Loading...
1h2. North Side Parking Lot, Plans & Specs & Authorize for Bids , C I T Y 0 F i / Il \, :. 1 _,..., . '° _, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 CHANHASSEN I (612) 937-1900 Aram 5: '' . ,r i;, :. t,; MEMORANDUM `^"" Aodtel I TO: Don Ashworth , City Manager t .1�._ r— 5_/z _ ,° '.7 / DM submItt.:d to Commission I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer f ,submitted t Wunci( DATE: May 17 , 1989 1 SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications for North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 87-17 and Authorize Advertising for Bids IFile No. 87-17 One of the more complex parcels that the City has dealt with in Ithe downtown redevelopment area involves the area for the north side parking lot improvement project. This project, by necessity, has been coordinated with the many adjoining 1 properties/developments such as Medical Arts, Town Square Center, Kenny' s, Heritage Park Apartments and the Riviera. Plans and specifications were authorized by the Council at the March 13, I 1989 meeting. The attached March 17 , 1989 correspondence from BRW summarizes the project as presently designed and presents a schedule which is compatible with the first phase of the Medical Arts Building and the Heritage Park Apartments construction. IStaff was directed to review three issues as a part of the authorization of plans and specifications. The first issue was Ito address the necessity for the fire hydrants located between the Heritage Park Apartments and the Medical Arts Building. Fire Inspector Mark Littfin and Fire Chief Dale Gregory have reviewed I this issue and feel strongly that the fire hydrants and watermain are necessary in the parking lot area. As such, the watermain and hydrants are included in these construction documents . I The second issue to be addressed is the assessment of 23 parking spots to Mericor Properties, representatives of the Chanhassen Retail Limited Partnership, who is the owner of the Town Square I Center . This is an assessment issue which will be dealt with as a part of the assessment hearing process in 1990 when the project is completed; however , as noted in the attached memo from Mr. Fred Hoisington , a meeting was held with Mericor representatives I on March 28 , 1989. Mericor Properties indicates they at least understand the parking lot assessment calculation as proposed and we expect this will be further reviewed at such time as Mericor II 1 Don Ashworth May 17 , 1989 Page 2 supplies us with their parking study. I believe all parties PP P 9 Y P understand the assessment concepts and as such should be able to arrive at some reasonable figures in conjunction with the assessment hearing in 1990 . The last issue which staff was directed to review was the curb 111 cut proposed near the Cenex gas station at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street. The attached memorandum dated March 9 , 1989 from Fred Hoisington presents some background understanding concerning the necessity for this curb cut. This received further review and approval from the Planning Commission at its April 19 , 1989 meeting. As such it is incor- porated into the site plan for the Medical Arts Building and pre- liminary plat for this area which was also approved by the Planning Commission. BRW will be prepared to present further traffic analysis at Monday night' s meeting -for this issue. The plans and specifications include this curb cut as originally pro- posed. As noted in the attached letter from BRW, these construction ' documents include improvements to the general area around City Hall . With the recent completion of City Hall building improve- ments , it was decided to include the parking lot and landscape improvements for City Hall in the north side parking lot project in an attempt to obtain better bids by letting a larger project. The City' s fall bonding program will include funding for these project costs . It is therefore recommended that the attached plans and specifi- cations as prepared by BRW be approved and authorization given for advertising for bids . Attachments ' 1 . March 13 , 1989 City Council meeting minutes . 2 . April 19 , 1989 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 3 . Letter from BRW dated May 18 , 1989 . 4 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated March 30 , 1989 . 5 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated March 9 , 1989 . 6 . Construction Documents (available at City Hall on 5/19/89 ) . c: Gary Ehret, BRW Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Group, Inc. MO 7 :a/ t, City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 It--- Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up. .. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to ' the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68 feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING ' LOT. B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT. ' Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Gary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see, our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support of the project. Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint, this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the letter is appropriate that City staff meet with than to explain the rationale and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their ' flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what was originally planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts on the Riveria.. .they were assessed the parking and 23 units so we have gone through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint. But we certainly ' will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for getting further into that when the project is complete. ' Mayor Chmi.el: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing? ' Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425 Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here ' tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that's furnishing the water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project of $50,000.00. We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally, — especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinkled building to a totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,000.00 thus far. In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listen but we have not heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of fire protection. In 29 ATTTAcuMFIJT m. City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 addition, we have brought the apartment building completely through the whole planning process that is now approved to be built and nobody ever raised the question about additional fire hydrants on the south side of the building. So therefore we suggest that this be looked at. I'm going on record as to our feelings. We're meeting with the folks from the Fire Department tomorrow to further question that but it's a $50,000.00 expense and we're just not sure it's needed. There may be a need for a fire hydrant somewhere there but this is maybe not the right way to do it, in our opinion. Thank you. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to look into those two points. The 23 parking stalls and the staff further review the necessity of that fire hydrant. I think we looked, when we looked at the apartments, we looked pretty thoroughly, the Fire Department looked over the plans. But if the Fire Marshall now says he goofed, missed and it is necessary for fire fighting, then it's necessary we put it in as far as I'm concerned. I think we need to look and see if it is overkill. $50,000.00 is $50,000.00. Another straw on this camel's back. ' Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Don Ashworth: I should make the Council aware of the fact that I did receive a ' call from Mr. Krueger a little more than a week ago, must have been shortly after his notice. At that point in time he was disturbed with the design and the amount of the assessments. We did set up two different meetings with Mr. Krueger to try to adjust the plan to insure maximum spaces and we got into a __ number of other issues dealing really with the Retail West project, not necessarily dealing with the project before us. I think that is resolved. I would just like to make the council aware of the fact that again, Mr. Kruger was quite concerned and I think the final plans that we bring back to you will address the issues of concern to him. Do you wish to say anything more in that area Brad, Gary or... , Fred Hoisington: I would just briefly. We met with the Kruegers this morning and had a very good meeting with them. We have adjusted the plan which means we do have to bring it back to the Planning Commission and the Council for an adjustment in the site plan but they were very pleased with the outcome and the modifications that have been made so I think we have that very well resolved. I think Tom would have probably been here tonight if we hadn't. Gary Warren: On the watermai.n issue, since we will be asking for authorization to go ahead on the plans and specifications on our next item, Fire Chief and the Inspector have looked at that based on earlier concerns mentioned from Mr. Johnson and as you see their memo in the packet they are still saying that it is a necessary item for fire fighting even in light of the sprinklers. Pri.miarly because of the congestion in trying to get fire support in there with the parking. Invariably there's going to be parked cars and the closest hydrants are going to be out on West 78th Street. That's at least the way II they've explained it to me and I know Chief Gregory is here in the back hall r waiting for one of the next items. That's their position on it at this point. �.. Mayor Chmiel: What's the distance from the 78th Street complex? , 30 IICity Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 Gary Warren: It's over 300 feet. II Don Ashworth: You're referring to the apartment complex? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other discussion? IICouncilman Boyt: A quick point. In Fred's letter to us he said, if we had a choice, we would prefer to have no curb cut to West 78th Street at the location of the clock tower. It's my intent to vote against that as long as the curb Icut's in there. Mayor Chmiel: The existing curb cut is what you're saying? IICouncilman Boyt: That we're changing what's there and putting a new one in and I recognize that the new one is going to be an improvement over what we have now but I do not think we should do anything to complicate that corner and this will IIcomplicate it and it's not our consultant's first choice. It's what they felt they had to negotiate to get. My experience in talking to people about that corner is that the general public will not understand that we negotiated to I inconvenience them. So it's my plan to vote against it. I don't think this is the point when we need to vote against it but eventually we're going to get down to that vote and if that's still there, that's how I'll vote. ;1 Councilman Workman: I also have reservations about that curb cut. Are we looking for a motion for A and B? II 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you have no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion for items 2(A) and 2(B) . I Councilman Johnson: So moved. I'll make the motion and modify it a little here to try and get things moving I guess since there's no second coming quickly. That we look into the items that were discussed tonight, if that's part of the 1 problem of the second. The fire hydrant, whether there's any alternatives. If we can cut some costs there. Maybe split the differnce and put the hydrants halfway between or wherever. Looking at the issue of the 23 parking spots for Mericor as to whether their business