1l. minutes 1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and
Councilwoman Dimler. Councilman Workman arrived after item 4.
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Kate Aanenson, and Tom Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilman Mason wanted to add under
Council Presentations discussion of an ad in.the newspaper, and Mayor Chmiel
' wanted to add the HRA and TIF District information. All voted in favor of the
agenda as amended and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approve Contract Amendment for Additional Work Performed by Franklin J.
Svoboda and Associates, Wetland Management.
c. Approve Temporary and Permanent Easement Agreements for Easements Nos. 5,
6,7,8,9,10,11 and 13 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities, Project 91 -17.
r g. Resolution *92 - 119: Accept Utility Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West
8th Addition, Project 91 -16.
1 h. Resolution *92 - 120: Approve Contract Amendment No. 3 for Trunk Highway 5
Turn Lane Improvements at Lone Cedar Lane, Project 90 -9.
i. Approval of Accounts.
j. City Council Minutes dated October 12, 1992
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 22, 1992
k. Authorization to Send Donation to CART.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. APPROVE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK HOURS FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK TRUNK
UTILITIES, PROJECT 91 -17.
Mayor Chmiel: As I have reviewed this, I see that this is going to be a
1! variance to construction work hours for the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities.
I notice that we're going from 7:00 to 12:00 a.m., Monday thru Saturday. My
concern is, have all the residents adjacent to this project been notified?
r
1
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I mentioned in my staff
report, there's a figure that shows, basically the contractor's requesting this
work extension only in the areas where the utility installation will be deeper
than 20 feet. The attached figure shows the areas in which that occurs. The
majority of the areas, the work is being done at probably 600 to 1,000 feet from
the nearest property. There are a couple of areas where it does get a little
closer. They have not been contacted to date but as my staff report recommended
I a condition of approval that they notify the property owners within 500 feet of
each location that this is occurring. Again, this type of operation, there
won't be any trucks hauling like in a road type project. They propose to use
just two pieces of equipment. One to excavate and the other one just to compact
the trenches at night so hopefully dust and noise and stuff will be kept to a
minimum.
I Mayor Chmiel: My major concern is I don't like being woke up at midnight and
saying, if I can't sleep, you're not sleeping either. I want to make sure that
if we have complaints on this, that we close that project down and make them
work from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m..
Charles Folch: Absolutely.
II Councilman Mason: This is supposed to be until midnight? 12:00 A.M.?
Mayor Chmiel: Midnight. That's what it indicates, yep.
II Charles Folch: Yeah, we can certainly make that a condition of the approval. If
we have any complaints that can't be resolved, we'll go back to normal hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I'd move item 1(b).
Councilwoman Dimier: Second.
I Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve a Variance to
Construction Work Hours for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities, Project 91 -17.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE STREET AND UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT
I CONTRACT FOR ITHILIEN ADDITION, PROJECT 92 -13.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not very happy the way the contractors have been moving the
dirt from the site to other locations. An awful amount of mud on the road has
' been there and I've had some discussion with Charles during the week and I
understand that it's still not done. How are we going to address this so we can
accomplish Charles? That includes CR 17 and I'm not sure and I haven't checked
' the development area. Whether that was completely swept.
Charles Folch: Contact was made on Thursday when you notified staff of the
II problem. Contact was made with them to inform them that the streets needed to
be cleaned. If they weren't cleaned, we were going to send out a sweeper. Our
own sweeper and back bill them. Unfortunately, I was not in the office on
Friday to see what had resolved on that matter. It appears that if it had been
I taken care of, it's messy again or maybe it didn't get taken care of the first
time but certainly what we can do on this situation here is make this approval
2
•
City Council Meeting - Octaber 26, 1992
contingent that the streets get cleaned and that they basically are maintained
appropriately. Otherwise we'll take necessary action to do it ourselves. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to see those loaders be not quite as full and I
think that's partially part of the problem. They're trying to move as much as
they can and they're beyond their means of which is causing the problem.
Charles Folch: Yeah, if; they're exceeding their loads, basically there is State
law which says that either the loads have to be carried or the top of the fill
has to be a minimum of 4 inches below the top of the box. Otherwise we can
certainly cite them for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael, did you have anything?
Councilman Mason: I was going to bring it up because the shape that CR 17 is in
around the area. It sounds like it will be taken care of.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'd like to move item 1(b).
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the Street and
Utility Plans and Specifications and Amended Development Contract for Ithilien
Addition, Project 92 -13. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 1
PUBLIC HEARINGS: REQUEST FOR ON -SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE, FRANKIE'S PIZZA,
INC., 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD, FRANK STOCCO. 1
Don Ashworth: The Council, in fact I believe it was just this past year
requested that all on and off sale liquor licenses go through a formal public
hearing process. We have done that. We have placed this item into the
newspaper and we have notified all property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed business. We have carried out background checks. Those were all
positive. Good. And approval is being recommended on submittal of the $5,000.
surety bond that would expire then on April 30, 1993. Submittal of the
Certificate of Liquor Liability dated thru that same April 30th timeframe and
payment of the license fee. And approval is recommended. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Mr. Stocco here? Would you care to add anything
to this Frank? If you'd like to just come up to the podium. 1
Frank Stocco: The only thing I could add is that the liquor license is for beer
and wine only and served with meals only so I don't know what else to add to
that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. I thought maybe you may want to say something.
Okay, that's fine. Appreciate it. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
address this at this time? This is a public hearing. Seeing none, is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
3 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions from Council?
Councilman Wing: I move approval of the license for Frankie's Pizza, 7850
Market Blvd..
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded approval of an on -sale beer
and wine license for Frankie's Pizza, Inc. at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent
upon the following conditions:
1. Submittal of $5,000.00 surety bond that expires on April 30, 1992;
2. Submittal of a Certificate of Liquor Liability Insurance meeting the minimum
state requirements that expires on April 30, 1992; and
3. Submittal of the $270.00 license fee.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE. CHEERS WINE AND SPIRITS, 530
WEST 79TH STREET, DANIEL J. HERBST.
Don Ashworth: Again, we have notified all of the owners within 500 feet.
Background investigation into each of the officers did occur and we found no
negative comments. Again, staff is recommending approval. Again this is for an
off -sale license. It would occur in the same location that MGM previously
operated out of. Mr. Herbst is present. I'm not sure if he wishes to make any
comment. There were 3 conditions on that. Submittal of $3,000. surety bond
dated through April 30th, 1993. Submittal of a Certificate of Liquor Liability
Insurance through that same timeframe and the $150.00 license fee.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. One thing I'd like to make sure that Frank who was
just here previously be well aware of how the City Council views selling liquor
to minors and the little things that we do from time to time to just check these
facilities out. By sometimes sending minors in to see if we can then acquire,
or if they can acquire liquor because we don't want it to happen within the city
meaning that all ID's must be checked. In fact I had mine checked just the
' other day. And I showed it to them. But with that, Mr. Herbst, do you have
anything that you'd like to say at this time?
Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Dan Herbst. I usually get
mine checked for AARP membership. Basically we're looking forward to opening
our new store in Chanhassen. You will fine it's a highly conforming business.
We have, this will be our fourth store.- We've got an outstanding record. It
II will be a very well managed store. Excellent young management. Scott Krueger
is here tonight. My manager. It will be a very competitive store and it will
4
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 •1
be high on service and as I say, we're looking forward to opening up our new
business here in Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public
hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Seeing
none, I'll request we close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Dimier: Should I move the item now? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, I move approval of the off -sale intoxicating liquor
license request for Cheers III.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there a second? 1
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, on this item we've addressed the issue of liquor
license just previously and I'm not aware that we made much headway on that. If
there was any headway to be made. But to me this remains an open item and
although I don't oppose this, granting this license. Starting the first of the
year, I would like to see that back on the agenda. Specifically I see that
three liquor stores downtown in the business district may be adequate. Which I
think we have two. A third one would be three. Just picking out my own
opinions. And further that any other ones in the city should be a minimum of a
mile apart which is common in other cities. So whatever we went, what other
fundamentals we used for the granting of liquor licenses, I would like to see
this discussed by the Council and some rules set so that they're not just coming
to us off the cuff here without any plan or any development plan formed. That's
my only comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we have already addressed some of those things 1
regarding schools and churches. That they not be located in and adjacent to
those. And I think that's a good idea and we should probably bring it up on the
agenda. But competition is always a good thing to have within a community and 1
it's good to see that we're going to have that as well. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the application for an
off -sale intoxicating liquor license for Cheers III, Inc., to open a liquor
store called "Cheers Wine and Spirits" at 530 West 79th Street be approved
contingent upon the following: -
1. Submittal of a $3,000. surety bond that expires on April 30, 1993.
2. Submittal of a Certificate of Liquor Liability Insurance which meets the
minimum state requirements and expires on April 30, 1993.
5
1
II City Council Meeting - October` 26, 1992
I 3. Submittal of the $150.00 license fee.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Laverne Vassar 285 Flying Cloud Drive
Don Ashworth: Similar to previous years we are presenting to you the delinquent
sewer and water accounts to enforce for this year. State law allows a city to
' make a certification of those delinquent accounts to the County Auditor for
certification with property taxes payable in...1993. We are recommending that
the Council approve the attached listing. I'm not quite sure why we have such a
I high delinquency. There is a very high penalty associated with non - payment in
addition to the certification fee. Yet the list continues to be two pages long.
Three pages long.
1 Mayor Chmiel: What can we do to circumvent some of what we're seeing here? Are
there things such as shut offs after a 6 month period? So this could be
avoided, and I'm not saying that this should be done. I just, I get a little
1 concerned. Total amount of dollars that we have here and there are some
residential units that are $1,000.00. Some commercial $2,000.00. And it gets
very upsetting when you have an amount of $33,833.00 that has not come in. And
' the City is having to do this. Of course we're getting a fee back from that.
$7,390.00 but I don't know what's happening with this. I don't know if people
are making sure that if this goes to the County that it goes on record and it
comes under statements. They use this for the IRS or what. That's just my own
1 opinion. No one elses but I get a little disturbed to see the numbers that we
have. Is there something that we should look at or maybe bring up for
discussion to determine how we can address this at a later time?
Don Ashworth: Staff can bring it back. I had talked with Jerry Boucher in some
of the previous years. Some of the problems that we've run into include, in
II fact some of the people on here have sanitary sewer service but do not have
public water so you've got nothing to shut off. Some of the services actually
run through multiple buildings and so you may be turning off the water on an
owner who actually is paying trying to get to another owner that isn't. I think
1 probably the most difficult is that water shut offs sit in the frontyard
typically 6 -12 inches below the surface. We try to keep it as close as possible
but that is a piping system because the valve is way down below and so if at any
I time during construction, if that was hit, it almost becomes impossible to catch
that shut off. If you do, if it hasn't been turned on or off for 7, 8, 10, 15
years, there's a good chance it will break or you're not going to be able to
open it. In most instances, if there's a problem we'll come into your house.
We'll shut the water off inside of the house rather than at the curb. I can
bring it back at a future date but it's not an item that's easily solve and as
you notice, you do have a 33% fee against these right now. They're paying 33%
II on their money. I don't know why they would do that. • `
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: It's rather difficult to understand but, is there anyone wishing i
to address this at this time? This is a public hearing.
Laverne Vassar: My name is Laverne Vassar and I don't have any public utilities
from you people that you're sending me a bill for it. That's what I'd like to
know about. --
Don Ashworth: Mr. Vassar must be either in the rural area and is receiving a
water surface useage charge. I'm assuming you have a farm property or larger
acreage, a hobby farm?
Laverne Vassar: No. I'm on the south side of Highway 212. And your water
useage charge, storm water useage charge which you're trying to save, is not
even controlled by you people. It's controlled by the Minnesota Lower Watershed
District.
Mayor Chmiel: Where are you located exactly Mr. Vassar?
Laverne Vassar: I'm right on the southeast corner of the city there is. Almost
across the street from Moon Valley there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Laverne Vassar: And I've checked all the way up and down what you people are
charging for that storm water all the way from Gedney's all the way up there and
you have no rhyme or reason how you're even trying to charge for that and you're
not performing something and you can never perform something for me in the
future.
Don Ashworth: There is rhyme and reason. I mean there is a definite formula
that the Council had looked at and set. Have you reviewed this particular
parcel? Have you brought your concern in before?
Laverne Vassar: Well I got a bill originally for $3.22 and then I got a revised
bill later on. You can see what it is today.
Don Ashworth: Okay. And did you protest the revised bill? I'm assuming it's
much higher.
Laverne Vassar: No I haven't.
Don Ashworth: Okay. I would suggest, you've given a 30 day period of time to 1
pay before the certification occurs. I would suggest that, and I'm sorry, did
you say Vassar? ,
Laverne Vassar: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Laverne. '
Don Ashworth: I'll have Dave Hempel attempt to contact you. Dave is the one
who has looked at the charges associated with all of the rural properties and if
satisfaction is not received, we will invite Mr. Vassar to come back to the next
agenda or to put his concerns in writing.
7
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II Mayor Chmiel: I see where yours is $786.45 and with the 33% brings it to
$157.29 for a total of $943.74.
I Laverne Vassar: I've got more than that even. On the bills that what you've
sent me.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Okay. I think as Don has indicated, we'll have Dave
Hempel contact you and talk to you and see what is happening. I can't judge it
right now either so I don't have any idea, but I'd like to find out what it is
and if there's something that's wrong there, we make those corrections. But if
II it isn't, it might have to stand as is. But I'd like to find out more about it
and then we'd like to probably have you back here in 2 weeks if a satisfactory
condition has not been met.
Laverne Vassar: Will that be a Monday night also?
Mayor Chmiel: It will also be Monday night.
I
Laverne Vassar: Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any other discussions? This is a public
hearing as I've indicated. If seeing none, I request we close the public
hearing.
II Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
I Mayor Chmiel: Can I also have the approval for the certification of sewer and
water bills to the County?
1 Councilman Wing: I just wanted to ask Don. From experience, are the majority
of these hardship Don?
II Don Ashworth: I'm sorry.
Councilman Wing: Just from experience, have you found that the majority of this
list are hardship situations?
Don Ashworth: That has never been brought to my attention and most of the names
' on here that I know, there should not be any form of a hardship.
Mayor Chmiel: Not even the Carver County Auditor.
I Resolution 192 -121: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
approve the Certification of Sewer/Water bills to the County. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
II (Councilman Workman arrived at this point in the meeting.)
1
1 8
1
City Council Meeting - 0ctober 26, 1992 1
PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 10NW AND 9NE, AUTHORIZE
I/
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 92 -5.
Public Present: ,
Name Address
Charles & Irene Song 7200 Galpin Blvd. '
Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd.
Tom Turcotte 6430 City West Parkway #5314, Eden Prairie
Don Patton Rottlund Homes
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros.
Michael Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
David Stockdale 7210 Gaipin Blvd. '
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your regular meeting on
Monday, September 28th you received the feasibility study for the trunk sanitary
sewer and watermain improvements in Section 10 and Section 9 which was initiated
by the Lundgren Bros. Development of a proposed Dolejsi /Johnson property.
During this interim before the public hearing, staff and the project engineer
held a neighborhood meeting for all the properties in the defined service area
and adjacent to the project to discuss associated project elements with effected
property owners. The neighborhood meeting was well attended and a good deal of 11 discussion. As are typical to projects of this type, some of the main concerns
raised by property owners involved, the initial assessment to large lot, hobby
acre type farmsteads and properties that do not intend to develop at this time.
The rationale used for determining the assessment methodology and factors ,
involved in determining the alignment and any necessary easements involved in
the project. During this interim period staff has also been notified by
Rottlund Homes that they have secured a purchase option for the 17 acre parcel
east of Gaipin Blvd currently owned by Mr. Michael Klingelhutz. Therefore an
addendum has been prepared to this feasibility study which outlines the
additional work and scope of project which would need to be undertaken to
provide utilities to this property. As well as incorporating relevant
discussions from the neighborhood meeting. This addendum also addresses revised
cost estimates and provides revised preliminary initial and ultimate assessment
roles for the project. At this time I'd like to introduce the project engineer,
Phil Gravel from Bonestroo who is here to give a presentation on the feasibility
study tonight.
