6. Access Location and Discussion of Assessment on West 78th Street Il , C ITYOF
6.,
1
1
IV CHANHASSEN
0 - ^= 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by Ctty Adminrlttator
eldoraed .-- A `� � .
1 MEMORANDUM Homed
injected
Dot /Q ad -9 Z
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager bete Submitted to ComrnisSltit
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer Ol (late Submitted to Coin
to - .1(0- '1 ,---
1 DATE: October 20, 1992
I SUBJ: Approval of Access Locations and Discussion of Assessments on West 78th
Street Detachment Improvement Project No. 92 -3
A t the City Council's previous meeting the revised alignment for the detachment project and
the overall scope of improvements to West 738th 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
I postponed until the Monday, October 26, 1992 Cityuncil meeting in order to allow Mr.
_
Charlie James to be present for the u a
discussions. p
I Attached are the minutes from' a 4 -hour long meeting between the City, Target, Jim
Burdick, Charlie James and RIX representing Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota
which was held on September 30, 1992 to discuss these issues. The minutes do a very good
I job of summarizing the' key points of discussion and positions held by each party on these
r
issues. On the matter of. ccess 40ArtiOlAlthe City's position continues to be one which
recommends t the westerly 440s,,r 74' to t . e intersection
1 with the proposed blic road to serve Target, Outlot B anctile common ` roperty line of
Lots 3 and 4 of West Village : ei hts. Mr. James has expressed a e� o have full access
to Lots 1 and 2 of West Village ` eights with no acCgtS,0::Qatla'S at this location. Staff
1 cannot support full access at this location from oth a safety and a fairness standpoint to
adjacent property owners. Staff would sup $ r` however, a right -in /right -out access to Lots
I 1 and 2 of West Village Heights.
At this time, only the full- access intersection to the public drive between the Target site and
I Outlot B is proposed for a mid -block traffic signal installation. In the future, depending on
traffic volumes and development of the James property to the north, a traffic signal may also
be warranted at the mid -block entrance to the Target site.
tip of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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 Council on 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 downtown improvement project back in the mid -80s
1 employing annual adjustments for the engineering news record construction cost indices.
Some testimony has been given by the affected property owners that the previously
presented feasibility study proposed a lower roadway assessment rate. The previous design
studies for this project, during theelate 80s and early 90s, were based on a completely
different roadway section. Given the location of the Target site on the Burdick property,
the potential for another major retailer on the James property and other future appurtenant
retail service- oriented development on these properties, significant revisions to the roadway
design were necessary in order to provide an adequate level of service for these intense
types of uses. Staff continues to support the assessment methodology for this project with
the exception that the cost for the mid -block traffic signal would not be assessed since traffic
signal assessments are not proposed for the Market Square grocery store development or
1 other downtown businesses.
In summary, staff does not support a full- access median cut to either the James property or
' Outlot B, approximately 300 feet east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). Staff would
support a right -in /right -out access at this location for the James property to the north. Staff
supports 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 mid -block traffic signal
may also be necessary at the main drive entrance to the Target site. Staff supports the
current preliminary 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 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
1 Jim Burdick
1
1
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933 -0972
`ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933 -1153
October 1, 1992 OF CHANHASSEN .1
OCT 14 1992 1
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager ENGINE INN DZPT.
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 1
Re: Results of the City Meeting at 9:00 a.m. on September 30 on the West 78th Street
Realignment 1
Attendees: Jim Tseusch, Jim Burdick, Dennis Eyler, Jim Dvorak, C. James,
Charles Folch, Dick Koppy and Don Ashworth 1
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
Pursuant to the meeting I attended on September 30 with City staff, I have drafted the 1
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 1
Powers 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 1
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 in/out 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.
111
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.
• Civil Engineering • Transportation • Infrastructure Redevelopment
• Landscape Architecture • Construction Management
1 Mr. Don Ashworth
October 1, 1992
Page 2
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
' 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
' 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
the grading of his site.
