Loading...
1980 12 08 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1980 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Swenson, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, COLONIAL GROVE 2ND ADDITION: Councilman Geving moved to table action to December 22, 1980. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM HENNEPIN COUNTY Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. with the following persons present: Lois McRostie, 7015 Dakota Ave. Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies Don Kallestad, 431 West 78th St. Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne John Boylen, Super Valu Rome Roos, 8001 Cheyenne Jim Orr Michael Vergo Gordon Freeburg, 3891 Lone Cedar Lane Russell Pauly, 401 West 78th Street Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota Lane John Przymus Earl Cravens John Havlik Don Schmieg LueAnn Wallentine, 507 Chan View Larry Blacksted, Hennepin County Don Ashworth - This is the first year that Chanhassen has been eligible for an outright entitlement of block grant monies. There is still a question as to whether or not Chanhassen will receive the monies and that's in regards to interpretation by the Federal Government. We are proceeding under the belief that in fact we will become eligible for grant monies. It will be approximately $60,000 that would be received next year and those monies could be accumulated for two year period before making any type of allocation, As there are no current identified uses for these funds we are not proposing a specific budget at this time. The hearing would be fore any persons wishing to make statements in regards to the usage of that money. They have to dedicated into the area of housing programs or programs helping low and moderate income individuals similar to potentially a senior citizen project as a part of the downtown project. A potential write-down of special assessments for low and moderate income individuals on programs where the City has gone through and put in sewer and water type improvements. Potentially supplementing things like the insulation program for elderly, etc. Larry Blacksted - Chanhassen now has been certified by HUD as a participant in the program. We finally did get clearance in late November. This is the first time, due to legislative change in 1979, that we were allowed to do the whole City of Chanhassen. Prior to that time the only part of Chanhassen that could have been included was only that portion Council Meeting December 8, 1980 -2- that lies in Hennepin County. Chanhassen and one other city in the county fall into this classification. You are participating with 42 other communities within and adjacent to Hennepin County. I The program in total will generate to the recipients of approximately $4.2 million. The hearing tonight is basically to get ideas from the residents as to the type of activites that could be pursued. The relationship of Hennepin County to this program is that we serve as the umbrella applicant for the funds and provide technical assistance to all the communities. Each year, unless the program changes, the city is provided the opportunity to continue its participation or to drop out of the program. Clark Horn - Is it limited to construction type things or could you use it for something like senior citizen transportation. Larry Blacksted - No. Unfortunately we can't use it for services. Mayor Hobbs - Would it be consistent with the plan to set up a taskforce either comprised of staff or the Planning Commission to develop some objectives and general guidelines and then held another public hearing on those. Larry Blacksted - It would be appropriate to do so. Our staff is available for assistance. We would request that the City be in a position to at least make a tentative decision by the middle of January as to the use of the funds. Decisions in this program are not cast in stone. There is an amendment procedure so if something changes six months from now we are flexible enough to accommodate that. I Don Ashworth - With a program of this magnitude, it has been my sincere belief that we would have a longer period of time to really look at some of these needs. I think the Planning Commission and Council and a number of groups should really be involved in that process. I had forseen that we would be able to be eligible under the program but not necessarily make a specific allocation for 1981 and be able to during that planning period establish community goals over literally the course of this next year. Larry Blacksted - Given your somewhat unique status in this program we may be able to accommodate that type of a direction. Right now I think we may be able to do something along those lines to provide you that necessary time to develop a more comprehensive program. I will check it out and get back to Don with a couple courses of action. Councilman Neveaux - Would it be possible to use these funds within the downtown redevelopment district say for a senior citizens building. Larry Blacksted - Given the nature of the redevelopment activity and putting money into it, it is possible to do so. Although I am afraid I would have to have more specifics. Councilman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion seconded by Councilman Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, I I I I Council Meeting December 8, 1980 -3- PUBLIC HEARING PARTIAL VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOT 9, BLOCK 2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES FIRST ADDITION Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order. No one was present. A petition was received from Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. to vacate 2~ feet of a drainage and utility easement on Lot 9, Block 2, Lotus Lake Estates. The existing home on the lot encroaches on the easement by approximately 2~ feet. The City Engineer recommended that the City Council reduce the width of the easement by 2~ feet. There is a storm sewer pipe running through the remainder of the easement. Councilman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Motion seconded by Councilman Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, PARTIAL VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASE11ENT, LOT 9, BLOCK 2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES: Councilman Pearson moved to vacate the westerly 2~ feet of the drainage easement as outlined in the Certificate of Survey dated July 16, 1980. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 80-51A. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD NOVEMBER 24, 1980 DOWNTOvm REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order with the Lois and Bill McRostie, 7015 Dakota Herb Bloomberg, 7008 Dakota Dennis Spalla, Kraus-Anderson Don Kallestad, 431 West 78th Street Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne John Boyle, Super Valu T. A. and June Russell, 8037 Cheyenne Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota Harry Pauly, 7561 Great Plains Blvd. John Przymus Curt and Bobbie Huovie, 7381 Longview Circle Donald Hanus, 225 West 79th Street Barbara Gullickson, 830 Pleasant View Road Gail Mathisen, 850 Pleasant View Road Tim and Mrs. Clarence Peshek, 7605 Kiowa Herb Mason Bernard Schneider, 680 West 78th Street Charles Schneider, 680 West 78th Street Jerry Korsunsky following interested persons present: Al Klingelhutz Dr. Don Kristenson, 421 West 78th St. LueAnn Wallentine, 507 Chan View Don Schmieg, 200 W. 77th St. John Havlik Russell Pauly Gordon Freeburg, 3891 Lone Cedar Lane Bjorg and Jerry Hendrickson Marcy Kurimchak Jerri Martin Larry Buchheit George Beniek Leanna Forcier Bernard Hanson Don McCarville Clark Horn Tom Hamilton Mr. and Mrs. Tom Krueger Ed Dunn Letters have been received from Instant Web, Inc., Frank Beddor, Jr., Klingelhutz-Cravens Realtors, Chanhassen Secretarial Service, Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, Pauly's, Inc. Curt and Bobbi Huovie, Chanhassen Family Medical Clinic, B. C. Burdick, and Jack Kreger. Don Schmieg, Representing the Cenex Station - I would like to the project. We were supposed to send a letter. at our meeting and evidently it didn't get in. go on record as opposing We had talked about it Tom Droegemueller - I would just like to make three comments. I think first of all that these proceedings are making a travesty of the principle of democracy and representative government because the people in this community voted on November 4 for some representatives who presumably represent their feelings about the issues and they are not going to be allowed to make a decision. Secondly, I think we may be Council Meeting, December 8, 1980 -4- operating under felicitous notion that the introduction of commercial development into a community will naturally lead to the reduction of the residential tax burden and I think that it is quite possible that the commercial development itself will I create the demand for additional city services which outweigh the benefits of the tax. Thirdly, I think that any programs that utilize the government subsidized financing violates the principle of a free market economy by encouraging development before it is natural to take place. I think that if development is meant to take place in Chanhassen it will happen. It will happen at the right time in its own time. Larry Buchheit, President of Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce - On the 25th the Chamber passed a resolution in favor of the redevelopment. Since then it has been brought to our attention that this represented basically the core businesses in downtown Chanhassen. It was recommended that we should go to the four corners of our community and see what the residents had to say. Apparently the petition that we put together has not reached Don's (Ashworth) desk but I do have copies that I would like to have put in the record. This petition is signed by 178 residents of Chanhassen and as I said they are located in the four corners of our community. What it says is that they are supportive of the redevelopment plan and encourage the City Council to vote in favor of it. Conrad Fiskness - I would like to preface my remarks by saying that recognizing the fact that Chanhassen is going to develop I am not really opposed and would not say anything later on that would present I that I am personally opposed this particular plan recognizing the fact there are no doubt problems that need to be resolved and assuming that the Council can satisfactorily resolve problems that would be connected with putting this thing together. I would more than likely assume that these things can be resolved adequately. What I really want to address, however, is an issue which involves me as representing this area in the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Since the last meeting we have had opportunity for our technical advisor to review the plans with the engineer for the City on this, BRW. We have had a chance to go through this on a preliminary basis only and I would like to further state that we have not had a chance to meet as a board to discuss the findings and the findings are not final. I have received communication from our advisor as to two areas of concern that we feel would need to be addressed by the Council and by the people who are developing this area. Number one would be an area of sediment coming off of the parking lots and streets and again our discussion on a preliminary basis with the engineers, it was indicated that no doubt could be fairly well handled as the further development of the plans were brought forth. The sediment basin would obviously be designed to catch sediment and also provide oil skimming capabilities to prevent those impurities from reaching Rich Marsh Lake. The problem of major consequence, as we see it, is moving the water from the I downtown area to Rice Marsh Lake. This is going to be rather substantial volumn as we see it. The fall from downtown to Rice Marsh Lake is about 100 feet and the distance is about one-half mile and this is a pretty significant fall. We would roughly expect that the need of the pipe size to move the volumn of water that will be going down there is going to be a minimum of 54 inches, maybe greater. The amount of fall that you have is going to work I I I Council Meeting, December 8, 1980 -5- also to your advantage in that you are going to move the volumn of water faster. Currently, what you have going down to Rice Marsh Lake is an open ditch. It is going to present a major problem in stablizing that ditch when you have the volumn of water that you are going to have going down here. In fact stablizing an open ditch, in our opinion, would be questionable in view of the velocity and the volumn that you are going to be moving and I