Phil Gravel: As Charles mentioned, this is a public hearing intended to discuss 1
the merits of this project and the feasibility and how it relates to the city's
future planning. What I'd like to do first is go over a bit on the preliminary
layout...sewer and water utility and then discuss the assessments. I've brought
along some handouts that effected people might be interested in. I think I've
given them out to as many of you as I recognize. But•if you haven't, there's
some here in the corner that you might want to. Briefly, the project consists
of water and storm sewer improvements. First of all the sanitary sewer
improvements proposed consist of the construction of a lift station, a forcemain
to force the effulent from the lift station to the gravity sanitary sewer whit 11 will follow an alignment similar to this and connect onto the existing Lake Ann
Interceptor. This entire system will service this area bounded by this green
9 1
1
I City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II line and that is the area that is proposed to be assessed. The alignment for
this is preliminary in nature at this time and based on the topography and
sharing lot lines where we could and also in this area here based on potential
I street alignments for that property. The internal piping for the Lundgren
development will bring the sewer from this development into the lift station. In
addition, some of this other property on the west side of Galpin would also go
to the lift station. The property on the east side of Galpin and some of this
II property here would come down into this gravity sewer directly and not to the
lift station. The watermain improvements, this particular drawing includes the
improvements that we added as a part of your addendum. So if you're looking at
II your drawings and figures, it's labeled Figure 3 -A, not 3. The watermain
improvements include extending the larger trunk watermain through the proposed
development east /west near to Galpin Blvd and connected onto the existing
' watermain...and also we're proposing to extend a 24 inch diameter watermain down
Galpin and in addition a 12 inch trunk watermain through the Michael Klingelhutz
property that's proposed to be developed by Rottlund. This 24 inch is part of a
major and 16 inch also part of the overall trunk system... Assessment wise,
II there are 4 major areas of assessment proposed. There's a subtrunk sanitary
sewer charge. There's a trunk area water charge...and then there's an
additional lateral benefit for sewer and water charges. The figure up here
II indicates the charge for the proposed assessments associated with the sanitary
sewer. The area in orange is the area like I mentioned previously that is
served by the subtrunk sewer that would be proposed to be assessed a subtrunk
I area charge of approximately $659.00 per unit. In addition, where we have
lateral benefits from gravity sewer, we propose a lateral benefit assessment.
That's an assessment equivalent to the 8 inch later sewer through this property.
...watermain there's trunk area assessments and lateral benefit assessments.
I Now here t he ea bounded by this a lie iea that's popod to
receive t ar area assessment charge s No
t al l areas the ar have waterm
ains direc tly
adjacent to their property but this is the extent of the City's trunk water
' system that is to be constructed in this area ever so at this time is proposed
to assess these areas the trunk watermain assessment. In addition there's the
lateral benefit assessment for these two areas. The areas adjacent to either
side of the trunk watermain. Again this assessment would be the equivalent 8
I inch diameter watermain... There were a couple other things that came up at our
neighborhood meeting that I'd like to address. One is with the sanitary sewer
area assessment charge. One of the residents was concerned that people on the
II east side of Galpin and some of this area that wouldn't directly flow into the
lift station but was included in the area assessment charge. The questions came
up whether or not they were being charged more to compensate for the cost of
this lift station. What we did was make a rough calculation of what the cost
would be for these people if the lift station wasn't involved and in fact the
area assessments would be slightly higher if that were the case... I think
Charles has a few other comments on some of the proposed assessment...
Charles Folch: Thank you Phil. As it relates to assessments, it's been the
city's position in the past on similar projects not to unduly burden large lot
II hobby farm type property owners, size 10 acres or less with a significant
financial assessment when these properties, at least at this point in time have
no intention of developing. So consistent with this policy, the assessment
role, the preliminary assessment role that's presented before you with this
report incorporates that methodology whereby properties, large lot hobby farm
type of 10 acres or less would be proposed for one unit of trunk assessment at
10
•
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
this point in time. Other larger type properties which are currently have no
intention of developing, would be proposed to be assessed one unit of trunk
assessment for every 10 acre increment of land area. In the future, any of
these properties should develop, the further assessments or further trunk
charges would be collected at the time that the building permits are applied
for. The revised ultimate and initial assessment schedules incorporate this.
In comparing the estimated project cost to the initial assessment revenue
schedule, it's apparent that there's an initial shortfall. This is due in part
to the assessment methodology incorporating the one unit per 10 acre. And also
due to in large part to properties that are currently under green acre status
whereby the assessments, any assessment levied would be deferred until the use
changed. There are some properties in the service area that if development were
to occur on those properties, they're large enough that they certainly would
have an impact on this assessment revenue and potentially make the initial
assessment revenue balance a little bit better. From our discussions with
property owners and private developers that we've been contacted, it appears
that there is quite a bit of interest in this area to develop property. It kind
of becomes a chicken and the egg situation here with a project such as this. If
you build it, a lot of times they will come. Properties that are maybe sitting
on the fence. Deciding whether they should develop or not develop at this point
in time. If a project such as this is on the table, on the schedule, oftentimes
development will occur. At this time as I mentioned, the initial assessment
schedule would produce a shortfall. It would be staff's recommendation at this
time that pending a successful completion of this public hearing, that
authorization be given to prepare the plans and specifications for this project
over the wintertime. idhat that would do is allow any other potential
development that's sitting on the fence to maybe come forward if they know a
project is eminent and we can make a re- evaluation next spring as to what
properties are really on the go. At that point in time we can make, the Council
would have the opportunity to make a decision whether to proceed with the
project or not. I don't think going ahead with plans hurts us in any way
because I believe the system that's being laid out here would be the ultimate
for the area and doing the plans now or doing them a few years down the road I
don't think makes too much of a difference. So we wouldn't be putting ourselves
in a bad position by doing so. But that's at the discretion of Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Are the developers here wishing to
address this at this particular time?
Terry Forbord: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Yes sir.
Please come forward and please state your name and your address.
Charles Song: My name is Charles Song. My wife and myself own a very large 1
piece of land over there and this is the first time I was given this...and it
looks to me that we have probably one of the largest, being assessed the largest
amounts. At this point in time we are not ready to develop our land yet and
probably a large chunk of land will never be developed. We have a discussion
going with Mr. Jerome Carlson that we are probably going to save a large portion
of this land so that, especially the northern part of the land will not be
developed at all. So I would want to...because when this was discussed, we were
11
1
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II probably out of the country and we didn't get a chance to attend any of the
town's meetings. So that's what I just wanted to say.
II Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Can I just clarify that number? Even though these are showing
1 the high numbers, if the Council followed it's normal routine, he'd only be
assessed one. Is that correct Charles? Where did this big number come from?
Charles Folch: Well actually the Song property is actually one of the critical
II properties to moving forward with this project. Really the 3 properties are the
Lundgren, the Klingelhutz and the Song property. Those are the critical
properties in getting this project to move forward. The assessment schedule
that's shown actually shows the need to have that property be on the development
mode.
Councilman Wing: Even though he doesn't want to develop. Doesn't want to sell
it. He'd be charged for the Lundgren?
Charles Folch: Well that testimony that's given tonight I guess is the first
II time I've heard information on it. We have, staff has been notified by one or
more developers that they have been talking to the Song's about potentially
developing. Staff had no indication at this point, until tonight as to whether
I there was any decision made as to whether to move forward or not move forward
with developing of the properties. So this is new information received by us
tonight.
II Mayor Chmiel: They basically are in opposition to it, as indicated.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I guess I'm missing this. The non - developing, where did
11 this 10 acre thing come from? One unit, one assessment per 10 acres so
regardless of how big a property Mr. Song had.
Charles Folch: For properties that were not intending to develop, okay. It's
well know, staff had made was well known that Lundgren Bros. not only was
developing the Dolejsi property but was in contact with the Song's to
potentially try to work out some development situation with the Song's but we,
II again had no further information as to whether the progress was moving along or
not.
1 Phil Gravel: That second scenario that you see there, the Song property and the
Lundgren property and the Klingelhutz property were excluded from that 10 acre.
So those three parcels are properties...
1 Councilman Wing: I bet those folks have something to say tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else?
II Karen Weathers: My name is Karen Weathers and I'll speak to some of the small
property owners. We only have 5 acres so we sit under this new assessment which
is very positive on our part and hopefully lines up with our expectation based
on what you've done in the past. Some of our neighbors though do have 20 acres
and are in a similar situation though to us where it's only one dwelling and no
12
•
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
intention to develop so I still don't know if that's still quite right. The 1
only other comment is, I think that the neighborhood meeting was well attended
but I know we didn't receive notice until the day of the meeting so that's
another problem. But anyway, at least from our point of view, it's going the 11 right direction and we appreciate that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
Tom Turcotte: Hi. I'm Tom Turcotte. 7240 Galpin Blvd.. We've got the new
house going up out there. It's this brown kind of shack on the left side. We
have some difficulties with I guess the assessments that are going on. We got 1
our building permit September ist. We were assessed the $850.00 for the Lake
Ann Interceptor. On Appendix B, we're going to be assessed $659.00 for the
sewer, $1,275.00 for the watermain. 1Je just spent $4,000.00 for a well 2 weeks
ago and within the next couple weeks we'll spend $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 for a
mound system. It's getting real difficult to swallow constant assessments when
we're told we'll never have to hook up to city water or city sewer. But the
sewer forcemain is going right next to our property. It's within 10 feet of our
well as planned. So my concern is, when will the assessments quit? It's making
it real difficult to continue the construction out there. That's almost
$3,000.00 and we can use nothing. So if you happen to drive by, take a look and
give consideration for those trying to start a residence out here.
Mayor Chmiel: What was your address again? 1
Tom Turcotte: 7240. Number 11 on your figures.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you. In other words you're saying you're in 1
opposition to what's being proposed?
Tom Turcotte: Politely. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I'm just trying to keep count here. Is there anyone else?
Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Don Patton. I was asked to 1
represent Rottlund tonight. We're requesting that the sewer and water be used
to service the Klingelhutz property which they do have an agreement to purchase.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a purchase agreement or is an option? It means two ,
different things to me.
Don Patton: It is an option subject to the sewer and water, right. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If seeing none, did you wish to say
something at this time? Terry. 1
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, my name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. As you
all know I've been before you for a couple years. 2 to 3 years possibly on this
proposed development that we'll be discussing later on this evening. These
issues are a difficult choice to any City Council. In any city, anywhere in the
United States. There is no simple way that one can deal with growth in a
community like Chanhassen and I know each one of you already know that because
every week you're here dealing with something, one way or the other. And
13
1
II City Council Meeting - October`26, 1992
I there's no perfect formula for how do you spread the cost to everybody that may
benefit. If I knew that answer I would certainly bring it forth to you this
evening and to any other City Council that I appear before. It's a constant
dilemma on how do you solve a problem. How do you provide growth opportunities
II within a community. You've taken the initial steps and approved your
comprehensive plan within the last 18 to 24 months. The next step that one
needs to do is to put some pipe in the ground so development can occur.
I Unfortunately, because it's an imperfect world, development never, ever
continues contiguous to one another. It just doesn't happen because there are
always, inevitably will be somebody who's not prepared at that particular time
I to sell. Or they may choose to sell at a later time and so typically what you
classically see, and it's not just exclusive to Chanhassen. It happens
everywhere. Is you'll see some development occur here and you'll see some occur
here. But it's always after that the pipe is put into the ground. We support
I the project as it is proposed and we ask for your decisions to go ahead and
order the plans and specs. Obviously there's some things that may need to be
discussed further between staff and some of the people who are effected by these
I assessments. But by ordering the plans and specs, at least the work is
underway. And ordering the project later on after the plans and specs have been
completed. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If not I'd like to bring it back to
Council. Or Mr. Song, did you wish to say something.
1 Charles Song: I don't know what Lundgren Bros. means by order the project to go
ahead. Obviously as I say before, that we are not ready to develop our land and
we have never agreed to selling our land to anybody. And so that at least our
I part, if they want to develop, has to be excluded.
Councilman Mason: Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Song a question at this
point?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Mason: You talked about setting something up with Jerome Carlson.
Are you at liberty to talk about that at all right now? I mean setting land
aside for a nature conservancy or something like that.
II Charles Song: The idea about what we are talking about?
Councilman Mason: Right.
II Charles Song: Yeah. Mainly because Jerome want to have that area left as a
very nice natural area and good scenery and he has been discussing with us for
incorporating our land and to make around an undeveloped area. I guess maybe
sometime in the future part of that, our house might be developed but a large
part of the area probably will be left that way. But that of course has not
been decided yet but it's an ongoing discussions.
Councilman Mason: Okay, good. Thank you.
II Terry Forbord: Can I just clarify something?
14
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. 1
Terry Forbord: I have not had the opportunity to see either Mr. or Mrs. Song
for quite some time and for the record I want to make sure it's clear to the
City Council but more importantly clear to Mr. and Mrs. Song. I have not
represented to the City, to the Planning Commission or to the Council or anyone
that we have acquired the Song property. We have talked to them about that
occasionally over the last couple years. But if for any reason anybody has
gotten the wind or the drift that we have acquired their property, they did not
hear that from me and they did not hear it from anybody else at Lundgren Bros.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at
this time? As I said, this is a public hearing. If not, I would request that
we close the public hearing. -
Councilwoman Dialer coved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, why don't I start with you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I guess I want to ask first of all, who pays
for the plans and specifications? Charles. And how much do you think that will
run for the normal?
Charles Folch: Basically that's a project cost that eventually will be recouped
if a project is ordered. It's recouped through the assessments. At this point
in time, from the feasibility study, do you have an approximately ballpark
number as to what the costs would be to prepare the plans and specs Phil?
Phil Gravel: Based on the feasibility report, it would be in the $6,000.00 to
$7,000.00 range... '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and who's paying for this up front? Is it the City?
Charles Folch: Typically the City, right. Upfronts the cost and is recovered 1
through the assessments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. And then also, do you have an estimate on the, '
what does it cost the City or who pays the assessment during the time that some
of these are deferred? Is that a cost to the City as well? Do we have to bond
for that? ,
Charles Folch: We do intend to bond for the project and basically what we would
hope to do with the project such as this is be able to levy enough of an
assessments to be able to pay, make the bond payment and the interest on an
annual basis so that there's no initial deficit if you will on the city's part.
As I mentioned from my report, initial indications are that we would run into a
deficit. Initial deficit. - - '
Councilwoman Dimler: And could you explain to me the difference, you had some
initial and then the ultimate. I mean why do we come up with this? 1
15 1
City Council Meeting - October. 26, 1992
Charles Folch: The initial's to show at the start of the project with the
properties, property or potential properties that might be ready to develop.
What we could expect to see from an assessment. Initial assessment revenue.
Ultimate condition basically assumes that when properties are fully developed in
the defined service area, how many units, how much assessment basically revenue
can we expect to generate from the project. That's why we show the initial and
the ultimate type conditions. -
1 Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, but you're not giving a span of years there?
Charles Folch: No. Basically it could occur over 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: And then I just have one more question and that is that I
would like their opinion and your estimation if this is the best physical
proposal that isle can come up with. Could it be done cheaper? Could it be done
more ecologically sound or is this the best package that we could hope to have?
Charles Folch: Based on the information we've been working with to date, this
1 is our best alignment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And is it a leap -frog development? Are we skipping
1 some areas to get to this one?
Charles Folch: Leap- frogging, dead - heading. We are going by properties to get
I to this potential development. That's not uncommon but it is the case.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Do you want me to comment later or?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, why don't we just ask the questions now and then we'll ask
for your comments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you have any questions?
1 Councilman Wing: No. Ursula I think hit the numbers that I was interested in.
I just have a couple comments.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: Charles, how does the Song property ultimately effect
Lundgren Bros' property then depending on the decision they make?
Charles Folch: Actually two fold. From an assessment standpoint, it's a very
key and important role. Also from a utility standpoint, the proposed alignment
II for the sewer would go through a portion of the Song's property as would a
potential, well as would a potential future road extension from the Lundgren
property back towards the east. Towards Galpin Boulevard. So easements would
1 need to be acquired from the Song's in order to put that utility line to get it
to the Lundgren development.
II Councilman Workman: Okay, so are the Song's going to say no. We're not going
to let you on. Then maybe we need to look at Roger and say then what do we have?
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - Octdber 26, 1992 1
Roger Knutson: You've got an...case. 1
Councilman Workman: Okay, increased cost.
Mayor Chmiel: If we so choose. '
Councilman Workman: Is this a deal buster? -
Don Ashworth: First of all, I don't think that you should take any final action 1
this evening. We should have an opportunity to review what options are
available to you. A lot of the discussion is concentrated in the area of, has 11 there been an ownership agreement reached or not. Or purchase agreement. In my
mind that's not the critical issue. The critical issue is, are we ready to move
ahead with placing lateral assessments against the benefitting properties.
There are properties in the overall service area that may not receive lateral
service for the next 2, 5, 10 years and some of the policies as they may deal
with a 1 in 10 acre type of thing is not really critical to this project. What
is critical is whether or not the lateral assessments will go on each of the
benefitting properties. And when we did the, let's say the East Lotus Lake
sewer and water project. We ran sewer and water all the way around Lotus Lake.
It was primarily to pick up failing septic systems but also to allow development
but in that process we did not say to Mel and Frank Kurver, you have to sell to
somebody. They kept the property. It was a large assessment that went against
that property and it was their decision that they wanted to hold it or speculate
for a period of time. There were a lot of those, including the Near Mountain
property which was vacant at that point in time. A large assessment. I don't
know that the issue is really one that we should play a role in terms of saying,
Song's should or shouldn't sell. I don't think that that's our position. At
issue is, are we ready to move ahead with the lateral assessments to all the
property owners who are going to benefit from that lateral assessment. And I
don't think we're going to be in a position this evening to answer that question
or to give you a choice. Yes, the Song's recognize that by having the sewer
there they could develop at a future point in time and therefore they're willing
to see it go forward. Or no, they don't want to and they'll fight it and
potentially that means, well that would put you then into a position of saying
yes, we're going to go ahead and do the project anyway. Put the assessments on.