A meeting was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30 to meet at SRF offices to
resolve the alignment for W. 78th Street.
Access Summarization: Don Ashworth will make the recommendation to restrict access as per
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.
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
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).
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
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
' 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.
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
roadway plus Powers Boulevard divided by the available front footage is $180.00 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
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
•
Mr. Don Ashworth 1
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
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.
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.
The access between the traffic signal location and Powers Boulevard will be discussed further at
the October 26 meeting.
Acquisition - At the October 12 City Council meeting Don Ashworth will recommend
condemnation and acquisition of the James and Burdick property.
Alignment - 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.
As I understand the proceedings of the meeting, these were the issues discussed and the
agreements that were reached prior to adjournment.
Sincerely,
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1
Dick Koppy, P.E.
cc: Attendees
Dick Brooks, Target
Bill McHale, Ryan
xpil /ehaniard /adrnie.101
1
1
1 CITYOF 7,
-
1
t
t 6 90,COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
ME MORANDUM
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager g k 1
1 FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer 01/ /
DATE: October 7, 1992
I SUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing on West g es 78th Street Detachment Project No.
1 92 -3; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize
Condemnation Proceedings for the Right -of -Way
1 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
I Council until the public hearing held at its regular meeting on September 28, 1992. This,
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
I public hearing to Monday, October 12, 1992.
On Wednesday, September 30, 1992, staff and the project engineer, Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch
I (SRF), met with Mr. Charles James, Mr. Jim Burdick and representatives of both Ryan
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.
I Most of the September 28, 1992 public hearing discussion P � p g cuss on focused on the improvements to
1 the segment of West 78th Street between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard.
Therefore, the project consultant engineer did not have adequate opportunity to discuss in
�s
1 is 0 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
and Great Plains Boulevard. I 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
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
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 hearing 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
Jim Dvorak, SRF
Charlie James, property owner
Jim Burdick, property owner
1
Dick Koppy, RLK
1
1
1
1 ;, CITYOF
1
bitir .
1 ..
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 - 4k
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Mayor and City Council
1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: October 8, 1992
1 SUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing on West 78th Street Detachment Project 92 -3;
Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize Condemnation
1 Proceedings for Right -of -Way
1 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
1 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).
l I should note that the negotiations g s regarding completing a redevelopment agreement between the
I 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
1 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
1 the city and HRA.
1
1 . 0 4brj dr
1 00
1
1 .s
to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
. • .
STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC.
..
• SRF CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
TRANSPORTATION • CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • LAND SURVEYORS
SRF No. 0921634
September 28, 1992
Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. 1
City Engineer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: WEST 78T11 STREET DETACHMENT/POWERS BOULEVARD
CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3 (OLD CITY PROJECT NO. 87 -2)
REVISED: UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT
Dear Mr. Folch: I
In February of 1992, we were directed by the City Council to prepare an updated Feasibility I
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
assessments based on the latest alignment of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and includes i
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 I
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.) ,
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 1
meet with the City Council or other interested parties to review any aspect of this report.
Respectfully submitted, 1
STRGAR- ROOSCOE FAUSCH, INC.
i 1
es R Dvorak, P.E.
Associate '
JRD:bba
Enclosures \
1
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 I
612/475 -0010 FAX 612/475 -2429
r r .r r r r r r MB r al r r r r r r on WIN
+U •
to \ .
•
1
I �
1 1
j I I 1 \
1
1
1 IL
I fr • (.-
I
.-.- 1 \
t t r .....„../ " 1
, r , Ili 1 ....0p..v,
/ 1
00 ..
i is_
1 \
1
SRF � AUSCII, MC CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1
''*""g' • 04 • """' • paw a wiry= PROPOSED STREET
Stile ISO. One Cabal Parkway North W. 78TH STREET/ POWERS ELVD. IMPROVEMENTS
Mlnneapolb, MN 55117
(tile 175.0010 CITY PROJECT NO. 92 3 SRP NO. 0921634
/
C
g t
IV
1 N
A, \,/ R
w7
- . _ sit
r
l
1---... . P i
A . 1
,...........„......,,
T ARGL1 s
.- 4, -- - ..
