being more than 300 feet from the corner. It's
on about the same spacing as the other driveway so I guess the least departure
from what's being proposed by staff would simply be to allow me to have a left
turn movement there. And you'd have this nose on the island here so you
wouldn't have a conflict with people going this way because they wouldn't start
their movement until they got past that nose to get into this turn lane and
people could just kind of slip in here and make their move. I'd be very happy
with that. I guess the next thing from there would be you know the full
movement there just to the north side. It sounds like some people think that's
unfair. I feel that's almost what's owed to me in view of what I've been
through on this thing and I have plans for a shopping center here and everything
that are just being blown up for this road and I think that some consideration
ought to be given for what I've been through here. And I guess we have a
different interpretation of what's being fair. So the first thing I'd like, or
the first compromise position would be just give me a left turn there and I'd be
happy. If you want to go farther than that, you know a full movement there
11 would be great. It's not going to impact the width of the right -of -way or
anything that's been designed in the alignment. And I guess other than that
I guess it's the staff's recommendation so thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: ...the left turn across the westbound intersection so close to
the next intersection that we have the other access drive into the James'
property. I don't know why but I look at that one and I see some safety
problems with that. Is there more of a safety problem with this one?
Dennis Eyler: Yes. You're producing another point...allowing the left in is
11 certainly far preferable than allowing a left out... The other disadvantage is,
and there's more of Charlie's traffic than anything else as far as we are
predicting there are times when the left turns will back up and may close off
this access. We feel there is adequate storage to handle that situation. It
would just be added delays to this traffic because eventually it will change and
pull that traffic away and the signals down at the Target site will produce the
gaps. But yes, there are going to be additional conflicts there. I think if it
is the Council's direction to open that, the City has in their...power to close
the median. To ban left turns when there has been an accident problem
demonstrated. I think if there's going to be some movements open, that we
11 should maybe sit down and decide what would be an acceptable level of accidents.
I mean there are kind of the average accident rates for city streets. If this
particular driveway exceeded that involving those left turn vehicles, that...so
you could establish that beforehand...We_were asked to comment on the scale.
11 It's kind of a negative point to started out doing what we originally wanted to
do which is a right -in /right -out on the...where would the negative be. I'd say
11 30
1
City Council Meeting 1etober 26, 1992 ,
this would be maybe a -2 and the left out is maybe a -3 or -4. This right turn
to the south, if that were allowed, is also a -1. The right out from the south
or the left out from the south would be atrocious. The right out would be a
problem because...so this is fairly benign as Charlie pointed out and it is
introducing additional conflicts.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'd like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jim. 1
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'm sympathetic to Charlie James' problems and he does have
a problem as he often tells me about them. I don't just hear them here. But on
the basis of fairness, now assuming I might end up keeping Lot B. Now if it's
quite positive that the City of Chanhassen is going to own Outlet 8, then we're
talking about rather a moot question here as pertaining to Outlot B. Although
I might remind you that the date of closing was October 15th and the
transactions was to close and it looks like it's not going to be closed during
October. And it could go on for some time but, actually originally I believe we
were going to close about the first of August. Then our agreement was put back 11
and put back until October 15th and then I understand there is a, and I don't
mean any slight to anyone here in Chanhassen. There's a shortage of funds for
purchasing Outlot B...shortage and that's why for Outlot 8. Now Charlie talks
about what has been taken. Do you want to comment on that Don? You say there's
plenty of money? No problem. We'll close this week. I mean I'll stop.
Mayor Chmiel: We're wondering who the guy is that has the money. That's just 1
an inside joke really.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh. Okay, it went over my head. When you mention money,
I'll become serious.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good question.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: And then Charlie James told about his changes there. Well
now, I'm waiting for Don to comment on the money situation.
Don Ashworth: The discussions to date have been to close with you after the
first of the year. I don't know if we're talking about.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: After the first of the year? 1
Don Ashworth: Yeah, mid - February, first part of March.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: It went from November 4th to.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with the Outlot B property. I mean the closing as it
deals with the Target site is, Dick the approximate date on that?
Dick Brooks: Today. 1
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - Oc 'er 26, 1992
11 B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, but of course now Don that is not the agreement
between the City and myself. - There's no provision for a series of closings. Am
I accurate there?
Mayor Chmiel: I've not sit in on those seatings so I don't know.
_ 1
Don Ashworth: It was my understanding that we had reached an agreement that the
Target site could be closed within the next week. That payment to you for the
remainder of the property could be delayed for 60 to 90 days.
1 B.C. "Jim" Burdick: But now an agreement between whom and who and what?
Don Ashworth: The City and yourself. •
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I mean I don't have a copy.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, we're not going to negotiate here.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, no. I don't have a copy of those agreement. Okay,
I'll get to my point on Outlot B then, if I end up keeping it. Charlie James
has lost some, let's say exposure but also I have an entrance on the old 78th
Street. So speaking about this right turn in, right turn out, I've been
expecting to give that up. And if I end up owning Outlot B, that right turn in
S and right turn out out 78th Street would be quite valuable. And I believe that
is all.
Charlie James: I can't let that, as Bush says, I can't let that stand. Jim,
you've never had access to that side of the street. To the extent that you'd
get access to the side of the street, it would come from the vacation here and
if you got it, I'd get it because the street would be vacated on both sides. So
you've never had access there. You had access down here because I created an
outlot in conjunction with the staff to get you access at that point. So you've
never had access here. So that's always been my property. If you had an access
it would come here and I would have benefitted, so I've lost that too. You
weren't the only one that lost that. I lost that. You've never had access here
Jim so I just wanted to clear the air on that. And the access that you did have
there came because I gave it to you. You and I worked out a letter of agreement
and I'm shocked that you're here tonight saying...
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No. Charlie, you missed the whole thing here...I was
talking about.
Mayor Chmiel: Gentlemen, this is really an interesting discussion except I
think that we'll just continue with this and go with that premise that we're
still looking with Outlot B being...by the City at the timeframe that Don has
indicated and that has been sort of my understanding. I didn't know what the
timeframe was but as far as that Outlot B was concerned, the City was going to
purchase that from you Jim. So I'd like to just clarify that. Does Council
have any?
Councilman Wing: Well don't you have to, Don if we buy B, it's for what
reason? To be sold to who for what reason? Just give me a quick history of B.
32
11
•
City Council Meeting - `ctober 26, 1992 '
Why do we want to buy it from Burdick? And if we buy it from Burdick, what are
we going to do with it?
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to protect that corner. I think we discussed that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. So we gain control_of that corner?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1
Don Ashworth: That's exactly it.
Councilman Wing: And I am not going to ask what the hell happened to that old 11
road and why we're messing with this.
Don Ashworth: Well that's part of the issue though. One of the roles of the 1
HRA in the entire downtown has been to accumulate parcels into a developable
piece and that's exactly what we have in this instance. Because that is the
role we should play, then the point that Charlie brought out and Jim, who has
what piece. The bottom line is, if we take control of all of those pieces, it's
one piece.
Councilman Wing: But here's my problem. Years ago driving in and out of town,
I saw Charlie James out there with a pick and shovel like Noah building the Ark
you know. Making this road and putting this fill in and changing this alignment
which somebody must have told him to do for someone's benefit. And then he just
gets it done and all of a sudden we change the road on him and he's kind of
wondering, well what's happened and I'm sort of wondering what's happened so I
guess the equity seems to belong over there someplace. Somehow there's some
j recourse due here that I'm missing that I'm concerned about.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I might be able to throw something in there. If I'm wrong,
let me know. My understanding was because the wetland which is further to the
north was one of the reasons why we were relocating 78th Street down lower so we
can have that as our access road adjacent to Highway 5. To alleviate the
wetland, I'm all for that because I don't want to have that go through that
specific area. Other...that is some of the reasons that I understand that we've
done that.