would suspect that just putting some rules of thumb to this thing, you are probably talking it goes to a solution that would have the longest term benefit and would be the most satisfactory over the long pull, which I am sure that we really would want to be looking at, probably something in the nature of $75 to $100 per foot and you are talking about half a mile. That calculates to $195,000 to $260,000. So you are talking about something between $200,000 and $300,000 to address this situation. I would urge the Council to be aware of that because you are going to have once chance to do that job right and that is up front at the beginning here when this thing all goes in here. BRW Representative - The issues of sedimentation and oil skimming, etc. were assumed in terms of final design. Issues in order to satisfy the existing regulations of the district. I don't think there are any concerns or problems in that regard. The issue in terms of erosion or erosion control in the ravine which is on the east side of Highway 101 going down to Rice Lake Marsh is something, as I understand it, is a problem that exists today and has existed for some time and the watershed district and the city have for some period of time, I am told, they have been discussing opportunities or potentials for correcting it. We did not and have not included correction work in that ravine as a part of the project. It's not contained in the materials that have been provided to you because based on our preliminary inquiries some time ago, we were not made aware of the fact that that was a problem. The in-place system which drains from basically Highway 5 south along Highway 101 will be sufficient for the water which is being discharged from the project taking into account the retention that's going to be involved in the area north of Highway 5. We did not, therefore, analyze erosion in the remaining system downstream from the project because we felt that we were not contributing additionally to the problems which existed already. We did not view that it was the responsibility of this project to correct those problems which did exist. The area of the project does contribute water through that ravine as does substantial other areas. At this point, if the watershed district takes the opportunity presented to them by this project, that is the project will have to get a watershed district permit regardless of what we are doing in the way of improvements within the project for drainage and grading and if the district takes the approach that that is an opportunity in which they can then in effect force correction of that existing problem I would see probably no choice but to make that correction at that time. Who then should pay for it becomes the next question. Is it solely a responsibility of the downtown project or is it a larger responsibility in terms of the total area that contributes water to that ravine where the problem is. Don Schmieg - How many people in the downtown area that are there now are going to relocate in the ne~¡ project? Russell Larson - Of those that we have approached, five that I know of. I have not had time to contact everybody. There are some 42 owners and tenants involved. Don Ashworth - It has been the hopes of the HRA all the way through that there would Council Meeting December 8, 1980 -6- be no business casualties. I don't think that's a fair question from the standpoint there is a number of those uses that have all the way along been stated that they should not be back in the I downtown area. If you are talking about this type of development, an area that's basically a retail shopping center, you should not be looking at Chanhassen Electric with the number of trucks that they are running to be located within this core area, the boat works operation. I don't think that Bernie (Hanson) would be because he has a high need for outside storage, maybe he would put it back inside, I don't know. The chrome plating business would be better in the business park. A majority of the businesses that are there right now would not be relocated within the core area but, turn it around, every business has been approached on the basis of staying within the community either within the business park or within any one of the other areas. Don Schmieg - We have not been approached and given any place to go. We have said yes, we would stay in Chanhassen. That's all we have been able to deduct from anything so far. Tom Droegemueller - I think community pride can be generated through ways other than be encouraging a huge commercial development in the downtown area. Bill Loebl - I would like to make t,vo suggestions. Number one, since you are outgoing City Council wouldn't it be preferable to let the new City Council that is coming in make the final vote on this big project because they will have to be the ones to live with it and that is based on the second suggestion is the present economic conditions. I Would the make a such a big project viable in the forseeable future. Mayor Hobbs - Two of us are lame ducks. I have given that very question careful thought. I feel very definitely that I should vote on this issue. I think you are looking at a phased program that has gone six years and possibly could go another six years to completion. I think it is asking a large commitment of someone who started in the beginning to stay an extra twelve to fifteen years up here so that we can maintain the continuity of this project. In my own mind I felt that where we are today represents one very distinct phase and if we decide to go ahead with the project there are going to be several issues in the future that are going to have to be brought to a resolution. You don't put any kind of a package like this together in one night. Getting approval is going to be contingent upon finalizing other documents. I think today and I think for the past couple of years it has been very hard for anyone to develop economically any type of a large project alone. That's why the State Legislature came up with the whole idea of tax increment financing. It is not something that's unique to Chanhassen. Someone saw a problem and he tried to come up with a way to address it. Councilman Pearson - I have lived in Chanhassen for 21 years. I don't feel that I am a newcomer to this community. I am very, very interested in what's going on. I felt I have put in my time and it is time