�\\ -
S n STRCAR- ROSDFA
M F co e<rn+ceNdNIEVIS INC CRY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE Z
t E • °.s • ""-' • Mk. • t"'ei' PROPOSED STREET
Stake 150, One Carbon Parkway Nato W. 78TH STREET / POWERS BLVD. IMPROVEMENTS
MInneepolb, MN 55447
eeeafa ...i 10 in.CrifillOjEarlai am gm SR1921611. mg imm_
•
§ g
19 E1
1
W. 78TH smut L.
:fl
) l'r . , rl
i 1
MU Socvr ,
. .
•
SRF STRCAR- ROSCO&FAUSCI1, INC
co RnNCENanaas CITY OP CHANHASSEN NGURE 3
lam
'"'"'' • OA • _— • Ilafts • Wa "'p' PROPOSED STREET
S.Re 150, One Caddo Pnkaa7 Nedh W. 78111 STREET/ POWERS BLVD. IMPROVEMENTS
MImw.polb. MN 55447
1612)175-6110 CITY PROJECT NO. 92 3 SRF NO. 0921631
I r
i 3 1
. r
W. 78TH 5T tT - - --� w ram stun
CHl1HHM5114 DAR 11¢lrfCaC \ 1:161;
•
4, ' ` yfi
♦ \
\ \ % %
A
\ \\
,..r k . w ..
y
SQ � ROSCOF.TAUSf��, INC CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 4
PROPOSED STREET
Salle 150, Om Cabe, Parkway Neigh W. 7RTH STREET! POWERS RLVD. IMPROVEMENTS
Mlraw.pol .. *1 55447
lim em 0 — — — as Ns — IT— )JEenn. — um smetionamIN — M
1. ,
I CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3
WEST 78TH (POWERS BOULEVARD TO KERBER BOULEVARD)
1 • POWERS BOULEVARD
I PROJECT ESTIMATED COSTS
(Revised 9/92)
1
West 78th Street Powers Boulevard Total Project
I Grading 116 700
B S S 158,700 S 275,400
1 Soil Correction S 20,000 S 0 S 20,000
I 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
I Sanitary Sewer S 22,400 S 0 S 22,400
Watermain S 33,000 S 0 S 33,000
1 Landscaping/ S 340,600 S 197,600 S 538,200
Traffic Signal/
I Miscellaneous
Construction Subtotal 51,128,300 S 593,800 51,722,100
1 Legal,
Administration, S 394,900 S 207,800 S 602,700
1 Fiscal
(35 percent)
1 TOTAL ES1TMATED
PROJECT COST S1,523,200 S 801,600 52,324,800
1 .
Note:
1 The estimated total cost for the first phase of roadway widening and signal improvements
between Kerber Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard is 5784,000.00.
1
September 28, 1992 I
CITY PROJECT NO. 92-3
WEST 78TH STREET (POWERS BOULEVARD TO KERBER BOULEVARD )
POWERS BOULEVARD '
REVISED (9/92) ,
PROJECT FINANCING TABLE 1
General 111
Improvement Assessable Amount Obligation Amount Total
Grading, Paving,
Signals, Lighting S 684,540.00 S 1,059,930.00 S 1,744,470.00
and Landscaping ,
Drainage and S 124,680.00 S 124,680.00 S 249,360.00
Storm Sewer '
Detention Pond S 0.00 S 256,230.00 S 256,230.00
Sanitary Sewer S 30 240.00 S 0.00 S 30,240.00
Watermain S 44,540.00 S 0.00 S 44,540.00 1
TOTAL PROJECT S 884,000.00 S1,440,840.00 S 2,324,840.00
The cost of the improvements proposed between Kerber Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard is 1
proposed to be entirely funded by the City. $784,000.00 would then be an added General
Obligation amount.
i
1
Iiiiiii s•s••s ij 1. .