warrants an additional 23 parking spots to I be assessed against them. I'm not sure what we can do about that curb cut but it would be better for the overall traffic flow on West 78th not to have the curb cut there. It would be worse for the property owners that are paying, that I are being assessed for these parking lots if the curb cut were eliminated so I'm kind of stuck on that one. I'd say further review of the curb cut situation and discussions with the owners of the property to include getting feedback from the owners of the property whether that curb cut is required for them. IICouncilman Boyt: I'll second it because it's going to the Planning Commission and will be back in front of us again anyway. I'm just sending the signal. IResolution #89-35: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Downtown Public Improvement Project No. 87-17 and to authorize I preparation of plans and specifications for the north side parking lot. Further directing staff to looking into the fire hydrant requirements, the assessment of t..._ 23 parking spots to Mericor and to further review the curb cut situation onto West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II 31 Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 20 r AL something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that' s a PUD? Batzli : I think if they were to. . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking ' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it' s on a slope. . . , Ellson: I can picture it. . . Conrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? 1 Emmings: Yes. Conrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? , Emmings: Yes they are. Conrad : . . .you don ' t think the developer could never achieve? Emmings: I would like to see them move this project. . . If Lot 14 doesn ' t , have any development . If we lower some density. I don ' t know what can be moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the Size of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . Conrad : I guess you ' ve heard that we haven ' t ruled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on . The numbers in certain cases look really great to me . I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we' re saying, the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla : I 'd like to see the portion . . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made . Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: ' �. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. ' Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. ATTACH MENT I UM I ' Planning Commission Meeting II April 19 , 1989 - Page 21 IIIP A. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first , I don ' t know if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building Iin the back and that' s the . . .we' re proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2. . . At the request of the City we dropped Phase 3 here as part of our program. . . That gives you an idea . I 've asked Arvid to Iaddress, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of. . . We need the signs permitted by the ordinance . . . It' s back lit. It's that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like Gelco . That sign. That kind of sign that we've got a dark opaque feeling Iand the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia . . . Arvid Elness : I ' ll just make a couple points . This is the soffit plan . ITwo things that were addressed here. . . We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do . . .one is a matter of. . . The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn' t be distinguished as a Ifeature or element that is different than the main building . I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of I Material . I notice the material used on that free standing element that , stand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have proper materials and should feel like they' re integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we' re using . . .so this Ielement here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as something different. In doing that, the materials of the main building are like lap siding . They' re cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the Iupper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building. So in doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the front here . . .because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form Iout in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked what the signage said . . .we' re talking about . We did some studies as to Iways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the . . .was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled . . .color ban of the building or could be used to introduce some backing . Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural . . . So Iit' s sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have. . .as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there' s a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and Imark. . .so I think we' re comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level . . . The problem with the drawings was that we submitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site . . . So the two issues I have I guess are the choice IIof materials on the exterior of the building and I think that ' s in character with what I 'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what ' s ; aappeni.ng around town . These are materials that are very common place . . . IBrad Johnson: What about the lighting? Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 22 Arvid Elness : Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street. . . The lighting for the parking is taken care of on the plan. What we tried to do beyond that is because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void, a space between it' s. . .we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of these main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they' ll glow with it' s own light. Then the city standards out there with the light . . . So we' ll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and every place they refer around the building. We' ll probably put some light in the cupola on the roof up here. . . Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I ' ve explained. The sign ban. . . Conrad : Anything else? , Emmings moved , Ellson second to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : I have no problems with the signage. . . .The sidewalk there. I foresee that to be a . . . That' s the way I look at it. I 'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there, whatever . Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? "- Hanson : No. We ' re not proposing to put speed limit signs . Conrad: I think everybody' s going to have the same kind of questions . Steve, maybe you can help us on this , or Brad . The last time this was in, we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic . . . We talked about speed bumps . We talked about signs . You eliminated the speed bumps. You eliminated the signs and basically what you' ve done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? Hanson: I personally don' t see that as a problem. . . look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate . . . Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to . . . bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know there' s something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs . In my opinion , that ' s what we can do and that ' s. . . Conrad: Are they going to , the pedestrian traffic , are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they' re going to use? Hanson : I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other ' question, if somebody' s walking , why are they walking in there? I can see them walki.ng . . . Kenny' s Market to buy groceries and then carry them back. . . Headla : I 'm not concerned about people carrying groceries . I 'm concerned -,_about young people on skateboards and bicycles . If you ' ve ever had an office by a window on the second or third story or higher above a parking lot . Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It ' s atrocious the way they can speed. I ' ve been hit in a parking lot . . . It Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 23 t happens. All the rationale says it shouldn ' t, there are speeders . . . I simply can not believe. . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer . Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . Batzli : Did I miss something or isn' t the lighting of the building going to be. . .? Brad Johnson: It' s all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. Hanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned . . . Brad Johnson: I don' t have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is the parking lot plan that BRW put out . Batzli : The access here, the left area . . .access east . . . That' s the one I talked about last time. . . Ellson : I don ' t like the . . .parking . . .juts around . I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally think. . . then it stops and then you' ve got this distance open but this goes right through and there are parking places on this side and parking places ''-on this side and there' s a sidewalk in the middle . Normally a person on the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I . . . and I don ' t like that . I think there should be speed bumps , stop signs . . . Emmings: I have the same reservation . I essentially feel that. . . I don' t have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic . . . What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids walking, they can walk out between two parked cars. If they' re 3 1/2 feet or shorter , the driver doesn ' t have a chance to see them and they don' t have a chance to see the car . You' re creating a situation where I think it ' s. . .driving down streets , you' re always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It ' s happened to me. I didn ' t hit them but other people have and we' re creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out . Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk . . .sight lines , that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be, I think that' s what we asked before. To me that ' s essential . I 'd put stop signs there . . . . stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely satisfied through it ' s use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn' t warrant stop signs . I 'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn ' t necessary. Then we 'd just have . . . Tim Erhart ' s discussion could not be heard on the tape . Conrad : . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint , they' re going co . . . It ' s probably going to be there . It ' s fairly straight . I 'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of si_gnage. That ' s my only comments . I like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 24 C have to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Emmings : I guess I was a little confused about what exactly. . . was the preliminary plat? . . .sidewalk issue. Hanson: The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan. That was the first document. . . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stampted "Received April 14 , 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad : Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla: . . . 