1992 04 27CZTY COUNC]]. HEETZN6
REGULAR BEET]JiG
tPRTL 27, 19~2
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting uss opened
uith the pledge to the Flag.
~JtSER~ PRESENT: Nayor Chmiel, Councilman Hason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
Wing and Councilwoman Dtmler
ST~FF PRESENT: Don ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott
Herr, Paul Krauss, Kate aanenson, and Sharaln al-3aff
~PROiNM. OF ~i[~: Councilwosan Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
approve the agenda as presented, all voted In favor and the motion carried.
PUBLZC {MtNOU#CEIiENTS:
R. PROI~_IYJIlkT]:ON ESTit~u__TSH/14G I'MY 17-?~_. 1992 irks Ni~T/~ PUBLZC IJOItlr~ iJEEK.
Mayor ChmleL: We have a couple public announcmnts this evening.. One being
the proclamation establishing May 17-23, 1992 as National PubLic Works Week.
And it reads, Whereas, Public Works Services provided tn our community are an
integral part of our citizen's everyday lives; and Whereas, the support of an
understanding and informed cttizentry is v£tal to the efficient operation of
public works systems and programs such as. water~ sewer, streets'and hlghuays,
public buildings, solid waste collection and sno~ removal; and Whereas, the
health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends upon these
facilities and services; and Whereas, the quality of effectiveness of these
facilities aa well as their planntng~ design and construction ts vitally
dependent upon the efforts and skl~l of pubLic, works, officials; and Whereas, the
efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel'who staff public works
departments ts materially Influenced by the people's att£tude and understanding
of the importance of the work they perform. -No~, Therefore, I,.Oonald 3.
Chmlel, by virtue and authority vested In me a8 Hayor of the Clty'of Chanhassen,
do hereby proclaim the week of Hay 17-23, 1992 as National Public Works ~eek In
the City of Chanhassen, I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to
aquaint themselves with the problems Involved'tn providing our pubL1c works and
to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to
our health, safety and comfort. It's dated april 27, 1992. 'And there~s'.many
times that these people are really unsung heroes. They're the people that do
get out there and plow those streets for us first thing in the morning when-we
need them. We've had a couple times where-us'ye had a few, termed.as blizzards.
They may not have been as efficient as they normally are on all other times but
because of the total amounts of snow, we have to take into consideration It just
takes a little longer time for them to get this accomplished;. But all tn'all I
think they did a terrific job this past October and the one that we had
following that storm. Z really sort of saIute them for the ~obs that they
performed.
RemaXutXon ~'92-52: Hayor Chats1 moved, Councilwoman Dialer ~econded to approve
the reaolutXon establishing the ~eek of Hay 17-23, 1992 a~ HatfonaX Publ/c IJork~
Meek. all voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
B. PROCLAtfl%TION DECLARING TE ~ONTH OF ~ay AS OLOER A~ERICAIB ~ONTH.
Mayor Chaiel: The second proclamation declaring the month of May as Olders
Americans Month. This is a resolution as ! have indicated and tt reads as such.
Whereas, many of Minnesota's 700,000 older adults are at risk of losing the
independence they may have enjoyed during most of their adult lives because of
physical or mental impairments, abuse, neglect, malnutrition and a lack of
competent caregiver; and Whereas, an expanded commitment will be needed by these
organ£zations already ~nvolved in eldercare, and a new commitment from
organizations not traditionally involved with the older population to
incorporate eldercare on their agendas; and Whereas, for those struggl£ng to
stay independent ~n their homes and their communities and for those with older
family members needing assistance for those balancing the needs of younger
family members and their jobs and older famtly members, eldercare can make a
difference; and Whereas, all Minnesotans are encouraged to become aware of the
tssues relating to aging and the needs of the at rlsk older population,
providing a challenge to each of us to commit ourselves to actions for their
behalf, thus proclaiming the theme "Eldercare-Independence for 01der
Mtnnesotans"; passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 27th day of
Apr11, 1992. Oftentimes ! guess we're all going to get there and I'm
approaching it quickly as well, as anybody else. But it Is. It's something
that we do have to take care of our elderly.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you want a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We don't need a motion. It's just, oh yes ! think I will
because it's by Council. I will have a motion.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution ~92-~3: Counclluoaan Dialer moved, Councllaan ~orkman seconded to
approve the resolution proclateing the aonth of I~ay as 01der aaerlcans ~lonth.
All voted tn favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT ~6ENI~: Councilman Workman moved, Counc[laoman D[mler seconded to
approve the follow/ng consent agenda 1teas pursuant to the City i~anager's
recoaaendations:
a. The Summit at Near Mountain, Project 92-4:
1) Approve Plans and Specifications
2) Approve Development Contract
f. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 7 (Building Code) and Chapter 19 (Water
Distribution and Sewage Disposal), Final Reading.
g. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2-68(a) Public Safety Commission,
Changing the Membership from 5 to ? Members for 3 Year Terms, Final Reading.
h. Wetland Alteration Permit to Create a Walker NURP Pond in a Class A Wetland
Located Adjacent to Silver Lake, Summit at Near Mountain, Lundgren Brothers
Construction.