Councilman Wing: I guess I see staff as being the engineers. Strgar being 11
engineers. I'm not. Mr. Burdick's not. Mr. James', they're not traffic
engineers and so I guess when all the pushing and shoving is done, there's a
limit to the number of accesses we can put in. what's presented to me tonight
appears to be reasonable and I'm willing to make a motion to accept, approval of
access locations and discussion of assessments on West 78th Street Detachment
Project 92 -3. If this is the existing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you have that as a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it for discussion. IF
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion is open.
33 1
1
City Council Meeting - Oc er 26, 1992
Councilman Workman: The tail that's wagging the dog. I want to ask Mr. Burdick
if in fact, I mean it's not in blood. I mean if in fact the City is going to
buy that outlot, what is your concern?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh, a little...for a piece of land that belongs to the
taxpayers being reduced in value by no more than any other significant taxpayer
in town. But we just heard that Outlot 8 isn't going to be closed until
sometime next year. You see Tom, this started to be closed in August and then
September, then October 15th definitely. And now it's November. Two days ago I
11 was told November 4th. To be back in town for sure on November 4th and now Don
said something about February of '92. And this concerns me and the lack of the
use of this money concerns me. You see an explanation, the price of this
property was set last March. And it was supposed to be valid until June 30th.
11 Council's that's about my story. Telling my troubles like Charlie James. And
so I took quite a beating a few days ago when we didn't close. Between
$55,000.00 and $60,000.00. I planned on a certain obligation. I had to keep my
credibility and I took a bit of a beating. So that's my story. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ?
y y u. Do you have any additional questions.
Councilman Workman: Well, if the right -in /right -out is put on this outlot, and
I'm not sure I understand where, if we approve what Charlie James has up there,
why a right -in /right -out on this parcel would effect him. I'm not sure I
understand that, if there's a median between the two. Other than if there's a
right -in /right -out and you might increase the value of this lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Conceiveably yeah. But with the same.
Councilman Workman: Because Mr. Burdick isn't going to have to market this lot
in any way except the City. And so the value of the lot would change or not
change depending on whether there's better or worse access. Does the City
by -pass, I mean.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Now I'm only asking for this right turn and right out until
such a time as the City pays for this lot. Then of course they can close it.
They can leave it open. They can I suppose do anything with it that a city can
do with it. I'm just asking for the right turn in and right out in the interim.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you questioning yet Jim whether or not the City is going to
buy that piece of property? And you're trying to protect your rights with a
11 right -in and right -out?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: In the event the City doesn't purchase that?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yeah. Yes, that's the whole story.
11 Don Ashworth: May I respond? We have tried to maintain a reasonable schedule
for Target for their desire to take and be able to work this property.
Potentially have grading permit yet this_year. If we have not reached agreement
with Mr. Burdick and we're not able to make this purchase and go into the next
year, we can hear what Mr. Brooks has to say but I don't think Target will be a
34
1
City Council Meeting - '�tober 26, 1992
Y 9
reality. Or Target will not be a reality. If the City does not close and
Outlot B is not one large parcel, Target will not be a reality. In any of those
instances, this will have to come back to the City Council. I mean because this
project includes specific improvements for Target. If Target does not close.
If we don't close. If things do not move along as we think that they currently
will be, you will see this project again. We are simply not going to go out and
do it unless all of these things do in fact transpire. 1
Councilman Workman: But isn't this outlot important enough for us to buy it
now, regardless of whether Target happens? 1
Don Ashworth: As an HRA member I would tell you, yes. I think you should vote
and go ahead and purchase it in any case, but.
Mayor Chmiel: Only because we do want to protect that particular area. 11
Don Ashworth: Right. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than having 6 things in there, maybe we'll only want 2.
Councilman Workman: But that's why I'm confused. Because now we're talking 1
about February. And the road's changing again a little bit. Not to mention Mr.
James' dilemma. I don't know, maybe we should have scheduled this for after the
Target discussion. But you know, it seems like we need to get on with this and
it's not...
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Agreed. Ursula. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I share a confusion too because we've got the
proposed Target development as our next item and yet you're saying that the
Outlot is really crucial to this. And yet we're talking about February -March
next year for the outlot and we're talking about the proposed Target development
tonight. Something doesn't quite match up here. How are the negotiations going
with the Target development and the HRA? 1
Don Ashworth: The HRA will be meeting this next Monday night. The attorneys
will be present and unless something has occurred here on either Friday or
Monday that I'm not aware of, agreement was reached as to that contract and that
is being finalized by John Dean and your attorney as we're talking and you do
not anticipate anything being presented Monday night that's going to be
different? And you feel comfortable at this point that Target and the City have
reached agreement?
Dick Brooks: Yeah. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but the outiot is not a part of this agreement as I
noticed there was a change in the grading plans so the outiot as of this point
has been taken out of that, this agreement here.
Don Ashworth: The outiot was taken out of the grading only because there would
be a delay on the closing. Target wanted to be able to control their piece but
again we'll allow Mr. Brooks to speak on this issue. If he has any thoughts
1
35
11
City -
y Council Meeting Oct ;r 26, 1992
that the City will not acquire Outlot B, well if you would make the statement.
Will it happen or not?
Dick Brooks: I'm Dick Brooks, Director of Real Estate for Target. First time
I've been out here at this Council meeting and if I had known it was such a
comedy hour, I would have been out here sooner. Between Abbott and Costello
here, I think you get all the entertainment that you need. It's always been our
understanding, and it was sold to the company, that the City would own Outlot B.
That's the way it's been since we started this project. It's the confidence
that we have in the city owning Outlot 8, which is our window and the company
did not feel like putting the millions and millions of dollars in this project
without having the confidence in the people that own the property in front of
us. So at this point that's what the company feels it's getting and I do not
think that they would continue on with the project if we knew that was not the
case.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: So why isn't the City buying it now?
Mayor Chmiel: ...always discussed at the time that the City was going to own
that outlot. As far as I know. As far as I remember.
11 Councilman Wing: If that Outlot 8 is tied to Target and we own it, then what
are our restrictions on the use of Outlot 8? There must be some then.
11 Kate Aanenson: It's included in the PUD.
Councilman Wing: Which is just, is it mainly they're worried about we're not
going to come in and cut off their view? It sort of boils down to their
thinking, if there's an agreement of what we're going to do and not do with that
outlot which is in their best interest versus the current owner.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if you remember one time it showed 6 different kinds of
things located on Outlot B. We only wanted 2. We wanted this for that
protection. And also the congestion in that particular area.
Councilman Wing: Which is being driven by us and not Target. That's our
choice.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Correct.
Don Ashworth: If I may respond on the financing issue. The initial position,
initial discussions were such that Target wanted to develop one -half of this
parcel and Ryan wanted to develop the other part of it. The City was solely a
facilitater and acting in terms of providing certain incentives to each of the
two parties but primarily they would be present at the time of closing to pay
their share of the properties. The Target proposal has continued on solid
foundation and they wish to proceed. The Ryan part of the development, they
1 have the full intent and desire to carry forward with that part of the property.
