1993 05 24CHANHA$SEN C_TT¥ COUNC_TL
R/6ULAR II£ET]:N6
NAY 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL HEHBERS pRIESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Oockendorf
STAFF PgESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Charles Folch,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann 01sen, Sharmin Al-Jarl, Scott Hart and Steve
Kirchman
APPROUAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the agenda with the following amendments: Item l(b) was deleted per the
developer's request and under Council Presentations Councilman Wing wanted to
discuss parkland £n western part of the city. A11 voted in favor and the mo(ion
carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCENENT~: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Amended Stone Creek First Addition Development Contract, Project
92-9.
d. Bluff Creek Estates Third Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications
e. Approve Specif£cations.for 1993 Street Repair Program and Authorize
Advertising for Bids, Projeot 93-11.
f. Ordinance Amendment to Winter Street Parking Regulations, Final Reading.
h. Approve Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Water 'Policy Plans; Authorize
Preparation of Hydrogeologic Well Field Study.
Resolution ~3-43: Approve Request for Advanced Encumbrance of State-Aid
Funds for Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project
k. Approve Settlement Agreement, Sunlink Corporatton/OataServ Inc.
l. Approve Easement Agreement for Highway 101 Realignment Project, Bullders
Development Property.
. .
m. Approve Lease Agreement with Paul Rogers to Farm the School Site Property,
Highway 5 and Galpin 8oulevard.
n. Approval of Accounts.
City Council Meeting - May 24, i993
o. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 5,
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 13,
q. Authorize Advertising for Bids, Kerber Boulevard and Arboretum Boulevard
Landscaping Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE CHANGE.ORDER NO. 1 TO_~INNEW%SHTA P~RKWA¥ IMPROVEMENT P;a~3~CT 90-~5.
Councilman Wing: I want to just apologize to Charles. I forgot to call today.
I had this circled. The extra retaining walls, can you specify where the
blggest hit came? I'm just curlous.
Charles Folch: Probably the biggest hit of the change order came along the
stretch in front of the property, the Boylan property where we.
Councilman Wing: That's all I want to know. When we saved those trees...
they've held it up. They've been met with no trespassing signs. It's been
endless. Then they come along and a few branches got broke on second or third
poplar trees, junk trees. I'm going to be upfront and say they're junk trees.
It's there. Small growth and suddenly we've got more problems. We came in and
pald him $15,000.00 to buy a small portion. Small portion, 6 feet or something.
Then he right away comes back and he's upset that his branches get hit and now
they won't pay off on insurance or whatever. I don't know what happened to
that. Then we take this incredible hit on this retaining wall trying to appease
the situation. If every person on the Parkway took thls attltude and this
behavlour and this direction, that road project costs $33 billion dollars and it
st111 would have gone through and I thlnk in thls case, from this day on, I'm
recommending we take a stand and I don't care what we've got to pay. We've got
to draw the 11ne here sometime. And in future cases, simply do what's right and
draw the line. I don't think we ought to be badgered and pushed around and
knocked around on a publlc works project 11kw thls. Some of the shennanigans
out there have been absurb and I don't think this should happen again and from
thls day on I'm recommending. Maybe I can't recommend anythlng maybe in this
case but I would suggest that we simply draw the line at no more. I mean if we
have to stop the project at that property line or just plain get the attorneys
going, but don't budge another inch. I think we've done our part. We've paid
our share and this is big tlcket. I mean this ls big bucks now. We're into
what, $50,000.00 plus here trying to appease this situation. No thanks.
Enough's enough so that's my comment. That's all I wanted to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark, item (j).
Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me. I would move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Reso!ution.~93-44: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve
Change Order No. I to Hinnewashta Parkway Improvement, Project 90-15. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
3. APPROVE 1~93 8UDG[T AH[NDHENT. TREE BOARD BUDGET.
Councilman Senn: [n talking with staff, [ understand this is basically a new
budget... The only thing I'm questioning is, we've already had the tree sa[e
this year and those funds have come in and gone out or whatever. Do we need to
budget $5,000.00 for additional tree planting at this point without realty
knowing or understanding what the program £s? My hesitancy there is the
controversy we already ran into the first time around.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get an answer from 3o Ann regarding that .tree
planting.
Jo Ann 01sen: The tree plantings for the Tree Board...that was more for a
reforestation plan within the city or public or private space. That's what that
would go toward. Again we do not have a project specified for that money...
budgeted. But that was not for, when we put that in it was not with the tree
sale in mind. That was not what that was going for. It was more for to
purchase landscap£ng with the reforestation projects.
Mayor Chmiel: Something similar to what we're doing along Kerber Boulevard with
planting trees?
30 Ann Olsen: Correct.
Mayor Chmtel: Other areas within the city that may have city right-of-way that
could substantially need additional tree planting and I think that's probably
where you're looking at.
Councilman Senn: So this is basically going to be additional tree.plantings on
public property then?
30 Ann Olsen: Yes, correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay? Would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I move approval.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I have one. I had on my notes that at some point you
know, whether lt's Jo Ann or Richard, I'd like to see some klnd of verbal report
on what the Tree Board is about and what you're doing and all that because I .
mean I hear you talk about it but I've never seen any Minutes from it or.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, we don't. Yeah, we'll give you an update on that. What
we're doing.
Councilman Wing: Good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
L
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Resolution ~i~3-45: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
1993 Budget Amendment for the Tree Board budget. AlE voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
P. CITY CODE AMENDHE_NT REGARDING PEDDLERS...SOLICITORS. ,AND .TRANSIENT HERCHANTS._
FINAL READING.
Councilman Senn: I talked uith...and I think the rewrite, where he has
revisions is really good. I guess there's one area I would like to see beefed
up just a 11ttle bit more than it ls and that ls under the exemptions. The
conditions for exemptions. Number 1. The organization has at least 15 members
that are residents in the clty. I think that's a pretty low number. I guess a
personal preference would be a little htgher number tn that area there and
basically, most legitimate chartlable groups and that sort of thing would have a
lot more than 15 residents and it seems to me that that could turn into a pretty
blg adminlstratlve...and I thlnk Scott agreed on that after ue talked about it.
That if every little group under 15 or if you're just over 15, could be a real
problem. So I'd 11kw to see that number maybe boosted up a 11ttle blt further.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any thought on that?
Scott Harr: I agree with Councilman Senn that lt'd be a good ldea. I don't
know what number would be the most appropriate.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Where did 15 come from to start with?
Councilman Senn: We couldn't figure that out when we were talking about it.
Scott Hart: ...explained why he, it was just a number that the City Attorney
included because other cities have selected that but there's nothing magic about
15.
Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, is there any words of wisdom that you might have had
with Roger regarding this?
Elliott Knetsch: No, I didn't speak with Roger on this but I think as Scott
pointed out, it's a number that's...
Scott Harr: If that meets with your approval, we could keep an eye on that and
see if there's any problems and I could bring it back for an amendment after we
try it for a year with 25.
Councilman Senn: That'd be fine. I don't know how everybody else feels.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure. I'm trying to think of different situations where
it might apply to even the local groups that we have.
Councilman Senn: I mean any of the churches, schools, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
anything. Or the Athletic Associations are going to be, many tlmes those
numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm thinking about some of the other service clubs like
Jaycees. I'm not sure how many members they have but I know they have a limited
City Council Mee~ing - May
number of people.
Councilman Senn: Rotary, Lions, that sort of thing?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: My lntent is to disinclude them, or I mean not lnclude them
but the reason we stuck this provision in was to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I don't disagree with the 15 and moving that up some. In
fact, there's one other group that I'm thinking of too that may or may not have
that many members within their organization. If we find that to be a given
problem, I think we could Just as well then look at it again and make some
additional...but I thlnk at this time.
Councilman Senn: Well all they need to do is meet one of the four and I think
most of those organizations would meet one of the other four.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Why don't we make that 25.
Councilman Senn: I'll so move.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmtel: It's been moved with an addition to item (p) to change item
number 1 under exemptions, under Section 10-143 for it to read, the organization
have at least twenty-five (25) members, and strike fifteen (15), that are
residents of the City; or. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
Resolution ~3-45~: Councilaan Senn ~oved, Council~oaan Dockendorf seconded to
approve a Resolution establishing fees ulth the final reading of the City Code
Rmend~ent Regarding Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Herchants uith the
following amendment under Section 10-143. Exemptions:
1) The organization has at least t~enty-ftve-(2S) aeabers that are residents of
the City; or,
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanteously.
R. RIGHT-OF-ENTRY AGREEHENT. __~T_ST 78TH ~TRF..ET DETACHt~:NT PRO3ECT. 3RHES
COMPANY.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm not, maybe it's you Don or whatever. I was having
a little hard time following exactly what we were trying to do here.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, would you like to. Maybe you could express some of your
concerns regarding that part of it or where do you see within the rights-of-
entry or Exhlbit A?
Councilman Senn: The right-of-way and the...aren't part of this action and
stuff. What's the right-of-entry?
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Don 4shworth: Elliott may want to step in. As I understand it, ue actually
have the deed but the City Council authorized the quick take process to allow us
to acquire the property necessary from Mr. James necessary for the new
right-of-way for ?8th Street.
Councilman Senn: And that's done, is it not?
Don Ashuorth: That's really done.
Councilman Senn: So what Z'm having trouble ulth ls why do ue need a right-of-
entry.
Don Ashworth: To formalize what we really have already done. £11iott.
Elliott Knetsch: Also, we paid him the appraised amount but he hasn't agreed to
that value. So he st111 has the optlon...so in order to have our paperwork in
order and move ahead, we will execute this agreement and then when the Court
flnally determines the amount...negotlate an amount, that wlll be included. But
at this stage, it's necessary to have this...
Councilman Senn: So technically we don't really have the deed then?
Elllott Knetsch: Well, I think we do but the deed isn't the be all to end a11.
Don Ashworth: We have the deed but we don't, necessarily haven't pald full
price for it yet.
Elllott Knetsch: Rlght.
Councilman Senn: And because there's an ongolng, ls thls something that's
necessitated out of the ongoing condemnation action or something?
Elllott Knetsch: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I'm not sure I still understand it but.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, there's legalities portlon that's indicating that that
right-of-entry wasn't received prlor to even the inltlal acquisition of those
properties and in order to lnstall that or get it completed, thls right-of-entry
has to be done prlor to, correct?
Councilman Senn: So this allows us to go ahead and do everything as though we
own the property even though we haven't technically agreed?
Elllott Knetsch: No we don't. Even though we have the deed, we are not yet...
untll the Court drops the gavel and sets the prlce.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: Move it.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the Right-of-Entry
agreement for the West 78th Street Detaclment Project, 3ames Company. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimou81y.
¥ISZTOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUaLIC HEARING: OFF.~!.~Z[ RESII:E'IITI.~L SOLID W~ISTI[ COLLECTION WITHIN THE CITY.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open the public hearing and this covers item number 2
for organize residential solid waste collection within the city. I'd like to
have Jo Ann Olsen go through the process as to what we're looking at and how we
plan on approaching this. 3o Ann.
Jo ann Olsen: Okay. The City Council has directed staff to review the, or to
consider the organized collection of the solid waste, like you say within the
city of Chanhassen. The State Statute lists exactly what steps you have to do.
to consider an alternative to organized collection. It's essentially two 90 day
processes and what we're doing tonight is initiating the first 90 day process.
It's the first public hearing for any comments from the public on the process.
We don't have the answers yet. That's what the first 90 days.is. Is to
research what the existing situation is.. What alternatives there.are and to
make a decision on whether or not we do want.to pursue an alternative. So we
can't say yes, we're going to go to one hauler at this time. We have no idea
what we're going to do and even if we're going to. make any.proposed changes.
But tonight is just for. you to. adopt a resolution that starts the process. To
take public input, and also for you to.meet Oean'3ohnson, the consultant who is
going to be working with the Recycling Committee who will be the Task Force to
go through the 90 day process and that will be making a presentation or
recommendation to the City Council after that 90 days. The recommendation to
you after the 90 days, or however long it takes, would be to either-keep the way
it is and make no changes or else to propose a change. If you do. choose to go
along with the change that's proposed., then the following 90 days is when we
actually get the nuts and bolts of that put.together-. Working with the haulers
to come up with that new alternative. So I~d like to. introduce Oean 3ohnson. He
can go through the process. What will be taking place at this 90 days and
answer any questions.
·
Dean Johnson: Thank you Jo Ann. Mr Mayor, members of the council. You did a
wonderful introduction. I don't know-if I need to say a whole lot more. The
Council did receive an. outline that I've put on some overheads that I do think
probably would be helpful for people in the audience. If I-may just step over
to the projector.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Dean 3ohnson: Really the purpose of this study is to simply allow the City an
opportunity to determine whether or not organized collection is something that
you want to look at. I think the process, as we'll look at this is .one that
will allow public input. Certainly input from the licensed collectors that are
in the city operating at this time and determine what's really in'the best
interest of the general public. That's why you're here and certainly this
City Council Heeting - May 24, 1993
process will allow that. There are a number of objectives that we would look to
accomplish in the process and these quickly include service and delivery
efficiency, cost effectiveness, quality of service, environmental impacts, which
include among other things noise, aesthetics, litter, air quality, energy
consumption. Also impacts on infrastructure, city streets in particular.
Public safety and certainly not last but impacts on private enterprise. What
will this process do to the existing system of open collection in terms of the
number of licensed collectors that you have here. These are elements that are
not explained in the Statutes that 3o Ann referenced but are certainly things
that I think as you go through and evaluate the planning process to consider
organized collection really would be the basis of some decision. There'd have
to be some sort of tangible benefits for the public, otherwise you wouldn't
consider it...to spend money and time on a process unless something happened.