City Council Nesting - April 27, [992
Final Plat Approval, Oakwood Estates, Eugene gutnn.
j. Approval of Accounts.
k. Approval of Minutes.
voted in favor and the notion carried.
Councilwoman Oimler: Item 2(b) is basically a change order to the Lake Ann Park
Utilities Project No. 91-15. Basically it's asking for about $13,000.00 plus
more for the project to do an RTU. My question was, if the RTU Is so important,
why wasn't it considered in the original cost? And then also you're proposing
to remove the emergency power generator and I'm wondering if that's going to
cause any problems.
Charles Folch: To answer your first question. I'm not sure why, there wasn't a
specific reason why it wasn't considered. I think it just may have been
overlooked as something that wasn't caught at the time that this uss being
proposed. This Improvement project as you're aware has been in discussion and
before you a number of times over the last couple of years and I think It's one
of those things that amy have Just slipped through the cracks. But nou that we
have our telemetry system up and running with all our wells and lift stations,
and as each development project comes on line, if there's a lift station
proposed on the project, as a part of that Improvement project we require then a
remote transmission unit also be construction with that lift station.' [t'only
serves to make sense that we continue this practice and maintain an RTU at this
lift station at the park.
Councilwoman Dialer: I was wondering if It's so important, why was it
overlooked to begin with? And how about the emergency power generator? We
don't need it anymore or are we replacing it with something else?
Charles Folch: It's actually the connection plug which I understand. It's a
recommendation that both the contractor and the project engineer made to Todd
Hoffman, the Park Coordinator and it was his-concurrence that this is something
that could be eliminated at any rate. The exact, detat[s I'm not-aware of.
Hayor ChmIel: Yeah, we did get a deduct on that total removal as well. Which
shows as $364.00. :
Councilman Wing: Hr. Hayor on clarification for myself. When we watch the
dollars so close, especially lately, uhere do we get $13,000.00 from all of a
sudden?
,.'
Councilwoman Dialer: Right.
Councilman Wing: Out of the '92 budget, where is this coming from? How are we
providing this?
Don Ashworth: Your sewer and water expansion fund and actually of all of your
funds where people have put away dollars for this purpose. To insure the
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
overall operations for sewer and water system. It's probably one of your
healthier funds. Although it's being funded through sewer and water, and
rlghtly so, it's because we're basically monitoring the sewer system as it's
associated with Lake Ann Park. I think that it's, they're dollars wtsely spent
because you are so close to the lake at that location. If there were any type
of problems whatsoever. Any form of a spill and we didn't know about it for
quite a period of time, we could do a lot of damage to the lake. Secondarily,
this is associated with a facility similar to Lake Susan. We have sensors tn
there that basically provlde an alert if there's been an intrusion into the
structure basically alarming the Sheriff's department. Where we have an
isolated structure 11ke Lake Ann, I thlnk that $13,000.00 as far as reduced
additional patrol costs, etc. will easily pay for ttself over a period of years.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, that's very true and that's one of the positions that I
supported about 2 1/2 years ago Richard. Because of the amount of time that we
mould have our people patrol each of the respective sewage 11ft stations every
day, 365 days of the year. That is eliminated.
Councilman Wing: Don, I guess what I'm saying here is that this isn't an
tncrease cost at Lake Ann. It's part of the city's overall project so that's
what I wasn't clear on.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Oimler: And on the same vein, it's not going to affect our bonding
capacity?
Don Ashworth= No. This is cash in hand.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. With that exclamation I move approval of item 2(b).
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: If I could add my discussion. I guess I can't argue with
the City Manager's concept that we need it and we're going to have it. It's
just that this expenditure ! think represents probably over 10~ of that actual
project cost and I guess we shouldn't look likely at it. I know when we had the
Lundgren deal in here over off Lake Lucy, we kind of had to add it in there
after the fact too and that's where I was saying to Terry Forbord that I mean I
can understand where he gets a 11ttle touchy because all of a sudden you add
$13,000.00 in costs. Although we're going to have to pick that up anyway. But
when lt's over 10~ of the actual total cost of the project, ! do get nervous
like the rest of everybody else here and I guess, while we're on that subject.
I guess I'd llke to, me never really, we talked about putting this telemetry
system in and saving so much time. Maybe we need to find out exactly what else
ls belng done at the time or where are we shlfting our time wlth that staff. I
can teIl you where maybe you might say it but maybe Charles, you and I can sit
down. We can talk about it because it appears as though that's an awful lot of
time that people are saving from not having to drive around the city. Are we
laying people off because of that? Are we shifting them?