I UU igla
1E1
1 II 1 1 '
a!!!!!111111;ii
m!!!!!im;;; 1
I ?,,!: gottto 2
-Li g;:vg:...p.
I i 0. a ... 16 d ... I .. 1
1 1111111VIhh0II1i gl
II!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 1
1
I6 1
is 1
I 11111111111111111
1
I 111111!!!!!!!111 i
1
fly l i III }�
811111611!111111
1 1 MII/101
1
1;111111111MM 8
11 11°11111111111 ; 1
1
111 h 1 i i. g
I X111111111111
1 58 : : ;11 ;1 :IIIHHIfl
1 e .
1
nhininimin II
1
1 iiiiillilliiiiiii 1 1
1
.. C1TYOF
._.
,. i !"---. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
N.
Action by Ci►y Adminlstretbf '
Endorsed ✓ . iUA
MEMORANDUM
Date 9 - el 1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date s.ibnitted to Commission
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer o.te sus -rem to co�mu I ar
9 -7F •1-
,
DATE: September 23, 1992
1
SUBJ: Public Hearing for West 78th Street Detachment; Authorize Preparation of
Plans and Specifications 1
Project No. 92 -3 (formerly Project No. 87 -2)
1
At the City Council's regular rn p ig on March 9. 1992, a public hearing was held
concerning the supplemental report to the � study for the West 78th Street
Detachment Improvement Project No. 92-3 (former City Project No. 87 2). ollowing both 1
public and City Council discussion, it was apparent that there were a few issues that
warranted further study and discussions with adjacent property owners, particularly as it
related to access control and locations along the proposed roadway. Therefore, the Council 1
acted to continue the public hearing until these issues could be resolved.
During the time eriod that followed theeublic hearing, stalkecame aware that Target was 1
interested in eve oning at a site imme late v tth of the detachment roadway. Due to the
poter___ItiaLimpa retail development such as thi s taff cone uded that the 1
feasi sill stud could not reahsticall be co in. leted . ; , . et Md oofficiall chosen a site
location and su. mated conceptual site plans to the Ci for review. T.hesesubmittals have
since transpiLL an on , un gave cone foal PUD approval for 1
the Tatei i_ to plan. T stye i n . 0 -
During the planning and development process for the Target site, specifically as it relates 1
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
Road 17 approximately 120 feet south. There were a number of issues involved which led 1
to the proposed alignment change. Thus, staff and SRF were charged with the task of
investigating the potential impacts.
1
•s 1
‘1a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PIPER
1
1 •
Don Ashworth
1 September 23, 1992
Page 2
From the City's standpoint, the revised alignment rovides some advantages '
t5'' provides tag s in terms of
eliminating the reverse curve along the roadway, reducing impacts to the wetland west of
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
' engineer to discuss the revised alignment. Both MnDOT and Carver County have given
preliminary indications that this revised alignment would be approved with appropriate
1 design considerations on County Road 17 at Trunk Highway S and submittal of supporting
traffic analysis documentation.
A large scale drawing of the proposed West 78th Street Detachment alignment and overall
' 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
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,
the northerly segment of Monterey will be realigned to match the Kerber Boulevard
intersection.
' 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
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
' 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,
1 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 past few
g p months, the City's consultant engineer for the project and central
' business district downtown traffic study, Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch (SRF), completed a
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
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
l 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
1
Don Ashworth
September 23, 1992
1
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
between Great Plains Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). 1
The plan displays the installation of traffic signals on West 78th Street at the intersections
with Great Plains Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard, Laredo Drive, Market Boulevard, 1
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
master controller unit which could be programmed to efficiently move traffic in and out of 1
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
signals at Laredo Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The switch would turn the signal at I
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
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 5.
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 hearing during the formal presentation of this improvement project. The special
assessment methodology for the roadway improvements is proposed to be consistent with I
that implemented for the previous West 78th Street improvements east of Market
Boulevard.