The recommendations that would unfold in this process would hopefully come back
to all of these objectives and try to determine, are there environmental
impacts? Are there public safety issues? Are there impacts on local roadways?
Are there improvements to the system that might be considered and be more
appropriate under organized collection? The process, as 3o Ann mentioned,
really is in two phases and the resolution that you have before you this evening
to consider actually would allow you to complete the entire process. At this
particular time not knowing the outcome of the planning portion or Phase 1, I
don't think anyone wants to speculate what will happen. You really shouldn't
concern yourself with Phase 2 but I'll touch on that very briefly. Really the
first phase consists of the planning portion of this. The evaluation of a
couple of things. Part of that though, we really recommended an oversight group
and you do have an existing Recycling Committee that provides the oversight
direction for the study itself. They would be ones that would be looking at the
recommendations that would come from this process before it goes to the City
Council. The committee would be certainly open and with the process that
welcomes and in fact encourages input from the existing haulers. They have
information and knowledge about the system that no one else does. There's
certainly an interest as well from the general public and would be welcome in
the process at the same time. Two things that would be looked at, easy to
summarize are describing the existing system. What it's all about. The number
of stops you have in the community. What the different collection routes of
different haulers may be. The days of collections. The types of vehicles and
equipment. Numbers of employees. Ail of these things hopefully in a
cooperative effort would be made available to determine, are there some impacts
that are happening at this time that might be reduced if in fact some method of
organized collection was looked at. The other portion of this will be to
evaluate the other collection methods. In addltlon to open collection which the
city operates under at this time, there are a number of options that are all
organized to be revlewed by the Recycling Committee or the study committee as
part of this process. That includes municipal collection, where you would own
and operate vehicles. A single contract collection. You may choose to hlre one
single hauler to handle the recycling and solid waste collection for the entire
city. You could have a multiple contract. Same situation. There are other
variations within that where the City actually does the billing under that
process, or the collector or hauler does the bllllng. Also, have zoned or
routed collection that can be established different districts in the zone that
you may choose on a particular day of the week would be the only day for
collection and you may not limit the number of haulers. You may leave it open.
But in any glven portion of the city on any glven day, there would only be that
City Council Heeting- Hay 24, 1993
time for collection. The rest of the week there would be no traffic. And the
other would be where you have a similar zone situation but you may contract
within that. In other words, you may come up with 7 different zones within the
city and have a different hauler or license collector.operating within each one
of the sections. So those are the background elements of the planning portion
of this that we'd be looking for, and ultimately put this in the fora.of a
written summary analysis and recommendation to the committee and ultimately the
City Council. At that point in time if the City decided to go ahead with the
next step in organized collection, that would trigger the second phase of this
and for lack of a better term, that's really a.negotiating phase where we would
review the possible arrangements with existing licensed collectors. It's a 90
day review process required under Statute where each of the licensed collectors,
individually or acting collectively as a group would have an opportunity to
evaluate some form or method of organized collection with the city. If there's
impass that the City does wish to organize collection and there's still
negotiated arrangements made during this period, the city's free to arrange
whatever collection method it wants at that point in time. The time table for
this really, Jo Ann touched on. This goes back to...we would be looking at
starting formally in June with the first committee meeting. Ooing the
background review of alternative methods and looking at existing conditions and
ultimately making recommendations within a 90 day period. Target date would be
September lat. After'the Council has had a chance to look at the
recommendations and consider what action it might wish to take, phase 2 would
begin and conceiveably that could be finished by the end of the year. There
would be no opportunity for the city, unless there's unanimous agreement with
the haulers, existing haulers in the community for some method of organized
collection. There's no way to circumvent this t80 day process. Not that you'd
want to but I merely point out that that is a legal, requirement unless there's
some agreement in negotiating an arrangement. And because, of the amount of
information that would be looked at here, and the process involving the general
public and certainly-all, of their licensed haulers,.the., nuaber...coeeittee to
review ail'this, this is a pretty fast time table. Conceivably though at the
end of the year, the City would be in a position to make a decision which
direction they want to go. With that, that's-really the process and the time
table. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Hayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you, Are there any questions.by Council at this
time, and if there is, maybe we should hold it until we go to the public to see
if there's any additional input that we'd like to see provided to the Council.
Is there anyone at this time wishing to discuss this with the Council? As
I mentioned, this is a public hearing. You have your opportunity to come
forward and at least state your opinion.. If you do that,-would you please state
your name and your address and business that you're in.
Steve Hitune: Hy name is Steve Hitune and ! lived in the Fox Chase subdivision
and I'm here just as a volunteer from the neighborhood. We have addressed the
same issue within our neighborhood and we found that at a get together of
neighbors that this is a very popular idea and I guess we had IS neighbors
together and they unanimously said yes. Somebody look into that. That would be
a great idea to cut down the number of haulers that we had in our neighborhood.
We have & haulers now for 50 homes and it seems that we. have garbage pick-up, on
every day and we have most of the haulers asking 2 to 3 trips a week through our
neighborhood. So for the safety of our children and many of the issues listed
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
earlier, and the wear and tear on the streets as well as the little price break
that we thought we might be able to get, as well as a couple other smaller
items, ue thought that it would be worth exploring. So I simply wrote the 6
haulers as a volunteer with no promises but with the thought of organizing our
own effort and then in talking with Jo Ann...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: ...Yes, that's one of the things that will be done. Havlng the
haulers part of this group as well. Any other?
Mike Berkerpeck: Let's see if we get all your haulers up today. My name's,
Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Hike Berkerpeck. I'm 01vision
President for Waste Management. A hauler in your community. I thlnk the
obvious points were brought up already. I appreciate the approach that you're
taklng. I think lt's well planned out and I look forward to golng through that
process with you. It's obviously a concern for us. I think it was brought up
by one of your residents. One of the thlngs that I didn't see in the study
objectives that I think should definitely be included is what's going to happen
at the resldent level and where your residents are at because we see that as,
we've gone through this process as something that sometimes we're not always
sure about because thls ls one of those lssues and I thlnk you probably know
better than I, one of those issues in a city that is absolutely going to affect
everybody. And lt's not slmllar to some of the other lssues you deal with that
don't necessarily affect everybody. So with those comments, I thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mike. ~nyone else? This is your opportunity to
express your opinion. This is a public hearing. I don't see anyone else
wishing to make a statement. Can I have a motlon to close the publlc hearing?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Hason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing uas closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do some discussions from Council. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well as I understand the action tonight, I mean really what
we're doing is just acting on proceeding with the process. I think it's a
really good 1des to look at all sides of it and I guess the faster we get golng,
the better. I think it's impact on the people as well as the infrastructure and
everything. There's a lot of different angles or ways to look at it. If it
would save any time or money though, I would like them to strtke looking at
municipal oollectlon. I saw that in there and I just said, scratch it out. He
doesn't have to waste any time on it as far as I'm concerned. That's my only
comment.
Councilman Mason: I agree. It's a good idea and as long as we're upfront and
open, as I think we usually are about it, let's see how it falls out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm really excited for this one. I think it's the
ctty doing thtngs at it's best. Again, affecting every resident and it's an
important lssue and there's going to be a lot of public discussion but Z'm
really looking forward to it.
10
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Wing: I'll just echo the comments of the other Council members other
than my neighborhood, which is about 70 homes. Rt their spring meeting voted to
go ahead on private hauler and they're getting bids presently. The very word
street assessments just strikes terror in everybody's m£nd, especially at our
age bracket. And our area has looked at the fact that we have carriers coming
in 6 days a week at all hours and they're tired of it. And although we're going
to, ! happen to like my carrier very much because he'll take anything under the
sun versus the carrier that they get ts probably going to limit me to a certain
some. I'm going to cooperate so our neighborhood oddly enough, understanding
the public process, etc, etc, realizes that they'[[ probably get 2 or 3 years
ahead of the game prior to a decision being made so again I'd support everybody
elses comments that we move ahead on this and get the process rolling.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Being involved tn soltd waste for the past 15 years...
I understand the process that we're going through. There's going to be a lot of
discussions come from it and hopefully all these discussions are going to be of
a positive aspect. But there are many concerns I'm sure by the haulers who have
their own individual businesses and trying to take away a livelihood is...and
something that I wouldn't want to see really happen. But I know that we have to
go through this process to come up with some conclusions. Being home as I am,
the other day. We had one warm day that I happened to be sitting on my front
porch and noticed one of the haulers coming through. He made his stop. Come to
a T intersection. He turned and he backed up and he went right back down the
street again to pick up on the other side because he has an automatic picker on
his truck so he has to make his turns. And I saw that as the fear that settles
in my heart as well with street improvements that you go through, and I th/nk
that it is a very positive position that we're taking. And hopefully come up
with a solution that's going to be a benefit for everybody concerned. So with
that I'd like a recommendation. Or an approval for recommendation that the City
Council recommends adopting the attached resolution of intent to commence the
process of evaluation and planning for a .potential system of organized so[id
waste collection in the city of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I move that we adopt a resolution.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Oockendorf moved, Councilman tlason seconded to adopt the resolution
of intent to co-=ence the process of evaluat/ng and plann/ng for a potential
system of organ/zed solid waste collect/on in the city of Chanhassen. ~11 voted
in favor and the eot/on carr/ed unanteously.
Mayor Chmiel: 30 Rnn, do we have a date that we plan on going through this
process?
30 ann Olsen: Well the first Recycling Committee meeting is going to be 3une
7th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyway we're going to notify the haulers and have
some type of a.
30 ann Olsen: Yeah, they'll get an agenda.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Informational item in the paper so if there's any residents that
would like to sit in on this as well, that they'll have that opportunity.
Jo Ann Olsen: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good, thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: TRUNK HIGHWAY ~01 TURN LANES AT PLE~$flNT VIEW ROAD ~ND CHEYENNE
TRAIL, PRO3ECT 91-6.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This morning bids were
received and opened for the Trunk Highway 101 turn lane project at Cheyenne
Tra11 and Pleasant Vleu Road, which is a cooperative project with MnDot. A
total of five bids were received with the confirmed low bid being received from
Wllllam Mueller and Sons at $55,834.00. Thls ls approximately $1,600.00 under
the project engineer's estimate. William Mueller and Sons has successfully
completed the prevlous Trunk Hlghway 101 turn lane project at Sandy Hook Road
and Choctau Circle so they are inherently familiar with the work effort needed
to adequately perform thls project. It ls therefore recommended that the Trunk
Highway 101 turn lanes at Cheyenne Trail and Pleasant View Road, Improvement
Project No. 91-6 be awarded to William Mueller and Sons at a contract amount of
$5S,834.00 and this should be contingent upon receiving the concurrence from
MnDot on this cooperative projeot.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Have we used these people before?
Charles Folch: William Mueller?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Charles Folch: Yeah. They did the work 2 years ago on the TH 101 turn lanes at
Sandy Hook and Choctaw Circle.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: Just one question. Now, with what we're looking at on the
tra11 thing, does this have any lmpact at a117
Charles Folch: Well, we may have to coordinate this if we do go into that phase
of the feasibility study for the trail project, which is an issue that you'll
have up for discussion tonight. We will try and cooperatively work with that.
If there's any changes necessary, we will do so.
Councilman Senn: But we'll be able to deal with that up front rather than
comlng back after the fact and say we have to redo it or something?
Charles Folch: If we can do it up front, we certainly will do that.
Mayor Chmiel: If not, it will probably come back with some additional dollars
as they normally wind up doing. Michael. Colleen. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Same thing as Mark brought up. If we're going to spend
$55,000.00, let's not rip it up again and if there's any doubt.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Senn= That's all ! want to be sure. With that caveat 1'11 move
approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution t93-46: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman ging ~econded to award the
bid for Trunk Htghuay 101 turn lanes at Cheyenne Trail and Pleasant
Road, Improvement Project No. 91-6 to #illtam Hueller and SoTm at a contract
amount of $55,834.00 contingent upon receiving concurrence fro~ HnDot on the
cooperative project. All voted tn favor and the mot/on carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO RE~Of~ ~ND 9_~mOIUTO[ 1_3 ACRES ZNTO 23 SINGLE FAflZLY LOTS, NORTH'OF
HIGH_wAY 5 fiND EAST OF 6ALPIN BOULES. ROYAL OAK ESTATES. BRITT DfWTDSON.
Jo Ann Olsen: This Is a request to rezone property from R2 to RS4:', single
family residential and to subdivide the 13 acres Into 23 single family lots. The
area just got into the HUSA line with the recent Comt~rehensive Plan amendment so
it now could be subdivided with sewer, and water. Sewer and water Is being
brought to the site currently. The Planning Commission recommended approval
with the conditions, from staff with a.couple'minor changes: We. are recommending
that the City Council recommend approval'with the conditions In the staff
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you 30 Ann. Is the developer here? Is there
anything that you'd like to say in regard-to this proposal?
Brett Oavidson: Well just a couple things. First of a11, my name is Brett
Oav£dson. I live here in Chanhassen on. GalpIn Boulevard. I actually have a
house built on Lot 1, Block I so I live on the site presently and am developing
the site. The size and shape of the site make it what we figure is a very
straight forward subdtvision...with staff, it ended.up being about 23 lots as
you can see that are about half acre lots with one street tn the-middle
connecting to the parcel to the south, wh/ch is owned'by Rottlund Company.
