Loading...
1980 04 21 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 21, 1980 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Councilman Swenson moved to table Council Presentation APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Items: Conditional Use Contracts, and Public Improvements for an indefinite period. following voted in favor: and Swenson. No negative Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, votes. Motion carried. Minnewashta Regional Park Advisory Committee will be placed on a future agenda. Councilman Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Swenson, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SKIDLOADER: Councilman Geving moved to accept the in the amount of $14,415.36 excluding the trailer. Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative bid from Lano Equipment Motion seconded by Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING DOWNTOWN HRA REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Art and Darlene Kerber, 511 Chan View Dean and LueAnn Wallentine, 507 Chan View Jean Zamor, 170 Birch Bluff Road, Excelsior Michael Sorenson, 7606 Erie Cliff Whitehill, 7001 Dakota Wro. Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Road Peter and Hermine Lustig, 6699 Mohawk Drive Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies Dennis Spalla, Kraus-Anderson John Boyle, Super Valu Don Schmieg, Minnesota-Victoria Oil Company Herb Mason, Colonial Shopping Center John Havlik, Chanhassen Tire and Auto Bernie Hansen, Chanhassen Lawn and Sports Tom and Lou Krueger, Riviera Club Richard and Pat Rackl, 509 Chan View Frank Beddor, Jr., 910 Pleasant View Road Stanley and Gail Pelcl, 505 Chan View Frank Kurvers, 7220 Chanhassen Road Russell Larson Jim Orr Written or oral questions presented will be answered at a special meeting May 27, 1980. Arjis Pakalns,from BRW, Dennis Spalla, Kraus-Anderson, and Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies, reviewed the proposed plans. The hearing was opened for questions from the floor. Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -2- Herb Mason - I represent the Colonial Shopping Center and also the property along Highway 5 by Chanhassen Estates. It was mentioned a while ago that that property south of Highway I 5 would probably not be used for commercial use and I am wondering about our piece which is zoned Commercial. On our Colonial Shopping Center, I know I should be more involved in this ~ort of thing, but I am somewhat surprised that we have never been contacted. I don't know what our best interest is, to be very truthful. I don't know that we would want to participate and try to be involved in a future move. I did call your City Manager about three weeks ago. He was very gracious and told me who to call to have the condemnation process explained to me. The rebuilding. The compensation factors, etc. I do feel that with a property of that significance in Chanhassen I some how or other feel that maybe we should have some place down the line been contacted. We work very closely with Kraus-Anderson in a lot of things and very comfortably with them. They are a fine organization but I guess they would not normally be a part of our particular property, it would be Bloomberg. I would welcome an opportunity to talk to the developers. I don't feel slighted but at the same time I think it would have been appropriate to have been contacted. Don Ashworth - The property south of Highway 5 is zoned Commercial. There is a moratorium on that property but I don't think it takes away from that status. It simply places that zoning in context with the overall development of the I area. You would still be able to present any type of development plans for that property and to have any development proposals considered by the Council tomorrow, next week, six weeks from now, etc. On the property in the downtown area, I think it would be well if there would be a consideration for some type of move. I don't know what would work out best for you. I know that we had talked. The contact person for that property I guess has been a question for a while. We had been working with Gene Reilley on a number of items in the City and I guess rightly or wrongly I guess I assumed that he was speaking for that property as well. Herb Mason - I would like to apologize for that because I think that is very likely true and unfortunately Gene has passed away but the fact is that Gene did not communicate with us and I don't take that away from Gene at all. I have no way of knowing how closely he did work with you. Bill McRostie - I met with Gene three or four times in the very early stages of this thing , when we were looking for developers to participate with us. After about four meetings he told us that he felt you would not be interested in such a participation so there has been no further contact since that time. We obviously would be happy to sit down with you at any time. I Herb Mason - I would like to because I talked to you about this one group and I would be real concerned about the potential development of that project because it relates to a part of your development program. Mayor Hobbs - In summing up Mr. Mason, would it be safe to state that in terms of the property south of Highway 5, the Commercial zoning still stands. There is a moratorium. If you have I I I Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -3- a proposal for that property you can bring it up to the Council and it will be reviewed in that context. Herb Mason - I think I prefer talking with the Bloomberg people first because if we have no opposition toward one another in the development I think then our path would be a little smoother with the city. I recognize your concerns about the development outside of that area that would be in conflict