Loading...
1980 12 15 I I I SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1980 Acting Mayor Neveaux called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson and Swenson. Mayor Hobbs and Councilman Geving came late. AWARD OF BIDS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SATELLITE FIRE STATION: The Planning Commission recommended site plan approval contingent upon the station be moved an additional ten feet toward Highway 7. Jack Boarman discussed the bids that have been received and recommended approval of the low bid from John Klingelhutz in the amount of $147,450.00. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the site plan for the satellite fire station in the northwest area of the city as presented this evening. Said site plan being in conformance with the Planning Commission recommendation and that additionally grant the City a conditional use permit for the erection of this facility in an R-l District. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the base bid from John Klingelhutz in the amount of $147,450.00 contingent upon the architect reviewing the bid with the bidder and submitting the appropriate performance bond. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER APPLICATION, THE PONY EXPRESS BAR, 431 WEST 78TH STREET: Donald D. Kallestad was present requesting the council grant off sale and on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to his corporation, Kallestad Enterprises, Inc. The City Attorney reviewed his report of December 11, 1980, dealing with an investigation of the proposed licensee corporation and its sole shareholder, Donald Kallestad. Councilman Geving moved to grant on sale and off sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Kallestad Enterprises, Inc. conditioned that there be no professional exotic dancers of either sex performing on the premises and video tape viewing by customers shall not include filmed performances of the X-Rated variety. Said licenses expire April 30, 1981, and are subject to renewal. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, PARK ONE Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Arijis Pakalns, BRW, Inc. Frank Beddor, Jr. Clark Horn Carol Watson Marcy Kurimchak Julius Smith The purpose of this public hearing is to consider establishment of Park One as an economic development district. Arijis Pakalns reviewed the economic development district study and the financial feasibility study. Councilman Geving - Is this going to have any affect on our bond rating? Don Ashworth - In selling bonds, they are looking at the net worth associated with the City, if you have a letter of credit from a recognized institution they treat that just exactly the same as cash. They are looking at it in the same light that you are. How does this affect the potential debt of the City or the potential liability? If you can show them that in fact you have literally cash to guarantee this it will not affect your bond rating. Council Meeting December 15, 1980 -2- Councilman Geving - Are we in a sense creating another development district which would be competing for the same kinds of businesses that we would be attempting to attract to our business park? Frank Beddor, Jr. - All three of these buildings are our own. We purchased that property in Park One to put in a company called United Mailings and also Instant Web. We do not look at those two as being the same. We look at Park One as industrial where, particularly the back area for larger buildings. We look at Park Two as commercial/industrial more emphasis on people who want the exposure. Our inquiries so far that we have had, we have had a half a dozen on Park Two, have all been commercial. The inquiries we have had, with the exception of one, on Park One have all been industrial. There was one commercial that wanted to be up in the front area. We have been kind of hamstrung since we bought that property because we have not been able to go any further. We own all three of these companies so that we don't feel quite as concerned about the guarantee. We have not had a chance to really sit down with Don or Russ and work out this letter of credit or guarantee. We certainly don't want to hurt the City's bond rating. The first building is United Mailing, Inc. which we already own the business and want to move out. The second building, we already have the building. I would like to remind the Council of all these meetings I have been to and to the Planning Commission and I have been to meetings where Animal Fair has been here and MTS and they have kind of come and gone, we came with The Press, we put it in, Reply Systems is six months ahead of time. Our phase three and four of that 50 foot extension is The Bindery, Inc. and Warehouse, Inc. and they should probably be together and they are right on schedule. The third building is a company we purchased some time ago that will probably outgrow it facilities prior to 1985,but we own the land and we plan on putting it in our own land. None of these need exposure. We are not in the retail business. We were asked to help the downtown project to move Instant Web from Park One to what we call Park Two. We did not request that, that was a request from Don Ashworth, specifically the Council, the HRA. We are concerned that we go right ahead with the plans we have. Basically, we are looking at industrial with some commercial in Park One. Park Two we are looking for commercial, possibly some industrial. We are putting Instant Web on a site and it doesn't need that exposure. As far as a guarantee, we have put nothing in here that we did not absolutely know ourselves that we have planned on putting in barring an earthquake or a complete recession. Don Ashworth - There have been a lot of things that have occurred over a period of time, Instant Web has not been the pusher behind this. I think it's been looked at as some mutual points. Several key points have been tried to be upheld to make sure we maintain some consistency but there is equal treatment as