About the only comment we have or question that we have is on recommendation
number 3, which is on the surface water management and the trunk'storm sewer
project... Because i guess it's still a'lIttle bit of a'nebulous amount and I'm
not sure exactly how it's going to work, ! guess we would tike~ at least to
express what we think the intent Is,.and maybe see if it's true. or not true. We
think their intent is t~.assess whatever acreage is not already being provided
permanent pondIng facilities and that we would be given credit'for all acreage
that we are providing from the ponding facilities too. And to explain just a
little bit, we provide ponding for about 4 or 5 acres of our own site. On the
back part of our site. On the east side of the's/ts, Zn addition to that,
we'll be providing pondIng for a portion of the Rottlund piece of property which
is the property to the south of our's. So we may end'up providing ponding into
the order of 8 to tO acres on site. We would assume then that we would be given
credit for whatever that total amount comes up to for the assessment, and then
also that we would only be assessed for whatever portion of our property does
not have permanent ponding associated with It. Is that a...
Jo Ann Olsen: [ believe that's true and we can confirm that before f£nal plat
approval. ! think you've got the numbers set now too so we can start giving you
dollars. Yeah, that will all be established before the final plat.
13
L
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1~93
Brett Davidson: That's my only comment really. Obviously I'll answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If there are questions, we'll direct them back.
Brett Oavidson: Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've been struggling. Everytime these come through, the
development's good and ! look at all these little lf's and bur's and 1rems 1
thru 13 and the MUSA line's where. I'll tell you I'm going to give a 2 minute
personal concern. The MUSA 11ne is where it ls and suddenly we find out we have
no developable land so we have to move the MUSA line so we have some developable
land and I say, what for. So we develop it and lt's all high denslty and
maximum useage and everytime I see these fields filling in with all these homes,
I panic. And I can't stop development, nor am I necessarily even against it but
I look at the number of homes and the number of cars and service levels and the
publlc safety impacts and I just saying, geez. Everytlme we open land it just
fills in and are we filling it tn the proper way and I'm starting to question if
we shouldn't be clustering and looking for open space and maybe the same density
but different ways. So this is just another one of those developments that is
just covering our clty and I'm not sure we know what we're doing but I have no
compalints. It's a good development and other than the philosophical thing that
I would 11ke to, well we're doing that in every community now. Thank you for
your comments. That's all. Nothing more.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with basically some of your concerns. I guess
everybody's and I think we're dealing quite well with them. Just in looking at
some of the square footages contained, there's only one lot in here that's
15,381 which is our minimum. Hany go from 23 to 37, 17, 18, 18, and 22 and I
think the least amount after that is a couple of 16,000 so at least some
consideration is given for just a little larger size of lot that I still like.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I couldn't agree more and you look at them
piecemeal and they look wonderful and you look at them all together and it looks
11ke urban, suburban sprawl and it ls but what can you do. Strlctly on a plece
of land like that where the only thing it really allows for is a pretty
unimaginative one street down and houses on either side. Hy questlon to Jo Ann
I guess is, I didn't understand exactly what was going on with the street.
Dealing with Carver County.
Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as the right-of-way required?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Jo Ann Olsen: We know a certain amount that we need to acquire and that's what
we ask them to dedicate that. Is that.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: No, that's not what I'm talking about. Oh, let's see.
It's talking about acoess polnts in relatlon to the other subdivisions. Windm111
Run and Royal Estates.
14
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
30 Ann Olsen: Oh, what they're looking at is, if these tmo subdivisions are
coming together, me would probably only have one access point for the two pieces
and you're trying to locate so it goes direotly across from the development to
the mest. That is now coming in also. Since they didn't come in together, what
me're just trying to look at is the possibility that one of. them might be closed
and tha.t we might just use one. Now Windmill is coming in. Continuing. They
had stalled for a while so we weren't even sure if it was going to go through.
So me might still have that ability. So there's still an opportunity, l'm not
sure that we mill come up mith another alternative but we're still looking at
that.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: And again, that's one of our biggest problem is that
these are all being developed at their own time schedules and things aren't
being coordinated mhich you know, I don't know if we can help that or not.
[ don't have anything further.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I share some of Councilman Wing's concern, as I think the
mhole Council shares those concerns. We-discussed this before and I suspect
me'Il continue to discuss it. I'm not sure that larger lot sizes are the #ay to
tackle that issue. It seems to me by doing that we get the houses further apart
mhich is nice, but then it also creates-more housing area in the city and I'm
not quite sure what that'does for the suburban sprawl .... before and I suspect
me'Il continue to. And maybe at s~me point we'll come to grips with it. It
looks pretty well planned out and-pretty straight forward.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mark.
:.-
Councilman Senn: Do me know how, I mean if you assume the other project goes
to the south of the...do we knom how many units that's going to be?
3o Ann Olsen: Oh yeah, I do know that. I think it's, I'm drawing a blank. I
believe it's 37... Right, because I knew it was more acres so 37.
Councilman Senn: I guess the only question I had and I guess this goes a lot
back to some of the concerns that already-have, been-stated, Would it be at all
possible to .kind of go ahead at-this-point and make-some assumptions on that and
land bank a piece of ground here which ~ould.tie with the~next-deve[opment in
creating a.neighborhood open space er:park or something?- :.. - ~
Jo Ann Olsen: That has been reviewed by the Park and Rec Oepartment. Actually
Todd is here but they determined that a ~eighborhood park was not ncessary at
this site. Perhaps you can.
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying park necessarily. I'm saying open space or for
park, I mean if you combine this project with the rest of the loop. I mean it
seems to me that we've got a space that.
Hoffman: That region of the city is in a park deficient area. What we look for
is try to gather up enough, either park fees so you.can go ahead and purchase a
piece of property. Or if you have a large enough development which comes in,
that you can then acquire a portion of that development as a park, you take the
15
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
property at that time. So in essence what we're doing here is taking the fees
on these smaller developments and then using those fees in a purchase of park
property later on down the line. The Park Commission is taking on the effort to
update the recreational section of the City Comprehensive Plan and will be
identifying specific park sites in the city's park deficient areas which this
Oalpin Boulevard, east/west area happens to .be. So they're looking for a piece
of park property in that general vicinity. The Council may be aware of the Song
proposal which is coming on line here. The Park Commission will be looking at
that property, which is just west of this site, across Salpin Boulevard as a
potential site for a neighborhood park as well. So they're looking for the site
but taking a little piece of open space or a little playground in each
neighborhood from a maintenance and upkeep standpoint, is not the best approach
to take. You try to consolidate those needs within a service area which is
approximately half a mile for a neighborhood park.
Ha¥or Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Hark?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I have to add to this in addition is the
ponding calculations that they're looking at for this and it's possible probably
that the applicant's englneer ls to reconflgure the pond within the area that
there are trees so that trees, those trees could be saved. And I'd like see
that really brought forward for that particular aspect of lt. Okay. I think
that's about all that I really had to add to the discussions that we had. I
would like to have a reoommendation from City Councll with an approval to accept
and approve the request, 93-2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned
Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Slngle Famlly and subdivision 93-8 for
Royal Oak Estates to create a 23 single famtly tots as shown on the plans dated
Apr11 7, 1993 subjeot to the following conditions of items 1 thru 20.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Counciluoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Nason seconded to approve Request
~93-2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned AZ, Agricultural Estates to RSF,
Residential Single Family and Subdivision 193-8 for Royal Oak Estates to create
23 single family lots as shoun on the plans dated April 7, 1993, sub3ect to the
follouing conditions:
1. The City shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building
permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of park and land
dedication; and
2. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the
applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block I and Lot l, Block 2).
Furthermore, that the easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in the
grading plan for this project with a suitable trail bed being prepared.
This trall bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion
of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future
16
City Council Hooting - Nay 24, ~993
trail construction, and is subject to approval as a part of the grading
plan review. PLanting of trees shall be restr£cted to the areas east of
the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be. co[lected at the time of
building permit application at the rate then tn force to ass/st in the
financing of future trail construction.
3. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to contribute
towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer facilities.
4. RI1 street and utility improvements shall be constructed tn accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications-and Oetai[ plates.
The street construction shall Include a drain tile system behind the curbs
to accommodate household sump pump discharge. OetaIled construction plans
and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to final platting. Final
construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval.
5. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and pondIng calculat£ons
verifying the pipe sizing'and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to a [0 year storm event. The retention pond will
be reviewed by the City's storm water management consultant and constructed
pursuant to guides implemented by the City's consu[tent (Bonestroo).
· . . ·
.
6. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with'the'City of
Chanhassen's Best Henagement Practice Handbook.
·
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain, all necessary permits'from the
regulatory agencies such as the HPC~, Health Department, Watershed OJstrIct
and Carver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City's signing the final p[at, the applicant shell enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the'necessary financial
security to guarantee construction of the public Improvements end
compliance of the conditions of approve[. The de~elopment-.contract will be
subject to City Council approval.
· .
9. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right-turn lane (deceleration
lane) along County Road [[7 and any other roadway Improvements as required
by the Carver County Highway Department.
Should the end of the roadway not be connected'with the parcel to the
south, a temporary cul-de-sac shall'be constructed to'meet ctty'standards
with a barricade and signage stating that.it Is-a:temporary cul-de-sac and
this road wtll be extended tn the future. The.applicant. shall:dedicate to
the City the necessary temporary roadway easement for portions of the
cul-de-sac lying outside the right-of-way. ,.'
11. Preliminary p[at approval .shaLl be subject to the City Council ordering and
awarding the bid for Pub[ic Improvement No. 92-5 for the extension of trunk
sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through the development.
17
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot
wide drainage and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot
11nes. In addition, dralnage and utility easements shall be conveyed for
all pond retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch
11ne along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. 20 foot wlde dralnage and
utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on the
following areas:
a) Between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Btock 1
b) Between Lots I and 2, BLock 2
13. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund-Windmt11 Run) not develop, thts
development will be requird to provide temporary on-site retention pond
untll the parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended
to Lots I and 2, BLock 2.
14. Erosion controt measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
15. The flnal gradlng plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of
garage and lowest floor for each lot.
The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Oavidson's) shall connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within
12 months after the connection becomes available.
17. The existing house on Lot 1, Block I shall relocate their driveway to
access the new street within 12 months after the new street is constructed.
18. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water
assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots.
The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard landscaping in
the form of berms and plant materials. The boulevard landscaping shall
contain landscaping from the primary specimen list and shall include Lot 1,
Block 1. The landscaping plan shall reflect existlng trees which will be
protected by a conservation easement. The required 1 tree/lot shall
contain trees from the primary specimen lists for at least 14 lots.
20. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Harshal,
particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to the
south. Street names must be approved so as to avoid duplication, and
house numbers match the city's grid map.
b. Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan.
c. ~ ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec.
18
City counc£l Meeting - May 24, [993
e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the ieposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a
surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.. The roads
shall be In place before construction on neu duelling-starts which is
greater than 150' from County Road 117.
f. If the road does not connect'to the south to form a looped road, a
temporary Fire Oepartment approved turnaround shal! be provided. See
prel£m£nary utility plan.
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REVOCATZON OF ~ CONDZTIONRL USE ERET FOR. ~ CO~TR~TOR'S Y~RD. 1700 FLYlq16
CLOUD DRIq~I~I~, HARRY LINDBERY.
Sharmin Al-Jeff: On September 12, 1988 the City council appreved a conditional
use permit for a contractors yard. Since that date substantial work and
improvements didn't take place on the site. According to city ordinances, a
permit expires if substantial improvements don't take place within one year of
the date of approval. Staff took the position that.that conditional use permit
had expired. The applicant objected to. staff's Interpretation.' We appeared
before the Board of AdJustments and Appeals as well as the City Council for an
interpretation. The vote was that the cendItIona[ use permit had-not expired
but ue were directed to bring this application back before you. in order to
revoke it. A public hearing uss held at the ~prIl 2[st Planning Commission
meeting which satisfies the-app[icant's due process concerns~ On-pages 2 and 3
of the report, you'll find-the original conditions of approval. None of these
conditions have been met~ Based upon that, the. Planning-Commission as well as
staff is recomeending you revoke conditional use permit ~88-[1. Riss i'd like
to add that Building Official.Steve KIrchean ts here today to answer any
questions you might have regarding the building permit or any-other statements
made by Hr. Lindbery. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank-you Sharm£n. Prior-to getting to Hr. KIrchaan wa'ii see Is
Mr. Harry Ltndbery here?
~ '.
3elf Carson: Mayor and Council. My name is 3elf Carson, appeartr~g with Hr.
Lindbe~y and on his behalf. I've. been here before for one procedural process or
another. I think the, I'm not sure what type of presentation you might
anticipate for the applicant tonight. Every time.we've been.before a particular
body of the city there seees to be some interest in trying to work something out
but the weight of persuasion seees to be end the pain-and, from the city's point
of vie~, and revoke the permit or determine that It doesn't-exist. And. I think
that the difficulty that the app[£cant has had, or some of the diffIcu[ty is
framed within the initial contact and ~hat Z'm calling the attitude that this
ass origIna[ly~ how It was dealt with.. To conclude out of the Initial'review
that the.conditional use pere/t expired and-finding ways or facts, supporting
facts to support that. The reality here Is that unti[-the summer .of [992, 4
years after the, almost 4 years after the issuance of the conditional:use
permit, nobody Inspected, apparently nobody Inspected the site and nobody
determined anything with regard to-Hr. Lindbery's use, or the lack thereof
during that time. 3ust as your code.says substantial construction must be done
~ithin a year or the permit lapses, it also says that at.-least one inspection
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
will be made each year to determine compliance with that permit. That wasn't
done either so when I say that the attitude that the staff went at the subject
with, it was simply based on the observation of these items that were found on
the property, subsequently put into compliance. We feel, and from there it was
just 11ks a snowball golng downhill. There was no way that Hr. Lindbery was
going to be able to satisfy the Planning Commission, the different agencies or
the Counc11. If you look, if you really look at the ttmeframes. A lot has been
made of the timeframes that have elapsed here. There isn't a lot of
documentation for thls but there ls some and it does show that applications for
part of a construction bullding project was before the city the summer of 1990.