Or no, we're not going to consider any further the Near Mountain development. I
mean this project will just have to wait it's time. Those are some of the
potential choices you might face in 2 weeks.
Councilman Workman: And that puts a project that may be to the west of another
large parcel like in this situation where that property owner would be forced to ,
wait longer than somebody else simply because they had somebody between them. A
large property owner inbetween them who's not interested in developing, right.
So I mean there's two sides to this thing. '
Don Ashworth: And again, going back 20 years. These have always been tough
issues. Martin Ward did not want to see sewer and water going through his
property. Yet unless the Council made a decision, yes. We're going to put it
in and yes, we're going to assess it, the business park never would have
happened because the sewer had to go through Martin Ward's property to gain
access. The same way with, I don't know of any project that's gone forward. I
agree with Terry's position. You're not going to get 10 owners all coming in at
17 1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II exactly the same time saying yes, do my project. One of them I feel sorry for,
the young couple here that have gone ahead with their home. Mound system and
what not and if for whatever reason it would have occurred 6 or 12 months later,
' they never would have had to put in the mound. They never would have had to put
in their own well. We deny this project at this point in time and there will be
5 more younger couples sitting out there doing the same type of thing.
Councilman Workman: I'm I guess, we may as well not be talking a whole lot more
about it if we're going to go into further discussions and just proceed to hold
over the public hearing and invite all these good folks back.
II Mayor Chmiel: Find out where you're really at. Michael.
' Councilman Mason: Just a couple of quick comments because it looks like it will
be held over. I think yeah, some really major issues are being raised here and
well, I had a bunch of stuff to say but it sounds like I might, I too am
I concerned. If somebody doesn't want to develop, are we in a position of pushing
development further out? I don't know. I'm not personally prepared for the
city to spend $70,000.00 on a feasibility study knowing that we might have to
take the bite out. I couldn't do it. But that may not even be the case so I do
II think there are some questions. I've had 2 or 3 people from the area contact me
and questioning whether, who should be paying for the lift station and whether
it should be a gravity forcemain or not and I don't know the answers to that and
' I'm concerned that there's still those concerns out there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Those concerns too within the next 2 weeks could be
addressed by having discussions with the engineering department and having some
conclusions come up with this as well. As we all know, assessments are probably
the hardest thing for us to do and judge but I too have some questions that I
have to have answered as well and I just want to make sure that the decision
II that we're going to do is going to be the best for everyone involved. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just have one comment. I don't want to leave
anyone with the impression here that it's the City that's forcing this. You
know we're not asking for this. It's Lundgren Bros. Development that's asking
for this. And so as far as I'm concerned, I'm not in any rush from a city
standpoint to leapfrog development and do, but anyway we'll have those questions
II answered and make our decision from those.
Councilman Wing: Don, one thing I'd like to have clear when this comes back and
that's the issue of the assessing. The previous ones, we've all agreed
unanimously to assess one unit per owner until such time as it's developed. If
that's the case, it appears to me we're going to have a considerable shortfall
II and that's the only thing I would support. I don't want to encourage a loss of
green acres and I don't want to encourage development regardless of where it's
going. I don't want to go charging cross country with sewer and water lines to
feed a project, which I think is a good project. And I think Terry's right.
ill Things just don't develop block by block necessarily but in the process I don't
want to have to pay for it. I guess my question is, if we're going to go one
per unit or one per 10 acres, whatever the case was, how will that then affect
this process and will I in fact have to pay as in general revenues for this
bonding to go cross country with sewer and water? That''s going to get
difficult.
1 18
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Bonding is the thing that I get a little concerned with as 1,
well. Because of our bonding liabilities that we have with the city presently,
I'd like us to look at some of those things too. So it doesn't effect our
overall bond ratings as we have been so aware of. Trying to get better rates on 11 our money when we go out to get dollars. That's one of the things that have
been brought up that we should watch closely. So with that, no other discussion
is going to be done, or motion's going to be made and we'd like to table this to
the next Council meeting. Within a 2 week period. Can I have a motion to table
this public hearing until our next Council meeting?
Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. 1
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the public hearing
on the Trunk Utility Improvements in Section 10NW and 9NE. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. 1
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1
Don Ashworth: Do you anticipate a problem in being able to meet with the owners
and potentially get back in two weeks or are we being overly ambitious? I mean
the reports would have to be written within one week.
Charles Folch: I guess is the intent of the delay to offer staff another
opportunity to meet with neighbors or is it to allow an opportunity and /or to
meet with Council?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess both. ,
Charles Folch: I guess I'm not real clear. What answers are we looking for
here? 1
Don Ashworth: I think probably one of the key players would be the Song's. So
that they understood which of the choices we would be coming back to City 11 Council and I think also with Terry so that he was aware of the importance of
that decision as well.
Charles Folch: Probably 2 weeks would be pushing it, I'm guessing. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So you're saying within a month would give you a little
more time? 1
Charles Folch: Certainly. I think to allow us the opportunity to meet with
people again and with yourselves. It probably is, really if it's put on the
next Council agenda, we really have one week because the next week, the reports
have to be prepared so really it's.
Mayor Chmiel: Then maybe what we could do is just rescind that motion. If the
motionee and the second agreed. To rather include it within the two week period
to have it extended for a month.
19
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Does the second also agree?
II Councilman Wing: Yes.
Don Ashworth: So that would be the second meeting in November?
II Charles Folch: 23rd.
II Don Ashworth: November 23rd. Are you sure we stayed on that schedule? That
is correct?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's the week of Thanksgiving.
Don Ashworth: See I think we moved, in November we moved up to the first
Monday. First and third Mondays.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. That's correct.
II Councilman Mason: No. November 2nd's a budget session hearing though.
Mayor Chmiel: No, but the first and third I think is what November is scheduled
I at.
Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt is running upstairs. If the folks would wait just
one moment, we'll figure out when our meetings in November are.
II Mayor Chmiel: In the meantime, does anyone have a good joke? Yeah Terry.
Terry Forbord: I don't have any good jokes but I would just like to make sure
that and clarify a couple things. First of all, Lundgren Bros was the initiater
of this, as you all know and the reason we were the initiater because
II oftentimes, not just in Chanhassen but we're out 2 -3 years ahead trying to plan
because as you know, it takes that long to get approvals nowadays. If we could
do it and wait until the last minute, we certainly would. If we wouldn't have
been in here, Rottlund would have been in here. We just happened to be the
II first one in the door and if Rottlund wasn't here, in a very short period of
time, somebody else will be before you. So I ask you, please don't shoot the •
messenger.
II Councilman Mason: Just a couple of pot shots.
Terry Forbord: And we'd be happy to meet with the Council or the staff or any
II of the landowners for that matter, as we always do, to try to figure out a way
because we don't want the City to be in a situation where their bonding is being
jeopardized either. We have had some preliminary meetings with staff to address
II those issues and the plan is hopefully that the payments that are coming in
generated by the development will make those payments on the bonds.
I Mayor Chmiegot
a l: My c oncern for the bonding, as we had ne out just is past
r We be bond rating but they're telling go us to be very th careful
with what we're doing. When we go out for a bonding of $5 million, the city
20
11
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
saves $50,000.00 and to me that's a lot of savings for the city. And I don't 1
want to jeopardize that portion of it. If I can improve our bond rating, I'm
also going to try that too.
Terry Forbord: Sure. We concur with that philosophy. Thank you. 11
Mayor Chmiel: That meeting will be November 23rd. Just prior to Thanksgiving. 1
AWARD OF BIDS -1992 BOND SALE:
(A) *3,630.000. G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS. SERIES 1992A. 1
(8) $1.350.000. G.O. TAX INCREMENT BONDS. SERIES 19928.
Don Ashworth: Dave MacGillivray from Springsted had anticipated to be present
this evening. Dave was called out of town and will not be here. Rusty Fifield
is here from Springsted to present the results of the bids.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
Rusty Fifield: To refresh your memory, you're here to consider the sale of two
bond issues. $3,630,000.00 general obligation improvement bonds, Series 1992A
and the $1,350,000.00 general obligation tax increment bond, Series 1992B. This
afternoon at 1:00 we received bids for both issues 'on your behalf. You have bid
tabulations in front of you. We received only one bid per issue on this bond
sale. And I could explain some of the circumstances that surround it in a
moment. The low bid in both cases was submitted by a bidding group headed by
First Bank Investment Services, Norwest Investment Services, Merrill Lynch and
Company, and Piper Jaffray. The bidding syndicates also include Cronin and
Company, American National Bank of St. Paul, Doherty- Dockens, Morjahran,
Peterson Financial, and Park Investment. Those - firms represent the better part
of the investment banking community in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area. So to say
that there was as single bid is a little misleading. There was a lot of
representation in the investment banking community in this particular bidding
syndicate. Bond market has been very volatile over the last several weeks. The
bond buyers index has risen_ significantly - during the of October. There's
been a tremendous amount-of bond volume_which has.caused part of the problem
that you're seeing in-front of you:: :The other part- .of :it by some cold
feet going into the election and some-uncertainty exactly :where market '
conditions are going to be after the election so being just one week away from
the election, we're finding that institutions .Ali of these
bonds to the best of our knowledge -are _ being -of.fered_at.retail and there:was
absolutely no Chicago bidder interest in the marketplace today._ We a -bid
lined up from Kemper and they-dropped just ^prior to:the The low bid for
the improvement bonds was at 6.096% which compares to 5.4% when we had the
recommendations. For the tax increment.bonds,•it - was 5.71 % to 4.95%.
Just as a benchmark, these are very similar-rates to what you saw last year.
Last October when you sold bonds. I:included.with the bid tabulations a graph
that shows trends in the bond buyers 20 since 1985 and if draw a
line across from where the bond buyers peaked in 1992,.you will still
find that the bond buyers index comparable since 1985. So
these are, while rates beyond where we market was when you set
the sale, these are still - favorable interest I'd be -happy to answer
any questions that you might have. The appropriate action to accept the low bid
21 1
11
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
1 and continue with the financing process is to pass a resolution awarding the low
bid to the First Bank Syndicate for each of the bond issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions? We probably look like
11 we've changed your graph a little, hoping there's a bigger recovery and
everything goes right back up. But we sort of doubt that. Any questions?
l Don Ashworth: I should note that the Moody's, we did ask Moody's for a rating
and again you're bringing an additional $5 million into the market. An area
that you had shown concern with, and rightly so. We did maintain that rating.
I I guess I was very happy to see that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. If seeing no discussion, can I have a motion to accept the
bonding of the $3,630,000.00 general obligation improvement bonds and also a
1 $1,350,000.00 for general obligation tax increment bonds, Series 19928.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
II Mayor Chmiel: Awarded to.
Rusty Fifield: I believe they're separate. There's two resolutions and there'd
be one for each one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, should we do the first one first? The $3 million 6.
II Rusty Fifield: I think that'd be appropriate.
Mayor Chmiel: And the award?
Rusty Fifield: To the low bid submitted by the group headed by FBS Investment
Services.
II Councilman Workman: Second.
II Resolution $92- 122(a): Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
award the bid for the *3,630,000.00 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series
1992A to the low bid submitted by the group headed by FBS Investment Services,
I Inc.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution $92- 122(b) Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
award the bid for the $1,350,000.00 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds,
11 Series 1992B to the low bid submitted by the group head by FBS Investment
Services, Inc.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: If I may add one footnote. Just primarily for those out there
that are not aware of what this is financing and why. The $3.6 million
represents two public improvement projects where we are assessing the cost of
those projects backs to that benefitting properties. The full cost of that is
I backed by those special assessments. The second issue, the $1.3 million for tax
increment bonds, they also represent two public improvement projects but in that
case the cost again are being paid through tax increment. The bottom line is,
II there are no general property tax dollars that are being used to pay off either
of these two issues.
22
1 •
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I appreciate that because it took me that long to put
my signatures on those approvals.
APPROVAL OF ACCESS LOCATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF ASSESSMENTS ON WEST 78TH STREET
DETACHMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92 -3.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At the last Council meeting
the revised alignment for the West 78th Street detachment project and I think
the overall scope of improvements to West 78th Street between Great Plains Blvd
and Powers Blvd was ordered. However, discussions concerning access locations
and assessment methodology for the segment of the roadway from Kerber Blvd to
Powers Blvd was delayed until tonight's meeting in order to allow all property
owners the opportunity to-be present to speak on the issue. - Staff, the project
engineer, representatives from Target, Charlie James, Mr. Burdick, and RLK were
all present back in late September for a meeting to discuss these two issues.
There is an attached Minutes from that meeting which does a good job of
addressing the key points of discussion. At this point I'd like to introduce
our project engineers. Dennis Eyler and Jim Dvorak of Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch to
present the City's, the access issues and then once they're finished, I'll come
back and speak on the methodology for assessment and the access._ -
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. i
Dennis Eyler: Thanks Charles. The figures you have in your handout shows the
previous version of 78th Street west of Kerber where we shifted the roadway
south from the old alignment and had an alignment was more or less on
tangent and there were some issues regarding the location of James driveway
and access to Target's, the west end of the Target parking lot. There was also
the issue of the James driveway that's located immediately east of Powers. What
you don't have in your handout is a drawing that looks like this that shows the
revised alignment where we've addressed the issue of bringing the James
driveway into his property...two lots. We've accommodated the setbacks that t
Target requested for their parking lot and aligned those two. To do that we
introduce a slight curve in the roadway. And we're also showing the current
proposal as our recommendation and staff recommendation for the access to the
James property is simply a right -in and right -out with a solid median through
this area. Some of the questions that have come up have been other possible
configurations of that intersection. .Whether a median opening should be
provided. Whether access should be provided to the south. That's where we.are
to date. This is our recommendation. This is staff's recommendation also. I'm
sure the developers are going to talk to their recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. - -
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Staff continues to support the
planned alignment and access control that you see presented tonight. We believe
that this presents, of the alternatives considered, this presents the safest
design for access in and out of the two developments north and south of the
roadway. We also believe that this design maintains fairness between adjacent
property owners as far as fairness to equalization for access and opportunities
for retail development. So this is the alternative that we're recommending
tonight. As far as assessments go, we continue to support the assessment
methodology which was presented to you at the last meeting. The only change is
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
that the proposed traffic signal at the full intersection that you see there at
II mid -block between Kerber and Powers was initially proposed to be assessed but
given the fact that neither the Market Square development nor existing retail
development of the downtown is proposed for any traffic signal assessments, it
1 seems only fair that we continue that and not assess_the signals in this segment
here. So that's basically the only change to the previously presented
assessment role. -
II Mayor Chmiel: Did you say not to assess?
Charles Folch: Not to assess the cost of the signal, that's correct.
1 Mayor Chmiel: These signals are lights, run roughly anywhere from $100,000.00
to $120,000.00.
1 Charles Folch: Depending on their phasing, Denny you might be more familiar
what they run.
II Dennis Eyler: These intersections will probably be more along the line of
$80,000.00. The ones out on Highway 5 because of the higher speeds...would run
over $100,000.00. These would be a little bit less because they're smaller
1 intersections.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll take your word for it. I just got through putting in
last year ago a stop and go light on Rice Street and that was supposedly not to
cost us that much and we wound up where it was $127,000.00. And thereto the
assessment was thought to be close to maybe $80,000.00 - $85,000.00 and it really
threw a hook at us as well at that time when I was working. But I just want us
1 to really be cautious enough to know exactly what we're going to be spending on
these.
II Dennis Eyler: Well we have a few other mitigating features in that we're also
putting in several others and the underground is going into the roadway
construction so those are all.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so some of that cost may be...The question I have with that
road change as we show that south from the previous one, is this going to line
up directly with our frontage road on the opposite side of County Road 17 which
II will be paralleling TH 5 going west?
Dennis Eyler: This has the old east stub design so they don't quite overlap but
I once they reach the intersection with Powers, they're on the same alignment.