regard to what would be considered as totally local improvements and assessment of those in a similar manner as there would be assessment for road and utilities for Lyman or DonReed, etc. There are costs that can reasonably be looked at as far as serving a much wider base than solely this property. That before any portions of it were to proceed that the City would in fact receive a full guarantee non-hurting of bond rating, etc. to carry out any portion of these improvements. From a standpoint of Instant Web, I think they have been very cooperative, I think some of the things that the City has done not purposely, but it appears as though we have tried to channelize totally into the business I I I I I I Council Meeting December 15, 1980 -3- park area and I don't think there was really any desire to handicap their ability to market and sell. Mayor Hobbs - When you look at something like the industrial park or the economic development district and the larger scope, you see many areas merging together to come out with a complete project and I think if we were to go ahead with this district it's only fair that we put this property as competitive within our power, without putting the City in debt, as we have other properties. I don't think it should be more. You look at the economic development district potentially being a vehicle to carry out those improvements which do cover a broader scope then just Park One even though Park One will develop. I think that also becomes consistent with what happened between the City, the County, and Mr. Dunn in the industrial park. If you go back and you have seen the interior of the industrial park done through city bonding and a guarantee, no tax increment at that point in time, but two or three years work with the county to complete a county road, to complete a railroad bridge, to complete a new bridge on County Road 17 that the county picked up, they all worked together. They make each other viable. The sum result has certainly been good for Chanhassen and for the eastern end of the county. Another thing that I was thinking about, I think the city has to be cautious and I think they have to be conservative in utilizing the tax increment authority or economic development district but I think we also have to realize that in the past decade the ability of the municipality to increase any type of a tax has been severely limited. Councilman Swenson - I have certain reservations with l86th Street as far as it continuing on up through Eden Prairie. I find that highly unlikely because I think the residents up in that area are going to stampede Eden Prairie if they attempt to put a minor collector road through their neighborhood. Mayor Hobbs - I thought that was on Eden Prairie's comprehensive plan. Arijis Pakalns - The Eden Prairie plan actually calls for a crossing of the railroad tract and connecting. There is a future potential for this railroad bridge to be constructed. Right now we don't call for it. It is planned to continue south and it is called out as a minor arterial and will connect eventually to 212/169. This plan calls for constructing two lanes on the Chanhassen side and if Eden Prairie decides to do theirs, two lanes. It will be four lanes with a small boulevard in the middle. Mayor Hobbs - How far north does it go on Eden Prairie's plan? Don Ashworth - To Townline Road. Part of the road has been constructed. Councilman Swenson - Are we going to supercede this 8% that we are supposedly restricted to? Don Ashworth - By the Hennepin County Resolution? Councilman Swenson - Yes. Don Ashworth - No. I have just received a letter from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners which I will pass out. What they are stating is that the City would be to the limit that they have established in regards to that resolution. That they are not against the project as forseen but would recommend that the City would not consider future extensions of this. If you look at Hennepin County's action in regards to any other district whether economic or tax increment, this is a very positive response. Hennepin County has shown a track record of being against any type of project anywhere within the county.~è I consider this a positive recommendation. The recommendation from the Planning Commission of December 10, 1980, was noted. Council Meeting December 15, 1980 -4- Ed Dunn - Going way back the question came up about what impact might approval of Park One have to do with impacting other properties in the industrial park we have. We are firm believers that action begets action, that I if you are in the place where it's desirable to go that anything done only makes the next thing that much easier and we would welcome the kind of development that we have seen Mr. Beddor bring into the community. Clark Horn - I was under the assumption this was going to be a district implement by the City Council rather than by the HRA, has that changed? Don Ashworth - No. The district as it is proposed is one that would be created solely by the City Council. Any references within that contract to HRA only recognizes the HRA role within the downtown portion and the existing tax increment district. There has been no imput by the HRA to the City Council on this development district. The City Engineer reviewed the feasibility study for public utilities, i.e. sanitary sewer, water, street, drainage, signalization. Councilman Geving - My statement was related to the ability of the City to put this in without too much involvement with the State and with Eden Prairie. We can still move ahead with the road construction, sewer, the storm drainage, the whole works independent almost of Eden Prairie. Jim Orr - That's right. Councilman Geving - And almost of the State until we get to the point of dealing with them on the entrance. Jim Orr - You obviously need concurrence with both the State and Eden Prairie I but as far as the financing the numbers that you have presented here do not contemplate contributions from either one. That's not to say that