And so if you look at the timeframes, from the issuance of the permit in lg88
through the summer of 1990 uhere actual give and take was still existing between
clty staff and representatives of Hr. Llndbery, he actually mlssed one part of
one construction season in 1990. Summer of lggO through that fall. We've
already explained that from the spring of 1991 for an entlre year he was lald up
physically. He could not do anything on this project and in the summer of 1992
that's when the observations were made and the crlminal charges brought and so
ue have actually been before, in effect before the city for the last year.
Almost for the last year deallng ulth thls, so a year's time goes by really in
this process in the snap of a finger. If, and let me just highlight what I'm
calllng the attltude or the process. The ldea that us're going to flnd
something wrong with it...of the conditional use permit. That is just different
than the work up that is glven. They at least glve him credlt for, I think it's
number 5. Application to HnOot but if you look, if you go down and look at
these, you can't just say he's in non-compliance wlth I thru 20 because many of
these things you wouldn't be in compliance with until you constructed the
building. The very building that we're discussing. Number 1, we olalm ue are
indeed in compliance with today. Okay? Staff says we're not In compliance uith
number 1. We say ue are and I don't think, I think the facts will support that.
Number 2, hours of operation. Is there any fact before this body that says we
are operating in violation of number 2? Number 3. Light sources shall be
shielded. There are no lights so there's not a problem with number 3.
Compliance. Number 4. No outside speaker systems are allowed. No allegation
that we violated that so put compliance by that. Number 5, they've given credit
for that in one memo or another. Number 6, the installation, 6 and 7.
Installation of bituminous driveways, parking areas and loading areas and ?
would all come with construction of the building. Some of this just has to be
common sense I think. 8, protection of two septic systems. That's again during
construction. 9, installation of a holdlng tank. Same thing. Sulldtng must be
sprinkled, number 10. Not a problem. Number 11, provision for handicap space.
Obviously, since we don't have the bullding bullt yet, we're not to that point.
But can and will do that. Number 12, contractors yard activities as defined in
your code has been observed and have been operated ever slnce the issuance of
the permit. Compliance with 12. 13. I don't think there's any indication that
we have not complled wlth the DNR requirements, or certainly we ui11. 14. I
explained initially when I came before you that discussion has been had between
Mr. Lindbery and clty staff and a caretaker ls livlng on the property. It makes
perfect sense to have a caretaker living there and it apparently did with staff,
if that's in dlspute, I don't know whether it ls or not but I don't think the
facts are clear if that's important to the city or not. 15, erosion control
plan. 15 and 16. There's no indication that there's any problem ulth erosion.
If you need some plan or if there's a need for a plan, certainly we would
provide that. 17, 18. Providing a proper pondlng. Vehicle inventory. No
2O
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
heavy equipment. No indication of any of these. No shipping activities, ge
claim In essence we are ln-Gomp!%ance with essentially all terms of this permit
or, ~an be when the particular-t.tem In question..becomes operative. Some of thee
obviously do not.become operative until the bullding.~s constructed. So:when
staff makes a blanket statement that he is in non,compliance with every permit
requirement, it's simply not true. And £f that's the, again I COle back to,
it's an attitude thing. Don't try to work with him-and see what :.he can do or
ail1 do or is able to do aith regard to these.things.. 3ust simply say, it's not
done. It's ~ust too easy .for them to do that..! mean they~.-re lo.oking, at .it 4
years after the issuance of the permit and they're simply saying, the year's up.
You didn't construct the .building, ghere tn the .permit does It say you have to
construct a building? So .it's-circular and-we-can't ~ln according to staff, ge
can't satisfy them. ge're not even allo~ed to t. ry actually.-! respectfully
request based on the history of this. Based on ~hat ~'m calling the sensible
common sense look at the.permit it.self, that you..do not revoke Mr.-.-..Lindbery~s
permit but that You grant him a period of time, Z suggest.& months, ge have
this construction season, to comply-~ith it,- That would be the-first-
opportunity or first time that, if Mr. Lindbery ~s permitted to ~ork ~lth staff,
that he will have, can't have any more excuses about..time.but ue really haven't
had the type of opportunity that ! think ~e should have. ge're talking about
over a quarter of a.million dollars investment in:.this.property.by Hr. Llndbery.
~t's not insubstantlal. It's a significant matter to him and to simply say your
land has become, by virtue of a zoning change, farmland, is simply unfair.
.... ~ . -. ! . ~ : . ,
..
Mayor Chmiel= Thank you 3off. Haybe. ~d ~ke t'o cal~-on Mr~.Kirchman to make
some clarifications of some'of, the things that had.been response-to your. letter,
ahich uae May ~4th concerning.the p~umbing~plans and.permit app~.lcat£ons.
Maybe ! could have Mr. Kirchman go through some of these, things~that-are here.
~ know you were before us Just not too ~ong ago:and we did cole up with-a
conclusion that there sas a timeframe that ~e were going to allow. But it seems
that froe.the things that Z. have read~here,:and.you indicated there Is probably
nothing that is indicated about when a condit~ona~ use permit was. granted and
ahen it expires. There Is a section, within.our o~n. code that does cover that,
~hich is 20-23&. Rnd ! thtnk.e~eryone is fully aware~ at least the applicant
should be fully aware as to uhat that is-.as ~ell.- So ~lth.-that ~'~l ~ust ~et
Mr. Ktrchman cover that part of it.
- : - . . .,- : · . .: ·
Steve Klrchean: ~;m responding, to the ~etter. that Hr, Carson, sent.to the city
on May 14th, and ! did not have time to get a memo out and get that in the
packet. ! wasn't around at the tL~e and-Z wanted to respond.to h~s letter.~ as .
a matter of fact ! ~as in the store-the other, day and..1 picked up this and to be
honest ~ith you, ~ think theresa moro'-factual information:in;this than-there Is
in th~s letter. 1t does upset me. Z:went through tbs files and looked at
everything and point, by point...The.letter'from:Hr.-Stolp-~ho'applied for a
plumbing permit stated, that, well let es. back up a.-~ittle bit.. Mr. Carson's
letter stated that he ass mailing the plan that ~as submitted for permit
application, and that's not the plan that the city has.for permit application.
~'ve enclosed the plan that he submitted and you can see there's differences In
the two.plans. ~tem number-2, Hr. Stolp'$~permit application f;2770 was made tn
October, not in 3uno. ge sent throu~h-~he old.permit~f£1es.and ~ere-able'to
determine exactly ~hen the application was made so. his t~me line's..quite a bit.
off on that. ~tem number 3,' Staff ~ould-not have made any.requirements as~ ..
Hr. Stolp maintained in his letter tn 3uno.because there was--no permit. 1f
2~
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
staff had made any requirements, they would have issued a stop work order which
would have been staff's response at that time because there were no permits and
there was not even a permit application unttl October. And the last item, item
number 4 that I've got a problem with in the letter is Mr. Stolp contends that
the plumbing permit was refused because ue weren't familiar with flammable heat
or radiant heat and I will admit, the permit was refused but for many other
reasons, none of which include those. Our last contact with Mr. Lindbery was in
October of 1990. We did not issue stop work orders although he was in violation
of a number of the conditions on hts building permits. We did invite him to
come into the city. Meet with the Planning Department and try and straighten
things out and ue never heard from him again. Really that's about all I've got
to add. You've got my memo in the staff report, £f you've got any specific
questions I'll be glad to try and answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We'll go back to Council with some discussion
to see if there's any questions that may be there. Of the applicant or as well
as from the inspection department. I'll start out with Mark again this time.
Councilman Senn: Gee I was hoping you didn't.
Councilman Wing: Why don't you make a motion we start with Mike. I'll second
it.
Councilman Senn: I just, I don't know. It's been before us before. I guess
even before me, more often than that because I've been on the Board of
AdJustments but I see a lot of words going back and forth. I see no actions and
most of the words going back and forth don't follow the documentation. I guess
it's just my feeling at this point to move approval of staff recommendations and
findings and get on with this. I think we've wasted enough time on it.
Councilman Mason: From what I understand from the information I've received on
th£s, I'm concerned about Mr. Carson and his continuing talking about attitude.
Th~s was deleted from the agenda 2 weeks ago because information wasn't here.
Either due from, why was it deleted 2 weeks ago? Wasn't It because of
~nformation we were supposed to receive and didn't get?
Sharmtn A1-Jaff: The Planning Commission requested that the item be scheduled
for today. It was a mistake on our part that we put it earlier.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Alrtght, fair enough. I take that back. With what
Mr. Klrchman said, I'm looking at these two plans and was It an accldent that
the wrong plan was sent over to us originally? These two plans aren't the same
and why, I don't. None of this jives to me and I get the feellng we're not
being, we haven't been dealt with honestly. And I have some problems with that.
But I'd 11ke to pass for right now but I may come back to thls, If that's okay.
Hayor Chmiel: Sure. Colleen.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: That's alright, I'll pick it up. I guess when you're
arguing an issue back and forth and your arguments are weak, you retreat to
attacking your opposition and that's exactly what it ls when you start talklng
about attitude. If that were the attitude of the staff and of the Council, you
wouldn't be sitting here. This would have been settled long ago. We tried to
22
City Council Meeting - May 24, [993
work with the applicant. ~ conditional use permit is issued and it's an
exceptional use and ue expect applicants who come in with condit£onai use
permits to be exceptional citizens in our community-and that-is not the case
here, and it's been thoroughly documented and we don't take this issue lightly.
We don't revoke permits like this and cease business in'our Community and we'
don't take that lightly. So we've looked at this issue over and over again and
I agree with Mark. We've spent way too much time on It and I'm ready to-move
tonight and get it done with.
. . .
Councilman Wing: Do you have something, signif~cant to add? : ~'
· .
Mayor Chmtel: Weii the only thing that I'm looking at, I think if we do-'~o'
through the process and deny this, I would say that we should move to direct
staff to prepare findings consistent with denial. With it so they're supportive
enough to not entail any other kinds of proceedings that might come' forth "'
afterwards. So with that
. ..
Councilman Wing: I'would just ask Paul. Other than'denial, is-there any other
resolution in your mind? "
..
Paul Krauss: I don't know what other options there are.'" Yes you can,. i'f you
want to give them a time period to see-if'tn fact he can'comply With al'l the
conditions, that'.s a possibility. Based on past performance', I couldn't tell
you that It was-going to be successful, but'It might be. I really don't, lhe
issue of whether or not this is a permitted use tn the district'today really
Isn't relevant to that discussion but thls-has'been'a tough one-foCi:the city to'
.
deal with. We're comfortable with the recommendation'
, ·
.. .
. .
Councilman Wing: Okay. The CUP Is ~88-[[. That's [988 and in '88,' '89. and
'90, maybe this was an arguable point and ma'ybe'someth[ng shodld have been
resolved in '88, '89, '90, '91; But it's-J993 and this Council's kind of pro-.
city; pro-development. Clean things up and let's-get on with life and start
thinking in the 90's. What's changed In 4 years? [ think we're taking a harder
stand on contractors.lots and it's not something we want in the"cIty" [ think
this permit's just plain run out. At issue, [988 it' was current. '90-'9[ It
was an issue but it's 1993. and:so.['guess I'm-goIng-'to'support Colleen and go
along with denial. [ sided with him last rime'and nothing's'new.--[t's the same
arguments and [ guess we have to get.t-his thing'resolved once and.fO¥ all.'
Mayor ChmIe[= [ guess [, everything's more or less been:said. 'Through the' "
process us'ye tried to work with the-applicant and nothing has really been
resolved. [ think that [ would-go back now'to Michael to find if'there's
anything more that you'd like to add to what your comment was'previously.
Councilman Mason: No. it was enlightening to hear all the'comlents'from the
rest of Council. [ don't think we take this, well'" ~ concur wI(h Colleen's
comments about not taking this light[y. 'Shutting'something down"[ think
big deal but [ would also agree with what Richard'said about'[ don't, [ think
feet have been dragged on this and [ don't-think they've'been ou~ feet and
think we've tried to make Some accommodations:and [-don't, [ have'not seen
anything, so [ concur with the rest of Council.'" "
·
...
. .
. .
23
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993-
Hayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call for a motion
and that part of that motion be to move to direct staff to prepare findings
consistent with denial for this project.
Councilman Mason= So moved.
Councilman Wing; Second.
Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to revoke Conditional Use
Permit $88-1! for a contractors yard at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive and direct staff
to prepare Findings of Fact. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
DISCU.S.S OFFICIAL ,HAPPING OF EXTENSION .OF. N[~ PERCE .DRIVE AND REALI~NH~NT QF
PEACEFUL LANE.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is a more difficult one I'm afraid. We've really
...to ask for some guldance relative to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce.