City Council Meeting - Rpril 27, [992
Charles Folch: Maybe just in brief. That allows us more time to spend in
flushing hydrants, jet routing out city sewer system on a, instead of maybe
every 2 years, get the entire city completed, maybe we'll be able to get it
completed every year. We'll be able to go through the system. [t affords us to
the opportunity to go into structures that ue know-are possibly have some
infiltration Inflow in the manhole structures and doing some maintenance and
repairs to those things so there's plenty of work for the guys to do, believe
me. Hopefully now over the next 5 years we can catch up on It so.
Mayor Chmiel: And that too Tom is not a whole day. It's just a couple hours in
the morning that they do this.
Councilman Workman= ! know Jerry Boucher used to spend overtime hours didn't
he?
Don Ashuorth= No, he took Thursday afternoon and worked Saturday mornings as a
replacement.
councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to look into that a little closer. Maybe
we can talk about that.
Hayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution ~92-54: Counciboaan Dialer moved, Councilman Huon ~econded to
approve Change Order No. I to Lake Ann Park UtU/tJ~, Project fi-B. P.[I ~oted
in fauor and the notion carried unanJ~ously.
E. ~PPROVE ST__C, NAL 3USTIFICATEN _I~_PORT FOR TR~TIC S/GNALS ON WEST XSTH 'STREET
AT GI~___~T PLATJIS-__ROULE~ ~ND ~ ltOULEV~RO. ~JT~ PREI~EiiTION OF
pt,~dqS MqD SPECIFICATIONS, PRO3ECT 92-7. -'
Councilman Workman: Maybe I didn't read this memo correctly. What exactly are
we approving right now? We're approving the report that will really eventually
lead to these signals? I know we talked about all this. Is this not, where
does the HRA come in on this? Kicking in funds only?
Charles Folch: As I mentioned in the report, the central business district
traffic study which was completed in the Fall of 1990 by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch
basically outlined immediate problems with the downtown system that needed to be
improved and also forecasted future improvements that would beneededbased on
projected Increase in traffic flow and-also.Increase tn retail development In
the central business district. As I understand it, both the Council-and the HRA
went through review processes of this. There's a traffic study and basically
adopted the traffic study plan. The next step then is to implement some of the
recommendations that came out of the study, one of which of course is dea[ing
immediately with the intersection of West 78th Street and Great Plains as it
re[ares to both improving the geometrIcs of that Intersection by doing.some
modifications to the medians. Improving truck turning.-radtus and such and also
with the installation of a traffic signal-which Mas basically outlined In the
original traffic study as being an immediate improvement needed: as far as tt
relates to Harket Square or the Market Blvd; intersection with West 78th Street,
that was also an intersection identified as probably-needing a signal:system In
the future pending both population growth and retail development, square footage
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
growth. They have performed, what the signal justification part has done is
basically gone through and evaluated these intersections based on the warrants.
There's 12 warrants basically or criteria that are evaluated for an intersection
to determine whether it would warrant the installation of a signal system. And
what the report basically has stated is that both these intersections need
warrants for the installation at this point in ttme.
Councilman Workman: When I came on the Council I had the proud honor of saying
that road aln't mine because I didn't approve that road. And that road is the
single most irritating thlng in the city next to the barricade on Teton Lane.
And when I approve this, that road now becomes mlne too. And I'm still not
comfortable because we know the road ls bad and the people who talk to me on a
weekly basis about that road being bad, never say throw up a bunch of signals.
Although that might be the way to do it and I know we've gone over wlth Strgar
and all the details. There's just something band-aid looking at these signals,
which lsn't golng to improve the aesthetics any. And I fear that once ! approve
this that we're surely on our way to signals and I still don't feel that
comfortable about it and I guess I'd 11ke to have the feellngs of the rest of
the Counctl before they make it their own too.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had discussions today with Con as well in regard to
this. And some of my basic concerns, even with Strgar-Roscoe's determination
that the signalization is going to be needed in two locations. I don't dlsagree
probably with one of those locations and that we have to have an intermittent
stop inbetween so the other traffic on other streets that parallel or go out on
78th, have that stop time. My major concern with Great Plains and 78th Street
is that a lot of this was taken durlng the time st111 TH 101 is on our main
street. Secondly, with the changing of TH 101 which will be going directly out
to TH 5 at the intersection of McDonald's and the Sinclair, that will no longer
come through downtown. And yet I feel that there's something still missing. I'm
not sure whether that's the place we should have it. And I know that If we
signalize that particular intersection, we would then be having arrows pointing
and giving people direction as to which way to go. When you get people coming
into town and going to the Oinner Theatre, I know I just recently met one on the
wrong side of the road. They dldn't know exactly where they were golng. And
there was one concern that I've had and it isn't the first time I've seen that.
But it ls wlth the total traffic flow that came through there and I guess that's
one of the real concerns I mentioned way back when as well. Because of TH 101
no longer being on Great Platns, that ts going north. Just to me doesn't seem
that there's going to be that much traffic on there. And I know ue have
somewhere in the neighborhood of how many vehlcles in a 24 hour period there?