This would connect down to match. This is actually a little bit further south
than was originally planned. The frontage road was going to be here so we're
actually staying further away from this wetland... We feel in that respect this
is a superior alignment as far as the wetland is concerned.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll be coming out with 4, 6, 6 actual lanes. One for a right
II hand turn there as well on the west side, or the east side of CR 17. And then
II we're going to balance into on the opposite side as it's shown. Is that just
going to be a two lane? _
1
11 24
1 •
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Dennis Eyler: That would be two lane for a short distance to divert the traffic
back down to a single lane roadway. This will be a two way, two lane roadway
once the island disappears in this area down here. We don't quite have that
drawn up to show that. The intended lane useage here would be a left and this
just shows a left arrow but that would actually be a left... That would be a
thru only at Laredo so there would be two lanes which you could go through. A
right lane would drop it... --
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles is there, Jim did you have something?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. There's one aspect
here. That word used fairness a couple times tonight but there's one aspect
that is not fair. If I can, while the drawing is up. There's a driveway going
to the James' property with a right turn in, right turn out relatively. close to
Powers but there is not to Outlot A and I feel that should be made equal. With
all due respect to Charlie James, his argument is the City's being so hard on
me. They're putting Target not on my property and this and this and this so I
should have a closer driveway to Powers than Jim Burdick. I just can't agree
with that and this actually happened. And apparently over time here he's
persuaded some people to agree with him. But just how they can rationalize that
they should compensate him by giving him a closer driveway than I have, if I end
up retaining Outlot B. Now of course if the City ends up with Outlot B, then
it's up to the City as to where they want that driveway or not. But you'd be
decreasing the value of the City's property relative to the value of Charlie
James' property by doing that. Now if neither of us have a driveway, if we go
down to that full intersection there, that is okay too. I just don't feel it's
right to, with two people right across the road from each other, under very
similar circumstances, for one to have a closer driveway to Powers. And of
course what we'd want is a left turn in, left turn out. Now the same basic
design. Are there any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: A left turn in and a left turn out? 1
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Excuse me, a right turn in and a right turn out. Yes, the
same but on the opposite side of the highway. Any questions? ,
Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I don't have any questions Jim.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: To me it just seems fair to have them across from each 1
other.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's no way of course that can be done across there 1
because of the center median portion that's there.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, but I meant the right turn in and right turn out across
from each other. And Charlie, Charlie and I get along fine. There's been
quite...said, it's going to give me an economic advantage but under the
circumstances I deserve an economic advantage. Well, I say not over me. 1
Mayor Chmiel: How's the stacking coming off of TH 5? Does that cause any given
problems in making a right turn in on 78th Street with that, if that driveway
were to go in there? '
25 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Dennis Eyler: Putting that access in?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Dennis Eyler: The distance is 300 feet which is the normal standard for such a
point of decision. And the fact that this signalized intersection here will be
meeting the traffic signal file, that really shouldn't be a major problem from
that standpoint. However, Carver County looked at this plan with respect to
what we were doing on Powers Blvd and also the moving of this southward from
what they had previously agreed to and they liked what they saw here and so they
tentatively agreed to this. They haven't entertained any alternatives at this
point. That's not to say that they wouldn't be acceptable. This certainly
meets their criteria because it does avoid any potential for somebody slowing
down as they leave their intersection.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Incidentally, I haven't waited until the last minute here
or anything. I went over this oh two months ago. One month ago and this fine
engineering firm in Hopkins, I went to their office. What is it? Well anyway,
I was in their office and went over it and wanted them to change the drawing
before they went to the County so it isn't something I just come up with at the
last minute.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jim. Any discussions?
Councilman Wing: While we're on that particular subject. Charles, can you tell
us a specific reason whether that's slowing down? Why we don't want that there.
You've chosen not to put that in. Have you got a very specific reason why?
Charles Folch: Well, in addition to some of the comments Denny has provided,
the intent has been as of late with the creation of the public road at that full
intersection, that that would be the primary servicing road and access to the
outlots that would be created on Outlot 8 in the future. Mr. James certainly
with that validity contends he needs separate access on the common lot lines
between Lot 1 and Lot 2 up there, and again on a common line between Lot 3 and
11 Lot 4. Therefore justifying the need for having additional driveway access at
the mid -block situation. Again, the primary thought at this point in time is
now that we're creating a public road to serve Outlot 8, that that's the primary
access in and out of the development.
Councilman Wing: So we're not into a tit for tat here?
Dennis Eyler: One thing that we discussed too was the, getting back to the
standpoint of fairness. The fact that a person leaving Powers Blvd and getting
to these properties just makes a series of rights. Whereas to get to the James'
11 property it would either involve a U turn or a left and come back through a
cross property access. So it was felt that this was a balanced access
arrangement. Mr. Burdick has been hitting on that... That was one of the
discussions and that was felt that that did provide as equal treatment as we
could provide in a safe manner.
Mayor Chmiel: I just said is Mr. James here too and I seen his hand go up.
II Would you like to come forward?
26
11
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Charlie James: I'd love to. '
•
Mayor Chmiel: I suspect your vacation was quite pleasant. You look happy.
Rested. '
Charlie James: Well I think my blood pressure is a little bit lower than it was
the last time I was here. But we'll see, it might go ballistic again here. I
heard Jim speak here tonight and I guess one of the first things I think we
should resolve here tonight is who's doing this PUO. Who's going to own this
outlot out here? Is it going to be the City or Ryan or Jim? I'm confused about
that but I want to go on here. If you refer to the staff report from Mr. Folch,
dated October 20th, you'll see that I'm being forced to give up a prime corner
lot and expected to accept even more restrictive access to the property that I
will retain. I guess my question is, is it unreasonable to ask that since I'm
being condemned to facilitate the Target PhD, that the City shows as much I/
concern for my needs as the City is offering to Target. I'd like to illustrate
my predictament here. I want you to know that in preparing these elaborate
exhibits I've spared no expense in the cost of the Magic Markers that I bought
here. I don't know if these will work on here. Well, I'll hold them up. Okay,
4 years ago I platted the land out there in conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan and according to the advice and consent of the Planning Commission and the
City Council. And we put West 78th Street where you folks wanted it at that
time and I prepared the base. Did all the soil correction for a realigned West
78th Street and I donated the right -of -way for that. And at that point here, as
you can see on this illustration, I had two corner lots and we had full access
300 feet back from the intersection here that served these three lots and we had
a full access at this point served these two lots and Mr. Burdick down
here. 1 thought that was pretty gracious of me at that time to create this
outlot here to get access to Mr. Burdick down here. And we also had an
agreement at that time about what might happen if that street would be vacated.
Now you can see from this drawing here, I hope, that I'll have one large tract
on the corner and the dotted lines here is kind of a tracing overlay I did of
this. -
Mayor Chmiel: Go We're listening with the other ear. '
Charlie James: This is what I'd have proposed under this new alignment. I'd
end up, these dotted lines represent the former location of our lots and I'd be
granted this full access point here, which is pretty much where that one had
always been intended to be. And that will serve Target and this area out here
that I guess we don't know who's going to own this. And I'm expected I guess to
serve three lots with one driveway and that will necessitate an interior service
road and additional expense and I guess in discussing this matter with the
staff, it became evident that the major problem is the manner in which the
question was framed to me. It relates to the instructions that were given by
staff to Strgar. Basically the way the question was put to me was, do I want a
right -in /right -out or do I want full access to both Target, the Target side and
my remainder? And I guess I don't know how to answer that question. I've been
thinking about that these last couple weeks because that's the way the question
was put to me before I left. The question was put to me, do I want a right -in/
right -out here or do I want a full access on both sides of the street? I guess
that kind of reminds me I feel like, I hope my folks are listening tonight.
They're probably not but they always tell me they wasted all this money on my
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
education and I had a classics professor that, when we were reading Homer's
Odyssey, I was going you know. What's this all about? And he says, oh you'll
have an opportunity to use this and by golly, tonight I found a chance here.
Remember that Ulysseys or Odesious had to sail between Shrybdous, which was the
' whirlpool and Sycela which was the monster that had 6 heads and 12 feet. Well
I think if we can speak metaphorically here, Sycela's been kind of all the
people that have been involved. The 6 head monster of all the planning and all
the parties that are going in here and Shrybdous is probably going to be all the
U turns and the people spinning around on my property trying to figure out how
to get to Point A to Point 8.
II Councilman Mason: I hope you thank your professor for this.
Charlie James: He told me I'd have a chance to use this. I've had to wait 20
years. At the same time the Sirens, remember were calling. Going come on you
know and that's kind of the city staff going, it's going to be okay Charlie.
Don't worry. Trust us. So I'm trying to.
II Mayor Chmiel: Can you keep to the script?
Charlie James: Oh I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep my ship sailing through the
II middle here. And I guess as I said, the question was, how that question was
framed to me. Originally when I had talked to Strgar, if we went from the
standpoint of you know before I had full access out here and gee, Charlie's
going to have to roll over to facilitate this Target PUD thing and how can we
keep him whole up there on the north side and kind of minimize the impact of all
this. In talking to Strgar, we could enumerate a series of worst case scenarios
from best case to worst case. I guess one case scenario might be to give me the
II left turn movement into my property at that point 300 feet back from the
intersection and there is width in the island there. I have seen a design that
would allow that but unfortunately the instructions to Strgar were not to draw
' it up that way. The choice was, either right -in /right -out or full access to
both sides and I'm the one that's, I still own both sides and I'm the one that's
being expected to give up my project down there so I didn't think that was too
I much of an accommodation to see that I could retain an access point there
without getting into this kind of devil's bargain here. So I guess if the
question is framed that way, I don't know what the answer is. It certainly
would work from an engineering standpoint but that's not the alternatives that
II staff has presented to me so I don't know how to surmount that one. As far as
assessments go, I've covered this ground before. I'll just be brief. You know
I spent a lot of money out there according to the development agreement that I
I signed with the City that provided where my access points were going to be and
what I was supposed to do. And now this road's being relocated and so all that
work that I did out there is sort of for naught. I had thought that perhaps the
II appropriate place to see that reflected was in the assessment role because the
development agreement I had with the City recognized the money that I spent out
there originally and came up with a formula upon which I'd be assessed for when
the street did go in. But I guess maybe that is not an assessment issue at this
II time and maybe that's more of a condemnation issue and recognizing the money, if
this is where the road's going to go, I guess if the amount of money that I
spent out there fulfilling the development agreement isn't going to be reflected
in the assessments, then maybe e appropriate le or fhat e addrssed is
in the condemnation. I don't kno how pprop to respon
d to what t Jim was to b sayin
g here.
28
r
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
I guess I don't know who's going to own that land out there. I guess if the 1
City was going to own it, maybe that's a moot point. Then the City has it in
• their power to do as they wish on this and if they felt that.
Mayor Chmiel: My understand is the City was going to buy that piece of
property, but Don. -
Don Ashworth: If I may. Did you want to finish Charlie in terms of, I've been 1
kind of keeping a list so I could maybe hit each.
Charlie James: I've got the sneaking suspicion I'm finished. Literally and 1
figuratively.
Don Ashworth: If I may. Ownership, I don't think that there is any question. 1
All of the discussions to date have been the City will purchase Outlot 8. Mr.
Brooks will come to the podium I think on another item and he will, I hope say
that as far as Target is concerned, all of the work done has been under the
premise that Outlot B would be owned by the As it deals with providing
options, how the questions were worded to owners at that meeting and some of
the feelings that maybe Charlie has, it correctly. Those were the
options that we did throw out on the table because we did feel there was a
fairness issue that was at :So he's absolutely correct. That was the
question we asked you: If we're going to allow a left in on yours, will you
agree then for full access over for on the other side the property? And the
continued position has been, I I Mr. James tell me at a
meeting we were at, was that if a gets that traffic signal and he has
an equal opportunity to come back to Mr. James' property or to go interiorally
into what would be Outlot 8, it's an equal advantage for both owners. We will
have an interior road that will serve our Outlot property and so I
think it is an equal issue. As far as assessment rebate or adding to the value
of his property through the condemnation, I think that he should pursue that. I
think that that's, if he - has improved and there's no question in
my mind that he has, but I mean that simply then the value of the
property. That part that taking. - I think that that's all of the issues
that I heard.
Charlie James: I'd just like:to summarize briefly if Icould. You'll note that
these driveway spacings here are fairly, 1 don't have problem with this
or this. This is going to control in a large degree I'm able to do over
here. Target's there so going to have to live with that in the
future. This driveway here-we to line up with what Jim's got. That was a
mandate from before in the development - There wasn't anything,
correct me if I'm wrong Jim. - Did BRW drive a driveway at-that point for you
or was it just shown on my side ? -- I don't know. I don't remember. But the
obvious reason for that there.was that there was a property line there across
the street so we've got fairly equal here. And I guess there is
room in the right- of- way create left turn movement and I would even,
I guess if we went down the wish list here know, we're talking about a
tremendous amount of increase in traffic. - If you go back to the original PUD
application you can I - don't know like 10,000. There's a lot of
traffic that's going to be coming this way and when I expressed a concern about 1
losing my full access point up was told people could come up here and
make a U turn you know. And if don't want do a U turn, then I'm going
29
1
11
11 City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
to be forced into a replat of my property. I had the foresight I thought to
II plat small lots, share driveways. We could get users in there bang, bang, bang.
Now this thing is coming into a, I'm being forced into some kind of, with this
plan, service road that's going to cost more money to connect to get over to
II these three lots so I guess if I had a wish list, I guess what I'd like to see
first is just a left turn lane in here and we wouldn't even need anything out.
I talked to Denny about that today and I forget how that might be drawn in there
' but. Okay, this one here would just allow a left turn into my property at that
point 300 feet from the intersection. Now keep in mind too that the
intersection is going to move even further to the west because they're pulling
County Road 17. They're kind of taking the bend out of it and they're pulling
1 it farther so this would end up being more than 300 feet from the corner. It's
on about the same spacing as the other driveway so I guess the least departure
from what's being proposed by staff would simply be to allow me to have a left
I turn movement there. And you'd have this nose on the island here so you
wouldn't have a conflict with people going this way because they wouldn't start
their movement until they got past that nose to get into this turn lane and
I people could just kind of slip in here and make their move. I'd be very happy
with that. I guess the next thing from there would be you know the full
movement there just to the north side. It sounds like some people think that's
unfair. I feel that's almost what's owed to me in view of what I've been
I through on this thing and I have plans for a shopping center here and everything
that are just being blown up for this road and I think that some consideration
ought to be given for what I've been through here. And I guess we have a
I different interpretation of what's being fair. So the first thing I'd like, or
the first compromise position would be just give me a left turn there and I'd be
happy. If you want to go farther than that, you know a full movement there
would be great. It's not going to impact the width of the right -of -way or
II anything that's been designed in the alignment. And I guess other than that
I guess it's the staff's recommendation so thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: ...the left turn across the westbound intersection so close to
the next intersection that we have the other access drive into the James'
property. I don't know why but I look at that one and I see some safety
problems with that. Is there more of a safety problem with this one?
Dennis Eyler: Yes. You're producing another point...allowing the left in is
certainly far preferable than allowing a left out... The other disadvantage is,
I and there's more of Charlie's traffic than anything else as far as we are
predicting there are times when the left turns will back up and may close off
this access. We feel there is adequate storage to handle that situation. It
would just be added delays to this traffic because eventually it will change and
pull that traffic away and the signals down at the Target site will produce the
gaps. But yes, there are going to be additional conflicts there. I think if it
' is the Council's direction to open that, the City has in their...power to close
the median. To ban left turns when there has been an accident problem
demonstrated. I think if there's going to be some movements open, that we
should maybe sit down and decide what would be an acceptable level of accidents.
11 I mean there are kind of the average accident rates for city streets. If this
particular driveway exceeded that involving those left turn vehicles, that...so
you could establish that beforehand...Wewere asked to comment on the scale.
1 It's kind of a negative point to started out doing what we originally wanted to
do which is a right -in /right -out on the...where would the negative be. I'd say
30
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
this would be maybe a -2 and the left out is maybe a -3 or -4. This right turn 1
to the south, if that were allowed, is also a -1. The right out from the south
or the left out from the south would be atrocious. The right out would be a
problem because...so this is fairly benign as Charlie pointed out and it is 1
introducing additional conflicts.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? '
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'd like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Jim. 1
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'm sympathetic to Charlie James' problems and he does have
a problem as he often tells me about them. I don't just hear them here. But on
the basis of fairness, now assuming I might end up keeping Lot B. Now if it's
quite positive that the City of Chanhassen is going to own Outlot 8, then we're
talking about rather a moot question here as pertaining to Outlot B. Although
I might remind you that the date of closing was October 15th and the
transactions was to close and it looks like it's not going to be closed during
October. And it could go on for some time but, actually originally I believe we
were going to close about the first of August. Then our agreement was put back
and put back until October 15th and then I understand there is a, and I don't
mean any slight to anyone here in Chanhassen. There's a shortage of funds for
purchasing Outlot 8...shortage and that's why for Outlot 8. Now Charlie talks
about what has been taken. Do you want to comment on that Don? You say there's
plenty of money? No problem. We'll close this week. I mean I'll stop.
Mayor Chmiel: We're wondering who the guy is that has the money. That's just 1
an inside joke really.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh. Okay, it went over my head. When you mention money,
I'll become serious.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good question. ,
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: And then Charlie James told about his changes there. Well
now, I'm waiting for Don to comment on the money situation.
Don Ashworth: The discussions to date have been to close with you after the
first of the year. I don't know if we're talking about.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: After the first of the year?