Some 4 years ago when Vlneland Forest plat was belng reviewed, we looked at
alternatives for access in the area. One of the original proposals mentioned by
staff was running the road straight up Pleasant View. That raised a lot of
concerns with the folks who lived on Pleasant View relative to traffic and we
looked at alternatives to that that could gain access for a relatively large and
growing city neighborhood. Also, keeping in mind the traffic concerns. We
looked at a variety of alternatives. Other means of accessing that area, we
outlined in purple. Originally Fox Path was supposed to be extended over to the
east. We looked at that. Unfortunately Fox path was platted before the city
had topo maps and it runs over a 60 foot hill. Even our engineering department
couldn't make that one work. We looked at, there's a SO foot right-of-way that
goes back to Lake Lucy Road tnbetween what ultimately I think has now got 2
houses on it. There were grade problems there. It didn't resolve the access
concern. It didn't, well it raised questions for the folks who lived on Lake
Lucy Road. We came up with a series of alternatives, and in the interest of
time I'll only show you one of them. Alternative 3 I believe was the one that
the Clty Council approved. What it basically did is it said that Nez Perce
should be extended out to Pleasant Vleu in the manner outlined here
incrementally as properties were developed. And that was, it mas under that
guidance, under that understanding that Vineland Forest was approved. We put a
temporary barricade up and Sharmln, you can show them where the Troendle border
is. ge put a temporary barricade up right over there. It had a sign on it that
said, this road will be extended. I'm pretty sure there was a notice in the
chain of title for each lot saying that this is going to be occurring. And
that's the way it sat for a period of time. Year, year and a half down the road
Mr. 8eddor, who was one of the primary proponents of the street, through option
of Vlneland Forest, acquired the Troendle property and worked wlth us on
developing it. The Troendle Addition was also approved under that alternative 3
guidance. Basically the alignment of Nez Perce was set aside, taken in that
subdivision. Was built to serve part of it. Outing that process a lot of the
neighbors who lived on Lake Lucy Road ralsed concerns at the Councll meeting,
for those of you who were here at the time. Their concerns was that traffic,
and Lake Lucy Road lsa thru street. There's no question about it but that Lake
Lucy Road was receiving what they believed to be an excessive amount of traffic
and as more development took place with only one means of ingress and egress,
24
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
that that would continue to build., at the time they asked the City Council,
if I remember right, to not approve Troendle Add£t[on until the road was put
through. Instead we tried to find some croat-tvs sort of a solution to that. It
was debated as to whether or not all the. lots should be approved right now or in
the future. I think what we settled on basically was that-Hr. Be.ddor was
obligated to pay $10,000.00 to the-ultimate construction of Nez Perce so that
when the adjacent Owens property came through, that that would be the last piece
of the puzzle and we'd have some of the funds sitting there to do a feasibility
study and to build I think the Peaceful Lane section of that road was outlined.
The reason for that being was it was al~ays believed-that whoever developed the
Owens parcel would be obligated to build that section of.Nez Pefco so our only
cost would be, or the cost that needs to be shared needs-to be on Peaceful Lane.
And again, that's the way that sat for.:a while. In, I think :it was last year,
we came before you.to do a feasibility.study of where exactly .this road should
go and there were basically two alternatives that refined, upon the ones that we
had outlined 4 years previous. One basically, well..-One~basic&lly had a 90
degree turn at Peaceful Lane. The other one had a curve at Peaceful Lane.
These by the way are illustrated by a deve[oper that ia proposing to develop
part of the Owens property. So that's the one with the 90, degree. Intersection.
That's the one with the flowing curve. It's basically on the. same theme. At
the sase ties, I met out in the field with Mr~ Beddor's representattve,:the
architect who laid out the Troendle Addition.. We actual, ly-.realigned~ or re-
oriented Nez Perce as it case through here so that it would miss some trees on
Hr. Owens' property and basically-t£nkered with-It £n the field Just to. make It
a little more adaptable. The City Council recetved.a feasibility report. We at
the time suggested that it may-be wise to officially map. the.thing~-just, so
everybody knew exactly where tt was going to be. Rt the. time though the big
element of confusion was Mr. Owens property was tn:bankruptcy proceeding,- It
was unclear as to what ability we had to Intercede with the. Judge, ~f any.
Hr. Beddor's attorney Indicated that they-were, negotiating;with. Mr. Owens and it
seemed that everything would fall into-place in a period, of time, and the Council
asked us to work on that and bring-it-back to-you, at-soae.approprtate'time.'
Shortly thereafter we also worked on a'grading permit fo[ the:northern.portion
of the Owens property where that.pond is, if you go up there. ~The proposal for
regrading it was drawn up by Mr. Beddor's architect. Basically cleaning up the
area. Ultimately providing some landscaping. It seemed likens reasonable thing
to do and it was also consistent with the future construction of the road. That
brings us up to the present situation. Clearly there's been a long'term effort
of consistent decision making and planning to make this road happen in a
coordinated manner. I don't know if you want to go into the question of why the
road. I mean this is something that was debated long and hard 4. years.ago but
if you take a look at how the neighborhood lays out, I think you can see why
we've always believed that it would be a valid thing to get a free flow of local
traffic through there. We're not looking to Introduce anything else Into the
neighborhood. There are approximately 30 some, I think 30 hoses on the two
subdivisions now. It's a dead'end cul-de-sac now-is about 1,500, feet long..
Emergency vehicle access and you've heard those kinds of things from us before.
There's connecting neighborhood. So the why question was pretty much
established 4 years ago. Rt our recent dealings on this, which came about.
because we have received inquiries.from a developer for the southern-portion ef
the Owens. property. Mr. Beddor's. representatEves, who-Hr.-Beddor has since
acquired the northern portion of the Owens..property. Have'indicated that,-as
they see it now, and as I understand It. I wasn't at the meeting but Sharain
25
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
was, that the most appropriate location for a house on the land that they
acquired is right where the road's supposed to go. And that there is some
question as to whether the road should be put. through at a11. I mean clearly
there's very limited ability, and we can look at it again but there's very
limited ability for the road to go through there. Mr. Owens' house is up here.
The pond's down here. The road was skewed in a particular angle so that it can
transit the hill. We were frankly a little bit incredulous about that. I mean
I understand what the concerns are but clearly, Z mean I thought that there was
some understanding of where we were going with this. That being the case and
given the Last guidance that we got from you, this is not a decision that we, as
staff, can or should be making. This is something that Z needed to bring back
to you and get your guidance on. There's no action particularly before you
tonight but there is a suggestion of some various actions you can look at
taking. You can accept cul-de-sacs in this area. That is a possibility. There
are ways of serving all the lots, one way or another. It's likely, well it will
be dumping more traffic back out onto Lake Lucy Road. There's various
alternatives to do that. We don't happen to think from staff's standpoint that
that's optimal. You could go ahead and officially map the road. Pick a center
line and have it officially mapped. There again that's, that will hold for a
while but the point of official mapping is not to have a defacto taking of
property...to establish officially that this is where the city thinks the road
should go. But the underlying property owner still has rights and ultimately if
they wanted to put a house right where the road's supposed to go, Z believe the
City has 6 months then to condemn or acquire the property. But you don't have
the right to just officially map it and for get it. Z mean it does imply some
responsibility on the city's part. There is and always has been the possibility
of condemnation, which is always a difficult thing to consider. To put the road
through and look toward assessing costs back. I wouldn't even hazard to guess
as to how assessments might go. You've been through this process any number of
times and you're all familiar with it. And one possibility that I discussed
with the City Attorney briefly today, or he suggested briefly was the
possibility of a moratorium. Again, you can't do that ad infinitum. A specific
purpose. Look for alternatives. Whatever that might be on a specific deadline.
Again, we're bringing this back to you for your guidance and we need your
direction on how to pursue this, or if we should pursue this. And with that
I'll return it back to you Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Paul, Z thought that looking back on old notes that I thought
we had gone along wlth alternative 3. That was klnd of agreed upon, but you're
recommending 4?
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Wing: In my packet. I thought that's alternative 3. Isn't that the
one?
Paul Krauss: Right. That is Alternative 3. You know there were variations on
all of these Councilman Wing because we didn't know how properties were going to
develop. Alternative 4 actually put Nez Perce down further to the south and
that at this point is not possible because the Troendle Addition exists
inbetween.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: I know there are at least 3 of us that sat on this particular
proposal when it was made a few years'ago. I know there was one of the 'real'
major concerns that we had was that the condemnation aspect was not an in thing
for us to do. I think that while that property was going to be developed
accordingly, the other land rights would automatically come back to the city for
that proposed road. Has Mr. Beddor purchased the property from Mr. Owens yet?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: That's already done. Okay..
Paul Krauss: Yes. It's my understanding that that was handled through the
bankruptcy proceeding.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, that condemnation portion still bothers me. I don't like
it. I don't think we should have to throw' away dollars..;I think'that's a
developer's responsibility basically. To put that tn.. ! don~t see why the City
or anybody else should have to pick up those, costs for that road. I 'think that
wa8...
. .
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Oaryl Fortier: ..;we don't want to consider that alternative Is the topography
to the south of' the water tower is prohibitive. ~nd that grade c'hange that you
were showing earlier tonight is a reason that we view taking our cul-de-sac
south out onto Lake Lucy Road is being inappropriate in addition to the
neighbors and other constituents and voters in your city and taxpayers feeling
pretty strongly, from our feedback, that they don't-want to see that happen.
What we're really here discussing tonight is one resident's wishes versus
another developer's desire and some long term promises made by staff to very
many Chanhassen residents. ~ don't feel particular strongly personally about
this extension. ! don't see that tt directly' affects our plat' We have access
to Peaceful Lane. Our plat can go through without that extension. So ~ don't
want to see the misrepresentation made that these two items need to be tied
together. They don't need to be tied'together. Unfortunately'they seem to be
before you at the same time. That's all. I have. :.
Mayor Chmtel: Thank you.
Sherry Novachek: My name is Sherry Novachek. I'd just like to start out and
say it is not just one resident who's very concerned about thiS. I live on
Pleasant View Cove, which is right off Pleasant View Road and 2 weeks ago my
daughter almost got killed: getting off the school bus. I was here 4 years ago
when we discussed the danger of extending, more-cars onto Pleasant View Road.
There have been several accidents since that.time. One a head-on collision this
last winter. It is a very narrow, busy, over used road right now and as TH
is developed and Crosstown comes'In; ir we extend Nez-Perce it's going to become
more and more traffic used:.. I think there are hardships to builders but I think
the lives of children and people have to come over that. :My daughter got. off
the bus and as Pleasant View Road dumps. Into Pleasant View Cove, there's an
extreme, extreme blind spot. Several car'accidents happen almost every year.
There's extreme blind spots and curves all the way around and I think,-you know
we talked just a little while ago about'the developments-that are occurring.
27
City Council Meeting - May 24, lg93
think Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road, there are no easy ways to come off
either one of them. But of the two, Pleasant View Road is far, far more
dangerous. And I thlnk that Daryl's proposal seems to me to be, it's an
alternative to dumplng the cars back on Pleasant View Road and I think before
somebody gets kllled we really need to look at this very closely.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Mary Stassen: Would you put alternative 3 back up there for me? My name is
Mary Stassen and I guess I'm a little bit surprised that nobody mentioned us
through thls whole thing because we 1lye at the corner of Pleasant View Road and
Peaceful Lane and our house is located right here. Right up at that corner and
our driveway almost comes out 11kw right at that corner and lt's, I measured.
It's 125 feet because that used to be the main thru street that went through
there. That's 125 feet across that corner and so, I mean if somebody's going to
get killed, it's probably going to be us coming out of our driveway because it's
very dangerous for us and we've 11red there, we've owned the property for ?
years. We've lived there for 6 and 6 years ago I talked to Jim Chaffee and had
hlm come out. He was the Safety Commissioner at that time and he agreed wlth me
that it was a dangerous corner and that something was going to be done about it
and so we've sat and we've been to every meetlng. We weren't involved 4 years
ago because nobody notified us that all this was going on until they started
considering the connection through to Peaceful Lane and that's the time that we
got involved and that was about 2 years ago I guess. So we're very concerned
about thls sweeping corners, as most of you know. And if anything, we want to
make sure that there's gO degree turns put in there.
Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, a quick response to that. We d£d speak to Mrs. Stassen
and her husband several times over the last few years. One of the blg problems
though on Peaceful Lane is that you have a wide open curve through here and it
ls, I mean it's big enough to serve the Mega Mall. The alternatives that we
brought forth to you last year and looked at doing is squaring this off.
Actually tylng in something llke that whlch would have a tendency, well. It
makes a much clearer T intersection at Pleasant View. It also tended to pull
the road some distance further away from the Stassen residence. I don't recall
how much it was but that issue was raised and dealt with in the feasibility
study.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn. I have property adjoining, I guess you'd say.