with the developments within the area. Mayor Hobbs - In terms of future communication, would it also be safe to assume that either the Bloomberg Companies or the City should contact you directly. Herb Mason - Yes. I guess I mentioned the Colonial Shopping Center area because I truthfully prefer not to sell it but at the same time I have been involved in downtown city things so much and I am certainly not going to say that I am not in favor of your project because I think it's an ambitious project. For that reason I mentioned that I would probably hope some how or other maybe to convert ourselves into some other future part of the development of the downtown district. I don't know but I think so. Don Schmieg I represent Minnesota-Victoria Oil. When they acquire property, who do we have to contact about having our property acquired? Don Ashworth - The City will be acquiring all properties. The developers are not responsible in any way for the acquisition of those properties. That is solely back to the City. The best one to work through would be the City Attorney's office in having him coordinate whether it's appraisals or relocations, etc. Don Schmieg - How soon are we looking at possibly having to do that? Don Ashworth - I would like to answer both of those questions on May 27. John Havlik - I have a few things that I want to say about the project>and I don't expect answers tonight but at least I wanted you to know that there is some concern on what's happening down here. It isn't all just roses. I fail to understand why my property and business has to be taken with no opportunity for me to continue in business. There is no blight on my property or building, that I can see. Without blight, in my situation, I am not sure whether you have the right to take or commit my property and I am willing and ready to go to District Court to prove my point unless we can make an appropriate settlement. I am against this plan because it is ruining my livelyhood, my personal life, and my home. All you are going to do is hurt me in many ways, financially and mentally, to mention a few. I am not guaranteed to gain anything. Increase in business or money out of this, I can only lose my business, my property and the valuation of my home. The City has not taken any steps in getting me another location or in helping me to try to adjust to the upcoming problems. Some appraisals have been made on my property which were to be done and given to me by April I. I have heard nothing except excuses. They won't give me any answers on that at all. This leaves me with the assumption that nobody really cares what happens to me. You are only helping big business and big money. Also, the appraisals only take into consideration on my property and buildings, not on my business that I have worked hard at and have built up for fifteen years. I actually get nothing for all that. Besides that, we shouldn't even be looking at the appraisals. We should be looking at a place to relocate. A corner like I have. A building that is equivalant to the one I have. I should be ready to go into the same type of business that I have now with no down time and no costs out of my pocket. All I want to do is continue on like I have been doing in the past. If I do have to take out a loan to build a new building to get bigger at todays interest ratès and in view of todays economic problems in regards to supply of increase in my petroleum needs which I will have to have much increased, to continue in business in a different location I could not stay in business and make a profit. I would be forced out of business. I want answers on exactly how much money I am going to get and end up with. How much it will cost to build a station like I have now. How much gas I will be able to have for an allocation and when all this is going to happen. Also, I want to know what is going to happen to my home. I feel it is being damaged by the fact that I will end up with ailiouse with a road on three sides. Who will pay me damages for my home, how much, and when? I feel these questions should all be answered before there is a vote on this plan and if they cannot be then somebody is trying to hide something or get out of giving me my rightful and honest settlement for my property, business, and home. I just want you all to consider the facts in there and there is a list of questions that I was going to give you to answer but the Chamber has come up with them and they cover about 90% of that list you have wh~ch I am sure will get answers out of this. There is also a few other problems that have developed that you should know about and that is at one of the meetings we discussed as the homeowners on the north side of the road, what happens if in ten or 20 years from now this ring road needs a new assessment. Either it breaks up, we have to rebuild it, there is storm sewer, sidewalk, who would have to pay for it? It was noted that the residents on the north side of that road would be assessed because we are abutting property owners. Although there is some type of assumption that because that road does not benefit us or our homes for going in there we would not be, but in further talking with Russ and Don they can prove where it could be an asset to our houses and therefore, we could have to pay that in the future. I suggest that there be something written into this plan saying that anyone who owns residential property abutting this ring road would never be assessed for any type of assessments whatsoever in this entire project. I don't think that's asking to much. I know that I can speak for the Council in saying that we are concerned about you as an individual and your home and also your business, along with everyone else downtown. I think these are the issues that we are going to be concentrating