The numbers were.
Councilman Workman: 12,000.
Mayor Chmlel: I was going to say 8. Is it 127 Okay. A lot of those were
people coming off of TH 5 and wanting to go on TH 101. And what numbers those
were, that's part of my concern. And how do we decipher what the total count is
and after once that's done, I think that should be looked at. Once the roadways
are done and changes are taken place and I know that we're going to have
probably more traffic at that intersection because of closing down TH lOl for a
perlod of tlme and having different directions. But I know that some of that is
going to be there. And it's probably going to increase at that time. My
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
thinking is once those two roads get completed with the connection to TH 5, I'd
like to see what happens after that before we move ahead and put a stop and go
system. Stop and go light system in that location. I guess I feel pretty much
like Tom does.
Councilwoman Dim[er: ! think with the expense of a light, especially at Great
Plains, I don't think at this It's warranted either because of we want to ese
what TH 101 and TH S ts going to be like. What the traffic is going to be like
after those are in. I'm questioning Harket Blvd.. Z do see people having
trouble getting into the flow during peak hours. But at Great Plains I'm
wondering, and I know we've probably discussed stop signs.
Hayor Chmie[= And you're looking at total cost, yeah.
Councilwoman Otmler: Cheaper.
Hayor Chmie[: Oh those, and I think I've mentioned it before. Roughly about
$120,000.00 to maybe $140,000.00. Somewhere in that neighborhood. But I want
to make sure then that this is what we have. I don't know what that does as far
as the balance of it.
Don Ashworth: Denny, did you want to address any of these issues at this point?
I think trying to put stop signs at Great Plains, given the size of that
intersection, would be very difficult to do. And I did mention to the Mayor
this morning that the engineers are really concerned because when we do take
down TH lO[, so you no longer wi[[ be able to get through'that intersection and
we're estimating probably 6 month-build out time frame. That means ail of the
traffic on TH lO1 will come down to the Great Plains intersection. And with
that, there will be a lot more of that traffic that will be making left turn
movements, which is a difficult one. We're fortunate that most of the traffic
coming down TH lOl today is taking a right and coming into the heart of town.
But when that intersection goes down, a lot of that wi[[ be taking a [eft.
Naybe what we need to do is try to quantify these numbers a little bit more for
the Council. Oid you again wish to speak on any of these Issues?
Oennis Eyler: Yeah, I think there's two issues here. One is, I'm not real
familiar exactly with the numbers.
Nayor Chmie[: Could you, so we have it on the record. --
Dennis Eyler: Sure. Ny name is Dennis Eyler.' I'm a principle with the firm of
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch. We're traffic engineering consultants of the city. One
of the concerns I have, and we haven't actually looked at what the diverted
traffic would be from TH lO1 during that closure for construction. We can do an
analysis of a stop sign, a[! way stop sign control at Great Plains with those
numbers on. That's a concern. I guess the numbers that are there today'
probably would work with an all way stop for some period of time. If one does
an economic analysis of de[aye and stops versus a traffic signal, typically an
intersection that meets signals warrants, also meets justification for an all
way stop. And the payback usually to the driver, now I realize there's no way
to capture that money out of the driver's pocketbook but his savings usually pay
for a traffic signal between 3 and 5 years and tn some cases even earlier on
reduced delay, reduce stops of having to go through an all way stop versus a
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
traffic signal. We could take another look at the numbers. We did do a license
plate check. We have some idea of what the through traffic is. We can fold
those numbers together. Look at what the detour volumes are and see what the
possibilities are during the detour phase. What the problems would be. In some
cases, temporary traffic signals are used but in this case, the cost of one of
those is like $25,000.00 in itself and for 6 months use, [ guess I'd question
that when if you are eventually going to wind up with a traffic signal in any
case, that's $25,000.00 that most of it is just a throw away item. It's labor
to put the thing up and get it operating. So I think it's a fair question and I
remember saying once during one of our earlier presentations here that putting
that first traffic signal into town, it's a big step because you have a
maintenance problem. You have costs associated with it and it's not to be taken
lightly. I guess I can respond to any other questions.
Councilman Workman: Does the Public Safety Director maybe have anything you
want to add? I mean, are the fatalities mounting up down there? I think people
are kind of getting used to that corner. You certainly see the ones who aren't.
Scott HarK: I don't have anything other than what's been said. Charles and I
have discussed different perspectives. Different approaches. I think it's an
engineering issue. Accident stats aren't tremendous there. I think accidents
that have occurred recently are more as a result of the detour. More a
convenience issue at this point.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm really pleased that Tom pulled this because it
bothered me all day and the thing that really set me off here, because I got
into quality of life. This proposed signal system will be a permanent, full
traffic, actuated traffic signal system with 4 phases. South thru eastbound
left, a westbound right, northbound and I saw half my life coming to a halt at
this intersection. And I don't mean that to be, I mean I'm being sarcastic but
to me it's not a funny issue. It's a quality of life and I see stop signs as an
absolute last resort or stop lights. Especially at this intersection. And I've
been using it on a regular basis, morning, afternoon and night and I use it to
cut off of TH 5. I come whipping down by 3err¥ Schlenk's house, through that
intersection, back out to TH 5 and I'm way ahead of the game.