But until it can go through Planning Commission and...lots and uses and what
not, they are not ready to close. That is the reason that we discussed the City
purchasing that part of the property. At issue is to effectuate that and to be
36
City Council Meetins October 26, 1992
able to sell the bonds for acquisition of that property. You needed to amend 1
our redevelopment plan. That has nothing to do with how much coney the City
does or doesn't have. That has to deal with State Statutue and the steps that
you're required to carry to go through if you're going to amend the
redevelopment plan. We instructed our attorneys to draft that document. In
fact the HRA will see that this next Monday night but that must go to the School
District. It must go to the County. There must be the public hearings and then
you can start the bonding process and that is the only reason that it's going to
the February or March timeframe that we had eluded to. And it was our belief
through the property owners' representatives, that that was acceptable. And I
hope that that is a true statement but hearing some of the things tonight, I
don't know if that's totally true.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, my motion this evening I think separates the two
owners out from this a little bit and I think we've gone to our experts and the
question tonight before us is traffic access, traffic flow on West 78th Street
and servicing those properties in a fair, reasonable an equitable manner. I
think we've reached that after a year and a half. Although there's some
injustices on both sides, I think the motion is good and I'll call it at this
time. Can I do that?
Mayor Chmiel: Call the question?
Councilman Wing: Call the question. 1
Councilman Workman: That configuration?
Mayor Chmiel: That existing configuration. With a right -in and a right -out at
Charlie James. At the first farthest to the west on 78th Street.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor if I nay. I don't feel like I'm ready to vote
on this. I don't think I have enough information. I think there's too many
things up in the air here between all the parties and so I will abstain from
voting. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a right -in /right -out 1
access approximately 300 feet east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) for the
James property to the north, locating a mid-block traffic signal at the common
access to the Target site, Outlot B and Lots 3 and 4 of the James property to
the north, a future aid -block traffic signal may also be necessary at the gain
drive entrance to the Target site, and preliminary assessment roll with the
deletion of assessment for the aid -block traffic signal. All voted in favor
except Councilwoman Dialer who abstained and the motion carried.
PROPOSED TARGET DEVELOPMENT. WEST 78TH STREET:
1 , (c) A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT REZONING PROPERTY FOR BG. GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD.
\ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A TARGET STORE. FINAL READING.
1
B. APPROVAL OF THE PUD AGREEMENT.
37 1
1
City Council Meeting - Or:tober 12, 1992
1. Grading in the bluff impact zone shall be limited to the area of the knoll
located above the 906' elevation. No other grading shall be permitted in
this area. Plans shall be revised accordingly.
2. Grading plans shall be designed to ensure sheet drainage along the bluff.
3. Only selective tree removal in the bluff area needed to provide.a view shall
1 be allowed.
4. Type III erosion control shall be installed and maintained.
All voted in favor and the •otion carried.
f1^1o'\S CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT 92 -3;
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED FROM 9/28/92); AND
AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RIGHT -OF -WAY.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Following the last hearing,
staff, the project engineer, the adjacent land owners and representatives for
the Target site met for a rather lengthy meeting to discuss some of the
outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. Basically all parties left the
meeting with full acceptance and concurrence of the alignment that is being
proposed. The only real outstanding issues, if you will, associated with the
project from a property owner or development standpoint are the issue related to
locating accesses which are more or less a design detail type element which for
all intensive purposes could be resolved during the preparation of plans for the
project. Then some other, one of the other issues is related to outlining how
1 the assessment methodology is going to be handled. At this point it is staff's
reconmrendation that we proceed with ordering of the project and associated
improvements with the defined revised alignment and allow for a discussion on
access locations and assessment methodology to occur at a future meeting. At
such time that all adjacent landowners and effected property owners could be
available to attend that meeting for discussion. We have our project consultant
engineer here with us tonight. Jim, do you care to add anything to the
1 presentation tonight?
Jim Dvorak: I guess only that I'd be happy to answer any questions that any of
' the Council members or staff may have regarding the revised report. The numbers
and how any of those were determined. And then any of the improvements that
are proposed...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I just had one question. If we had tabled the other
segment of item number 8, does this really need discussion right now? We don't
know if it's really necessary for us to proceed.
Charles Folch: Well from a timing standpoint, it certainly would be beneficial
to sort of get ahead of the game if you will and ahead of the development
1 program as it relates to grading and their contracts and such. You'll notice in
the manager's comments that the recommendation tonight is a contingent type
approval given that the associated HRA and city development contracts are
executed. It's advantageous from the timing standpoint to make the approvals
11 tonight. I'm not sure what impacts it would have to the development if it did
not proceed tonight. It doesn't look like there's a representative from RLK
13
1
City Council Meeting - Oc$n& 12, 1992 1
here tonight to answer that question. 1
Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor. When we had the meeting with the owners,
everyone was in agreement we should move ahead with the project, even knowing
that there was some stalmate positions as it dealt with HRA, potential
assistance over to Target. The primary issue is, they do not like what is
referred to as the pay as you go form of assistance. That's basically-the only
type we've used. And so they're kind of remeeting with their groups to see if
they understand this and how it works. Again they, as of a week ago, two weeks
ago, wanted to see this onto this agenda. Charlie James still wanted to come in
and talk about potential median cuts and the method of assessment on the 26th.
Then today we received the call asking that Target be deleted as a part of the
development proposal process. We're simply believing that they have not
resolved internally some of these other differences and that's the reason that
they asked to have that one pulled. And this item will be back on the 28th to
resolve some of those smaller items. I think this is probably the third or
fourth meeting we've had the engineer. The only benefit I can see is, Charlie
James was quite adamant about wanting to see the City get on with the process.
If we were going to condemn his property, get it started. I guess that was one
of the points he continued to make and he put in writing. That would probably
be the only thing that would be slowed down if we tabled action for 2 weeks. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there any discussion? Richard.
Councilman Ming: The word contingent makes this safe for me. Is there any 1
chance that if Target did not come through that we would go with the old
alignment? I mean is the new alignment an agreed upon, done deal? Is there any
discussion there anymore? 1
Don Ashworth: Well it's agreed upon. All parties are in agreement but it's
really contingent on Target being in there. I would say if Target would
disappear, you'd look to, each of the intersection points have been defined
based on traffic volumes anticipated to go in and out of Target. You probably
wouldn't do those in exactly the same fashion if they're not going to be there.
You surely wouldn't put a traffic signal to gain access to a pumpkin field,
right?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I think you should. ,
Councilman Wing: Access isn't the concern. I'm only talking about alignment.
Whether it goes north or it goes, takes the curve out and goes south. Does that
alignment make a difference?
Don Ashworth: I would say then that it would move back to the old alignment.
Councilman Wing: Which may be better for overall development at some point?
Don Ashworth: The current plan is solely driven by the desire of Target and
their beliefs that it would be cheaper and better for them if the road was moved
120 feet to the south.
Councilman Wing: But Charlie James isn't here. 1
14
1
City Council Meeting - nrtober 12, 1992
Don Ashworth: I should note that the project consists of both the improvements
in the existing town section that includes the signals and activation systems
asFociated with the Fire Department as well as the westerly portion of the
project. We have had those two hooked together, split apart, hooked together,
split apart several times over the course of the last 2 to 3 years. Depending
on how long this goes before a decision is reached by Target as to whether or
not they are going to build 'or not build, we're going to have to detach them
again and start the efforts again back with the existing, because there's a
I number of improvements that need to be made to the existing part of town.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think that whether Target's going to build or not build,
Target's got a lot of money tied into it right now and I don't see them trying
to walk away from it except I'm not sure what they're really looking for yet.
Councilman Wing: Is it possible that road, if some circumstance could in fact
' go further north or even further south if different scenarios came in? Or is
the new alignment the one that you want? That you need. Is there a question on
the alignment? I mean why now go with the new alignment. Get it done. It's
' in, and you develop accordingly.
Mayor Chmiel: Well if Target doesn't go there, somebody else will. There's no
' question.