on over the next four or five weeks. I would appreciate it personally if you would take the comments that you gave and type them up so Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -4- Mayor Hobbs - I I I I I I Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -5- this Council can have a copy from you on what you requested. You asked some very good questions. Don Ashworth - There are a number of questions and those should be addressed. If you get down to a specific question, exactly how much will I get paid, I don't see any way that you are going to be able to have that answer back on May 27. I think you can look at how it will occur, what policies will affect each property owner if there are questions ii1œegards to relocations, etc. or how a property would be treated, I think that those can be spelled out. You will have to come back on specific authority to carry out any portion of that. To have that authority you are going to be looking at how much costs are going to be accrued for actual individual purchases, etc. To go down through the individual acquisitions ".and to have all of those totally completed can not reasonaThly occur. You are not at that point. It's not a matter of trying to hide anything, it's a matter of logically being able to follow through in a reasonable fashion because I don't want anybody walking out of here and saying, well on May 27 I will know exactly how much the City is going to pay me. There is no way that is going to occur. John Havlik - I feel we have to have more information than we have had. We have been talking about this thing for two or three years and really as far as a businessman I don't know any more than I did two or three years ago except that it looks bad. You don't know how much you are going to get. You don't know how much money you have to go out and find more property. You have to sit until the last minute and I think that this is getting close. If you have got figures on how much it's going to cost you must have some figures on how much you think that is worth or you think you are going to pay for it. Let's get some of these figures out so we have a rough idea if we are way far apart or half way close or what. A time factor is getting very very important. In this one booklet it's got several businesses out by the Spring of 1981 and July of 1981. If that's going to happen, you have to have time to know what you are going to do and get things going. Councilman Neveaux - In the packet that I received Friday there was a 19 page piece of information from Von Klug and Associates, was this information made available previously? Don Ashworth - That is available at City Hall. We had from that meeting that same information put in a typewritten form which the Council just received this last week. This was a presentation as given by Von Klug during the HRA presentation for the redevelopment plan. Councilman Neveaux - Of the 19 pages there was nothing in there in regard to the buyout and I was concerned about that. There was a discussion about commercial relocation and all of those expenses although I am not sure that they are all covered, but the thing that I did not see a bit on was the buyout option. John Havlik - The reason why I am concerned is because there is a very grave question of whether I will be able to get enough gallons to make a new facility profitable and in my discussion with Bill Von Klug it sounds real gravy on top. If you are forced out of business, you cannot relocate they will give you a third party value for your pDoperty and your Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -6- building. They will not give you anything for your business. They cannot buy blue sky. Although they will pay you in addition to your building and your I property, and take your profits for the last ten years average them out and they will pay you that for the next ten years which sounds real good except the State Law says to a maximum of total of $10,000. Councilman Neveaux - We have got to find those answers. Councilman Geving - I would like to address one thing that John mentioned, he did indicate that appraisals have been made on his property and there was some kind of indication that he would get a result of that by April I. Russell Larson - I put a deadline on those appraisals to be received here by April I. We got a telephone message today that they will be in our office tomorrow. Immediately upon receipt in our office and our examination of it I will see that John gets a copy of it. Bernie Hanson - I was going to request some of this information that you people are receiving. It would be very nice if it would be forwarded to us with our businesses. John spoke pretty much what I was going to say. We have been kept in the dark all the way. I have not had anybody contact me in any manner. Mayor Hobbs - We would like a letter from you or from Chanhassen Lawn and Sports outlining the specific concerns as they relate to your business. Bernie Hanson - I will put it in writing and go from there. I Don Schmieg - Do we have property set aside for our type of business that we would be able to use? Aijis Pakalns - No provision, as part of the redevelopment project, to designate other areas similar designations to accommodate people. However, the relocation process makes a great effort to try to find areas which are suitable and appropriate for the uses. Councilman Swenson - Aijis, isn't this one of those categories that fit in the overlay? There were prospective auto oriented service areas and now instead of saying yes, indeed this is an area that we are thinking about, the overlay makes these things possible where they are suitable. Don Schmieg - Could we expect to see something like that by May 27? Just a general thing, not necessarily anything particular. Mayor Hobbs - I think you could, in general. Councilman Pearson - Right now this thing looks very marginal to me. With the money market situation the way it is it is very very scary. I am wondering, would it throw the whole thing out of the ballpark completely to consider having the northern ring road, West I 78th Street. It would seem to me it could solve an awful lot of problems and while it would make the thing a little bit smaller in context it would seem to me it would be a much easier thing to handle and I am not so sure it wouldn't have an awful lot of viability and it might be a lot easier to finance. I I I council Meeting April 21, 1980 -7- Councilman Pearson - Leave everything on the north and eventually it will improve itself. Sure it won't have a lot of the niceties as it would if we would flatten it all out and start from scratch but there is going to be a lot of dollars there. We don't know what's going to happen with the railroad, possibly some of it could be moved farther south. Don Ashworth - There were a number of alternatives considered by the HRA. One of the problems, from a development standpoint is, if you put it on West 78th Street or leave that as it is the development as it is shown could not occur. The only other choice would be to take and look at individual developments occuring on the north side of West 78th st. but then that would not create the plan that the HRA was looking at as far as an integrated downtown area. Councilman Pearson - It isn't too ~ar off from plan B is it? Talking about building a hotel to the back. Don Ashworth - Plan B does have the hotel to the back but continues the retail shops on West 78th St. as it exists. It would effectively eliminate Kraus-Anderson totally from the development. There would not be sufficient room in there for them to build except for a potential reconversion of Instant Web. Bill Gullickson - I understand your hesitancy to move too rapidly on this. We really didn't start this particular program together until about three years ago. What I do find surprising is that I've personally spoken three times at chamber of commerce lunches, notices have gone out, the HRA has sent out notices about our plans for this town, the fact that we were trying to put together a plan for the town. I think that probably most of you are very well aware of the fact that we have been working on this thing for a long time. We hope we are putting something together, and my response from the business community has been very favorable. Then to walk into a situation like this where everybody is worrying about whether we are going to be fair or not, John, you and I have talked about this, and nobody is writing any contracts and saying we are going to be absolutely fair and you are going to make more money than you ever made in your life before, baloney, there aren't any guarantees but there certainly is plenty of commercial property that no one has called on yet. Our intention is to give local business people the first crack at any of this area that's zoned commercial in the best possible location we can find for you just as long as everybody doesn't want the same piece. I thoúght you were going to make up your minds tonight. We are talking about a concept that this city. is finally going to make up their minds that they are going to redo their downtown area to make it exciting, make it interesting, bring people in here and I am surprised that you are going to put it off again. We are only voting that basically most of the people in this town, I thought, were in favor of this program and wanted a new exciting place to live that would draw people in. Mike Sorenson - I am in a unique situation in that I addressed the Council about ten months ago trying to get a feel of a new business, Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -8- a liquor store. The Council was very favorable to the idea at that time and I just sat around for a few months and then I decided to hire Herb Baldwin and I go ahead with my project. That's exactly what I did. I hired him. We drew up a plan and I brought it in to the City and it looked pretty good. I went to the Planning Commission and it went real good. At the Planning Commission meeting they said take it to the HRA. That's where it came to a dead standstill. My project is dead at that point. The last HRA meeting I was at, I talked to Bill Gullickson about the project and he said he can't do anything as far as relocation, acquisition of land, anything until this thing is voted on and approved. Here I am and nothing has happened. I tried to be patient and wait because they want to widen this road out and I don't want to jeopardize the plan for the town, I like it. I think it's real nice. I guess I am wondering where I am at. That's my question. Herb Mason - I just don't want to be counted as being in opposition because of what I said, not at all. I am an absentee type of an owner, maybe that's why I don't get all the information. I don't mind that because I have known about it. Lue Ann Wallentine - You are putting us between two roads. We feel you are depreciating our house value if we wanted to I sell. This is a true fact because a neighbor has sold and he has taken a loss. Do you plan on paying us the difference? Councilman Geving - I think an important thing for those homeowners is how is this going to look from their view when when they look out their back yard. They are going to have a highway in back of them and a road in front of them and I think we have to be concerned about whether we block off that street, whether or not we are going to sustain an unusual amount of traffic which the ring road is being built and may be tear up Chan View and have to go in and repair that road in two years. Those are concerns that these people have. Councilman