there shouldn't be some kind of agreement or attempt to get Eden Prairie to contribute a portion of this or at least an agreement in the future that they would cover a portion because I think that's totally fair that they should pay for some of this. Councilman Geving - At this point we have not discussed this at all with Eden Prairie. Jim Orr - We have had discussions with the staff but there hasn't really been anything definite. Frank Beddor - I would like to recap for a second our request. We are not requesting four lane traffic with Eden Prairie. We are not requesting signalization. We have requested sewer and water utilities. We are requesting some type of limited ingree off of Highway 5 and that can be just going west where you could make a turn off to relieve some of the pressure up on Dakota for trucks coming in and out of that area. If you took out of this feasibility study the signalization I think this economic district that you are proposing here is really going to fly. The benefits, you realize, are not only for Park One but for the south side of the road and the eastern part. We are only one part of this. We have been before the Planning Commission this week and they passed a resolution that our plan did meet with their overall comprehensive plan. We are looking tonight really for two resolutions that you might take action on. One is that you do vote to make this an economic district because basically the developments that are going in are our own and we are being substantially heldup by not going ahead and second, I did the same thing Dale (Geving) did when I saw these two reports and when they put figures in front of me I like to know where they come from. We would also like to entertain a motion or a resolution to have Schoell and Madson prepare I I I I Council Meeting December 15, 1980 -5- the specifications for bids for all these so that we can get the actual cost down so we can,as a developer, plan and we understand that's going to cost $25,000 to $30,000 and as the developers we are willing to bring a letter of credit tomorrow morning for the $30,000 so we can get the actual cost on what we are requesting which are two lane roads, sewer, water and we would like to know what that is so we can go ahead from that point. I would appreciate if you could give some thought to voting tonight on the economic district as we outlined it and second, a resolution to put out for specifications with Schoell and Madson so we can obtain actual costs. Councilman Pearson - It would seem to me that right now all we are talking about is something to get some access in there, why couldn't we open up the thing that we just closed and not worry about l84th Street. We could use that as a temporary maybe for only two or three years. Then do the thing right. Right now we are in a hurry to do everything I don't think we are in a position to do this thing the way you are proposing it now. Jim Orr - MnDot says that the minimum requirement for any access onto Highway 5 would be deceleration and acceleration lanes on the west bound traffic. You would have to add,as a minimum, that amount. Frank Beddor - We are willing to waiver ingressand outgress on Highway 5. We know that it is coming at some point, even on a limited basis if it helps get this forward. We are really talking about putting sewer, water, curb and gutter in our area and it seems tonight that we are getting hung up on a lot of things that a lot of other bodies are going to have to vote on. I withdraw our request for a limited access on Highway 5. We will work off Dakota until you can resolve that. Councilman Pearson - That's a big thing and I think the area to the south is very important. If we say you have got a tax increment there we will have somebody coming in from the south saying we have got to have it there too. Carol Watson - Why wasn't this particular piece of property included in the original tax increment district? Mayor Hobbs - The property is not contiguous. Don Ashworth - The first district only encompassed the downtown area. The amendment that occurred almost a year later picked up the business park as a part of that whole thing. Councilman Neveaux 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. Hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, PARK ONE: RESOLUTION #80-54: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution amending #9 and #14 to include the Lyman Lumber Company property. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to table action December 23, 1980. This meeting will be for Kraus-Anderson, Bloomberg Companies, Swenson. The following voted in favor: and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion on the agreement and feasibility study to for the sole purpose of discussing contracts and Instant Web. Motion seconded by Councilman Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, carried. Council Meeting December 15, 1980 -6- LAKE SUSAN WEST PRD, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT: Ed Dunn, Rod Hardy, Bill Preiss, Bill Furkey, and Bob Hoffman were present. Mr. Dunn introduced Mr. Furkey from Orrin Thompson who made a presentation of home styles, architecture and generally discussed the proposing housing within Lake Susan West. The City Manager restated the recommendation presented in his report of December 15, 1980, i.e. that the City Council should not take action on this item but refer it back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission review should include finalizing the recommendation associated with the townhome portion of the Lake Susan West development proposal. Again, until this major portion of the development has been reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission, no action can be recommended by the City Council on the proposed plat. Councilman Neveaux moved to table action and refer to the Planning Commission for resolution of the issues in the Planner's report. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned. The and Don Ashworth City Manager I I I