Councilman Wing: Okay, but is this alignment better than the northerly
alignment and is this the alignment we prefer regardless of who goes where and
4 hen?
Mayer Chmiel: This is just accommodating Target with this particular alignment
1 at this particular time because before, as Charlie James indicated, there were
things that were tied in back when he had drafted his proposal for the City and
agreed to by the City. And now with the changes that we're looking at, I think
by moving it to the south portion it would have tendencies, at least in my
' opinion, be the right location for whatever ultimate might develop from now,
amen.
Councilman Wing: Well that's where I wound up with after all the discussion.
Irrespective of who goes where, when or how, this new alignment is really a
better choice and we ought to just go with it and get it done once and for all.
' Mayor Chmiel: Because thereto, the alignment in itself for going across with
the north service road is more in line to where we want it than any other
location.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But yet as we're saying, we're discussing here traffic
signals and all that and that would certainly all change.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well the traffic signals might just go by the wayside, depending
on what would go in there at that particular time.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So, but we're going to approve preparation of plans and
specifications here without really knowing about number 8.
1 Mayor Chmiel: That can always be dropped.
1 15
City Council Meeting - Octoher 12, 1992 1
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm kind of uncomfortable with doing. I was comfortable
with doing it before, having Target there. And Mr. James having a written
agreement that he could still get his things in next time we meet. However,
with both parties both out, I feel a little uncomfortable approving anything
until we come more together.
Charles Folch: I think Don makes a real good comment from the standpoint that
if Target does not go in, at the very least it eliminates the need for at least '
a mid -block signal. We can certainly go ahead preparing plans under the
assumption that some sort of major retail development is likely going to site
either on James or Burdick's property. Each are pretty well laid out and
they're conducive for that. If for some reason that does not appear likely to
occur in the next 3 to 5 years, it's hard to tell, then maybe at the point in
time when you approve plans and specs there could be some changes made but
there's also some advantage to getting in ahead of the game with these
improvements before you reaily'have these major retail developments generating
the traffic down there.
Mayor Chmiel: We may get a Macy's or someone like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mega Mall. Okay, but we're talking about 4 lanes there
and you're saying that has to be regardless of what comes in there?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, right. Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And I did want to discuss the median. The
landscaping in the median because the comments I've heard from the public here,
they love the way the east side looks but they don't want us to continue that
because of the visibility problems that we're having. So we might want to 90
without any landscaping in the medians on the west side. Or at least not that
much or different types. Lower vegetation.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. You're right. The first ones that went in they put
way too much. Ask me, I'll tell you all about that...but anyway, that's true
but I still think that some greenery is going to be needed within and make sure
that the visibility is there from a sight lines be taken from cars and so on.
Making sure that the visibility is good.
Councilman Workman: Ursula, are you saying don't do anything until we know? i
Councilwoman Oimler: Well we've got two pieces of the puzzle missing right now.
I was comfortable with one piece missing. I could kind of picture it and yet
with two pieces missing, I'm a little uncomfortable.
Councilman Mason: Charlie's okay with this though. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but it wasn't his first choice.
Councilman Workman: But didn't we already have plans and specifications from
before?
16 1
City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992
' Charles Folch: Two sets as a matter of fact.
Councilman Workman: I mean we're not, our track record isn't, this is the
corner from hell.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well what's wrong with the old alignment then? If that's
what Charlie James...
' Councilman Mason: The thing about moving ahead tonight is, is we do get to lay
some groundwork and I share Ursula's concern about authorizing some things that
we're going to say wait a minute. We don't want this stuff. Now I'm hearing
you're saying that's not an issue because we can always renig. Not renig but
there are plans. We can change them if we want to. The nice thing I see about
moving the road south some is we get a real nice landscaped area in that corner
that we would not get if we didn't. And my understanding from the letter we all
got from Mr. James and what not is that he is okay with this proposal. So I
guess I'm in agreement with what the Mayor is saying. Even if we don't get a
Target in here, it's just a matter of time that we get somebody else and we're
going to be probably have that amount of traffic anyway.
Councilman Wing: I'm interested in just getting the alignment decided on and
' that portion done and the rest is all contingent. Nothing's going to happen.
All I'm really saying personally is the alignment tonight. I'm saying let's go
with the south and get it done.
' Charles Folch: And as Charlie points out in his letter that you have in your
packet, he just wants to know where the alignment is going to be so he can
' market his property. Right now he can't do anything with it.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's true, but he did say something about the parcel
that's going to maybe have long term effects that the City is not taking in
' condemnation that might be useless to him. With the new alignment. Does
anybody recall that?
' Councilman Wing: It gives him his land back is what happens.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it does. A certain amount of land. Plus at least knowing
where it's going to be and that's what he's looking for the condemnation for. I
' don't recall that part of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's see. Where was that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Item 2, fair and reasonable access to my property. I am told by
SRF that the right of way and alignment will accommodate almost any plan so the
' Council can approve the alignment on the 12th without committing the issue of
access to the James property. I would ask that we resolve this matter as it
pertains to the James access only on October 26th when I can be present to
answer your questions.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and that can still be done even if we approve the
alignment tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
1 17
1
City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992
Councilman Workman: If we took the plans for this part of the road, I was
talking to Charles this weekend. We had a good little hoot about this. If you
take the plans and kind of did them cartoon like that, it looks like a dog's
tail wagging. These plans go back and forth. The only thing I'm concerned
about is that authorizing preparation of plans and specifications tells me that
we're going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I have changed my side because I thought the north one would
have been better before but until I've seen that the south one would do in
comparison, it clearly to me is a better way to go.
Councilman Workman: So moved. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Oh that specific, alright. 1
Councilman Workman: Engineer's recommendation.
Councilman Wing: Okay with the condemnation proceedings which is an issue with
JameE.
Mayor Chmiel: It's all part of the agreement that came with that. ,
Councilman Wing: Second. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution X92 -117: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to ,
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the West 78th Street
Detachment Project No. 92 -3 (formerly Project No. 87 -2) and initiate the
condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of the needed right -of -way through
the James property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FROM MONTEREY DRIVE TO KERBER BOULEVARD. B.C.
BURDICK.
Todd Gerhardt gave the staff presentation on this item which was not picked up
on the microphone. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Just one question. In connecting Monterey to Kerber, does that
mean that we will widen Monterey to meet Kerber from one end to the other? From
the east line to the west line or are we going to move that in entirety? And I
can't remember, is there a curb cut going in there right now on Monterey?
Todd Gerhardt: No, the curb lines will be readjusted. '
Councilman Wing: I'll so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
18 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
II
for the last two. As long as we continue to get the funds, we're happy to
continue working with them.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that discussion, a motions on the floor with a first and
a second.
Councilman Workman: I don't think there was a first and a second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we called to close it. We closed it. We've already gone
through that. We are now in process and I asked for a motion. There was a
first and a second and you had comments to make.
' Councilman Workman: Okay, I'll buy that.
Resolution 892 -111: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
adopt the resolution reallocating Year XVII Community Development Block Grant
funds. All voted in favor and the lotion carried.