for somebody else but I also don't think that I object to making a decision even though it may be difficult at this time. I Very possibly people would like a postponement of the decision because they feel we might move one ·way and the people that are going to be coming in will be voting the other way and I don't feel that's a fair assumption either way. If the time comes that we have to make a decision, I am ready to make it now. I I I Council Meeting, December 8, 1980 -7- Jerri Martin - Is the question really what Dale wants, what Dick wants, what Walt wants, what John wants, or what Pat wants or is the question what is really best for our community. How you feel individually is fine. How you feel about the community is another question. Marcy Kurimchak - What consideration has been given to the businessmen in the area who are renting and they have definitely provided services to the residents in the area? Russell Larson - We would visit with them and each of their businesses have been appraised to determine what relocation benefits they would be entitled to in the areas of the equipment that cannot be moved from their business place and the cost of moving. There are a number of other benefits which we can extend to them, including trying to find another location for them, making certain other compensations for them depending upon where they elect to locate. If some of those wish to stay within the downtown district in the ring road they would, of course, have to contact Kraus-Anderson and arrange a rental with Kraus-Anderson. If they were going to go outside the ring road but stay in the tax increment district they would have to contact someone who may be planning to construct an office-warehouse structure within the district. We have not as yet made any contact with specific tenants. We have advised them all that those appraisals are available for them in City Hall. They are free to take a look at them and then contact me with respect to what we can do for them. Councilman Pearson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: RESOLUTION #80-52: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution authorizing the public improvement project for the downtown redevelopment area as outlined in the feasibility study dated November 4, 1980, and directing the consultant firm of BRW to not move towards preparation of plans and specifications no earlier than the meeting of December 15, 1980, at which time additionally the project will be moved ahead only upon successful acceptance by the City of development contracts between the City and Kraus-Anderson as redeveloper and Bloomberg Companies, Inc. as developer and Instant Web, Inc. as a major redeveloper within the downtown redevelopment area. Resolution seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: seconded Pearson, Councilman Neveaux moved to table action on approval of the minutes. Motion by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. DON KALLESTAD, PONY EXPRESS BAR, LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: Mr. Kallestad was present seeking approval of an on sale and off sale intoxicating liquor license to open a bar at 431 West 78th Street. Mr. Kallestad was told this would be on the December 15, 1980, Council agenda. HOMBRE'S BAR, STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT: Councilman Neveaux moved the acceptance of the Stipulation Agreement and the Mayor and City Manager be directed to sign. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. LOW WATER PRESSURE, 3883 FOREST RIDGE CIRCLE: Mr. and Mrs. Bernhardt were present to state they have low water pressure in their new home in Troll's Glen Fourth Addition. They have had to install a pump and requested that the City pay for the equipment, repair and maintain it. This item will be on a future Council agenda. Council Meeting, December 8, 1980 -8- REPLAT LOT 7, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION: to table action. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved The following voted in and Swenson. No negative I THOMAS JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT 14, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT: Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are requesting variances to construct a home in place of the existing cabin at 3629 Red Cedar Point Drive. The following variances are required to the Shoreland Management Ordinance and the R-l District requirements of Ordinance 47: 1. 12 foot front yard variance. 2. 3 foot side yard variance on both sides. 3. 30 foot lot width variance. 4. 40+ foot lot frontage variance. 5. 13,000 square foot lot area variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the variances. Councilman Neveaux moved to grant approval to the Thomas and Linda Johnson variance request for Lot 14, Block 4, Red Cedar Point as shown on Exhibit A of the Planner's report. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. LETTERS OF CREDIT REDUCTION REQUEST FOR .CHAPARRAL FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD ADDITIONS: Councilman Swenson moved to table action. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. 201 WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM, JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT: Virginia Harris I was present requesting comments from the Council on the Joint Powers Agreement. Comments should be sent to her by December 15. The City Attorney will review the agreement. Carver County will be interviewing for a consulting engineer to cOTI~lete Step 2 of the 201 Program on December 18. Councilman Pearson will represent the Council at these interviews. COUNCIL TOUR: Council members will tour various projects throughout the City on December 20, 1980, at 9:00 a.m. from City Hall. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hobbs asked if any members wished to discuss any items on the consent agenda. As there were no further comments, Councilman Geving moved to approve the consent agenda as recommended by the City Manager: a. Authorization to advertise for bids, Watermain Extension for Phase II, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Public Improvements. b. Designate December 26th as an official holiday. c. Authorize Resolution setting the diseased tree budget for 1981. RESOLUTION 80-53 Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. The and Don Ashworth City Manager I