The Vineland Forest Addition. I've looked at this for a long time too and
particularly in acquiring the property and my understanding has always been of
course that it was going to go through. The slgn that's posted there on the
barricade has sald that for years and I flnd it very difficult to believe that
someone could live in that area for a long time and not see the sign and then
buy property unaware of that or not in comtemplation of that. But that's, so it
looks to me as though, at least I remember that where that green magic marker
spot ls, the sign was there and now lt's moved. And I had the impression that
Troendle Addition, when it was put in, was tn contemplation of that going
through as well and that that was part of the clty's sort of glve and take in
28
City Council Meeting - Nay 24, 1993
putting Troendle in. I think though that we definitely should have some kind of
a traffic control type of intersection. More of a T. ~ore something that would
tend to keep people just from sweeping around the corner..The point la though
that if the Crosstown is coming through to TH 101, which it is-and all those
other things are going on, that people that live in Vineland Forest and so onv
are going to go south and around Lake Lucy and-.up'CR 17, or-Mill Street,
whatever you want to call it, and they're going to cut onto Pleasant View
anyway. ! mean Lt's not like they're not going to do that. I mean I know
going to do that. I don't know at what speed I'm going, to do that but if I'm
Late, I'm probably going to be in a bigger hurry because I have to go out of ay
way to get around there. I'm being, a little facetious in saying'that but [
think that will happen. [.think there's a tendency.that if people have. to drive
3/4 of a mile to get 50 feet from their front door, which essentially is what
would happen with my house. Not quite 50 feet. 250 feet. To get to Pleasant
View Road, people are going to-be'in a bigger hurry. So I think that's a factor
as well. Not to mention trying to come through by the water tower is going to
have an adverse affect on the character, if you will, of Lake Lucy Road and.the
residents that 1/ye currently on Lake Lucy Road. There's sort of the character
of two different areas and I guess one of my thoughts on that is, is-that the
character of an area of higher value, higher Income homes and so on, may
sometimes there's an air of the word character underneath it has the word
elitism. It's as though property of some value, their kids may be, you know
! don't know how to put it. If a kid.who comes from a piece of property.-worth
$150,000.00 gets run over it may be different than someone who comes from a
piece of property worth a million and a.half. But it's still a kid. So ! think
there's sort of a balance there that has to be struck;. Some people;s'kids are
sore important than others. ! understand. Hine are the most important, but we
all have that attitude. I think there's a.balance that would be struck.and
people are still going to pour out of Vineland Forest and'out of Troendle and
try to get to the Crosstown. You're not'going to:ignore'the Crosstown just
because the road takes them another S minutes out of their'way.- They just may
hurry more. :'
Rod Johnson:. My name's Rod Johnson. ! live on Lake kucy'and ! got up once
before and we've been through this. I guess the biggest thing that Strikes me
as another point of this is my wife's pregnant'with the 29th kid on that street
from one corner to the other. And [ sympathize but, hey.. It's got to be shared
equally. I think the corner.needs.to be'fixed but:the city needs to consider
too if my kid gets run over and this street didn't go through, I guarantee, you
who else is going to be on the'suit along with Nr. Beddor. 'So I mean that's the
way I look at It now and I can see It and I can understand everybody's tLoset.
Jim Ouchene: I'm Jim Ouchene on Lake Lucy.Road, 9&l. I'think the Mayor started.
it off right tonight by saying commitment. We've been-tn front of you probably
4 times. I think Oaryl had a private meeting with us'. -I know the Nayor was
with us that evening.-Showing us plans where it would connect to Pleasant ¥tew
and that has always been one of tbs options presented.and the option that we
accepted as a neighborhood. And to hear this come up.-again, I'know Pleasant
View is a poor quality road but I think Nez Perce ts'too' I know if'you"ye
walked up in that area and you come down Nez-.Perce, it~s probably worst than
Pleasant View. Okay. Our concern I think, and we have; I think most of'our
neighborhood here tonight on Lake Lucy Road, is that'it.be"safe.for everyone.
And perhaps there's some problems on'Pleasant View and. maybe speed limit -
29
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
reductions can address that. I know as our family, we very seldom take Pleasant
View. We'll take Highway 5 or Highway 7. Pleasant View takes time and it does
wind as the lady said. Has a lot of dangerous curves. We don't use that road.
Will that change? I think the city can address those issues with speed
reductions and perhaps discourage people from taking that route. I'd like to
see Oaryl and the developer hold to their promises or their commitment to our
community. To our taxpayers. To our citizens in that area and that's keeping
their promise where the road was sketched several times and we came out, as Paul
had said, fairly close to this particular alternative 3 I guess. So I'd 3ust
ask that you hold people to their commitment. Their promise. It's been a 4
year process and it's kind of like, let's go until we wear everybody out. Until
we don't show up. So I'd like to see you go with the plan as it was proposed.
Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, could I just interrupt at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: ~re you all, are you from Lake Lucy?
Resident: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Hold on a minute. I'm not going to suggest that Mr. Smith or
Mr. Fortier at any time misled staff, but I guess I am going to say, speaking
for Lake Lucy and myself, having been here every night, they misled me. There
was never any question in my mind that, thought we had some-understanding. We
simply had an understanding. I mean this was to me a done deal. That's why I'm
kind of stunned that this isn't mapped and done and we've kind of got an
attitude tonight of God save Pleasant View but let's dump all our traffic onto
Lake Lucy. Or we take the other viewpoint tonight with all these people, maybe
God save Lake Lucy and let's not worry about Pleasant View. This road isn't a
big collector thoroughfare. If you look at this, it's a nuisance to wind
through there and we talked about stop signs. It's not going to be a convenient
way. People are still going to cut down Lake Lucy Road but to come in with a
development after all this time and all these discussions and again, I'm willing
to pull all these old Minutes out. To me it was an absolute clear cut deal. I
don't know why this isn't done. But tell us you're going to develop property
and put in homes and traffic and dump them onto Lake Lucy, it's clearly already
been decided it's been a problem and a traffic issue and a dangerous road for
kids. There's 29th young child being on there and I will say is a fact, one of
my last trips down there some little, by the way. This is for you folks again.
I said this last time. This happened again. 6 little kid came down the
driveway on one of these little bikes, right out into the street off the
driveway and that's a pretty dangerous street. So anyway my point is, it's okay
for Mr. Beddor to develop his property and then dump it onto Lake Lucy because
he doesn't want to effect his road. Well hell that's not the way we operate in
the city as I saw it. ~nd everything that's been brought up tonight, every
comment that you're going to make has been heard. I mean it was a done deal.
You don't even to speak as far as I'm concerned because I've heard you loud and
clear. You don't want the traffic. You don't want that dumped down on your
street. I don't think it should happen. That road was already semi decided on.
Whether it went a little north or a little south. Bend it a little here. Bend
it a little there. But I think it's Mr. Beddor's problem, not your's and as far
3O
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
as I'm concerned, whatever we have to do to get this. done Paul. Whether it's
number 3 or number 4, we've got to do it. If £t's condemnation, we do Lt.
We've discussed that pond be(ore. We've discussed Lot S before. We've
discussed Peaceful Lane before. Do you want to counter, or add? Just a minute.
Let me just hit my notes. Old news. Old news. This is all old news. Mr.
Fortier has not brought up anything new. He discussed this with us hour-after
hour about 2 years ago. Year and a half ago. Year ago and every single comment
these people have made, I thought had been heard and decided on and I'm frankly
frustrated that this is even back here tonight..I don't want to hear more'about
it. To me I've already my decision. I've--already voted. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Dog gone it Councilman Wing, that's my neighborhood and you
stole my thunder.
. .
CounciLman Wing= I want to know what we do to get .this off dead center and move
ahead. I don't want to hear anymore.
..
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is get a motion.
Councilman Mason: I think Mr. Smith wouLd, like. to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul.
Paul-Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you may want to get some counsel as to what your
options are. There are some, well. There are some alternatives to .tinker with
the alignment. The concern I have, and let's assume for the moment that
everybody can trust everybody to deal with this tn a fair manner. There is
nothing stopping Hr. Beddor from using the property as he sees fit at this point
in time. He's the property owner. He's entitled to do whatever he'd like to
do. -There may be ways of introducing some more (lextbtlity int'o the alignment
for Mr. Beddor's property. There is an Issue there. I'mean there-is more of a
taking the way the road is now. However, as I recall, this road, Nez Perce is
skewed this way because of input that we got from Mr. Fortier as to how this
would happen. .At that time they-didn't know.how much they were going to buy
from Hr. Beddor, or not. There is a.hill here.' It goes up.to, the Owens-house.
One of the possibilities might be coming across a little higher. There is a
grading problem with that. That might be a possibility. That would result in a
T intersection but it would give bigger home sites over here. The problem is
that also involves a lot that I believe is still vacant In-the Troendle -
Addition. You can see that lot down here, and maybe Mr. Fortter knows if it's
still vacant or not but it kind of comes up that way. And sort of tells you
which way the road has to go because it points you in one direction. You may
wish to consider, and I'd defer to Council on this. Some sort of a-'temporary
moratorium on that lot, on develchoment there to allow the best alignment.to come
out. If that's your wish. I don't know. I Just throw that on the table for
you. You may want to bounce that off...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good.
Councilman Mason= I'd just like to quickly.add that the argument about whether
Nez Perce goes through or not wiLL affect traffic on Pleasant View. If you're
driving down Lake Lucy Road and'you want. to get to Pleasant View, you're going
to do it. [ mean you're either go£ng to go through Nez'Perce or you're going to
31
City Council Meeting - Hay 24, 1993
create more of a problem on Powers Boulevard by coming out there, or Kerber or
Carver Beach, and go on Pleasant View anyway. So I don't quite understand Hr.
8eddor's, where they're coming from saying that not putting that road through
will create less traffic on Pleasant View. I use Pleasant View. I ltve in
Carver Beach. I'm going to use Pleasant Vlew whether Nez Perce goes through or
not so I don't, that argument I don't understand.
Councilman Wing: Hike, the other question I had was, if this is such an issue,
why doesn't he just take all his lots and development and connect those to
Pleasant Vlew. Thls thing probably never would have come up in the flrst place.
Why does his development have to go down to Lake Lucy? They don't deserve it.
Jules Smith: Mr. Councilman, you have to understand. We're not here asking for
anything. We weren't brought here. We didn't initiate this. We're responding
to what the city staff brought before the Counc11. ! certainly thlnk we have a
right to put our use for it. It's our land. We're not asking for anything.
The Clty Councll has an absolute right to do whatever they want. Do you want to
condemn it? Condemn it. We can't stop that. The same is true when we came for
the Troendle Addition. You said you wanted $10,000.00 and an alignment or we
wouldn't get the plat. Well, we still felt, if we ever, at that time we didn't
own that property. There was nothing we could do. If you want to put a road
through it, put it through. But don't sit here knocking us because we're here
saylng well, it's our land and maybe we'd 11ke to have you take a different look
at it. We're not the bad guys here. We have our view over our lot but you can
do whatever you want.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the position we'll take. Thank you Jules. Yeah, one
more, please.
Brad Johnson: Hy name is Brad Johnson. I guess I don't agree with that comment
because he was at the meeting down at, was it at Victory £nveIope or whatever.
It was pretty clear a road was going to go through. You had said that that
night. I suppose you wanted it there because then it's not offic£al on the
Hinutes of the City or something. I'm not really sure what the polnt was. But
you're here to try to present a plan to influence the city to put more traffic
on Lake Lucy and keep it off of Pleasant View. Don't tell me you don't have an
agenda. You defintely do.
Jules Smith: Well sure we have an agenda but...
Mayor Chmiel: Jules, out of order there. Please.
Paul Hanson: Hy name is Paul Hanson. I live on Lake Lucy Road also and I would
like to point out two things. One, I talked to the builder who built a home in
the cul-de-sac of Troendle Clrcle and they have lnformed me that they lntend to
begin bullding a home on the lot in which Paul was discussing. So they are
already getting ready to build a lot on that lot. On that property, as far as
I've been told. That may be misinformation. The other thing is, we're
discussing 500 feet of Pleasant View. I don't know how long Pleasant View is. I
imagine it's a mile and a half or so, but I think Paul could probably tell us.
I'm guessing that, I paced it off. We're talking about 500 feet from Peaceful
Lane, on Pleasant View until you get to Powers Boulevard and Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View in those locations are not old, narrow streets. They're nice and
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
wide. There's enough room there for lots of traffic and I think if anyone were
to want to look for themselves, Just drive over there. I think you'l/ be
satisfied that there's not a major problem with the road space the way they
exist right now on Peaceful Lane and Pleasant U[ew to go through. I keep
hearing this issue that they have to spend money developing it and [t really
doesn't need £t if you look at that small portion of the road. The Last point
Z'll make is if ! remember right from the Minutes of the meeting the last time,
the $10,000.00 was put down for the north half of the completion of the road of
Nez Perce to go to Peaceful Lane. I think that's worth looking into. I believe
that's what the $10,000.00 was put in for. It wasn't put in for any
improvements on Peaceful Lane. Thank you.
Resident: I'd just like to say one more thing.. That SO0 feet.is probably the
most dangerous intersection of all of Pleasant View Road and including Lake Lucy
Road. There's a blind spot where the cars come up and over the hill.. They come
up very fast[y. It's a 25 apb. Right now it doesn't make any difference. You
could put [5 mph or lO mph, it is a highly, h[ghly dangerous.[ntersect£on there
where Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant View Road run Into.
Mayor Chmiel: Elliot[, do you have any words of good wisdom?
Councilman Mason: As opposed to bad wisdom..
Elliott Knetsch: I think Paul's recommendation in the report gives you your
options...further addition, the possibility of a moratorium if there, was a need
to study further details as to exactly how 'Nez Perce would connect at that
intersection. ! don't know that ! can add anything. It's not really so each a
legal issue as one of if you want to proceed.
Mayor Chm[el: Right. Okay. Rs Council's .heard, there's two 1scums that can be
done. One, the moratorium. Rs indicated to be established for a per[od of time
until all situations are worked out. Or to proceed with what's presently before
us. Michael.
...
Counci[man Mason: ! guess with what Paul's comments about seeing what ~e can do
to perhaps nudge the road, either a moratorium right now as opposed to official
mapping might be in order just-because.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that [t would be because it gives us the option to
see whether or not it can be done. W[thout it having to come back just one more
time.
'Councilman Wing: You're. stating that our pos[[ion ks the road, there is going
to be a road there?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. -
Councilman Wing: It's just a matter of how we can work it out?
Mayor Chmiel: How that road can be worked out.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the reason I'm suggesting that is given the way the
property's been broken out by the 3udge, [n the present alignment of the road,
33
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
what they own, there is probably a severance issue with Mr. Beddor's property.