Ls
�
II - PUBLIC HEARING: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT 92 -3; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION
C OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Hearing:
Name Address
' Jim Dvorak Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch
B.C. "Jim" Brigitte Burdick 4930 Meadville, Excelsior
Charlie James T.F. James Company
Dick Koppy RLK Associates
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your regular meeting on
March 9th of this year a public hearing was held concerning the supplement
report to the feasibility study for the West 78th Street detachment project. At
that hearing, it became obvious that there was still some concerns between the
adjacent property owners concerning access locations and control. Therefore, we
decided to continue the public hearing until such time as these outstanding
issues could be resolved. During that time process that followed, staff became
aware that Target was interested in developing on a site adjacent to the
detachment roadway. Due to potential major impacts that a retail development
such as this would have on the roadway, staff concluded that it would be in the
best interest to delay completing this feasibility study until Target had
officially chosen a site location and submitted conceptual site plans for city
review. These submittals have since transpired and at the last meeting on
September 14th, conceptual PUD approval was given for the Target site plan and
tonight, later on in the agenda, further approval processes are scheduled for
the Target proposal. A number of meetings have occurred between staff and the
Target people and Charlie James, the property to the north of the detachment, to
acquire information and input on their concerns related to design and other
aspects of the project and staff and the consultant have attempted to
incorporate these relevant concerns into this revised project proposal. Tonight
we have our project consultant engineer, Jim Dvorak here to give you a
presentation on this current edition of the project. I think he's passed out
1
4
City Council Meeting - , ptember 28, 1992 '
some revised information concerning the project cost, preliminary assessment
roll, and some figures. Jim.
Jim Dvorak: A good portion of the work that's been done to date on this project
concerns the area between Powers Boulevard and Kerber. As the original study
that we brought to you in March, basically changed the design done in 1987 to a
5 lane section with left turn lanes and medians. This is really an extension of
that based on some of the input we've received from the Target development,
which is supposed to be about in this site. Kerber would be over just off to
the east of the graphic here. Quite a bit of discussion has taken place to date
on all the various entrance locations and number of accesses and where our
signals and such should go. We are basically standing with what we had... we
have shown here a schematic where we have one what we're calling a full access
or main entrance road that would serve both the north parcel and the south
parcel. At that point we are now proposing this south signal. That signal was
not part of the original... The other driveways that are shown reflect what was
proposed on the Target site plan in this location and then a couple of drive
locations to the north that say or may not be used to serve the James parcel.
Along with this, this is a schematic of Powers Boulevard, north and south. This
is actually like north is up then. West 78th in this location, TH 5 here and
then a future frontage road off to the west. MnDot was reconstructing Highway 5
this last construction season and the original plan was to have MnDot
reconstruct Powers Boulevard to approximately this location. Because of the
delay in this project, West 78th currently is hitting at just about this point.
They could not do that construction so that has now become part of this project.
So this project really encompasses all of Powers Boulevard from Highway 5 to the
north to this touchdown. Here again you can see the medians. Channelization.
Minimum of 5 lane sections. Turn lanes divided and that type of thing. I
guess I would also like to point out that all the amenities and types of
improvements that were initially expected to take place with the project are
still in the numbers that we present. In other words, the lighting and the
landscaping, sidewalks, and those types of things. Signal systems, they're all
still in the project and in the dollar values I'm going to present: In addition
to the project proposed west of Kerber, there are some modifications that are
also being...to the east along with several signal systems to promote traffic
flow throughout the city's downtown area. There are some turn lane work that is
proposed between Kerber and Laredo on the north side and between Kerber
and Market on the south side. There's some widening and nose reconstruction to 11 allow for thru turns and to facilitate turns and those types of things. It also
would allow to get the radius back where they need to be developed in the
sections so that we have the signal systems properly placed so we don't have to
go back and revise those in the future when the ultimate width is constructed.
Work at the east end of town at Great Plains and West 78th, revising that
intersection. There's a clock tower and some median work extending the turn
lane and such. The costs of everything I've been talking about is approximately
S2.3 million. Slightly higher from the original study I believe was about $1.9
or closer to S2 million dollars. The added cost is, number one in the extra
work encompassing Powers now. Number two, the signal at the entrance.
And thirdly, a little bit more lane width work that proposed on West
78th and that area. This $2.3 million is only for Kerber, or•West between
Powers and Kerber and Powers Boulevard. The work that is comprehended from
Kerber to the east has been kind of putting a footnote here on the bottom.
5784,000.00. That is for the remaining signal system, interconnect some of the
5 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
' work that has been - requested as far your receiving a pre - emption and
controlling traffic signals at City Hall. We've kind of also threw out, because
really the assessments for the project are dealt with in the numbers up above in
the $2.3 million and the - $784,-000.00 for that other work is comprehended to come
' out of some type of general .obligation funds. I have then a revised assessment
table or project financing table. The proposed street assessments have been
computed now to approximately $180.00 per front foot. That is the assessment
for grading, paving, sidewalks, and that type of work. We have not included the
signals, the landscaping or the lighting system in that street assessment. With
that then we have storm drainage assessments. Sanitary sewer and water will be
totally assessed so we're looking at approximately $884,000.00 being assessed.
$1.4 million being then general obligation amount from the city for a total of
$2.3 million. Here again the $784,000.00 for the work between Kerber and Great
Plains will be considered to be part of the general obligation amount. There
' has also been included in the revised table, an updated assessment roll. You
probably can't read this it's so small. I guess I have extra copies of the
feasibility for anybody who needs it. Just see me and I can get you that.
1 Basically this breaks out how the store drainage, sanitary sewer, watermain,
street assessments are proposed. There's one other item to note here. The
signal at the Target entrance and the James parcel to the north and that signal
is mainly there to adequate serve the proposed development. Based on that we
' felt, along with staff that it was fair to assess that signal to the properties
to the north and the south and that assessment has been made on a square foot
basis for each one of those parcels. With that then I'd be happy to answer any
' questions anyone has or...
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, just one question that I have. You're talking about general
' obligation. That really is not general obligation. It comes out of HRA funding
so it's two different things. If it were that, then we'd have concerned
citizens coming after us with a particular amount. Those are dollars that are
through the TIF district.
Jim Dvorak: So they're all funded and set aside through the tax increment
financing?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's correct.
Councilman Wing: Could Don Ashworth, or either one, the $784,000.00 then for
' the east portion, that does not include any proposed widening or the yellow zone
you showed us the other night at HRA?
Don Ashworth: Yes it does.
Councilman Wing: It does.
Jim Dvorak: It does. That includes all the widening from what we're calling the
first phase or what, through meetings with staff and the Public Safety folks,
what we thought was needed to adequately serve the downtown area today. It also
' moves the curb back, as I said before, at the intersection so signals could be
properly placed today so they won't have to be moved in the future when all the
widening is done.
1
r 6
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 ,
Charles Folch: Figures 3 and 4 show the proposed improvements east of Market
Boulevard as far as the widening, the median treatments and such.
Mayor Chmiel: What does that do to the center median in itself? Anything
presently with our existing lighting and trees and everything else that we've
put in there?
Jim Dvorak: Most of the widening has been accomplished on the outside. 1
Mayor Chmiel: The outer limits of the curb portion.
Councilman Wing: Show me the widening. That's where I'm getting lost...
Jim Dvorak: If you look on your figure, or up here, there's a dashed line
that's on the inside of the heavy black lines. The heavy solid line is what we
are proposing today or where the curb line would end today. So some areas are
being widened. Some are being left alone and only say the intersection noses
are being pulled back to allow for turns and that type of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: What is the total number of feet that that's going to be moved
back? ,
Jim Dvorak: It varies. We proposed to, you have about 16 or 18 feet there
today. We need 28 feet for two lanes so we're talking somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 or 12 feet in width. Obviously there's some landscaping
items that will have to be dealt with. Possibly some sidewalks, hydrants,
street lighting, that type of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We'll go out first to see if there's anyone
• here at this particular time that would like to address this issue. This is a
public hearing. Jim, if you'd like to come forward. Please just state your ,
name and your address.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. `Jim" Burdick. I'm from Excelsior. I just saw this
report about 10 or 15 minutes ago and I think it'd be very nice if they'd send
us one ahead of time. That's number one, and then we could come a little better
prepared. And the first thing that concerns me is that 35% for legal and
administration and fiscal. That seems awfully high and I hope that you elected
officials would take a hard look at that. I've never seen one that high but
I haven't seen as many...but I know originally it was 20%, the figure in there
and at that time the Council questioned it very thoroughly. Why there needed to
be 20% for those items. In other a third of it for the legal and
administration to me seems, it just doesn't sake sense almost. Secondly, the
drawing here, to me at least isn't very clear. I guess don't want to use the
word not professional but not very clear and difficult to understand. This
scale and all and I think a study should be made of much better drawing and a
study should be made of it by you folks and by the City Engineer and others.