Councilman Hason: How fast were you going?
Councilman Wing: So the issue is, I have not seen disruptive traffic flow at
that intersection. At least to the point where I would justify a traffic light.
And geometrics is an issue but the geometrics, it's not our first try. It's our
second, third. What is it? Our third try in geometrics. It's a progression
down there. We keep trying to come up with new shapes and we wind up with the
same intersection with the same problems. We still jump the curbs with the fire
trucks every time we go around and it's just poor. It was stupid to begin with.
It's stupid today but at least it's flowing and it's moving and I would really
oppose a stop light there at this point so I think we seem to be in agreement on
that point.
Councilman Workman: Well I think the intersection actually fits our lifestyle.
It's the slip and shoot.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: ! think Mike and ! use that quite often as well and we normally
see each other either in front or back. And it is, and you watch a[[ that
traffic going off onto TH 101. The same traffic is coming back from TH 10!
going south Is the same amount of traffic so [ know there's a tremendous amount
of flow of cars that leave that particular area. Once they come in on Great
Plains and snake through TH 101.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Also, during the diversion when Dakota Avenue area
is closed, it may be necessary for us to tn fact assign a CSO or even a County
car there to direct traffic during a peak time. To keep traffic flowing but I
wou[d much rather do that than to go through the expense and permInence of a
traffic light that may wash out not being needed with the new road system. At
[east not at this point. I'm opposed to this.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, if I could ask Mr. Eyler a question. We've
discussed Great Plains Blvd. quite a bit but ~ould you address Market Blvd. now?
Because if we table one, we're going to table both.
Oennls Eyler: Well Market Blvd. is Just into that threshhoId where the volumes
are justified. One of the other discussions we had earlier was in trying to
create gaps at some of the other intersections along 78th Street. There were
some problems at Kerber and problems at Laredo and the suggestion was at one
time to instal[ a stop sign. An all way stop sign at one of those intersections
and which one. One of thee works pretty good for the morning and one of them
works pretty good for the .afternoon but no one location works good-for both peak
hours and you lose any platooning of traffic you'have and gap selection."
Oownstream of a 4 way stop gets to be a problem.and that's one thing-! .caution-
you about putting one in at 78th too...might degrade some intersections that are
away from that intersection. It's in there. The volumes have just crossed that
threshhold. ! guess it's a matter of tieing. It's in the eye of the beholder.
Signal warrants are not necessarily Justification. That Just means that you
have the numerical criteria that says that this is economically viable form of
traffic control for that .intersection. The trade-off of doing some-other kind
of traffic control have been crossed'into the boundary'where the signal is.
deemed most efficient. That doesn't mean that if the intersection is thought to
be operating properly, that you're opening yourself up for some liability'by not
Installing one. It's just a matter of time that it's going to be Inevitable.
I guess if tying it to some other work in the area or tying the.t~o projects
together, there was some slight cost-savings on that basis but that's your
decision on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And ! realize that and every time you come to the
Intersection of Market Blvd. now, cross 78th Street, that is If you're going
north on Market, then turning west on 78th, you sit. there and you give yourself
a quick blessing because there's al! between cars, they are a little congested
within that area. It's hard to come off of that. Now that CR [7 is closed.
Dennis Eyler: I'm sure with CR 17 closed, you're getting.
Mayor Chmiel: And so consequently, you have to be on your guard and I think
those are something that we're going to have to look at in a short per[od of
time. But I think really as far as the balance of this, I'd like to see us find
out what we are diverting off of TH rOI so we really know. As It comes-time for
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
that light to go in at some time down the road, 2 years or a year or whatever it
might be, then to take that information and consider put in that Light if the
need is really there.
Councilman Workman: Would tabling be the wrong thing7 Are we not going to look
at it or just to not approve the justification report?
Mayor Chmlel: I thlnk at this particular time, I thlnk it would be best
probably to table to get the additional information. And then we can move on it
accordingly after that.
Councilman Workman: I would move to table.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmlel: There's a motion on the floor wlth a second. Any discussion?
Additional discussion.
Councilman Wing: Are we kind of looking at maybe kind of a low priorlty table?
We don't need it back right away?
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, no. No, we don't. But whenever they get some tlme to do
what we need.