Don Ashworth: Yeah, mid- February, first part of March. 1
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: It went from November 4th to.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with the Outlot B property. I mean the closing as it
deals with the Target site is, Dick the approximate date on that?
Dick Brooks: Today.
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
•
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, but of Course now Don that is not the agreement
between the City and myself: - There's no provision for a series of closings. Am
I accurate there?
Mayor Chmiel: I've not sit in on those seatings so I don't know.
Don Ashworth: It was my understanding that we had reached an agreement that the
' Target site could be closed within the next week. That payment to you for the
remainder of the property could be delayed for 60 to 90 days.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: But now an agreement between whom and who and what?
Don Ashworth: The City and yourself.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I mean I don't have a copy.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, we're not going to negotiate here.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, no. I don't have a copy of those agreement. Okay,
I'll get to my point on Outlot 8 then, if I end up keeping it. Charlie James
' has lost some, let's say exposure but also I have an entrance on the old 78th
Street. So speaking about this right turn in, right turn out, I've been
expecting to give that up. And if I end up owning Outlot B, that right turn in
and right turn out out 78th Street would be quite valuable. And I believe that
is all.
Charlie James: I can't let that, as Bush says, I can't let that stand. Jim,
you've never had access to that side of the street. To the extent that you'd
get access to the side of the street, it would come from the vacation here and
if you got it, I'd get it because the street would be vacated on both sides. So
I you've never had access there. You had access down here because I created an
outlot in conjunction with the staff to get you access at that point. So you've
never had access here. So that's always been my property. If you had an access
it would come here and I would have benefitted, so I've lost that too. You
I weren't the only one that lost that. I lost that. You've never had access here
Jim so I just wanted to clear the air on that. And the access that you did have
there came because I gave it to you. You and I worked out a letter of agreement
I and I'm shocked that you're here tonight saying...
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No. Charlie, you missed the whole thing here...I was
talking about.
I Mayor Chmiel: Gentlemen, this is really an interesting discussion except I
think that we'll just continue with this and go with that premise that we're
still looking with Outlot B being...by the City at the timeframe that Don has
indicated and that has been sort of my understanding. I didn't know what the
timeframe was but as far as that Outlot B was concerned, the City was going to
' purchase that from you Jim. So I'd like to just clarify that. Does Council
have any?
Councilman Wing: Well don't you have to, Don if we buy B, it's for what
reason? To be sold to who for what reason? Just give me a quick history of B.
32
•
•
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Why do we want to buy it from Burdick? And if we buy it from Burdick, what are
we going to do with it?
• Mayor Chmiel: We're going to protect that corner. I think we discussed that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. So we gain control_of that corner?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. '
Don Ashworth: That's exactly it.
Councilman Wing: And I am not going to ask what the hell happened to that old
road and why we're messing with this.
Don Ashworth: Well that's part of the issue though. One of the roles of the
HRA in the entire downtown has been to accumulate parcels into a developable
piece and that's exactly what we have in this instance. Because that is the
role we should play, then the point that Charlie brought out and Jim, who has
what piece. The bottom line is, if we take control of all of those pieces, it's
one piece.
Councilman Wing: But here's my problem. Years ago driving in and out of town,
I saw Charlie James out there with a pick and shovel like Noah building the Ark
you know. Making this road and putting this fill in and changing this alignment
which somebody must have told him to do for someone's benefit. And then he just
gets it done and all of a sudden we change the road on him and he's kind of
wondering, well what's happened and I'm sort of wondering what's happened so I
guess the equity seems to belong over there someplace. Somehow there's some
recourse due here that I'm missing that I'm concerned about.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I might be able to throw something in there. If I'm wrong,
let me know. My understanding was because the wetland which is further to the
north was one of the reasons why we were relocating 78th Street down lower so we
can have that as our access road adjacent to Highway 5. To alleviate the
wetland, I'm all for that because I don't want to have that go through that
specific area. Other...that is some of the reasons that I understand that we've
done that.
Councilman Wing: I uess I see staff as being the
g g engineers. Strgar being
engineers. I'm not. Mr. Burdick's not. Mr. James', they're not traffic
engineers and so I guess when all the pushing and shoving is done, there's a '
limit to the number of accesses we can put in. What's presented to me tonight
appears to be reasonable and I'm willing to make a motion to accept, approval of
access locations and discussion of assessments on West 78th Street Detachment
Project 92 -3. If this is the existing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you have that as a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion is open. 1
33 1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Councilman Workman: The tail that's wagging the dog. I want to ask Mr. Burdick
if in fact, I mean it's not in blood. I mean if in fact the City is going to
buy that outlot, what is your concern?
l B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh, a little...for a piece of land that belongs to the
taxpayers being reduced in value by no more than any other significant taxpayer
in town. But we just heard that Outlot 8 isn't going to be closed until
II sometime next year. You see Tom, this started to be closed in August and then
September, then October 15th definitely. And now it's November. Two days ago I
was told November 4th. To be back in town for sure on November 4th and now Don
said something about February of '92. And this concerns me and the lack of the
II use of this money concerns me. You see an explanation, the price of this
property was set last March. And it was supposed to be valid until June 3Oth.
Council's that's about my story. Telling my troubles like Charlie James. And
I so I took quite a beating a few days ago when we didn't close. Between
$55,000.00 and $60,000.00. I planned on a certain obligation. I had to keep my
credibility and I took a bit of a beating. So that's my story. Any questions?
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Do you have any additional questions?
Councilman Workman: Well, if the right -in /right -out is put on this outlot, and
I I'm not sure I understand where, if we approve what Charlie James has up there,
why a right -in /right -out on this parcel would effect him. I'm not sure I
understand that, if there's a median between the two. Other than if there's a
right -in /right -out and you might increase the value of this lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Conceiveably yeah. But with the same.
II Councilman Workman: Because Mr. Burdick isn't going to have to market this lot
in any way except the City. And so the value of the lot would change or not
change depending on whether there's better or worse access. Does the City
II by -pass, I mean.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Now I'm only asking for this right turn and right out until
' such a time as the City pays for this lot. Then of course they can close it.
They can leave it open. They can I suppose do anything with it that a city can
do with it. I'm just asking for the right turn in and right out in the interim.
I Mayor Chmiel: Are you questioning yet Jim whether or not the City is going to
buy that piece of property? And you're trying to protect your rights with a
right -in and right -out?
II B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: In the event the City doesn't purchase that?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yeah. Yes, that's the whole story.
Don Ashworth: May I respond? We have tried to maintain a reasonable schedule
for Target for their desire to take and be able to work this property.
Potentially have grading permit yet this year. If we have not reached agreement
II with Mr. Burdick and we're not able to make this purchase and go into the next
year, we can hear what Mr. Brooks has to say but I don't think Target will be a
' 34
i
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
reality. Or Target will not be a reality. If the City does not close and '
Outlot B is not one large parcel, Target will not be a reality. In any of those
instances, this will have to come back to the City Council. I mean because this
project includes specific improvements for Target. If Target does not close.
If we don't close. If things do not move along as we think that they currently
will be, you will see this project again. We are simply not going to go out and
do it unless all of these things do in fact transpire. '
Councilman Workman: But isn't this outlot important enough for us to buy it
now, regardless of whether Target happens? -
Don Ashworth: As an HRA member I would tell you, yes. I think you should vote
and go ahead and purchase it in any case, but.
Mayor Chmiel: Only because we do want to protect that particular area. ,
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than having 6 things in there, maybe we'll only want 2.
Councilman Workman: But that's why I'm confused. Because now we're talking '
about February. And the road's changing again a little bit. Not to mention Mr.
James' dilemma. I don't know, maybe we should have scheduled this for after the
Target discussion. But you know, it seems like we need to get on with this and
it's not... - -
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Agreed. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I share a confusion too because we've got the
proposed Target development as our next item and yet you're saying that the
Outlot is really crucial to this. And yet we're talking about February -March
next year for the outlot and we're talking about the proposed Target development
tonight. Something doesn't quite match up here. How are the negotiations going
with the Target development and the HRA? ,
Don Ashworth: The HRA will be meeting this next Monday night. The attorneys
will be present and unless something has occurred here on either Friday or
Monday that I'm not aware of, agreement was reached as to that contract and that
is being finalized by John Dean and your attorney as we're talking and you do
not anticipate anything being presented Monday night that's going to be
different? And you feel comfortable at this point that Target and the City have
reached agreement?
Dick Brooks: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but the outlot is not a part of this agreement as I
noticed there was a change in the grading plans so the outlot as of this point
has been taken out of that, this agreement here. ,
Don Ashworth: The outlot was taken out of the grading only because there would
be a delay on the closing. Target wanted to be able to control their piece but
again we'll allow Mr. Brooks to speak on this issue. If he has any thoughts
35 11
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
I that the City will not acquire Outlot B, well if you would make the statement.
Will it happen or not?
' Dick Brooks: I'm Dick Brooks, Director of Real Estate for Target. First time
I've been out here at this Council meeting and if I had known it was such a
comedy hour, I would have been out here sooner. Between Abbott and Costello
I here, I think you get all the entertainment that you need. It's always been our
understanding, and it was sold to the company, that the City would own Outlot B.
That's the way it's been since we started this project. It's the confidence
that we have in the city owning Outlot 8, which is our window and the company
1 did not feel like putting the millions and millions of dollars in this project
without having the confidence in the people that own the property in front of
us. So at this point that's what the company feels it's getting and I do not
' think that they would continue on with the project if we knew that was not the
case.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II Councilwoman Dimler: So why isn't the City buying it now?
I Mayor Chmiel: ...always discussed at the time that the City was going to own
that outlot. As far as I know. As far as I remember.
Councilman Wing: If that Outlot B is tied to Target and we own it, then what
are our restrictions on the use of Outlot 8? There must be some then.
Kate Aanenson: It's included in the PUD.
II Councilman Wing: Which is just, is it mainly they're worried about we're not
going to come in and cut aff their view? It sort of boils down to their
' thinking, if there's an agreement of what we're going to do and not do with that
outlot which is in their best interest versus the current owner.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if you remember one time it showed 6 different kinds of
things located on Outlot B. We only wanted 2. We wanted this for that
protection. And also the congestion in that particular area.
1 Councilman Wing: Which is being driven by us and not Target. That's our
choice.
Mayor Chmiel: Correct.
Don Ashworth: If I may respond on the financing issue. The initial position,
initial discussions were such that Target wanted to develop one -half of this
I parcel and Ryan wanted to develop the other part of it. The City was solely a
facilitater and acting in terms of providing certain incentives to each of the
two parties but primarily they would be present at the time of closing to pay
1 their share of the properties. The Target proposal has continued on solid
foundation and they wish to proceed. The Ryan part of the development, they
have the full intent and desire to carry forward with that part of the property.
But until it can go through Planning Commission and...lots and uses and what
not, they are not ready to close. That is the reason that we discussed the City
purchasing that part of the property. At issue is to effectuate that and to be
' 36
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
able to sell the bonds for acquisition of that property. You needed to amend
our redevelopment plan. That has nothing to do with how much money the City
does or doesn't have. That has to deal with State Statutue and the steps that
you're required to carry to go through if you're going to amend the
redevelopment plan. We instructed our attorneys to draft that document. In
fact the HRA will see that this next Monday night but that must go to the School
District. It must go to the County. There must be the public hearings and then
you can start the bonding process and that is the only reason that it's going to
the February or March timeframe that we had eluded to. And it was our belief
through the property owners' representatives, that that was acceptable. And I
hope that that is a true statement but hearing some of the things tonight, I
don't know if that's totally true.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, my motion this evening I think separates the two
owners out from this a little bit and I think we've gone to our experts and the 11
question tonight before us is traffic access, traffic flow on West 78th Street
and servicing those properties in a fair, reasonable an equitable manner. I
think we've reached that after a year and a half. Although there's some
injustices on both sides, I think the motion is good and I'll call it at this
time. Can I do that?
Mayor Chmiel: Call the question? '
Councilman Wing: Call the question.
Councilman Workman: That configuration?
Mayor Chmiel: That existing configuration. With a right -in and a right -out at
Charlie James. At the first farthest to the west on 78th Street.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor if I may. I don't feel like I'm ready to vote
on this. I don't think I have enough information. I think there's too many
things up in the air here between all the parties and so I will abstain from
voting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a right -in /right -out
access approximately 300 feet east of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) for the
James property to the north, locating a mid -block traffic signal at the common
access to the Target site, Outlot B and Lots 3 and 4 of the James property to
the north, a future mid -block traffic signal may also be necessary at the main
drive entrance to the Target site, and preliminary assessment roll with the
deletion of assessment for the mid -block traffic signal. All voted in favor
except Councilwoman Disler who abstained and the motion carried. 1
-
PROPOSED TARGET DEVELOPMENT. WEST 78TH STREET:
A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT REZONING PROPERTY FOR BG. GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD. '
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A TARGET STORE. FINAL READING.
B. APPROVAL OF THE PUD AGREEMENT. ,
37 1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
C. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
D. APPROVE REVISED GRADING PLAN AND INTERIM USE PERMIT.
E. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. #
F. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor can I make some brief comments. We need to add an (f) on
that. 7(f). I did include in your packet the revised development plans.
Mayor Chmiel: For (f)?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And that should state, approval of the Final Plat and Site
Plan dated October 22, 1992 and the architectural plans dated.
Mayor Chmiel: What was the date Kate?
Kate Aanenson: October 22nd, 1992. And architectural plans dated September 9,
1992. And if I could just preface that. In meeting with the developers, in
going through the development contract and the PUD contract, there was some
modifications made. As you know, we've made several revisions to this site plan
and what we'd ask of the developer is to come back and show those revised plans.
We did put those in your packet but they did get left off of the items on the
agenda. The architectural plans have not changed. What did change then was the
site plan and the final plat. Based on the discussions you've had tonight
between the properties that we'll be purchasing. Again, I want to clarify
something. That we'll be rezoning a larger piece of property that we'll be
approving as far as the site plan. The site plan that we're approving tonight
is the Target, although the PUD zone includes a larger portion of property. Mr.
Burdick's piece including Outlot B. That is included in the PUD zone. So
whatever goes on that property in the future is bound by those standards that
we've outlined in that PUD contract.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Does Target wish to make any statements at
this time?
Jim Theusch: Mr. Mayor, my name is Jim Theusch. I'm with Target Real Estate
and as Kate as eluding to, there were some things that we had taken, I wouldn't
say exception but just we wanted to have clarified with respect to the PUD
agreement. And the development agreement. I don't know how you're going to
handle these. If you're going to handle one of these items at a time or are you
going to take the whole thing?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm going to go by each individual one.
Jim Theusch: Which one are we dealing with first then?
Kate Aanenson: The first one, (a).
Jim Theusch: The PUD?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
' 38
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Jim Theusch: The only issue that we have with respect to the PUD, and I think
that this is something that was discussed at an earlier meeting this week.
Perhaps just an oversight that was not included as one of the items on the
report, and that has to do with number, item 8G. It references prior to start
of the grading, city staff may require minor revisions to the grading including
potential use of retaining walls, if it appears that tree preservation will
benefit. I believe that what had been presented earlier was wording to the
effect that "tree preservation areas shall be clearly staked and marked by
snowfence. Protected trees lost due to contractor negligence will be replaced
on an inch caliper basis." I think the only thing that we're really asking to
be omitted there is the idea of constructing retaining walls and so forth. We
figure that if we adequately go out and flag these things initially and put the
onerous on the contractor to ensure that he adequately protects the trees during
the development process, that we can meet the intent of what Kate's initial
comments were.
Kate Aanenson: If I could preface that. Staff did meet and there were a few
items that we, the staff, chose not to modify to their needs and this is one of
the issues that we felt, based on the fact that these trees are owned by the
City, that we would like to go out and have the opportunity to make that on site
inspection. They asked for that modification and we felt we wanted to leave '
that language in, so we want it left as is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. I think what we're going to have to do is go by
each individual one. Whether or not that language should be changed. And this
is basically for the amendment to rezoning of the property. Kate, I don't have
that.
Kate Aanenson: It's actually A and B. You're looking at B is what he's talking
( about.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And item, what was that item again? ,
Jim Theusch: Mr. Mayor, it was 8G.
Mayor Chmiel: 8G. Tree preservation.
Jim Theusch: Ah yes. Page 3. I think our major concern here is just one of
potential unforeseen economic constraints that we would have that we get down
into it and we discover that we're out there building all kinds of retaining
walls when in fact I think with. '
Mayor Chmiel: What type of retaining wall are you really talking about Kate?
Kate Aanenson: I don't think we envision a 30 -40 foot retaining wall. We're '
saying if there's a significant slope and we can save a tree by putting in a
small retaining wall around it.
Paul Krauss: Mayor, if I can clarify it. This has become standard language 1
wherever we have tree preservation...and the reason is that you just don't know
some of these issues as he said, we'd like to figure out in the field and stake
it. You know you may find that it's possible to save a 30 inch oak tree with a
minor modification. I don't know if it puts Target's mind at rest but our idea
39 11
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
for doing this is clearly not to say that we want a 20 foot wall at the last
minute. But to make minor changes in plans that do have a significant impact.