Neveaux - Under the memorandum of intent that we received on Friday, on page 8 it says; "All costs of the ring road, including land acquisition, construction, etc., etc., are to be assessed to the benefitted property owners according to M.S. 429, provided, however, such assessment against the property of any developer shall not be more than 10% of cost. " Twenty percent total. Somebody has got to pick up the 80%. Don Ashworth - No where in any discussions have there been any thoughts I of assessing residential neighborhoods. There has been specific statements by both Russ and myself that we would see no way that there could be an assessment against that property. No assessment is considered as a part of any of this documentation. The point though is, put that in writing that 20 years from now that that would not occur, Russ's 'point is you can not bind I I I Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -9- a future Council. Councilman Swenson - The fencing along the ring road was brought up at the HRA meeting. As I remember, LueAnn you asked about what kind of fencing and what kind of landscaping and I thought it was addressed. ,I LueAnn Wallentine - There are some of us that like the cyclone fence. We want it tall enough so that people downtown, kids or anybody, don't cut through. A cyclone fence does not have the maintenance that a redwood fence would have. Councilman Swenson - My impression at that time was that you were all relatively satisfied that this would in fact, done the way in which you would like to have it done, I think there was some meeting of the minds. LueAnn Wallentine - We are worried. Mayor Hobbs - In listening to the comments tonight, what I think we should have on May 27 would be a list of priorities, not specifics. Frank Kurvers - Who is going to be assessed and how is it going to be handled and who is a benefitted property owner? Mayor Hobbs - The downtown redevelopment district and the tax increment financing. Councilman Neveaux moved to continue the public hearing until May 27, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Pearson moved to table action on approving the minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SAILBOAT, LOTUS LAKE: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Lustig, 6699 Mohawk Drive, were present asking permission to moor a sailboat off Carver Beach in Lotus Lake. Council members stated there is no city ordinance prohibiting the mooring of boats. JAMES INFANGER, 6890 YUMA DRIVE: Mr. Infanger was present objecting to the sewer and water assessment placed against his property at 6890 Yuma Drive. The City Attorney will submit a written report for the next council agenda. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE: Leonard Takkunen presented a petition for improvements to Bluff Creek Drive. Several residents of the area were present. The City Manager, City Engineer, and neighborhood residents will meet on May 6 in the Rectory of Old St. Hubert's Church at 7:30 p.m. to discuss potential costs. Nick Waritz asked that a comparison be made of the benefits of a state aid road and the benefits of Bluff Creek Drive not being a state aid road. Gary Eastburn asked that the City Manager explore avenues of financing the improvements. AUTHORIZE SALE OF 1980 BONDS: Bob Sander was present to discuss the up coming bond sale. Council Meeting April 21, 1980 -10- RESOLUTION #80-11: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of #3,440,000 municipal facility and special as&essment bonds per Bob Sander's report dated April 21, 1980. I Resolution seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hobbs asked if any council member wished to discuss any items on the consent agenda. Council members wished to discuss the following items separately: b. Fluoroware Development Proposal, Set Public Hearings. c. Kellynne Addition. i. State Building Code. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the following items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Accept Feasibility Study and Order Public Hearing¡ Sewer, Water, and Street Improvements¡ Chan View and Kerber Blvd. d. Mileage Rate Reimbursement, Revise per State Policies. e. Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement, Highways 212 and 169, and 212 and 101. RESOLUTION #80-12. f. Supplemental Agreement, County 17 Construction. g. Feasibility Studies, Authorize Submittal to Petitioners for Comment: 1. Lake Ann/Schmieg 2. Chanhassen Estates. h. Set Board of Equalization and Review Meeting, Carver County Assessor. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: I Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. FLUOROWARE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Councilman Pearson moved to hold a public hearing on May 19, 1980, to consider industrial revenue bond financing. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor HObbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. !fe.:,.o{u.1o"oP 8ù-I2.A. KELLYNNE ADDITION: Council members requested a report from the City Attorney regarding the escrow account and why there was a release of monies. 1980 STATE BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE: Council members asked if adoption of the building code is required by the state. Councilman Geving moved to place the 1980 State Building Code Ordinance on first reading. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #11680 through #11720 in the amount of $26,390.85, checks #11585 through #11679 in the amount of $329,035.34, and checks #8257 through #8322 in the amount of $61,619.21. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Councilman Neveaux moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson . , Neveaux, Gevlng, and Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Don Ashworth, City Manager