Councilman Workman moved, Counciluoman Dimler seconded to table item (e), signal
justiflcatlon report for traffic signals on West 78th Street at Great Plains
Blvd. and Harket Blvd. for more study. A11 voted in favor and th~ motlon
carried unanimously.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, members of the Counc11. I'm Bob Worthington, Opus
Corporation. 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, MN. I'm here as a follow-up to a
discussion that you had at your last Counctl meetlng relative to the feasibility
report for the Upper Bluff creek Oistr~ct. Subsequent to that meettng I sent a
letter to the Clty Manager wlth a copy to you Mayor requesting an opportunity to
appear on tonight's agenda to discuss the phasing aspect. I received no
response to my request and therefore feel that the only way that ! could perhaps
get further discussion on this item is to appear as a visitor this evening to
state Opus' concerns as well as that of Gateway. Of the Chaska Gateway Partners
on the phasing aspect. If that is appropriate, I'd like to proceed with a
couple minute presentation.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Bob Worthington: We discovered subsequent to our presentation at the last
Council meeting that the phasing proposal which the City, with it's consultants
had declded to phase the improvements on thls project. That the phaslng
proposal did not contain the Chaska Gateway Partners property wlthin the first
phase of development. It was our error. We klnd of got the report late in the
day. That's no excuse for us having had ample opportunity to review it but we
didn't. We thought that the only response that that report contained, which we
reviewed was to comments that we had made at the previous hearing on the
10
City Council Heeting - April 27, [992
feasibility report and that basically was concern with cost. And I think ue
adequately stated our concerns with cost and I don't think ~e ~ant to go into
that at this point. However, when it was discovered that ue were'not Included
in the first phase of the feasibility report and recommendation of the Council,
we felt that we'd like to revisit that topic, which we have done. And now
understanding better what it is that the City has in mind in terms of phasing,
have no objections to be included in Phase 2, if indeed Phase 2 makes the
appropriate assumption that the Phase 2 improvements which perhaps will include
our property will authorize the extension of utilities in the spring of 1999 to
our property. [f that is a correct assumption, then we have no objections to
proceeding as you have and ! th~nk ! have a letter here which I'd like to pass
out to you which officially now states our position relative to the phasing of
your utilities. However, if we are incorrect in our assumption that.this
phasing can have a opportunity-for us to extend those utilities in [993 to this
property, then I'd like to discuss that further at this time. So that basically
is our position Mr. Mayor and ['d like to answer any questions you may have and
if none, then thank you for your attention.-.
Mayor Chmiel: ! think Oon is reviewing your letter and maybe there may be some
response to this.
Don Ashuorth: As a separate item in this packet, and I apologize to Mr.
~orthington. [ did receive your letter. I'm not quite sure as to the timing of
that. Concern over some of the assessment portions and ! must concentrated more
on your concerns with the level of assessment and how they're being applied more
so than the request to be placed onto an upcoming agenda~ I'honestIy missed
that fact.
Bob Worthington: We both had the same selective attention grabbers that we paid
attention to during that report.
Don Rshworth: ~s it deals with the potential extension of sewer, I think-that
the other report deals with the Near Hountain/l. undgren propert£es. Potential
extension of sewer where we had tabled that'item to kind of look at our overall
financial position. It is really part of the quest[on that Bob is asking. I
guess what I would like to do is have'an opportunity, and we-traded telephone
calls here today. Have an opportunity to meet with Bob to take a look at this
proposal and make a determination. Ooes it meet some of the financial tests
that I basically had outlined in the report to the City Council regarding the
Lundgren Bros. proposal. So ! would, as a Visitor Presentation you're not ready
to take action anyway. [ would suggest that you instruct staff to ~ork with Hr.
Worthington to prepare a report so it'can be-considered for your-next City~.'
Council agenda addressing the issues that he has presented as well'as the fiscal
financial impact and the tests that I established under that separate
memorandum.
Hayor Chmiel: I would so move. Is there a.second?
Councilman Hason: Second.
Hayor Chmiel: Oiscussion.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Wing: The only question I've got also, relates to the fact that this
is part of a stretch that not too many weeks ago we discussed the moratorium on
and making that a formal moratorium on building until we get the corridor study.
We've elected not to do that and not charge the owners and developers with such
a move. But this does fall in our right kind of the middle of our TH 5 corridor
study. Oon, I'd like you to address that issue also because I think it's fair
that these people be fully aware of what we're trying and attempting to do out
there. How this might be affected by that, if at all.
Don Ash~orth: As another item within your packet is a proposed work schedule
associated with our corridor plan. Hopefully what will be achieved through that
process, who potential players may be on the task force that would sit and
potentially look at what type of restrictions we may be placing on properties.
It may include setback. It may include density. It may include preservation of
wetlands, etc., etc.. That also is another report that Mr. Worthington should
take a look at and potentially their firm may be one of them that may even sit
on that group and they may want to consider that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I don't know if you've seen this particular study that
we've gone through. If not, I'd like to give you this copy for you to take
along because I do have an additional copy.
Bob Worthington: To answer your question, yes. We have seen that study. Mr.
Krauss gave us a copy when we had an earlier meeting with him but I'll take
another copy. And the other request is, could we have, included in your meeting
with Mr. Worthington portion of that proposal, arepresentative from the Chaska
Gateway Partnership.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. A motion was on the floor with a second.