If we get arbitrary of course they always have the right to come back to you but
' that's never been a problem in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I realize that. That we don't try to really put it to
you or anyone else as far as that's concerned. And I think basically what staff
' is saying, those things can be worked out rather satisfactorily without a 20
foot retaining wall all over your particular piece of property. I don't think
that's what Paul is saying.
Jim Theusch: I think we could probably live with that then. I mean if we've
got the staff's cooperation in this and if something becomes an issue and if
we're dealing with a very expensive retaining wall, we would agree to replace
those trees on an inch caliper basis.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what I'd like to do is move item 7(a) first for City
Code Amendment rezoning property from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development for a Target Store, this being the final reading.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chaiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Reading of
a City Code Amendment Rezoning Property from BG, General Business to PUD,
' Planned Unit Development for a Target Store. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Now we'll move ahead to item 7(b). The Approval for the PUD
Agreement and with that item being clarified as item 8(g). To be worked out
with staff. Are there any other questions that Council had in referencing the
' agreement?
Councilman Wing: Item (b). Kate, on this landscape plan. You don't have it
open do you? All the letters are addressing specific trees, isn't that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
' Councilman Wing: So the parking lot has a lot of ornamental, which I thought we
were getting away from.
Kate Aanenson: They were all taken out.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a revised.
Councilman Wing: I just want to clarify. I don't have the revised one here.
I'm showing all the crab apples and the dwarf this and hackberries.
Mayor Chmiel: As I had looked at those plans that staff, there's about 50 more
additional trees put in.
Councilman Wing: You mentioned that. _ was just trying to pin down what we
have in the parking lot because I must not have a revised one here.
40
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Jim Theusch: Councilman, I believe what we did was we followed the
recommendation that had been put forth the last time and we removed those
ornamental trees and replaced them with more of the over story variety that you
had made a motion to replace them with. John, if you would like to comment on
that. ,
Councilman Wing: Whether by accident or not, I don't have that revised plan
there. I don't have a finalized landscape plan. '
John: I have a reduced copy if I can submit them. We have a view foil we can
put up. '
Councilman Mason: Where's the tamarack?
Jim Theusch: Hinkley. I think they're up near Hinkley. '
Councilman Wing: What I'm looking at then on all these, if we're talking about
over story shade trees, there's one entire line there ends and those are dwarf
honeysuckles.
John: Those are shurbs, yes they are. Ends. What we did do Councilmember
Wing, is we looked at the interior of the parking lot and changed all of the
plant material that were on the interior of the parking to over story canopy
trees. We did maintain some ornamental trees along the perimeter of the parking
lot. For example, the over story trees for the revised landscape plan went from
67 up to 105. The conifers went from 54 up to 67. And the ornamental trees
went down from 95 to 76. So we were looking to maintain a balance but we
greatly punched up the over story trees by a count of 38. And they were
concentrated in and throughout the parking lot.
Councilman Wing: Kate, what really intrigues me about all these plans. The
planning overall is that we sit underneath this maple leaf but yet here's this
enormous parking lot in this entire Target store and there's not a single sugar
maple on the plan anywhere here and I wonder why along the boulevard we don't
have sugar maples or along the south or the western. Why isn't our namesake
tree, what's a hackberry ? - is that a broad crown tree and I know flowering
apple means nothing to me. -I don't see any big trees here. -A honey locust.
They branch out.
John: We looked at trees that would be hardy in.
Councilman Wing: That's true. I'm missing that. '
John: Within those island areas. I would say we'd be willing to put in some
sugar maples. I would recommend not in the parking lot area but on the
perimeter.
Councilman Wing: Alright, here's the only thing I guess I'd like to point out
then. I want to make sure we're accomplishing this because this is kind of the
first big project on my shift if you will. On my term of Council and it's maybe
our first big one on what we call the Highway 5 corridor project. And what we
don't get tonight we're not going to get at all. It's a dead issue and as we
attend these parking lot seminars, one of them which Target attended and helped
41 1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
put on, they talked about heat islands and environmental impact and we have sort
of a micro climate being created right here so we have an enormous parking lot
that creates a heat island that's really built for Christmas parking and then
the rest of the year it's abandoned. We've got this enormous massive asphalt
' with this big open flat roof. And if we keep putting these in, which Charlie
James will probably do to the north side, they tell us we start raising the
temperature of our city and the only way to counter it is to put in over story
' shade trees. Now I'm not suggesting we shade this entire area. I just want to
make sure that we are getting maximum coverage with any reasonable level of over
story broad shade trees in here and I would be happy if all the islands had
shade trees in them. But dwarf honeysuckles just aren't going to do the job.
John: Dwarf honeysuckles would be underneath the canopy trees so that there'd
be a combination of shurbs and over story trees in those particular islands.
Mayor Chmiel: How many canopy trees are you talking on those perspective
islands?
John: Typically two canopy trees per island.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that's providing I think a substantial amount of shade
for that particular area.
Councilman Wing: Well for that island but then you move to another island that
doesn't have it so we're really only looking at two islands in the parking lot
that are over story. Or two lines of them.
John: No. There are two islands typically in the parking lot that have
ornamentals whereas every other island has canopy trees in it.
Councilman Wing: My opinion is that if we had had our designer do this and had
II a person design this for the city's future, I think we'd have more over story
shade trees and a lot less ornamentals. So this isn't accomplishing, for what
it's worth, it's not accomplishing what I had hoped to and I didn't mean to...
' or even impact the project or put a hardship of finances of any kind. This just
isn't what I learned in school. It's an improvement. What really bothers me,
we started out with almost nothing. Went to what's an improvement to another
improvement and I'm glad someone spoke up initially or we'd be back at Point A.
II And here we've gone from A to B to C. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be at
C+ here. I guess I'm a little disappointed in the landscape plan. If it was up
to me, we'd pass everything with a slight modification to the landscape plan.
' I'd like to see the landscape plan come back with Bill Morrish and the other
engineer. Barry. I'd like to see Bill Morrish and Barry look at this on the
City's behalf and offer some modification. I don't see any financial impact
1 here and that would be my choice. That's the only thing I found...
Mayor Chmiel: If they would have even modifications to you know what's being
proposed, and they may not.
II Councilman Wing: They may not.
II Mayor Chmiel: And maybe if that understanding is with Target, of whether or not
these people would even have any modifications, we're not even sure. What would
42
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
be your position on that?
Jim Theusch: Well Mr. Mayor, I think what we'd prefer to do is work with these
people through the staff level. I'm not a landscape architect. John is and if
I understand what John was telling us, what he's done in the parking lot is
creat a situation where you've got the over story trees being the higher
elements. You've got something down lower - . You've got something inbetween. I
think what you're getting here is a pretty good view as you walk through the
parking lot. You can see your cars. The higher trees are going to provide you
an opportunity to view under. You've got something lower. I think they've done
a pretty good job but we would certainly like to, you know we will work through
your staff and take comments and try to resolve this, if it's still a concern of
Councilmember Wing.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be an acceptable kind of thing. Richard, how
do you feel?
Councilman Wing: Well our staff aren't landscape architects so if they're
willing to bring in Bill Morrish or.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what he said. Including the people.
Councilman Wing: That's fine.
Councilman Workman: So it wouldn't come back? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. If Morrish and Barry look at these and their
agreement is there, then no need for it really coming back.
Councilman Wing: I'm not interested in impacting this or delaying it. I'm
just, I'm not so sure we couldn't make some very minor modifications to
improvement for our long term visionary process here. Considering that the '
original plan wasn't anything to be very proud of and we've had to push this
hard just to get to this point so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, before we approve this PUD agreement, I'd like to
talk about item, it's on page 4, Y. It has to do with the working hours of
operation and that it can be a different schedule can be gone to if it's
approved by the City Engineer. It's not that I don't trust Charles' decision
making process but we are treating rather lightly here a city ordinance I think.
I would like to see us stay with the ordinance and get approval from a larger
base of representation.
Kate Aanenson: Which item are you on? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Page 4, Y.
Councilman Mason: She's on this thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that where we are?
43
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Councilman Mason: No, we're on this.
Kate Aanenson: No. You're still on the PUD agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: We're still on this portion here.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're on your PUD agreement?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what this is.
Mayor Chmiel: Well this is the PUD agreement and development contract revisions
that were done.
Jim Theusch: Ursula, you have pointed out something though. There is a
redundancy in this in that there is an item in the PUD agreement, item number
10(a) which is a redundancy. It appears also in the development contract so
you're on the right document. They're on the wrong one.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's a combination of two different ones, right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright, anyway. Whichever it is, whether it's in an
agreement or wherever it is, I'd like to see us stay with a city ordinance and
' not treat that so lightly. I mean I really think Council will make a wise
decision if there is a need to change the working hours.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not, I'll call a
question for the approval of the PUD agreement. Is there a motion?
' Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Mason: This is 7(b) right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
1 Councilman Wing: Did that include?
Mayor Chmiel: The discussion on your.
Councilman Wing: On item 7(b). Or 8(b) rather.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I know it's a little confusing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the PUD
agreement for the Target development as amended on item 8(b). All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item (c). Approve plans and specifications. This project
1 basically covers the d you bl h puic street and utility improvements within the Target
site. Charles, diave something?
44
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is
relatively straight forward. The plans and specs, at least the plans that you
have before you represent the construction of the public improvements. Sanitary
sewer, watermain and the storm sewer. Specifications that they have adopted is
our standard construction specifications for the City of Chanhassen so this is a
relatively straight forward approval for these improvements.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And this too is project 92 -15. Any questions or
discussion on it. Hearing none, can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I make a motion to approve plans and specifications for
public street and utility improvements, Target Development Project No. 92 -15.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution 4192-123: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
approve the plans and specifications for the public street and utility
improvements associated with the Target site development dated October 22, 1992,
Project No. 92 -15. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 7(d). Approve revised grading plan and interim use permit.
Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We previously approved the
grading plan for this project. As you're all aware, the grading plan has been
revised and basically the major revision is limiting the work basically to the
Target site itself. They've also included a revised grading plan sheets 4A and
4B which show the phasing of the grading work on the site. The phasing
basically is the work to be limited to 1992 and then the remaining work to be
completed in 1993. One of the comments that we have basically regarding the
grading for 1993 is that they're showing work to occur on Outlot B -2 which is
currently existing, a portion of the existing West 78th Street detachment so
grading on that segment would have to be delayed until after our improvement
project is completed. Other than that, extension will be needed from the
Watershed District to continue work beyond November 15th. The applicant has
provided information regarding that submittal and they are scheduling a meeting
with the Watershed District. Therefore it is staff's recommendation that the
revised grading plan for the Target development dated October 22, 1992 be
approved conditioned on the applicant submitting a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $50,000.00 and administrative fee in the amount of
$694.20. And that a time extension be granted from the Watershed District to
continue work beyond November 15, 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? I'll call for a motion to
approve the revised grading plan and interim use permit for development project
92 -15 with all the conditions contained within the memorandum.
Councilman Workman: Your second? Did you move that?
Mayor Chmiel: No. •
Councilman Workman: So moved. 1
45 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the revised
grading plan for the Target development dated October 22, 1992 conditioned on
the applicant submitting a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
$50,000.00 and administrative fee in the amount of $694.20. Also, that a time
extension be granted from the Watershed District to continue work beyond
November 15, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 7(e). Approve development contract. Charles.
II Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What I might do with the
development contract, basically staff has attached to your staff report...
development contract. The developer has brought the staff's attention that they
II have some questions, comments, concerns. However you want to describe that,
with some of the specific language. A meeting was held and I think the Minutes
of the meeting are also contained in the report but basically going through the
line items for discussion as we know them currently to be. Starting off with
II item 8L of the development contract which basically states, involves a segment
of sidewalk along the south side of West 78th Street which will meander off out
of the right -of -way area. Basically an easement will need to be acquired which
II doesn't appear to be a problem for this walk. There is some discussion as to
who will build this sidewalk. The developer prefers that the City build them as
a part of the West 78th Street detachment project. The City has no problem with
I that as long as trees and sod and other landscape plant material in that
boulevard area, delay their installation until we can complete the sidewalk
installation. We certainly don't want to go in there and disturb all that so as
long as there's an understanding there, we don't have a problem with that. Item
I 8M. And this is basically more of a planning issue. I guess I can let Kate or
Paul address this.
' Kate Aanenson: I can address that. The architectural plans that we have are
dated back from September 9th, as I mentioned earlier. And in that we requested
that those three punch out elements be backlit. They wanted that taken out as a
I condition and we said we'd take it out as long as it's shown on the plan. We
haven't received revised architectural plans so we'd like to leave that in there
as a condition to make sure that it's developed as they represented to us in the
meeting.
1 Charles Folch: There's also a question concerning item 8N which states that
lighting shall not exceed a 1/2 foot candle at the property line. After hour
lighting shall be limited to security lighting only. The developer requests
that this item be reworded to eliminate the 1/2 foot candle restriction at the
property line and modify the remainding portion of the second sentence to read,
that after hour lighting shall be limited to security and employee lighting
II only. I guess staff recommends that the developer clarify the location and
intensity for the employee lighting. The 1/2 foot candle issue is a restriction
that is governed by City Ordinance.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you wish to address that specific issue?
Jim Theusch: I think I'll just wait until we get through them all.
11 46
•
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: I saw a light in your eye there. '
Jim Theusch: Half a foot candle.
Charles Folch: Item 8Q states that protective crosswalks, stop sign shall be
placed at the entrance to the Target store. The developer agrees to placing a
crosswalk at the main entrance into the building. However, they have indicated
that they do not want to use a stop sign at this location. Staff disagrees and
continues to support the installation of a stop sign at that crosswalk entrance.
Item 8Y basically governs, as we talked about before, the working hours for the
grading operation which is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. The developer
wishes this item to read that, "working hours for the grading operation shall be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring
on holidays unless a different schedule is approved by the City Engineer."
Again, this is a restriction that's governed by City ordinance. I guess that's
up to you to choose how this is handled. Item 8813 states that the entire site
shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15th unless an extension
is granted by both the Watershed District and the City Council. The developer
wishes to have this item deleted. However, we feel it should remain intact
until we receive the Watershed approval of the extension. In the general
conditions of the development contract, item 21(L) which again stipulates
working hours. If you so choose to amend that, basically the general conditions
can be left the same in 21(L). If you choose to make the change in the special
conditions of the contract, that will supercede the general. Item 21(T) as it
relates to soil corrections. Staff believes that this shall be left as is.
Basically the City is not guaranteeing or implying any warranties or any
indications of the soil corrections or soil conditions that might be present on
the site so we believe this general condition should remain the same. If any of
the remaining of these issues that the developer has concerns for to be resolved
and taken care of, then it's staff's recommendation that this development
contract be approved conditioned that the letter of credit or cash escrow in the
amount of $300,960.00 and administrative fee in the amount of $8,458.00 be
submitted to the City prior to commencing any of the site improvements.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Now your light went out.
Jim Theusch: Thank you. .Okay, I'll take these. We can talk about the soil
correction issues, item 21(T). We take no exception to that. We have no
disagreement. 21(L). Again, we take no exception to that. We'll just allow it
to be part of the resolution. Item BBB, the one about the Watershed District.
We had made our submission to the Watershed District for an extension of that
and we expect to be heard on their agenda on November 4th. I think Dick Koppy
provided a copy of the application to staff. Item 8(Y) that has to do with the
hours of operation. Insomuch as we want to try to get this project underway
this year and some of the work could be done in the spring at an earlier time
period, we would just like to reserve the right to have the working hours
limited to 7:00 to 6:00 as we had stated in the revised language. Yeah, I think
Dick's got a good point. As he pointed out is that we're trying to get the pad
for the building put in sometime this year and what we could do is agree to
compromise here. Try to get the pad in this year and I think that we can do the
grading operations in the spring under normal working hour conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that. Okay Paul?
47
i
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Jim Theusch: And it probably won't come about either, given the fact that it's
' fairly dark in the morning but at least if, for some reason or another the
contractors find some way to work out there at that hour, I would appreciate
Council consideration on this. Item 8(Q). The protective crosswalk with stop
' signs. We agree to install the stop signs. 8(N) where we talk about the
lighting level at the perimeter of 1/2 foot candle. Bear in mind, I think Dick
can point out on the overhead that we have a site which is basically surrounded
by street lighting and lighting for various paths and so on and there's going to
' be a lot of glow coming off of that. We aren't too hung up on this issue other
than it's been our normal practice to be able to provide a lighting level in the
parking lot that is high enough that you don't have sort of a life security,
' threatening situation and we have found through our experience that 1 foot
candle at the perimeter really provides our employees, our customers, with the
kind of security that you get into a well lit parking lot. I mean I don't think
that you'll find a Police Chief in this country that will tell you that one way
to deter parking lot crime is to provide adequate lighting out there...we can
achieve a good lighting level over the parking lots and you know, with 1 foot
candle at the perimeter.