1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed. ( The first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks . I 'd like to go to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. Conrad : Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second . Is there another motion? Erhart : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan and final facia , signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" with the conditions , number 1 as is. Number 2 as is . Number 3 , did you start out by saying what? Headla : It ' s on the opposite page there . Number 3. Erhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . And item number 4, to review the west access to increase access to the area for . . . To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot . . . Hanson : Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards the. . .? I 'm just trying to clarify that . Emmings : Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did? Conrad : Is there a second to Tim' s motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 C Ellson: I ' ll second it. Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of revised site plan and final facia , signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. Erhart, Ellson, Wi.ldermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . ( 3atzli : My reason is, I still don' t like the eastern entrance to the south . The eastern most southern entrance. Emmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can ' t approve the plan the way it is . PUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions : FLA.NNiNG lg5t. • TRANSPORTATiON ENGINEERING { liFBhN DESIGN r 'ice $SW. INC. THRESHER SCUAHc • %O,0 THIRD STREET SJU'H • '•AiNNEAFOLI$,MINNESOTA 5c-415 PHONE 612i37C•Ci[10 FAX 612/370.1378 . • 4 May 18, 1989 City of Chanhassen CITY O�F CNANNkSSEN 690 Coulter Dr Chanhassen, MN ive W �ll j Attn: Mr. Gary Warren, PE MAY 18189 City Engineer RE: Plan and Specification Approval ENGINEERING DEPT North Side Parking Lot CP 87-17 Dear Gary, We are nearing completion of the plans and specifications for reconstruction of the north side public parking lot as directed by the Chanhassen City Council at their February 27, 1989 meeting. The plans and specifications have been completed in accordance with the Feasibility study (Revision #1) dated February 1988, with the Following exceptions: #1 The site plan was modified to provide a oifferent sidewalk con- figuration. from the Heritage Parma :apartments than that which was shown in the feasibility study. The plans and specifications are consistent with the site plan being submitted on Monday' s agenda. #2 At the request of the developer, water service to the Medical Arts Building Phase r will be from a stub on West 73th Street rather than from the back as originally proposed. #3 A sanitary sewer stub is proposed to serve the Heritage Park Apartments. If this is not necessary, we will delete it from the bid. #4 Because Chanhassen Lawn and sports is not likely to be relocated at the time of construction, we were forced/ to reroute the storm sewer alignment. h5 Facia Construction, as tdiscussad in the feasibility study, is being designed by another consultant and will be submitted separately for Council consideration. _..:./3 CAFCNER.i.0 GRC4P DAVDJ•E.r.eTT SCNAIG.,.:;.r.GF:GEE - _�..i,_r,.=�_ �F FAE .--._ _ ..R?. 3.,.,_rrEF. T-�.•. sFCr.AS:1_ C-a„ • _'1C="r _:.r:•LDE-1J9T G r>LNE '.00h,;.:.av EEvE.Y. _•nC _w■D• ;rar,AM MINNEAPOLIS OENV=R PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSGURG ATT4c eQ- - 4.3 , Mr. Gary Warren May 19, 1989 Page 2 As you are aware, the construction phasing for this project is very dependent upon a number of factors. They include: A. Acquisition of the Mason property B. Final resolution to the Cenex Station C. Final resolution to the Chanhassen Lawn and Sports D. Heritage Park Apartments construction Given the nature of some of these unresolved issues, the actual final construc- tion (particularly of black top) will most likely not be determined until after the project has been bid. Therefore, we are building into the contract as much flexibility for the City as possible, to allow you to add or deduct from the contract work as necessary without penalty. It is also important to recognize that consistent with Revision #1 of the feasi- bility study we are not including in this contract concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, lig`ting or landscaping in the Phase II area other than enough paving to provide accees to the Medical Arts parking area. In addition to the work outlined for the north side parking improvements, the plans and specifications will include the reconstruction of 'areas around City Hall . These improvements which include sidewalk reconstruction, new landscaping, etc. , will be bid separately as a part of this project as directed by Mr. Ashworth, City Manager. Our estimate of these costs is $ 32,400.00 Our engineer's estimate for the improvements outlined in the plans and specifi- cations is as follows: chase 1 Engineer's Feasibility Study Estimate Drainage/Storm Sewer $ 63,600.00 $ 44,000.00 Grading/raving 213.575.00 243,300.00 Landscape/Lighting 100,000.00 69,000.00 Sanitary Sewer 12,400.00 7,500.00 Water Main 40,250.00 33,000.00 Private Utilities 5,000.00 -- Facade Improvements 79,000.00 -- TOTAL $513,925.00 $395,800.00 o Note that we are not aware of any private utility costs at this time so they have not been included. o Also note that the Phase 1 estimate in the feasibility study included $79,000.00 for the facade improvements. These improvements are not a part of this package so we have not provided an engineer's estimate. Mr. Gary Warren May 13, 1989 Page 3 As you can see, if we deduct the two items referenced above ($75,000.00 + $5,000.00 = $84,000.00) , our engineer's estimate is $34,000.00+ below the esti- mated cost in the feasibility study. We certainly hope that tEe bids reflect a significant savings as well . Subject to City approval the project schedule will proceed in a fashion con- sistent with the improvements to be carried out by the developer. Although somewhat tenuous, our preliminary schedule is outlined below: Approve Plans and Specifications May 22, 1989 Advertise for