Oiscussion that Oon had indicated.
Councilwoman Dimler: Normally ue don't approve...on Visitor presentations.
Mayor Chmiel: No ue don't approve anything on this as a presentation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to suspend the rules?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we will. We'll need to suspend it. I would
suggest that we remove the first and second and just carry it through and Bon
will take care of that.
PUBLIC_ HEARING: FEASIBILITY..STUDY UPOAT£ FOR COUNT_Y ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH
OF TH 5. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLAN~ AND. SPECIFICATIONS. PRO3ECT~O-4.
Public Present:
NaRe Addrea~._
Julius Smith
Don Patton
7600 France Avenue So., Minneapolis
7600 Parklaun
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. From discussion at the March
23rd meeting when this report was received, you directed staff to investigate
12
city council Heeting - ~pr£1 27, 1992
the opportunity of whether a bitu~inous overlay option would be economically
feasible as coapared to the proposed totaL, reconstruction of this portion of
CR 17 south of TH 5. Staff has gone back and revie~ed eoae of the very lengthy
files and the project h£story and [t became evident that the bituminous overlay
option was Investigated during the original feasibility process back in 1990.
At that time It was found that due to extensive pavement-removaLs that would
occur on the project for storm sewer, hand hold electrical co~duIt, and removal
for installation of curb and gutter, that overlay would only be Limited to
limited areas of the roadway section. [t was also Looked at the existing
condition of CR [7. That was found that there were numerous, both transverse
and lateral cracking on the roadway with also some portions of allIgatortng
which would tend to l[a[t the opportunity to overlay on these port[one of the
roadway also. Discussions with Carver County, they have Indicated that this
road has been very susceptible to frost heaving during the opting thaw due to
poor subgrade drainage problems. Rnd they.also aentioned, that they had. done
some significant patching to this portion of the. roachmay dur£ng the 199[, early
summer of 1991. So back at that time, the previous city engineer who considered
this also, est[aa[ed that an overlay option for this project would probably last
only about 4 to 5 years. Rnd then what would happen, due to the subgrade
probleas that are currently there, you ttould still continue to .have the-frost
action which would then just produce cracks to the new surface. BasicalLy
cosaet[c surface overlay that would be placed. So the previous engineering
consultant de[stained that it was not really-a feasible option from a long [era
standpoint to do the b[tuatnous overlay. Rnd fro~ Looking at the previous
history, I would tend to agree..-I've also discussed this option with Roger
Gustafson, the Carver County Engineer. He had Indicated that he ~ould not
support an overlay option as a part of this laproveaent project. There's an
attached letter froa our project consultant engineer which further describes
more of the history of these aspects [n detaiL. The staff report also contains
a revised cost estIaate and asseseaent roll for this project. Our project
consultant engineer is available here tonight to-provide answers to any
quest[one that eight coae up during the public hearing.
'.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. Rs I mentioned before, this ts-a public
hearing. ~nyone ~Ish[ng to approach us at this given time,, please come
forward. State your name and your address and who, [f you are representing
eoaeone.
3ulIus Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name ts 3ulIus Smith. Ny
off[ce is at 7600 France Rvenue in Edina. i'm here representing instant Webb,
United Mailing, Victory Envelope and the landou~rs that own all of Park Tm 2~cl
~ddit[on and all of Park Two ~hIch essentially Is 4 pieces of property. T~o on
each side of the road. It's the Instant Webb property and Victory E~velope
property, United Hailing property and a vacant lot on the corner of TH 5 and
CR 17. There are two /teas we'd like to refer to on this. One ts physics! and
one [s financial Involving this project. The store water, plans as proposed
allow for the filling of that pond that wa~ there. That was always going to be
te=porary un[ti some[lam that that storm se~er #as put In. The pond on Lot 2,
Block 3. ~nd the plan as proposed does in fact drain that and allow us to fill
that pond and saooth that over and [t will drain that pond. UnfortunateLy, [t
doesn't take care of the storm water for the rest of the parking lot on /ns[ant
Webb. The ~est half. ~e've already paid assessments on the east half and that
project was a different store surface water project. On the rest of the Instant
L3
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
Webb property, putting in the storm drain or the manholes as it currently is
designed is not low enough to drain our loading dock areas and our parking lots.
And so we did talk to this with one of the engineers from Chanhassen who said he
would refer this to the consultant in the hope of lowering that manhole where it
crosses CE 17 at Park Drive or Park Road, so that's low enough that we can put
in a pipe that will drain those parking lots after our pond is covered up. So
I'd certainly like to see that looked at by the consulting engineer and we'd
like to be kept posted on that because we'd be totally unable to drain that
property unless that's done. The second one has to do with the financial side
of this. We looked at the costs on this project and needless to say we were a
little stunned but it's my understanding that because of the buildings that are
done in there and that am'ye created in there, that we qualify for an offset on
those assessments. The TIF credits are sufficient to pay those proposed
assessments and if that's the case, well it'd be pretty hard for us to object to
the proposal and it's my understanding that we would be amending these project
agreements to take care of that matter. If that's the case, we don't have an
objection to it. I mean, if it's not the case, well then we might.