' Mayor Chmiel: You're going to have down lighting with the basic portion of that
parking lot's going to be Target. And so the absorption should be there so
you're not going to get that much back bounce from that light.
Jim Theusch: That's true.
Mayor Chmiel: Sitting back there so I don't see that as too much of a problem.
Yes.
Dick Koppy: Mayor, Dick Koppy with RLK Associates. I'd just like to point out,
along West 78th Street the property line follows just about exactly the {
trailway. The sidewalk. One of our concerns, one of the concerns we've
mentioned to Target is that we do limit at the property line to 1/2 a foot
candle, which is very low, and the trees along here are some of the larger over
story trees. Some of them..., even with the West 78th Street lighting...we felt
that 1 foot candle would be better serving the site given you're talking a lot
of commercial area with some fairly heavy trail... On the other side of the
site, Highway 5 you also have a sidewalk or trail. Again, we felt that the 1/2
foot candle was very low. Our site doesn't extend to Powers Boulevard but again
the PUD has the same requirement of 1/2 foot candle. We have the same...that
the trailway again along Powers Boulevard.
Kate Aanenson: I think the concern that the staff had and why we stuck to not
and letting the Council decide on this, is we didn't want to see the entire
parking lot lit 24 hours either. That's why we put the extra, not only the 1/2
foot candle at the property line but that there be only employee parking, or
security lighting after hours. And it's our understanding, based on the site
plan you showed us, that the majority of the parking will be on that north side
of the building. So I guess I would like you to also address what your intent
is as far as lighting after hours.
Jim Theusch: Okay Kate I'll address that. You're correct. Our employee
parking area would be that parking area directly north'of the building and our
after hour lighting requirements for the parking lot are that we would provide
1 48
1
City Council Meeting - Octdber 26, 1992 ,
what I would call a lighted pathway for an employee to go from the entrance to
the store to the employee parking area. And that that lighted pathway only
remain on one hour after our store closing because by that time we have cleared
out the employees. At that point in time the management system will shut itself
down and the only lighting that we will have will be security lighting on the
building. And that's limited to just a number of required exit door locations.
Does that answer your question Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It was a concern of the Council that this not be seen from
a large city so we were concerned in making sure that we met that concern that
they had.
Jim Theusch: Yeah, I don't think it will be seen as a large lit parking field
after hours because it is our practice to shut the lots down. 1
Councilman Wing: Kate, the City ordinances, the perimeter of a 1/2 candle, are
you sticking with that?
Kate Aanenson: Well it's our recommendation. I don't have the authority to
waive that so that's why it's back in for your discretion.
Mayor Chmiel: Up to us with that discussion. '
Councilman Wing: Would you still recommend it at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: Only because city ordinance. In other words, get a variance to
do that.
Kate Aanenson: I guess my concern was more the after hours thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the after hours. '
Councilman Wing: We have to apply for a variance to our own ordinance? I guess
Mrs. Dimler was right. - ,
Councilwoman Dimier: Do we have to apply for a variance to our own ordinance?
Mayor Chmiel: No, we have that authority. Rut with that 1 foot candle, the
absorptions there and the reflected bounce is not going to be. If it were
cement with white, then you may have more of a given problem.
Councilwoman Dimier: Has anybody considered what was likely to happen on the
James property? I know at one time we looked at some housing up on the hill
there. How is that going to effect those people?
Mayor Chmiel: Well it shouldn't effect them when it comes time for them to shut
down because in the evening when they're done with the work, everything is back
down. Now normally your hours of operation are until 10 :00? 1
Jim Theusch: 10:00.
Councilwoman Dimier: So by 11 :00 in the evening? i
49 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: So by 11:00 in the evening you back down completely. Not only
for the security of the employees. going to and from.
Councilman Mason: Just the employee lot will be lit between 10:00 and 11:00,
right? Or give or take.
Jim Theusch: Yes, give or take. And there would be, as I said, a lighted
pathway. You've got to provide some lighting for them to get there. Okay, just
moving on and getting_the points that Kate had mentioned. Item 8(M), that
speaks toward the back lighting of the 3 facades along the building. We would
agree to do that. Even though we have not provided Kate with the detail of what
' that would be. We will comply with the back lighting requirement. 8(0. Talking
about who will do the work out here. Whether it's the sidewalk is constructed
as part of the West 78th Street and I think that it would be our desire for it
to be done with the West 78th Street improvements because we are doing, or the
West 78th Street project is including sidewalk that is to the east and to the
west of the portion in the middle. And Dick, if you would point out, it is
perhaps also wiser, if in fact the landscaping that were north of the sidewalk
were included in that West 78th Street project also. I think it may facilitate
the coordination better than having it, somebody put in the sidewalk. Somebody
put in the landscaping and then you can understand what's going to happen if one
person damaged the other person's work. They're all standing there pointing the
fingers as to who did what and with the city as being part of this contractual
arrangement, the demarkation line just seems to make sense to be the sidewalk.
Dick Koppy: Our construction ideas on this boulevard would be to, the boulevard
part anyway to be created during the Target parking lot grading operation. We
would withhold our landscaping along the sidewalk area until the sidewalk was
placed. The sidewalk really should be placed by the City because it will tie
into the curb lines and so forth. Our thought was some of these trees up along
West 78th Street are already shown on the West 78th Street plans that we
reviewed. At least as part of your landscape plan. So it was our thought that
these trees would be placed as a part of the West 78th Street project. To make
it very simple if everything from the sidewalk to the north were placed with the
City project. That would make a more clearcut, distinguishing line between the
construction operations.
Mayor Chmiel: A sidewalk in that particular location is going to be concrete as
well.
Jim Theusch: Yes it is. I guess that closes my discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I guess really the only real item of concern is the
foot candles more than anything else plus the other conditions that are
discussed. The only thing with that, all those respective items that were
discussed I think he's in agreement basically with staff on that. The only
thing that we would have to revise would be the 1/2 foot candle for the lighting
and the security of their employees. Richard.
Charles Folch: And the extension of the working hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Excuse me. Good point.
SO
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, under special provisions, page 4. Item number R.
It talks about additional evergreen trees, etc, etc, etc and it says, over story
trees. Let's see, and the parking lot shall be changed from decorative to over
story. The last line I'd like to request a change. Just the words, a minimum
of 25 over story trees shall be added to the Target parking lot but the number
to remain open pending review by City Designer, which is in line with the other
request. '
Mayor Chmiel: And Target and staff, as we had indicated before.
Councilman Wing: Pardon? That's correct. '
Mayor Chmiel: And I think you were in agreement with that.
Jim Theusch: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: To have discussion with staff.
Jim Theusch: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's been added to item R. Now on the 1/2 foot candle
as opposed to the request for 1 foot candle of lighting. Is that a variance on
that Don?
Don Ashworth: Paul, how would you do that? 1
Paul Krauss: It's in the site plan review ordinance. Theoretically under the
PUD, it's within your power to adopt another standard.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, within a PUD in itself. Okay.
Paul Krauss: The question of precedent is one you should think about a little
bit even though it is in a PUD. I think Councilwoman Dimier raised a legitimate
issue. I mean there's the issue of, you know is downtown going to glow at night
and I think they answered that responsibly. But Charlie James does have a
similar commercial property that is going to be abutting residential and...also
PUD in the future. If you do allow the 1 foot candle here, possibly you'll want
to provide some justification that cites specifically that doesn't imply that
you'll do the same thing necessarily on the property on the other side of the
street.
Mayor Chmiel: I think each one should be addressed individually.
Councilman Mason: Everything else in the city is 1/2 foot right? 1
Paul Krauss: Well it's been the standard we've applied for the last year and a
half, 2 years.
Councilman Mason: I mean for example the lights on Kerber?
Paul Krauss: City lighting is not subject to that. Street lighting is not.
What we're talking about is site lighting.
51 1
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II Councilman Wing: We only applied that out at the SA on TH 7 and TH 41 finally
and it really made a difference. It really impacted it significantly by holding
it down.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yet the visibility is there with that particular one. I think
what I understood the discussion was for the security of our people that were
going to utilize that facility. It's true, the better lighting you have the
II less deterrent it is for doing anything within that particular lot that they
shouldn't be doing. From purse snatching to whatever else. And a 1/2 foot
candle is a little dull for a parking lot but it's Council's direction.
1 Councilman Wing: Well now that you've set the pace, who would dare cross you.
' Councilman Mason: I will. I'll give it some serious consideration.
Councilman Wing: Well I have to take your word for it. I wouldn't know a half
candle from a full candle. It's double I guess.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm going to go along with what Paul says because
we are setting a precedent here and I can see Mr. James coming saying, well you
II did it for them. And there will be residential there and I know we had that
II discussion with the TH 41 development there with the SuperAmerica. Those
people, that lighting was a problem.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well there you had residential adjacent to it and that was the
reason we...
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Well I think in the future there will, obviously it
will go right up to the residential with the James property.
Councilman Mason: Personally, with all the other lighting in that area, and
with the lighting that there will be on West 78th, I'm comfortable with that.
If there was nothing else around there, I think that would be something we'd
really have to take a look at but there are. There already are a lot of lights
II around there and there will be more in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm just hopeful you understand the difference between a 1/2 foot
candle to what 1 foot candle really does. And there is a difference but it's
II also a difference in the ability of how that light is being...to what you're
talking about. And the absorption is by the tar that they'll have because it's
dark and the light does not reflect back up. And it's all downlighting that
you're having anyway.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I don't know if it clarifies things any but the
standard is 1/2 foot candle at the property line. Within the property they can
be 15 foot candle or whatever it takes to light the parking lot.
II Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. Yes. They can have designed more than a 1
II foot candle but just as long as they meet the 1/2 foot candle at the property
line, which I don't think is going to cause any difficulty.
II Jim Theusch: It really won't, no. I mean we can live with the requirement of a
1/2 foot candle. We just wanted to put our point out that as owners /operators
52
City Council Meeting - 0ct-1bber 26, 1992 '
we are concerned about the safety of the customer and of the employee and we
just wanted the Council to realize that.
Councilwoman Dimler: But on that walk, there will be street lighting along
there so those people need not fear that they're going to be walking in darkness
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that we have that understanding. And I think '
everything else is fallen into proper perspectus, Kate. Charles.
Kate Aanenson: Are you okay with the grading then? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. At least I don't see any problem with that. Does anyone
else see any problem? That's with the grading and the pad going in now. '
Charles Folch: And the extension to the working hours. We can basically handle
a similar situation. If we receive a complaint, we'll try to resolve it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. We can address it at the time.
Jim Theusch: And we will try to work within the compliance also. Enforce our
contractor.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Can I have a motion to approve the
development contract as so stated in discussions in the Minutes.
Councilman Workman: 5o moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded that the revised
development contract, as amended, for the Chanhassen Retail Addition (Target
development) be approved conditioned upon receiving a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of *300,960.00 and an administrative fee in the amount of
*8,458.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Time is fleeting, item number (f). It's to, I can't quite read
my writing. It's for the final plat dated October 22, 1992 with the
architectural drawings of also 1992. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: No, the architectural is dated September 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: September 9th, okay. 1992.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have a thing on that. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't have anything with (f) too.
Kate Aanenson: You should have gotten... t
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I've got the plans.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, that's what that is. You just didn't have it stated.
53 1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussions on that?
Councilman Workman: The architectural review?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Is basically what you have right here.
1 Councilman Workman: Yeah, but it was listed as an item (f).
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
1 Councilwoman Oimler: It wasn't listed so she added it.
Kate Aanenson: That one was the only one that wasn't modified. You might want
1 to...that was the only one that hasn't changed. The landscaping had been
changed so they resubmitted that. And because we updated, we changed the road
alignment, that changed the plat so all of those had to be redrawn.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat
and Site Plan as shown on the plans dated October 22, 1992 and the Architectural
1 Plans dated September 9, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT. MINNEWASHTA SHORES BEACHLOT, JEAN WOODS,
PRESIDENT OF MINNEWASHTA SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Kate Aanenson: This beachlot is pretty straight forward. It's been in
existence for a number of years. When we did the inventory there was, the
1 inventory that was done in. 1981 showed three less boats than what the applicants
had requested in your packet. They've sent three letters from the owners in the
Association stating to the fact that they hadn't put their boats in. You'll
I note that the survey was taken in early June and due to the weather that year,
not everybody had their boat in. Staff and the Planning Commission felt
comfortable with what they were requesting. This is a little bit of a different
beachlot in the fact that they don't have a dock. They have piers. A series of
II
piers. This cove was created before the beachlot ordinance was in place but the
Planning Commission again and the staff feels comfortable with what they're
requesting and that is the 4 off - street parking spaces, the 9 piers with a total
1 of 18 boats to be docked. The one concern that the staff raised was that they
do have a place to pull off boats and we did request that those boats be non -
motorized or if they do put motors on them, that they be removed at that time.
' The concern was that over time is that people don't pull different types of
boats up onto those. So it be limited to non - motorized or fishing or canoe
boats. So again we recommended, or the Planning Commission recommended the 18
boats to be moored on those docks.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And there are 22 homeowners in that association.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
54
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 '
Mayor Chmiel: Is Jean Woods here? Oh good. I'm glad you stayed and waited
Jean. Come on up here. Do you have anything that you'd like to address?
Jean Woods: No.
1 Mayor Chmiel: You're basically in agreement to what staff has indicated?
Jean Woods: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: Fine, thank you. Discussion. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I noticed that Mr. Wing is part of this Association so '
I move to not.
Councilman Wing: No I'm not. '
Councilwoman Dimler: But they're your friends, right? I guess I'm really
concerned with this. What was there in 1981 is the date that we've chosen to go
back to and then that's what we go with. I would like to see us stay
consistent.
Councilman Wing: 18 was there. 18 was there. That's what we tried to go with. '
They've documented that, which you apparently have. Nothing to talk about.
Mayor Chmiel: They were well organized, let's put it that way. Because some of
the other things that we have...but that's what was and that's what it is.
Thomas.
Councilman Workman: Ditto. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussion.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the
Non - Conforming Use Permit for Minnewashta Shores Recreation Beachlot to allow 4
off - street parking, 9 piers, allowing up to 18 boats to be docked and 7
non - motorized boats on land. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LUNDGREN BROTHERS PROPERTY, EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND
ADJACENT TO 7305 HIGHWAY 41:
A. REZONE 95 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT. FINAL READING; ,
Jo Ann Olsen: The first part of this proposal is the rezoning of the property.
You've already reviewed this with the concept plan approval and it was approved
by the City Council for rezoning. That it could be rezoned as a PUD. So the
first part is pretty simple. We are still recommending approval of the property
be rezoned from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development. That's a simple
one. Do you want me to just go through the whole, do you want to act on this
one now?
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon? 1
55 r
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II Jo Ann Olsen: Do you want to act on the rezoning or would you like me to?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let's look at, let's work at each individual one. The
rezoning of the 95 acres.
Jo Ann Olsen: We are recommending approval of the rezoning. We feel that it
' does meet the intent of the ordinance to be a planned unit development with the
conditions in the report. That's what we are recommending.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Do you second it?
II Roger Knutson: I had a comment I just wanted to make.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Roger Knutson: I can't until there's a second though.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll get a second first.
II Councilman Wing: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: We have a second. Discussion. Now is when we get our money's
worth.
Roger Knutson: I've been here 4 hours, I've got to say something. This is just
I relevant to all three items. This would I assume be contingent upon extension
of public sewer and water to this property. Without sewer and water, this
obviously won't work. So when you make your motions for approval, you want to
II specify that that's subject to extending sewer and water there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Jo Ann Olsen: So you're saying subject to approval of extension or subject to
once the sewer and water is...?
II Roger Knutson: Once the approval.
Jo Ann Olsen: Approval of the plans and specs?
II Roger Knutson: Ordering the project.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Approval of the final reading for the PUD. Is that what you're
saying?
Councilman Mason: No.
II Roger Knutson: It would be the rezoning and the PUD approval and the wetland
alteration permit will all be subject to the Council ordering this project for
sewer and water extension to this. -
Jo Ann Olsen: The City Council ordering the project.
56
•
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: I would amend my motion with the modification. '
Councilman Wing: That's a second.
Mayor Chmiel: With the second accepting that modification? Okay. Any other '
discussion? Now if we're going to have sewer and water on this, how do we know
what those assessments are going to be? --
Roger Knutson: At this time you don't.
Mayor Chmiel: I know. I know. Make that conditioned upon. '
Jo Ann Olsen: You lost me.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you're lost, because it's getting late. ,
Jo Ann Olsen: So you also -want a condition of the rezoning on the assessments?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm just saying. We just went through a proposal for the
subdivision development. Assessments that were there for sewer and water. Now
if this particular one goes through and Roger is saying that we're talking about
sewer and water being conditioned upon each of these.