And the third item is on the assessments here. It seems kind of strange. I have
a number of lots here that only...down here, - for some reason are assessed about
650,000.00 so I'd like to object to that on a temporary basis. I don't "lean
1 can't meet with whoever made these decisions and iron it out but it just kind
of, S50,000.00 coming down from Heaven or some other place. And it's kind of
strange Burdick Park 2nd Addition isn't assessed a bit there. One time we'd
7 . 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 •
agreed to have Lots 3, 4 and 5. -Brian had in Burdick Park 2nd Addition assessed
and now Lots 3, 4, and 5 are not assessed in Burdick Paris 2nd Addition.
I assume that this is Burdick Park. That's means first addition and I believe
it does. And I believe those are the four things I had and I can most certainly
get together with the engineers next week. Not this week. Perhaps you've heard
' that hunting season is open and if there's any questions of me, I'd be glad to,
or any comments while I'm standing up here.
Mayor Chmiel: Can you be reached by portable phone when you're hunting Jim?
B.C. 'Jim" Burdick: Yes, but.
Mayor Chmiel: I want you to know that we just got this this evening as well at
the same time as you had an opportunity to take a look at this as well.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, and I thought this was a big improvement from your
administration. The agendas came out on Thursday noon instead of Friday at 4:00
and other information was submitted to the interested parties much earlier and
1 I'm not complaining about this one time Mayor Chmiel because recently it's been
very good in getting information out in a timely manner.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address us at this particular
time?
l Charlie James: I'm Charlie James, 2715 Maplewood Circle West. I guess for me
the issue of West 78th Street and Target has become something like the stations
of the cross. My cross to bear has been the ever changing plans for West 78th
Street so it's kind of whip me, beat me you know. I'm not sure what station
we're at here tonight but I can tell you this, 4 years, 3 months ago I signed a
developers agreement with the City for a plat and project that was approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council. These are the plans that went out for
' bid on that project. A complete set of architectural, mechanical, electrical
plans. These are the specifications that went out for all that we paid for.
They weren't done at city expense, for all the utility connections, sewer,
I water, everything to service our property out there. I've lent Jim, where are
you Jim? I lent Jim a pile of stuff about 6 inches high of all the stuff we had
about the grading plans and the soil tests and this is what I have left over in
my file. These are all reports and borings and field reports and bills for all
the grading that we did out there. Part of that grading was done to prepare the
lot that we have out there that will be obliterated by this alignment and part
of that grading was done pursuant to our developers agreement with the city to
dig out 16 feet of dirt along that right -of -way and build the sub -base to MnOot
specifications. To the best of my recollection, I sought no variances or
special treatment at that time. I donated the right -of -way for West 78th Street
as this was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. And the City agreed to
build the street in the developers agreement that I signed with the City. That
development agreement 4 years and 3 months ago provided for four full access
points on West 78th. The plat was drawn to center my lot lines on shared
' driveways. We have before us tonight yet another set of plans with a new
M 8
City Council Meeting September 28, 1992 ,
alignment proposed as recently as September 5th by Ryan and then revised just
last week by Strgar and I think Jim, that's why we didn't get this information
because everybody's been humping to get this done for the Target thing and I
just got my feasibility thing today and also today was the first time I saw the
plans that are being proposed here tonight. I guess gentlemen, we must resolve
this issue. I can't take another month or another year of uncertainty. For
over 4 years I've been prevented from marketing my land because I don't have
access to a public road for 3 of my lots. I don't care at this point whether we
use the existing alignment or that presented tonight by Strgar. All I ask is
four things. Number one. I want a fair price for my land that's being taken
that recognizes all of my plans, my costs, my engineering, the grading work that
was done, the soil work that was done, soil testing, the engineering. Number
two. I want adequate access to my remaining land that is no less than that
provided in our development agreement that was signed over 4 years ago with the
City. At that point in time BRW did a plan and you can see here, the orange, or
purple I guess lines here represent the lot lines that were prepared in our plat
and the yellow represents driveway locations that were agreed upon at that time
where the two lots are sharing driveways. Number three. I think there should ,
be, and I want a fair assessment apportionment that recognizes that I graded the
old right -of -way. Graded my site, on top of which you're going to place this
road if this alignment goes. And I would also like the assessments to abide by
the development agreement as to the burden that I would bear. There was very
specific language in that development agreement as to what my costs would be
because of the money that I had expended out here. The fourth thing that I
would like is an expeditious condemnation. Basically for the last 4 years I
guess I've been living under, for-lack of better words, what I'd call an inverse
condemnation. Where the uncertainty leaves me unable to market my land. I'd
like it to be part of the public record tonight that if you adopt this '
feasibility study, that the clock will start to tick on the notice period for
condemnation so that I'm not left twisting out in the wind on this thing. I
don't want to hold up the Target project but I don't think we should just
approve that and then let this thing just go for a longer period of time. With
regard to tonight's feasibility study, I'd like to note that 1987 I was to pay
$333, it was proposed that I would pay $333,000.00 and those numbers at that
time did not reflect what was in the developers agreement. In 1987 that was
updated. In February of this year, Strgar came up with $372,000.00 as my share
and tonight, based on the information I received earlier today, it's being
proposed that I would pay *466,845.00. I guess when I look at this drawing of
tonight's feasibility study, I guess the first thing that I'd like to point out,
and I've colored this up here. This is a large scale drawing that Jim was good
enough to give me this morning. After staff had had a chance to look at it and
I added the color here, and the pink represents my original plat lines and the
pink here represents the lot on which we had approval to build a shopping
center. And this shows some additional right -of -way here that with this
alignment will be taken off of Lot 4. Uhat concern is here is that my
developers agreement and my understanding with the city had always provided for
a full turn movement 300 feet back that would be centered on these lots. And
that isn't the case here. •I note that there's enough width in the right -of -way
to provide that so I'd very much request that of the Council tonight that they I/
would make that part of this feasibility report. The other thing is, I noticed
here that this distance here is 320 feet and this driveway location here has
been moved. Under the plans that were presented by Ryan on the 5th of
September, the driveway going into Target's northwest corner is that shown in
9 1
II City Council Meeting - 5- ^tember 28, 1992
I blue and their west property line corresponded with this to the edge of this
blue area here. I tried to draw,that in as close as I could. I guess what
happens for me is that somehow, in all the original plans through this process,
I this driveway aligned with my lot here and the idea was that these two lots
would share a driveway. Now this has been moved today about 80 feet to the west
with the results that I get a full turn driveway movement into the center of a
II lot. The lack of a full turn iovement here combined with this is going to
number one, place an undue financial burden on me because I'll be forced to
develop some sort of frontage road system in here that wasn't originally
contemplated. I won't have direct access to some of these lots and if we had
II moved this to where I'm suggesting it was originally here, you'd have a 320 foot
spacing here. 320 foot spacing here, if it was located back to where it was
originally and 320 foot spacing to this point. So by moving the stop light
I approximately 85 feet east back to where it was, we'd have 320, 320, 320 foot
spacings. In reviewing these assessments here tonight I noticed that they're up
over 40% since we started this process. The street has gone from $92.00 to
$180.00. Storm drainage has gone from 5 cents then to 7.7, now to 8.8. The
I watermain has gone from $24.00. Then to $25.11. Now to $29.00. The sanitary
sewer has gone from $16.91 to $26.19 to $28 I think that's .66. Is that right
Jim? So the way the assessments are proposed here and considering what's being
11 done to my property, the closest analogy that I can draw for you folks on the
Council is, this is the equivalent of making me pay for the ammunition for my
own assassination. I think this is kind of cruel and unusual punishment. I
I thjnk that the assessments should recognize number one, the development
agreement costs. Or the costs as they were outlined in my development agreement
with the city. They should recognize the cost of the fill in the new right -of-
way and in the old right -of -way that I placed. And they should recognize the
II extra cost that I'm going to incur because the street is being proposed to be
lowered by Ryan to a grade lower than that contemplated by BRW and that will
force us into some extra grading and retaining wall situations. I guess I've ,
II given you a lot of information here. I guess I'd just like to summarize four
points if I could that maybe you might think about in making a motion about this
tonight. As I said, I guess I'm resigned to whichever way this thing is going
II to go but I'd ask you to consider four things. Fair price for my land that
recognizes all the costs that I've enumerated. And again, adequate access to my
remaining land to the north. And I think if we can move, if I could have some
time to work with Strgar, and they've been just terrific to work with, but every
II time you think you have an agreement with them, then someone else down the thing
changes it around so you never know. It's like hitting a moving target
constantly on this thing. 8ut if we could space those entrances out at 320
I feet, I'd like to restore that full turning movement into my property onto the
north so I'm not forced into a frontage road or other types of situations and
with all those attendant costs. And so that we're also in conformity with the
developers agreement and the understanding that I had with the city 4 years ago.