Maybe that can be minimized.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I would entertain a motion for thls particular
position.
Resident: Mr. Mayor, can I.add one thing? You haven't closed your public
hearing right?
Mayor Chmlel: You're out of order right now. We're back to Counc11. If you'd
like to sit down, we'll come back to you.
Councilman Mason: This hasn't been a public hearing anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a couple questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Under the option that you suggested on the moratorium. Are
any of the affected parcels? I mean what are the status of those affected
parcels?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Senn, the moratorium specifically, and ls it posslble
you can come up with a moratorium and...the same night? We didn't publish one.
That's not an issue? Okay.
Elllott Knetsch: We have to act on this moratorium at the next meeting. I
think tonight we have to authorize that though and get it ready for the next
meetlng.
Paul Krauss: There probably are only two properties that need to be lnvolved
and I think it's been referred to as Lot 5, Jules. Is that? The northern piece
of the Owens property that Mr. Beddor owns. And I don't know what lot number it
is but it's the northwestern most lot in the Troendle Addition south of Nez
Perce. Or at least to insure that the home ls set back far enough so that
that's a possibility. Otherwise there £s no option.
Councilman Senn: Are elther of those parcels already ptatted or preliminary
platted?
Paul Krauss: Well, the Troendle Addition's all flnal platted.
Councilman Senn: Then how can we do a moratorium?
Paul Krauss: We leave that up to the City Attorney to see if that's possible.
Councilman Senn: I've heard on past things is we can't do moratoriums.
Resident: That corner lot, they've got...lt's all staked for a home. Startlng
construction.
34
City Counc£1 Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Senn: I guess the other question ! had was relating to Mr. Beddor's
representative's. Were you aware at the )ime..that you bought the.property out
of the bankruptcy court that this plan for the road was there?
..
Jules Smith:- Well we certainly knew it was bei_ng.considered.
....
Councilman Senn= That was the most round about answer I've heard I guess. Were
you aware of the road plan when you purchased the land from the bankruptcy
court?
Jules Smith: Well of course. We knew that there was, ! mean this study was
made long before that act.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, did you have something?
Councilman Mason: Well, how is this moratorium going to.work if. someone:s
already starting to dig a home? [ mean that.
Councilman Senn= Yeah, that...Jive with what we've boom-.to'Id in the. past.
Mayor Chmiel: paul can you.
Paul Krauss: Well a couple things. Ifa house is being built on that.corner
lot, it eliminates a lot of the possibilities for realigning the road at this
point. There may still be some potential to realigning the road by twisting:it
around in the right-of-way, [f the home is actually back far enough, we can
acquire some additional right-of-way. Straighten it up. Those kind. of things
may be warranted to look at. The concern that-[ have though is, even lacking
that. Even a home is built on that. corner. That Mr. Beddow .is.the owner of the
property and can come in with a build[.~g eerelt on his-lot tomorrow and we would
have to issue it. i'm not saying that they're anticipating doing that. ! have
no idea but we would be obligated to:issue the building permit. -Official -
mapping is a good way to go, [f you had-~ime, Official mapping requires a
center line survey. Then it's got to come...through the Planning Commission and
City Council. So you're probably looking at a couple months there.
Mayor Chmiel= Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Well, [ think we've dispensed with one of the two
issues. The first one being should the road go through and a year ago [ was at
the podium cipherously arguing that tn my neighborhood we should not join two.
Rs you'll remember Paul. We should not Join two neighborhoods and arguing to
maintain a mile long cul-de-sac but that-.was a year ago and i'm definitely a
year old and hopefully a little wiser, so [ would agree that the road does need
to go through. We just.asked,how and, I don't kno#. It's a toughy. I don'~
have any suggestions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. ..
.. .
Councilman Wing: ['ye spoken., i've made my decision a year ago with the_Lake
Lucy folks. [ thought it.was a done deal so how can we best accomplish it.
$S
City Council Meeting - May 2~. 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I'm pretty much in that same boat with you on that.
I don't disagree with you. The only question that I have ls to find what
legally is rlght for us to do and approach it from that aspect. I think that's
what I'm looking for. His words of wisdom as to how to best accomplish this.
Either through the moratorium. Posslbly tabllng it or going through the
official mapping portion that Paul has mentioned previously.
Elliott Knetsch: Well the unknown is what the development plan is...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Resident: ...the way I've seen things go, it's very likely you could have a
building permlt request on thelr desks by 8:30 in the morning tomorrow if you
don't do what you need to do to stop that.
Mayor Chmiel: We realize that. Thank you. Okay. We have before us one of two
thlngs to go. Either to authorize a moratorium hearing or to proceed wlth,
basically what staff recommendations are.
Councilman Wing: I think staff ought to move ahead on the mapplng but we ought
to give them some time to get their act together and get it mapped. So I guess
if a moratoriu, which I am not. ! kind of agree with Councilman Senn. I'm not
so sure we shouldn't just charge full steam ahead and if they want to start
brlnglng bullding permlts, that process can come before this Council and it
could take years.
Councilman Mason: Obviously there's been some disagreement and some hard
feelings here. One of the nice things I've felt about being a part of this
Councll and worklng wlth thls clty ls that this ls the place for hard feellngs
and you know things get sifted out and get worked out in the way that's best for
everybody and I would hope that, and up untll now I think everyone's done that
and I would hope that that would continue regardless of what we choose to do.
Councilman Wing: If we went with Mr. Senn's comments and it didn't work out, is
there any reason we couldn't then impose a moratorium on future development? At
any point we can come in wlth a moratorium? Of some sort.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I'd really like to see, I mean if we start
getting into something to me that's really highly questionable and I'm going to
say given some past thlngs I've heard in the last 6 months, it's highly
questionable, again to me that presents problems that weakens our case. Okay,
to me we ought to just simply pass a motion to direct staff to implement the
plan that was previously approved...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I like your position but I want to make sure that legally
that I have that behlnd me to support that position. ~nd that's one of the
questions that I throw back one more time to Elliott from what Mark has
basically sald.
Elliott Knetsch: I hear what Mark's saying but I haven't, I don't know how we
would accomplish that tonight from what I'm seeing. I mean if we follow this to
it's logical conclusion, it's right on the board. ! mean everybody knows what's
been talked to and as Oick mentioned, agreed to in his mind and the minds of
36
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
many others. The question is how to accomplish that and lock it in tonight. I
think probably the only way to do that Is to, and there is a question about the
legality of a moratorium. I don't have the background on how that lot...I was
discussing it with Don. Apparently it's a lot of record and if it is, it may"
not be appropriate for a moratorium because the moratorium ordinance does say
that you cannot delay a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval.
If it's an existing lot of record, it's been approved. So I think what we mtght
be really looking at is authorizing condemnation of that Lot'5. And I' would
look at the entire lot rather than just where the road would cross the lot
because if the road goes through across'the..lot,- and then it'damages the lot SO':-
it's unbuildab[e, then you're really talking about a taking of the entire lot
anyway even If you just take the road so you. might-as well take the whole lot.-
· .
Councilman Senn: But is that a direction we give to:staff or-Dan we authorize a
condemnation without public hearing and everything else?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes. You can authorize a condemnation tonight.
Councilman Wing: And I would also...begin legal mapping and then Mike's saying,
just'perhaps everybody might decide to get along and come to a consensus here
and resolve the issue anyway.
.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.. And that can always happen.
Councilman Mason: I would hope that that would be looked at. Well, are we
ready to go here?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being there wasn't a second to Mark's filet one, then I
would entertain another motion. .-
Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll recommend that the City Council authorize
official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. I would also further recommend that City :-
Council consider condemnation to acquire the lot.
. .
Mayor Chmiel: Lot 5.
Councilman Mason: Lot 5 as opposed to the roadway. "
· .
Councilman Wing: ['11 second that.
·
..
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution ~3-47: Councilman ~a~an =ed, Ccencll#n Wing ~econded to
authorize the offtclal sapping of #cz Perce Drive. The t~o altermttves in the
3uly 8, 1992 feasibility study should be revimmd uith Rlternattve A being the
preferred alignment of city staff. Further, that the City Council proceed uith
condeenation of Lot 5. All voted In favor, and 'the-~otion carried unanlemmly.
Paul Krauss: 3ust a clarification. Consider condemnation or direct.
Councilman Wing: Do it.
Councilman Mason: Should I strike consider in that motion?
37-
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Elliott Knetsch: As long as you're saying that you meant direct.
Councilman Mason: I meant to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification's there.
Councilman Wing: Second to that.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY. STUDY FOR TH ~.0! TIL~IL, PRO3ECT 88-2~B-6.
Todd Hoffman: Hr. Mayor and City Council members. As you are aware, and as
presented in the staff report this evening, this City has embarked on the
process to investigate the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along
TH 101 from Pleasant View Road south to West 78th Street, or the downtown area.
This segment of trail has been identified in the city's comprehensive trail plan
as a phase 1, 1990-1995 improvement. The TH 101 trail represents the last leg
of improvements in this timeframe. The other trails which were completed as a
part of that phase I include the Highway 5 trail from Eden Prairie to Powers
Boulevard. The Minnewashta Parkway trail and the Market Boulevard t~ail system.
Councilperson Senn brought this subject to the forefront of the public process
upon election to the Council. His effort in doing so was inspired by the
overwhelming inquiry he received into this issue during his campaign in that
area. As outlined in Mr. Horn's report, the city has hosted two neighborhood
meetings to discuss this issue. One on March 31st and one on april 20th. With
39 and 57 residents in attendance respectively. The second meeting resulted in
the presentation of two petitions to the city containing a total of 210
signatures of residents in favor of the trail. I have those petitions here this
evening. Would you like me to present them to Council to read them into
the Minutes?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Just give it to us so we can take it from there.
Todd Hoffman: The meetings that were held were very well received by the
residents in attendance allowing both those opposed to and in favor of the
project voice their opinions and to hear those of others. I followed up these
meetings with 8 on-site visits with property owners affected by the proposed
trail. AT this time, if it would please the Council, I would ask that Hr. Jon
Horn of BRW provlde you wlth the information whlch has been disseminated to date
on this issue. During those neighborhood meetings, and then Charles will close
with some comments on the proposal to move forward with the feasibility study
and we're available for questions from the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Jon Horn: As Todd mentioned, the Trunk Highway 101 trail project would include
the construction of an 8 foot wlde bituminous trail along the west slde of Trunk
Highway 101 from Pleasant View Road on the north side to South Shore Orive on
the south side. The total length of the trw11 alignment ls about 9,200 feet.
As directed by city staff, we've completed a preliminary scoptng study to
investigate the oonstructabillty of this ira11 segment as well as to identify
any specific problem areas that would need further investigation if Council
decldes to further proceed with the project. We prepared some preliminary
38
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
exhlbits that show some of the problem areas and I guess I'd just like to
quickly run through those for Council. Th£s first .exhib£t shows the-southern
most construction of the trail. The trail would begin at South Shore Orive at
this locatlon where it would tie into the, 'excuse me.-At, this location where it
would tie. lnto the proposed trail system to be constructed as a part of the
Trunk Highway 101 north leg project. It would then extend .to the north along
the west side of TH 101. As it extends to the north, we've identified a couple
different problem areas on this-sectton of.the trail. The first being some
trees and shrubs through this area that would..need to be relocated further to
the west to enable the trail to be built along the roadway. -'As you'proceed
further north, there's a guardrail'and a steep, slope that would make it very
diff£cult to construct the;tra~l in this ~ocatton.':A.poss~ble:-solution'mey be
some retaining wall and the construction of an embankment to-allow the trail to
be squeezed through that .location~ The second section of the trail,-we've
identified a couple wetland areas that posstbly would be impacted by the
construction of the trail. It is recommended that discussions be held early on
wlth the Army Corps of Engineers and the ONR to investigate possibly impacts to
the wetlands and any mitigation that may be required if-.the trail is further
considered. Another problem area identified in this area lsa turn land and a
retaining wall at Sandy Hook Road that-would need some modiflcation to enable
the trail to be squeezed through thts area. .The last trail.segment up'to
Pleasant View Road, we've identified again another-wetland area that could
possibly be impacted as well as a monument sign and a storm water pond north of
Fox Hollow Orive that may require some modification.- While these are
problems areas that would be,-we would impact or would be encounted If the
project is further pursued. I guess we do not-feel that.any-of them-are
insurmountable or that they do not warrant this pathway to be unconstruetable.
Based upon the results of the scoping study, we held a couple neighborhood
meetings to present the. results of-this...study to the ~esidents of the area as
well as to help determine their support or objections to the project. Based
upon the neighborhood meetings, I.guess it's our general feeling that most of
the neighborhood residents are tn support of the project. However, there was
some strong opposition expressed by'some of.the residents who's property
directly abuts TH 10[. Concerns with d~rect property--Impacts.'-Concerns that
the pathway crossing their drtveway would create some safety hazards. Concerns
about the loss of some mature trees £n the area. Things like that. General
support for the project was felt by'most of the.residents because they felt
there was a real need for a pedestrian/bicycle access Into downtown Chanhassen.