Paul Krauss: That's an easy condition to add to each one, yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: But it doesn't involve the assessments at all.
Mayor Chmiel: No. '
( Paul Krauss: Well it involves, if the City, it's contingent upon the City going
ahead with the improvement project and providing services.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ,
Paul Krauss: Whoever pays what gets decided at that time.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. We now have a motion on the floor. It's getting '
late Jo Ann. For all of us.
Councilwoman Dimler: I wasn't here. What was that? Could you repeat that '
motion? I was not here.
Councilman Workman: We're impeaching you. '
Mayor Chmiel: You're out of here. Basically we're going through the first
portion of this in the rezoning of 95 acres and Roger says that all of these
should be contingent upon sewer and water for that subdivision. Or for that
rezoning as well as a PUD and whatever else we have.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I did have one question on that and that was, you 1
know as I was reading through that I noticed that we're going to be considering
57 ,
- 1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
I a PUD ordinance here and one of the things is that we didn't feel that the City
was benefitting enough here. Or in some of the ones that we have approved and I
wanted to get staff's feeling on how we feel that this PUD benefits the City in
particular.
1 Jo Ann Olsen: The site features itself are really benefitting using the PUD by
reducing the right -of -way. Reducing setbacks in certain areas. We've been able
to protect some of the vegetative areas. The sloped areas. The wetland areas.
The site was perfect for a PUD.
II Councilwoman Dimier: That's right, are we causing more problems...here?
Jo Ann Olsen: Actually I think they met all the intents.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Rezoning #92 -5
' from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development contingent upon
the City Council ordering the extension of public sewer and water to this
property, with the following conditions:
1 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of
preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval.
2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II B. PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 112 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND 8 OUTLOTS.
I Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try to make this as brief as possible because of the hour
but and it's in the lengthy report but essentially they have made some
revisions to the preliminary plat and with the grading plans and such from the
' last time that you saw this with the concept plan. They have lost one lot. The
grading has been reduced. So a lot of our concerns from the first time have
been met. We looked closer at other options to further reduce grading on the
site and we really couldn't find any other ways to do that other than really
I removing several lots. And even then, the site would still be...so we have
added several conditions, as you see in the report for approval. We are
recommending approval of the preliminary plat. But during the, in front of the
II Planning Commission, we did go through these conditions, each one with the
applicant and made changes to each one and they should reflect, or they do
reflect what the Planning Commission has approved. In going through this again
tonight I found that we did miss one condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Was the applicant in agreement with all the conditions and the
condition changes.
11 Jo Ann Olsen: I haven't heard different but I'm assuming so: They did address
what he brought up at the Planning Commission.
1
58
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: You are in agreement with all the conditions and condition
changes that were made?
Terry Forbord: On the PUD?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. '
Terry Forbord: Except the cul -de -sac. 1
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. That was a major change that was made during the motion
of the Planning Commission. ,
Mayor Chmiel: And that change was in agreement with what the developer was
looking at?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, no. Originally staff had recommended that the cul -de -sacs be
connected and during the concept plan approval, the Planning Commission, it was
a different mix at each of those Planning Commissions but the first time they
felt that the cul -de -sacs could remain. And then during the motion at the last
meeting, they turned that around and decided to add a condition that the
cul -de -sacs be removed and that the streets be connected. So that was a new
condition that was added at the end. And as you saw Commissioner Batzli
actually disagreed with that condition because he felt that they did flip flop
on that. But the other condition that we also wanted to point out was the, this
was going to be a future connection to the Song property. And what we normally
do when there's going to be a future connection, is that they have to provide a
temporary turn around. And that that has to be barricaded and signed to say
that this is the temporary and that the street will be connected in the future.
So we need to have a condition 34 added stating that there will be, they will
provide a temporary turn around with that signage. We've got a typical
condition that states that. Other than that, again we're recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) 1
Terry Forbord: ...to the best of my knowledge the islands and the medians were
approved by the Planning Commission. 1
•
Councilman Wing: They're intact.
Terry Forbord: Pardon me? '
Jo Ann Olsen: They have to be designed to the Fire Marshal's standards and that
there might be no parking on the cul -de -sacs. '
Terry Forbord: What we have done is, I met with, at your request Councilmember
Wing, I met with Fire Marshal Littfin. And in addition to that, we also hired
the Assistant Fire Marshal in Burnsville. His name is Mr. Dan Hendrickson and
he's been a Fire Marshal for 20 years in the city of Burnsville. And the reason
that we hired him is because I'm not a fireman and I can't tell you of all the
problems that they have to deal with. Obviously health, safety and welfare is
of a concern to us and to the people who are going to live in our neighborhood
59 ,
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
so we hired him and he has consulted with us and he's working with us and
working with Mr. Littfin to try to rememdy any problems that they may have. But
we've tried to design the cul -de -sac larger and the islands in a manner and have
no parking signs, if necessary, so all the city's fire apparatus will be able to
1 adequately fight a fire in the event one may occur.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: For discussion, sure. Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
Councilman Mason: Where are we at with the cul -de -sacs? I'm not quite sure why
the Planning Commission did with that. We approved it one way. Planning
Commission originally approved it one way and without some clear direction from
' Planning Commission, I have a little trouble with that change. In deference to
Lundgren Bros I guess at this point.
Paul Krauss: I don't know if we can really explain the Planning Commission
' action except that, as Jo Ann pointed out, there was a different 3 or 4 people
on the Planning Commission on different evenings. Staff recommendation has been
consistent throughout. We always thought it should be connected. We go through
the litany of concerns and I don't need to tell them to you because you probably
know them by heart right now. The Planning Commission has asked us to put this
on their agenda and I've written up a position paper for them. In the process,
we've also surveyed 10 or 12 other communities. Virtually every one of them has
the 500 foot length to an 800 foot length. We don't have any length
restrictions right now. This is clearly one that can be connected simply. It
doesn't cause environmental problems. I understand Terry's preference to have
' the cul -de -sacs. I live on a cui -de -sac. I understand the allure to them. But
we found that we couldn't recommend it for all the reasons that we've told you
before. And the Planning Commission did change their mind. Some of them felt
badly about changing their minds but they do that. So it's in your court.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that where I Street and G Street be connected?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: My motion would be to keep the cul -de -sacs.
Mayor Chmiel: Keep the cul -de -sacs and not have them connected. Okay. Would
that be a friendly amendment with the second?
Councilman Workman: No, I think my motion wouldn't have an amendment. It would
be.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we have a motion on the floor with a second for discussion.
Now if you're amending the original one.
Councilman Workman: I'm not. I think the original motion leaves them a
cul -de -sac.
11 60
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 '
Paul Krauss: No. The conditions as stated. '
Jo Ann Olsen: State that they remove the cul -de -sacs.
Paul Krauss: Because that's the recommendation we brought forth from the '
Planning Commission.
•
Councilman Workman: It keeps the cul -de -sacs? 1
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dimier: You are amending your original motion. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: Okay, I need to amend it.
Mayor Chmiel: Will the second accept that amendment? 1
Councilman Mason: To keep the cul -de -sacs in.
Mayor Chmiel: Keep the cul -de -sacs and not connect them. 1
Councilman Mason: Well as I think I basically, I'll probably end up agreeing
with what the Planning Commission comes up with in shortening cul -de -sacs, I
think that, yeah I will. Accept the friendly amendment to the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Explain to me the differences between
those two? I mean making the connection as opposed to just retaining them as
cul -de -sacs.
Paul Krauss: I forget the distance that we measured this. It's something like 1
a 1,400 or 1,500 foot long dead end street with 44 homes on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's pretty long...
Jo Ann Olsen: ...buses. All the school children...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everybody understand what it is? We have a motion on the
floor with a second. Yes, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Can I withdraw my second? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, because I'd vote against it.
Councilman Wing: It's really not a cul -de -sac. It's just an enormous long dead
end street. I agree with Tom. It's not a cul -de -sac.
Councilman Mason: I want to withdraw my second to that.
Councilman Workman: However my motion stands.
61 11
1
II City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
II Mayor Chmiel: There's no second. She's going to die. It's dead. Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now a new motion.
II Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion to accept this with all the things that were
discussed to include I Street and G Street to be connected.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I make that motion.
Roger Knutson: Does that include sewer and water extension?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Also the sewer and water. It's an automatic.
' Councilwoman Dimler: It's an automatic condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
1 Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Preliminary Plat
192 -4 PUO to create 112 single family lots contingent upon the City Council
ordering the extension of public sewer and water to this property, and with the
' following conditions:
1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the
street right -of -way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the
natural features of constructing a new home on each homesite. The lots
that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1,
14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81, Block 2. In addition to
these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots:
Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2.
' 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each
principal structure, including decks. The applicnat shall be required to
submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot
separation is being maintained.
3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-
ways from 60' to 50' except Street A and maintain the cul -de -sac radius at
120 feet. Cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of
all emergency vehicles in the City of Chanhassen, taking into consideration
cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning
radius, and that no parking signs may be required.
4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along
' Highway 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must
be approved by city staff.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval
by city staff.
62
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 '
6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2 shall be removed by the applicant prior
to the filing of the final plat 1
7. Outlot F and lot 1, Block 6 sha be vacated by BMT and cleared no later
than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive
demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings.
8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas
will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement
will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. Precise delineation
of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the
developer and staff.
9. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all
corrected house pads or other - documentation acceptable to the Building
Official.
10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees
at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for
residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail
easement for future trail construction along the western border of the
subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41. 1
11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements
for construction of the lift station within the development. ,
12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly
north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs
shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and
Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff
shall work together regarding extending the sanitary sewer on Street A to
the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be
extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception
parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water
service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to
Lundgren Bros. -
13. The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is
operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed
after January 3, 1994.
14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, all utility and street
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of
the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Formal construction
plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in
conjunction with the final platting. -
15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. '
16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the
regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District,
DNR and MnDot.
63 1
•
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas
and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer
shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles
found during construction.
18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations
verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed
and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Detention ponds shall be
constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water
discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a
100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the
City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook.
19. The appropriate drainage and utility easement sould be conveyed to provide
access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided
along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm pond or
wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less
than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the excpetion where utilities
have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement
width shall be increased to 30 feet.
20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be
extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to
the City Engineer shall be developed.
21. The applicant shall construct a 36 foot wide gutter -to- gutter urban street
section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City
urban standards (31 foot wide back -to- back).
' 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in
accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed
with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take
access off the interior street (Street A).
' 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher - quality type
wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower
quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds.
II 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement
through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5.
II 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland
areas within the subdivision, including outlots, except for Outlots G and H
which shall be replatted in the future.
26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
II security to guarantee construction of the public improvements.
27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands.
II 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration
lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound
64
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 '
Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDot. These improvements should be
incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly.
29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul -de -sacs with center
islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: 'No
Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of
the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with
vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 1
30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid
deuplication or confusion with existing street names. 1
31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to
avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP
transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping.
32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit.
33. Cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that I Street and G Street be
connected. - -
34. A temporary turn around shall be built and barricaded on the road leading '
to the Song property with a sign stating that this road will be connected
in the future.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1. -
( Mayor Chmiel: You've indicated your reason.
Councilman Workman: But I'd like another 5 minutes I could. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, you don't get it.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I wonder. I do have something on Council ,
Presentations that does involve an ad with Lundgren Bros. I wonder if I want to
put Mr. Forbord on the spot now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I would move to put this ahead on the agenda.
Terry Forbord: Actually Your Honor, I'd like to zone all of our property as
commercial and have the City buy it for $2.7 million and I'm in the wrong end of
the real estate game. All I want is a $840,000.00 public improvements project.
Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael has a question.
Councilman Mason: Just a real quick question and I was going to wait until the
end but I didn't think you wanted to stay here another hour. I'm just, as I was
reading the paper on Saturday I saw your ad about Willow Ridge, which is a
typical good ad for you folks. I'm curious as to why Lake Minnetonka, Excelsior
is mentioned. Minnetonka School District is mentioned but the city that the
development is going to be in isn't mentioned.
65 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Terry Forbord: You know that's a very good question, and I don't have an answer
II for that except that it should be in there. And I'm glad you pointed that out.
I have not, I'm not trying to pass blame here. I don't write the ads. We have,
obviously we have consultants that do that but as I think all of you know, we
II sell Chanhassen very strongly and that's a surprise to us and I'll take care of
that.
' Councilman Mason: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Just one additional by line in the beautiful city of Chanhassen.
II Terry Forbord: I'll tell you what, I'll put Chanhassen in there if we can get
Project 92 -.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Wetland Permit.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
II Jo Ann Olsen: Okay, again we went through this pretty in detail at the Planning
Commission. And the conditions that are shown in the report do reflect the
changes that were made at that time. The proposed alterations that they are,
showing on their plans, we do approve of them and we do approve of the
mitigation and we are recommending approval.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll move approval.
II Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Wetland
II Alteration Permit 192 -9 contingent upon the City Council ordering the extension
of public sewer and water to this property and with the following conditions:
' 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland 1A shall
not be replaced.
2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly
' created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall
be maintained in its current condition and location.
' 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 18 and 1C shall have an
undulating depth of at least 6 feet.
4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the
proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension
(not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands
being created as part of the mitigation plan.
II 5 . The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip
required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation
requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be
required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The
66
1
City Council Meeting - Oetober 26, 1992 1
proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 1
1 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS, FINAL READING. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask one quick question. Once we get all this
sedimentation into the pondings, what do we do with it once we take it out? 1
Paul Krauss: It can be used as granular fill.
Mayor Chmiel: It can? 11
Paul Krauss: It's mostly sand and grit. Or either that, you can spread some of
the stuff.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion regarding this? I think we should, yeah
let this all go back to them so they keep this. Although I have had some
writing on it but that's okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's a significant improvement. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I moved it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the amendments to
Sections 18 -62 and 20 -94 referring to the Chanhassen Construction Site, Erosion
and Sediment, Best Management Practices Handbook. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICTS. '
Mayor Chmiel: I think I want to make a suggestion that we table item number 10.
Paul Krauss: Seven months and counting. 1
Councilman Wing: This was tabled for discussion and to be handled by the
Council and now it's back on for final reading and it's never been discussed.
Paul Krauss: Well, that's a misprint.
67
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's a misnomer there. Final reading shouldn't even be
there. Yeah, I agree. I would like to have this carried over and tabled.
Council Presentations.
Councilman Wing: Whoa, wait a minute. Why are we tabling this? Because of the
hour?
' Mayor Chmiel: It's the bewitching hour and it's 11:20 and it's according to our
By -laws.
Councilman Wing: I spent 2 days writing notes and when do I get to present my
case.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll see this in 2 weeks.
Councilman Wing: Alright, but I'd better get a chance.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: HRA TIF District information so citizens can understand the
I useage of the dollars in the TIF District and I'm going to ask Don to pull
together some data and information on this.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd be happy if just our candidates for office knew
II what it was.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I was a little lost there with those people. I bit my
II tongues several times.
Councilman Mason: I would just like to comment that 2 years ago some people
running for office had the courage to say you know, I don't have any idea what
they're talking about.
Councilwoman Dimler: And you were one of them.
II Councilman Mason: You're right.
Councilman Wing: You handled that very well and I was surprised you kept your
temper. I thought that was well done.
' Councilman Mason: I concur with that.
Councilman Wing: And you've asked what now?
II Mayor Chmiel: And I'm asking that we do gather that information so we can have
this to provide to people so they know what it's about. Okay the second item is
Mike, you wanted to. Oh, that was you already did.
II ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
r AMM POLICY ADOPTION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5. 1992. CITY MANAGER.
68
City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 '
Don Ashworth: Yes, the AMM is having their policy meeting coming up. How many 1
Council members wish to attend? They also have a tour of the Mall of America
starting at 4:15 and then a social hour. The Dinner is at 6:30 and the official
policy meeting is at 7:30. I know Ursula and I have attended in some of the
previous years. The Mayor has been there.
Councilwoman Dimier: It's always been fun and interesting.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure yet but I'll let you know within the next 2 days.
Councilwoman Dimier: I won't be there. 1
Councilman Workman: I will.
Councilman Mason: When do you need to know by Don? '
Don Ashworth: No later than Monday, November 2nd.
Councilman Mason: I'll get back to you before the end of the week. Is that
alright?
Mayor Chmiel: If I don't get back to you, get back to me. Thanks.
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE. CANVASS CITY ELECTION RESULTS. CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: And the second item is setting the special meeting '
g date. The
City Council must act as the Canvassing Board. The Mayor and I are suggesting
5:00 on the November 4th. The only question is, is 5:00 too early?
Specifically thinking of Mike.
Councilwoman Dimier: I can make that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimier: I move approval of November 4th at 5:00 p.m. r
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set a special meeting
date for November 4, 1992 at 5:00 to canvass the City Election results. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.•..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
69