At the close of the public hearing, if there are no further, relevant questions or concerns I
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- 1
3, authorize the preparation of project plans and specifications by the consultant Strgar-
Roscoe-Fausch and authorize the condemnation of the right -of -way needed for the revised
alignment east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17).
1
jms
c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician I
Dennis Eller, SRF
Jim Dvorak, SRF
1
1
1
I
Don Ashworth ,
1 September 23, 1992
Page 4
' Manager's Comments: As noted by the City Engineer, w
y ty Eng eer, a met with the County Engineer, Roger
Gustafson. Although wanting to review Strgar's traffic counts/projections, Mr. Gustafson is
I 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
1 included, he was clear in stating that neither of these would be preferred and both had the
potential of increasing traffic accidents for motorists corning off of County Road 17.
I DWA (9- 24 -92)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
JAMES
1
September 30, 1992
1
Mayor Don n Chrniel
o
- 7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
1
Ursula Dimler
7203 Kowa Circle
Osanhosten, MN. 55317
Mike Mason
833 Woodhill Road
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Richard Wing 1
3481 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN. 55331
Tom Workman 1
7233 Pontiac Circle
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Dear Councilperson:
I will be unable to attend the Ciry Council Meeting scheduled for October 12 as I cannot realistically change my
itinerary, appointments, and the five airline tickets that I purchased earlier this summer in anticipation of a resolution
of the Target/West 7&h Street matter by September 2&h. I will be out of the country on a combined business and
pleasure trip until October 22. At this late juncture, it is impossible for me, in the next twelve hours, to bring either
a member of my firm or my legal counsel up to speed on all of the manifold complex inter- related 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 the fast 90 days.
This morning I attended the first meeting at which representatives from Target, RLK SRF, Dian Ashworth, Charles
Folch, Jim Burdick and I were all in the same room at the same time to discuss matters of mutual concern. I felt
that I was being pressured from all sides to quickly accede to terms and conditions that would have an immediate
benefit for Target (and the HRA) but which had the potential for long term negative impacts on that remaining
portions of my property that would not be acquired by the Clity through condemnation.
1
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:1 allowed Target, RLK and SRF to select
the road alignment that, in their opinion, best suits the needs of the HRA, Target,and Carver County.
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 3 &o 4 on the north
( which property line I gave RLK do SRF some license to adjust as might be necessary to achieve the best design
geometries).
1
T F James Company P O. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828 -9000
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 1
•
' tom►,
t
JAMES
' September 30, 1992
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
originally contemplated in the Developer's Agreement of 1988.
1 It was explained that the key matter to resolve on October 12 is the legal description of the exact alignment such that
a notice of condemnation can be given and an appraisal ordered on the described area.
• My wish to address the Council on October 26 should not delay or impair resolution of the alignment; the right of
1 way contains adequate width to provide a left diem lane if such an accommodation is granted by the City Council.
As I have previously stated, my concerns are as follows :
L 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 possible diminution of access
to my remaining property. This issue cannot be solved by Council on October 12 this will take some
patience and trust on my pan and goodfaith on the pan of the HRA.
2. Fair and reasonable access to my property. 1 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 James property. I would ask that we resolve this matter, as it pertains to lames
access only, on October 26 when 1 can be present to answer your questions.
1 3. Fair and reasonable assessments that acknowledge the costs incurred by lames in correcting the soil for bath
the old and the new proposed alignment; and that acknowledge the Developer's Agreement of 1988.1 am
told that the proper time to question assessments is at the assessment roll hearing nett year, so 1 do not
' think this issue should constrain the Council on October 12th. I would however, appreciate the opportunity
to briefly review my concerns with you on October 26th, if you deem it appropriate.
' 4. An expeditious resolution of the condemnation so that 1 can finally, after over 4 years of uncertainty; begin
to market my property.
I very much appreciate your careful consideration of these issues; and I thank you for your patient understanding.
Sincerely,
1
Oiarles Wm. James
1
1