Bids May/June 1989 Receive Bids June 16, 1989 Award Contract June 26, 1989 , Start Construction July 21, 1989 Complete Construction Novcmber 1, 1989 Pending Council approval , we will proceed In this manner. Sincerely, B NC. 042,r- ary A. hret, PE Project Manager GAE/sk File 7-8901 Hoisington Group Inc. Land Use Consultants MEMO To: Don Ashworth, City Manager and Gary Warren, City Engineer From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Meeting with Jim Winkles on 3-28-89 Date: 3-30-89 The purpose of the meeting with Jim was to discuss the proposed assessments to be levied against Townsquare Center for north side parking and storm sewer improvements. I explained to Jim, the rationale for 23 parking assessment units indicating that we originally expected 32 spaces to be available for Tom Krueger westerly of the Riviera but in recalculating parking demands find that Ahn Lei has increased the parking demand for Townsquare to 91 spaces leaving only 9 for the Riviera. I explained that we simply subtracted 9 from 32 to give them (Townsquare) 23 assessment units. Jim was very agreeable though he did not agree specifically to the parking assessment. He conceded that the storm drainage assessment was appropriate but that they would like to at least understand the rationale for the 23 parking assessment units. I explained to Jim that the official Assessment Hearing would not be held until probably the fall of 1990 and that the assessment roll could change at any time up until a roll was formally approved by the City Council. I suggested that if they questioned their parking demand and they would like to suggest an alternative to the 91 that we calculated, they do their own parking study and present that as evidence at the Public Ilearing in 1990. I indicated that we would like to see that information before the Public Hearing because we would be making modifications to the roll based on such input. Jim was very agreeable with this approach. He seemed resigned to having to pay for a certain amount of parking based on their preemption of what we expected would be available for the Riviera. At this point we need do nothing except wait for the results of their parking studies and then decide what changes might be appropriate. 7300 Metro Blvd Suite 525 Edina, MN 55435 (612)835-9960 /- ATTACHMENT- n _ , Hoisington Group inc.1n�. I Land use Consultants MEMO CITY OF MINI .SSEN To: Gary Warren, City Engineer REM From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant MAR 0 (3 1389 Subject: Colonial Center Curb Cut Date: 3 -9-89 E CI EER1IG DEPT. - Based on the very ligitimate concern raised , once again by Councilman Bill Boyt at the February 27 City Council meeting, I will give our rationale for including the right-in/right-out only curb cut for Colonial Center as part of the north side parking lot improvement. The original Feasibility S y turfy included two aIternauve plans, one showing a curb cut and the other providing no such cut. That was about the time we began to negotiate with the owners of Colonial Shopping Center to encourage them to donate their parking lot to the City to allow for public parking improvements. We were pitching the alternative without an access to West 78th Street but they and their tenants expressed significant concern over that exclusion. What we indicated at that time was that we would go back and look at the possibility of a design that could accommodate a curb cut and during subsequent meetings agreed that a right-in/ right-out was the only option that would be acceptable. They, of course, still favored an M- in ovemeni entrance/exit to the shopping center from `*Vest 7Sth Street. Throughtout the course of negotiations, the Colonial Center owners agreed that a right-in/right-out only access would be provided and that they would dedicate their land to the public parking project at no cost to the City in reliance on that access. lf, in fact, we were to eliminate that entrance to the parking lot, we would not have a project or the City would be faced with having to purchas-e and perhaps condemn the Colonial Center lot. The curb cut was part of that negotiation and its elimination would controvert all prior understaIidings. I I 7300 Metro blvd Suite 5?5 Lc,", r.ry 55435 (biz)est) 9950 ATTAC MEND t I We know there has been considerable unhappiness associated with 1 the intersection of West 7Stli Street and Great Plains Boulevard and if we had a choice we would prefer to have no curb cut to West 78th Street at this location. We have continually made that position known but we feel that a right-in/right-out access can be designed to do what the owners of Colonial Center feel they need and yet satisfy sound traffic engineering principles. The intersection improvement preceded the relocation of Trunk Highway 101 which means that it carries more traffic than it will have to after Highway 101 is improved. Furthermore the that presently serve the Cenex and Colonial Center sites are urnot in the location of the proposed curb cut. They are also not of proper width to accommodate access and the easterly one is located so that left turns can be made from West 78th Street. Once the curb cut is positioned as per the public improvement plans, left turns from eastbound West 78th Street into the Colonial Center parking lot will he eliminated. The proper opening width will also facilitate limited traffic movements in/out of the shopping center. In summary, all negotiations with the shopping center owners have been contingent upon the provision of a right-in/right-out access and we believe that access can be properly designed and positioned to function at an acceptable level of service even with today's traffic volumes. As time passes, and volumes are reduced on West 78th Street due to the relocation of I1ighwav 101, the level of service at this intersection will impro'.e and the Colonial Center curb cut will have no effect on traffic flows. I I I I 2 I I r