II And as I just stated, on the number 3 was a fair assessment apportionment. I
don't expect that to be accomplished this evening but I'm raising it for the
record this evening. And then number 4, the issue of an expeditious
II condemnation here. Without any of this gentlemen I'm being asked to pay almost
half a million dollars for plans that I feel diminish my property. I support
the Target project and my philosophy on this has been, go along to get along or
II get along to go along or whatever the expression is but now we've kind of come
down to the wire here and everybody's been working real hard to meet their time
table and to get this thing approved and Is afraid that I'm kind of coming up
II 10
II
City Council Meeting - eeptember 28, 1992
short here. I guess in summary, I want to be careful how I phrase this because
it's a public meeting but. In summary I'd say, I don't mind being relunctant
but necessary participant in a fornication, and I don't mind the sweet lies
whispered in my ear. I'd just like to be kissed a little bit along the way.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else at this particular time?
Dick Koppy: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I's representing Target and Ryan
tonight on this West 78th Street alignment.
Mayor Chmiel: Will you give your name please.
Dick Koppy: My name is Dick Koppy. I'm with RLK Associates. I have three
basic items to comment upon. Before I sake those comments I'd just like to say
that Target and Ryan are in favor of this roadway change that you're looking at
tonight with some comments. I think part of the problem we hear in this
chambers tonight is probably a little bit related to the tight timelines we've
had on this project, particularly today I know Mr. Burdick mentioning he just
saw the report before the meeting. We in fact looked at the report this
afternoon and the feasibility cost estimates for the first time. So there is
some tight time decisions that are guiding what's happening tonight. I don't
think that's the City's fault or problem in terms of how this came about. We
would like to see the project continue and register a few comments or concerns
that could be worked out as you go into final design on West 78th Street. The
developer Ryan, in concert with Target first suggested the realignment of West
78th Street back in late August, early September. In fact on September 9th we
made a new submittal, a revised submittal to the City that had the realignment
shifted about 120 -125 feet from what I call the BRW plan. One of our first
concerns, it's a little hard to see on the sketch on the screen but one of our
first concerns is the roadway alignment that we submitted on September 9th is
not what you see on the screen. The alignment has been skewed into what we call
Outlot B to a degree where you now, instead of having 5.2 acres of developable
land in Outlot 8, we're down to 4.5 acres. 5o we've lost about 3/4 of an acre
by sliding the road down further. If you'd like to look at a schematic that we
put together, we can show you the difference and how that happened but I think
as I look at it, SRF has tried to straighten the roadway out so that you take
out just about all of the curvature and that's caused the roadway to be moved
further into Outlot 8. That's a concern. That doesn't mean that this alignment
won't work but it's a concern of ours because Outlot B is getting smaller. So
that's concern number one. Number two concerns the access that you look at for
Outlot 8 and Target. Target and Ryan together agree to move the signal. To
move the traffic signal that will be placed with the West 78th Street project
from the entrance right in front of the Target store to the entrance that you
see now on the sketch in the center of the Target entrance and Powers Boulevard.
Jim maybe you could just point to where I'm referring to so the Council members
know. Okay. We've agreed, Target and Ryan has agreed to move the signal to
that point from the Target location where previously it was planned to be
located. They did this because they felt it would help the overall development
of property on the south side of West 78th Street and also on the north side of
west 78th Street. They also felt it would help access conditions for Outlot 8.
One of the access conditions for Outlot B that has been in all of our submittals
is a free right turn in and out from West 78th Street for Outlot 8. That has
11 1
City Council Meeting - Sep"mber 28, 1992
•
been omitted from the plan you see on the screen and Ryan would like to be on
record as indicating they feel that that right turn in and out is very important
for the development of those lots on Outlot B. We don't understand the reason
from a traffic engineering standpoint that that free right in and out would be a
problem. There are several ways of looking at that and handling it if it does
appear to be a traffic problem. For example, adding a longer right turn lane
from the signal back and including the right turn in and out along that turn
lane. But we would like to see that looked at a little bit more thoroughly.
The third point I'd like to bring up is the assessment information. Primarily
reason Target and Ryan brought up the realignment is because they felt it would
reduce cost. It would reduce cost because of soil problems along the south side
of the former West 78th Street right -of -way. Different acquisition costs with
James. With the James property and several other reasons. But the primary
reason the alignment change was brought up was to reduce cost. In looking at
' the assessments which we received this afternoon, the assessments for the Target
property for roadway costs, just purely roadway costs, have gone from $69,475.00
to $142,200.00. Outlot B assessment cost for the roadway have gone from
'
$48,900.00 to $90,900.00. Our question is why are the costs that much higher,
if at all? We don't understand that. There may be a reason for it that can be
given to us that we could understand but I would suspect, because of the tight
time periods, we haven't had a chance to discuss that with the city staff.
Those are the three comments. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time? Seeing none, I would ask for
a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: A lot of this is becoming a little more overwhelming and I think
most of the Council feels to come up with a decision on this and I don't like
tabling things but from what I see here, there's some cost figures that are
alarming to me. From where they were to where they are now. Some of the
proposed changes that have been suggested by both parties as far as Target and
' Mr. James. The assessments too, there's some questionability on now these came
up with where they're at right now. My one suggestion is going to be to table
this item until we get some additional information. I wouldn't want to base an
opinion on this this evening at all. Just right off the top of my head. I'd
like comments from Council. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I couldn't agree more. There are certainly, the report I
' think has raised all kinds of questions that we don't have answers for tonight
and I agree with you. I think one of the problems with this has been the time
table. I think all of us have felt some pressure to get this done and I, we've
' got to live with it and we have to do it right.