They felt that right now it's a lot easier for'them to go north-or east out of
Chanhassen rather than to go into downtown Chanhassen.- So they felt there was
real strong need for a tratl to provide that access. It is..recommended tontght
that if the Council wishes to further proceed ~Ith the project, that a
feasibility study be prepared to further £nvestigate'some of these problem areas
and continue to work with some of the neighborhOod residents'to try to"ach£eve-a
pathway destgn that meets the objectives of the city as well as addresses some
of the concerns of the neighborhood residents. I guess wtt:h that I'll turn
over to Charles to further discuss the feasibility study. :
Charles Folch: Well given the information gathered to date .and the great deal
of discussion that's been held at these neighborhood meetings. It's apparent
that there ts a rather large support for at least taking the next step in
conducting a formal feasibility study. A feasibility study will-include
performing a detail field survey along TH [01-and also preparing preliminary
39
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
plan drawings to show particularly the properties along TH 101. How they will
be affected by the project and how any potential adverse lmpacts are proposed to
be mitigated. This feasibility study uill also provide a better cost estlmate
as to what the project would need to be completed. And also some recommended
methods of financing options for this project. It should also be noted that in
authorizing the preparation of the feasibility study, the Council Is not
actually ordering this projeot. That declslon would need to be made at the
completion of the feasibility study and following the public hearing
accordingly. Jori has prepared an estimate for this feasibility study which is
set within the framework of our scope of services contract at an estimated
amount not to exceed of $18,500.00. And lt's expected that thls study would
take approximately 6 weeks to complete. It's staff recommendation, based on the
information and the amount of support received, that lt'd be our recommendation
to move ahead with the next step and prepare a formal feasibility study.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion?
Councilman Wing: I will so move that feasibility studY.
Hayor Chmiel: I think it's something that's probably necessary to do at this
time, only because of the fact that if and when this does go in, we would still
have that desired information. One of the things that I look at, and the only
thing that bothers me a little bit about it is that we're looking at a project
range from $20o,ooo.o0 to $300,000.00 in constructing this improvement project.
One of the things as it's indicated here, I don't think that that has any
inclusion of right-of-way that would be needed to put this project together. Is
that correct?
Charles Folch: No, that's correct. We've just, Jori and I in just viewing, in
looking at some of the problem areas that have been identified, we can only
assume at this polnt how much area it mlght take to try and make things work but
again you're correct. Until we can actually do a field survey and do some
preliminary drawings, and see how far back the construction 11mits are golng to
go, we won't know until that point how much additional right-of-way or easement
we would need.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that we would need. We're looking at
and I would just sort of...golng through that particular area, you're probably
looklng at, another $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 in right-of-way acquisition for
the total project. So with that, we have a motion on the floor. Any other
discussion? Is there a second?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I have discussion. A couple questions. At these
neighborhood meetings, were assessments talked about at a117
Charles Folch: No. At this point in time we really, that question was brought
up by a few people understandably at the meeting. At this point in time, we
really can't address how financing would be handled until we know really what
numbers we're deallng wlth for the project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My only point is that, you say a trail and everyone
says, yeah, yeah, yeah and then they get the assessment. And my other question
is, if we're looking at roughly with $150,000.00 worth of right-of-way, $40.00
4O
City Council Meeting - Nay 24, 1993
to $50.00 a foot? How does that compare to other trail costs throughout the
city? I mean this is a partl, cularl¥ tough piece of land.
CharIes Folch: It's probabIy higher than.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: [ mean like double?
Charles Folch: But then again, When you compare apples to apples doing,
building a street in new construction is such cheaper than reconstructing a
street in an existing neighborhood so recon work, whether it's a trail or road
is typically higher than new construction.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Yeah. I'm just thinking, is the assessment-going to
be exorbitant and will people balk at that and is it worth spending $20,000.00
in this feasibility?
Todd Hoffman: There was a variety of funding sources discussed at those
meetings and assessments certainly were not ruled out but that would not be the
total financing mechanism for the trail.
Mayor Chmiel: We still have a motion on-the floor..
councilman Senn: Second.
Hayor Chm£el: Any other discussion? Hike.
Councilman Mason: No. I'm concerned about some of the cost issues here but we
certainly need to have the feasibility study I think before, we make any
decisions.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And.-lhis is also part of our comprehensive plan as well.
One of the trails. And as Hark.brought this forward again, for the Issue of
getting thls i.n, I think some of the other areas that we have going right now
too, we have to also look at those. If we go onto one, we're going to have to
look and see what we do with-the balance-of the other trails that are going to
be needed within the city.
Councilman Senn: But thts"is the only sega'ent left in the first priority that
hasn't been done yet l.n the city. --:~..
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but there are ot.her areas that also substantially
need them. Along CR 17 and even CR 117 and some of the other areas too that
eventually are going to be built.
,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but m~st of those, according to the meeting I had with
Don and the County are going to be handled when the County redoes the roads so
mean it's really a different situation and nothing we're going to have to
participate in one way or the other. .-
Councilman Wing: Will Eden Prairie be approached after the feasibility study of
possible funding?
Todd Hoffman: They'll be approached at the.
41
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: We tried that once before. In fact ! had discussions with Eden
Prairie back when I wanted to see TH 101 have a trail along that particular
area.
Councilman Mason: And what did they say?
Mayor Chmiel: Something about my left ear. They didn't feel that that was
absolutely necessary.
Councilman Wing: I want to make sure Colleen was heard because if a Minnewashta
trail, which is somewhat complex, is $300,000.00, this one comes In at
$600,000.00. Maybe we don't need a trail that bad. Maybe we need a whole new
road, etc, etc, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's maybe something that should be.
Councilman Wing: So, issues to be brought up.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And that's why we have to go through that feasibility.
Councilman Mason: I do sometimes worry about if we, it's kind of assumed. I'm
glad Charles made the comment that just because we have a feasibility study
doesn't mean we have to do it. I mean I want to see a trall there. Oon't get
me wrong folks, but. I hope thls all works out. I'd love to have a tra11
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anybody who'd like to say something?
George Dorsey: My name's George Oorsey. I don't know if there's any difference
between a sldewalk and a trall but if you're only going to bulld something 8
feet wide, an area that I came from there's Rollerblading. There's bicycles.
There's people walklng. There's people pushing pushcarts. When you have 8 feet
ulde, when you get more people out here, you'd better think about expanding them
or building two trails or a road or there's going to be a lot of people very
angry having $600,000.00 stuck into something that nobody can use. There's
trall golng around Lake Harrlet in Minneapolis. One person's been kllled by a
bicycles coming down. These bicyclists are going 30 mph, 50 mph. I don't know
how fast they go nowadays but coming down that road, they get up good speed and
all you have to do is have somebody knocked off and 8 feet's not very wide. And
the solution is to expand it wlder or put one beside it do something else so
lt's something to bear in mind in your feasibility.
Councilman Wing: Mike, on Minnewashta Parkway. I think the feasibility study
should define a 10 foot trail because we already decided an 8 loot's not
acceptable or MnOot standards or whatever. We want 10 feet on Minnewashta
Parkway right?
Charles Folch: No, actually we looked at two options of either going 6 or going
8 and we opted with going with the 8.
Councilman Senn: 8 was our standard as I understood it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to make a statement?
42
City Council Heeting - Hay 24, 1993
Jim Andrews: I was at both meetings. Z~m Jim Andrews.-I live at 7014 Sandy
Hook Circle.. I'm also on the Park Board.. I would Just-like to reinforce what
was already said that this is part 'of our Comp'Plan and part of OUFl trail system
and is a part of our city on a very, very busy road and with traffic projection
figures which [ could give you if you wanted to sit here'and listen to it all
but It's a very busy road that' does demand a:pedestrIan way that's safe. We
have several neighborhoods that are isolated from the city and from our park
systems or from our other traiks which are available to our other citizens and a
feasibility study is necessary as the first step in. hopefully proceec~ng with
the future construction of this trail. So I would ask that you pass this
enthusiastically with the intent of moving foward toward construction.. Thank
you.
..
Councilman Wing: Jim, could I just ask you a question? What if we came back
and said to the most impacted people, which are going to be TH 101 people
clearly. What if you had to pay $100.00-$200.00-$300.00 assessment?
Jim Andrews: I hate to answer questions on behalf of other people.
Councilman Wing: No, just you. Would you even. entertain an assessment if
necessary?
Jim Andrews: I look at it two ways. I guess I'd come back and ask a question
and that Is, what are the people on Hlnnewashta Parkway paying for their, trail,
which I believe is zero. But at the same time, if you put the question to me,
if the choice was no trail or pay $250.00, I would have my check here tomorrow
morning at 8:00.
Councilman Wing: Thanks.
Carol Leslie: Hy name is Carol. Leslie .and. I.:live. on Sandy-Hook Circle as'well
and I~ll write you my check-for $250.00 as weil.-~.Uery quickly. -Yot~ know I've
been driving around Chanhassen and'.there-are many. other trails and some '-
beautiful parks in other parts of Chanhassen and along the route proposed trail-
areas of high value homes that obviously pay a great deal or-:property:taxeS to
the city and what we're asking for are some of the amenities that are already
enjoyed by other Chanhassen residents. I want to, I'd like you.Council members
to think of how you'd feel if your children could not get out of their
neighborhood. Just could not go into the neighborhood, next door to play with a
friends they went to school with. Or they could never take advantage of a
Chanhassen city park because they can't possibly'get there unless we'drive them
there because that's how we are. We-are absolutely-land locked in. And it's
been in the paper that the city owns land in the center-of-'Chanhaeeen and-wants
to develop in the future into a recreation center. How are our children going
to get to this proposed center without endangering themselves? 'It would be
impossible so we need this trail. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. If not, we have a motion on the floor. With a second
to authorize the preparation of the feasibility study, for Trunk Highway [01 :.-
trail, Project 88-22B-6.
.
..
.
.
..
..
43
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Re;olution ~93-48: Councilman Ming moved, Councilman Senn seconded to authorize
the preparation of a feasibility study for TH 101 trail, project 88-228-6. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DRUG POLICY FOR CITY EHPLOYEES,
Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk if everyone has had the opportunity to review this, Todd
probably can address this. Much of this has been put before our people within
the city and support the posltion that's here. Todd, do you want to just touch
on it briefly?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure Mr. Mayor. City Council. In front of you tonight is the
City of Chanhassen's official policy on a drug free work place. This policy
came to light during our clty audit process this year. The City recelves
federal dollars through our Community Development Block Grant allocations and
with that the Clty must have a drug policy in place in receiving those dollars.
From that I put a policy together from private consultant provided me u£th a
draft copy and from that I passed it out to employees for their revleu and
comment. [t was pretty positive comments that I received from all employees
that were in favor of such a policy. Thls klnd of surprised me because ! mean
this will impact all employees in that they will have to live by these rules.
And they all saw the 11ght and felt that they wanted to work ina safe and drug
free environment. Tonight I would recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed draft as outllned in the packet.
Mayor Chmiel: I would make the motion that we do it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the City of
Chanhassen's Official Drug Free Morkplace Policy as outlined in draft form.
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENT TO TH~ YOUTH .CO~H~SSION.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Hayor, City Council members. At the request of the
School District ~112, the Chanhassen adult representative for the Youth
Commission. That posltion was advertised as a vacancy. Ms. Susan Hurm of 8542
Flamingo Orlve currently holds that position. She accepted it as an uncompleted
term and she would like to continue serving on that commission. Ms. Hurm has
addressed the Counc11 as you wlll recall representing the Commission on several
occasions. With the knowledge that Susan.
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to appoint Susan Hurm as
the adult representative from Chanhassen to the District 8112 Youth Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
44
City Counc£1 Meeting - May 24, ~993
COUNC:]:L PRIESIENTATXONS=
Councilman Ming: One real quick item. Park and Rec discussed park deficiency
£n the west end and my £ntent£on £n my comments tonight have nothing to do with
living there or being involved in that area whatsoever. ! want to make that
clear. Other than It's an issue of open Land. StrictLy an issue that #here the
city's growing, the Land's being speculated. The land's being eaten up. There's
I think what, $Z50,000.00 In escrow. There's land avaiLabLe. Land being sold.
Land being promised, etc, etc. But I think that Todd has discussed the issue
with Park and Rec that £f we're going to have a park out there, and just do the
basic amenity park on the west end, the city's got to moths no~ or not at all.
$~50,000.00 won't do lt. And could you just address that issue a LittLe blt?
(There was a tape change at this point ~n the discussion.)
ADNINISTRRTIVE PRESENTATIONS: ISTF~ GR~NT Ai~ TO CONSTRUCT
BRIDGE OUER H~6H~Y 5. PL~J~NIN6 DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss= ...we need to build a series of three brLdges...on Highway 5. And
there's a significant city share...If this winds up with the Horrish plan, it
fits in well with the school site. It fits in weLL with the Highway 5 plan
we've done to date. But if we Look towards asking ISTER funding for tho~e
br£dges and traiLs...Hlghway S and you have each access boulevard on each side.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Send them $3,000.00 and Just give a shot at it. It
seems worth it.
Paul Krauss: It may be a more...project out there, I don't know.
Mayor ChmteL: Yeah, there could be.. For instance where we haven't Looked at
with the Park and Ride in connection with the existing TH 10! Legion site and
things of that nature.
Paul Krauss= Hayor, the reason why e did the...is I still don't have the
agreements of Hortenson, Southwest Metro, the Legion for commercia~
deveLopment...That's why I'm real hesitant to represent that. Otherwise it's a
perfect project.
Don Ashworth: ~hat about TH 101? The project, the feasibility study we just
authortzed.
Paul Krauss: Sell, that's another one. Now what we have to do is...
Hayor Chmiel: You're right. That's exactly right and I th~nk with aLL that
information that I brought back, you should have that in there and it
specificaLLy speLLs it out. ALL those criterhs.
Paul Krauss: Why don't we plan on, we'll touch base with you...
45
City Council Heeting - Hay 24, 1993
Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Ming seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting Mas adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Hanager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46