Councilman Workman: I agree. You know the facts and figures that Charlie James
brings up are, he I think said them politely. I think it's certainly a good
foundation for a lawsuit that's going to cost us a lot of money. He says he
doesn't mind the alignment as long as he's treated fairly and cost and
everything else. We don't know where those costs are coming from. And we've at
least graciously had the courage to rename this project 87 -2. It used to be
92 -3. I've been looking at this for 4 years too and darn it, I'm leaving the
12
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992 '
Council the end of this year because of it so. I can't believe we're still, I
read the staff report Charles and I kept asking myself, why are we doing this
and I don't know that I really found a good answer as to why we're doing this
and causing all this new commotion when we've been trying to get this done for
so long. I'm ready to get it done but now I'm knowing tonight that we can't.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's Richard's turn to make comments.
Councilman Wing: I support tabling it but on a full agenda, as complicated as '
this is, I can't handle it and I don't think it's fair to have an agenda sit
through a process that gets bogged down like this so I'll go along with tabling
but only if we hold a special meeting where this is the sole item. And I
mention that because Target is an enormous retail center coming in. Awesome
traffic studies projected for the future. We're going to annihilate, I live in
Excelsior. I say this repeatedly because I care about downtown Chanhassen but 7
stop lights are being suggested for this small stretch of road. Right now we're
just having some traffic problems. We're talking 7 stop lights and I think the
impact of this is significant. We're talking about time lines. It was brought
up by my colleagues. I don't think we have any time lines. I think we have to
do this right. Business and government move slowly and I think they move slowly
for a reason. I don't feel bad about tabling this. There's some real impact
issues but in particular, as this goes to the next meeting, whenever this is and
again I'm requesting a special meeting, I'm real curious about the James
property and costs he's incurred. I mean I look at all this grading, this
theoretical road that's been cut through all these years. And I just sense we
have some liability there and that he's got some real legitimate complaints.
Target comes in and complains because they're losing .7 of an acre but Mr. James
was just here telling us he's losing a lot more than that over all the years so
I almost have no sympathy for Target. It's almost humorous to hear their
complaint based on the enormity of some of these other complaints we've got so
there's got to be a balance on here. People are losing some and gaining some
and I don't know who's side's on who anymore. I enjoyed your humor if nothing
else. That's about all I got out of it tonight. Well it was. It was dry,
sarcastic humor and I love it. That's what I thrive on. So I would move
tabling after your discussion Mr. Mayor. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only other discussion I'd have with that is whether
this would warrant separate additional meeting. I don't think that it would. I
think what I'd request is that we have an abundance amount of time at our next
Council agenda and have that as a lighter Council agenda to really deal with
this respective issue. My suggestion would be for each of Council to sit down
with Charles and maybe Strgar and if we need be, maybe have more than one or two
or three or maybe all four or five of us but I then would also request that the
newspaper be present so there's not a violation of an open meeting law.
Councilman Wing: One other question I'd like to be handled as part of the next
meeting, and that's as we discuss the James property, he talks about his access,
whether there's two access, three or four or six, I guess I don't know and I
don't know if that's significant to me but I'd like to take the worst scenario
use of that property, be it 7 fast food restaurants or a Wal -Mart or a Double
K -Mart, whatever the case is but what would impact that land the heaviest or
it's maximum land use and then make sure that whatever accesses we're looking at
in our time line to appease Target on the south side will in fact handle the
13 1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
north side under the worst scenario. So with it's maximum land use, does the
existing access provide Mr. James with what he needs under the worst scenario or
does he in fact need four? Can we supply him the proper access with what we're
giving him now? And I'm really questioning whether what he has currently
proposed is going to be adequate should he determine to use maximum land uses.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be that we stop in and see Charles as early
' as tomorrow, if you have time, or some specific time sake arrangements so your
concerns can be indicated and also have some discussions with Hr. Ashworth as
well. So we can come up with a conclusion to what we're really going to really
do with this phase.
1 Councilman Workman: I'll second the motion.
11 Councilman Wing moved, Councilsan Workman seconded to table the West 78th Street
Detachment Project until the next City Council seeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
' Don Ashworth: Going along with that, I heard Mr. Burdick say that he would like
to meet with the engineer and I believe that Target would as well. Those
' meetings need to occur prior to next Monday or Tuesday to ensure that we can get
the packet report out next Thursday for that Council meeting. So really any
type of meeting should hopefully occur this week, if at all possible.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: If we meet tomorrow, if it's in order at all, I'd like to
come to it...because it vitally effects me.
Mayor Chmiel: I think many of them will be coming in on an intermittent
basis. Not all at one time maybe Jim but yeah, anybody's welcome to come in and
sit in and have your discussions with Charles and sake those known back to us.
We'll get that information as well. And we've written down pretty much each of
the respective concerns that you have. You have four items and Charlie James
has four and Target has a couple others so that's what we plan on doing.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: ...tomorrow would be an excellent day for me.
Charlie James: Mr. Mayor, I want to advise the Council that I've got a whole
' series of airline tickets that have been pre - purchased that are going to have me
out traveling about the country from this coming Thursday through the 19th of
October. I'll be available to meet tomorrow and Wednesday or whenever but then
there's going to be a period of time when I'm going to be gone. I guess the
' last time I was gone is when the HRA had that seeting at the fire hall so please
don't hold a meeting without me but I guess the other thing is, the second to
last thing is, I was wondering if Mr. Knutson could comment tonight on whether
it's appropriate maybe, if this is going to be an alignment or something, that
we're looking at some sort of condemnation. Either partial or total or
whatever. Whether we can't somehow get the clock ticking on this or something.
1
1 14
1
City Council Meeting - September 28, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I think it might be a little bit premature until Council comes up
with a conclusion prior to having our attorney provides those comments. 1
Roger Knutson: Just a comment. At this point, I don't know what to condemn.
So 1 can't condemn anything.
1 '
Charlie James: Alright. Well then I guess the third thing I was going to say,
you know I'm not trying to come in here tonight with some seering indictment. I
mean this is just the way it's been. Strgar has been accommodating and Don has
given me all the time in the world to come in and rant and rave and pound on his
desk and everything and I mean basically everybody's been working real hard to
try to get something that they all think is going to be in the best interest of
the city so I'm not condemning the process or I'm not pointing a finger or
anything and I don't want to obstruct anything but I'd appreciate an opportunity
to work this out.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. When we get to a point of making a decision,
hopefully in two weeks, part of the action you will be taking will be to
authorize condemnation of any properties necessary for construction of the
roadway. So Mr. James' concern is proposed to be addressed as a part of
actually ordering the project. If and when that occurs.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR A NO PARKING ZONE ON CHOCTAW CIRCLE (CONTINUED FROM JULY
27. 1992).
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Carol Anderson 51 Choctaw Circle
Marge Kelly 100 Choctaw Circle
M. Kate Kaaz 155 Choctaw Circle
Jean Hyak 120 Choctaw Circle
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. This request for a no parking area has
been discussed at two Public Safety Commission meetings with each Public Safety
. Commissioner going out to the area to take a look at it. In seeking the least
restrictive alternative to this request, the Commission has recommended that
safety concerns regarding beachiot traffic be addressed by cutting back the
foliage to improve visibility and by erecting no parking signs by the beachiot
access area. Public Safety Commission was concerned with the fact that
apparently one of the owners of the primary lots that would be effected was
opposed to no parking signs so that the Commission felt that concerns expressed
needed to be carefully reviewed. It was the understanding of the Public Safety
Commission that in addition to the concerns about visibility to the beachiot
entrance, the other concern was the interaction between vehicles and young
people on bikes and playing in the street. It was the consensus of the Public
Safety Commission that the area's not conducive to excessive speed and that the
roadway should not be used as a play area. And that the least restrictive step
15 1
1