Don Ashworth: If I may respond. The three properties that Mr. Smith referred
to did not participate, or only ainorly in the HRA special assessment reduction
agreement recognizing the original roadaay that was paid for by Carver County.
Accordingly, Todd has gone back. Relooked at the figures and has stated that
the three properties all qualify under the special assessment reduction
agreement if again Hr. Smith would make application for his clients. Sufficient
increment has been generated to pay off those assessments for each of the three
that he referred to.
Julius Smith: Now how do we follow through with the engineer? Will they
contact us about? I know they're going to look at some possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me get that addressed. Charles?
Charles Folch: Yeah, we are currently investigating. I made contact with our
consultant. We are investigating all the elements of that lssue. Unfortunately
as of tonight we still don't have an answer to that but we are working on it.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words, we'll be getting back to you with some of the
answers. In the meantime, necessary paperwork that you have to do. Come in and
get that fllled out.
Julius Smith: Alright. What does that require now? A letter on our part or
request.
Don Ashworth: For which of the two?
Roger Knutson: Special assessment reduction.
Don Ashworth: You can simply visit with Todd.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you have a total on your assessment amount?
Julius smith: t'm sorry.
14
City Council Heet[ng - RprIl 27, [992
Counctluoman Dimler: Do you know the total on your assessment amount for your 3
or 4 parcels?
Julius Smith: Within $500.00. $5~0,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimlsr: Thank you. And TIF ts 'going to pick that up?
flayor Chmiel: He gives some, and take some. Is that what you're saying 3ulius?
As I mentioned before, this ts a public hearing. If anyone else wlshIng to
approach this and discuss this, this is your opportunity.
Counciiaan ~orkaan ammd, Counoil~oaan Dialer seconded to close the public
hearlng. All voted In favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as
closed.
Don Ashworth: Todd did get an opportunity to talk to the people from Empak. !
think all of the abutting owners who ! think with the !nstant gebb, etc. will
benefit because having an urban section tn there in..comparlson wtth the rural
sect[on and that will allow for the typical street lights as they occur in the
other parts of the business park. That type of...ltterally get down to our park
area. The other property owner who does benefit potentially even more so is
Empak. The dollars in here remove that hump In the roadway. !f you go down by
Lake Susan, that was a surcharge area that we have very poor soils, ge knew
that you were going to take that out of there. !t needed to come out but for
that 2-3 year period of time it needed to be there to solidify those soils. See
you only have a temporary road section tn there for that first 300-400 feet.
this project takes care of that as well as agaIn...the typ£cal section that you
have elsewhere within the business park. Again ! think Empak LS one of the
benefactors and they do support the project.
Councilman Workman: I was just going to ask the questlon,-how old Is the road?
Hayor Chmiel: The existing road?
Don Ashworth: It was built in about 1976 to 1978. Right around 1978.
Mayor ChmIel: Any other discussion? Ursula.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. I noticed in here that you did check with the
County and they did indicate that they uou[d not support the overlay
alternative. !'m Just wonderingwho has jurisdiction over thls? Is the County
above the City or the City? Since the C£ty ts paying, do we have more
jurisdiction or is the County helping to pay for some of this? Or how are we
interrelating with the County here?
Charles Folch: The County ts, from a financial standpoint, ts not participating
[n the project. However, being that this roadway ts under their Jurisdiction,
in order to do this project they have review and approval process of the project
plans and specif£oatIons. In addition, being.that It. Is on their CIP pro, ram,
the Carver County's program, to designate CR 17 as a State Aid Road, the project
plans and specifications will also go through State Aid review.
Councilwoman Olmler: Are we likely to get some State Aid?
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
Charles Folch: County. It would actually be for County State Aid. Not
municipal.
Councilwoman Dimler: The County would get the aid but not pass it on?
Charles Folch: Well in future years they would be able to draw needs on that
roadway system.
Councilwoman Dimler: So in effect you're saying, they're almost mandating that
we do it the expensive way because they won't support the overlay but there's no
financial assistance?
Charles Folch: Well, in a sense what they're saying is you're better off doing
nothing than spending the money to overlay the project. If you're going to do
the project, they're saying you're better off reconstructing it or not doing
anything at all. Is basically their position.
Councilwoman Dimler: What happens if we do nothing?
Charles Folch: Well the road will basically continue to worsen with time. The
County does not have this roadway scheduled for any improvements in the near
future as a part of their capital improvement program. Their dollars of course
are like ours, limited to a certain extent. And so that roadway will continue
to exist the way it is for some time. It appears that right now, due to the tax
increment opportunity that we have a viable means of getting the road
improvement project done at this point in time. When we feel it's most needed
to integrate, interface with some of the trunk highway improvement projects
going on and improvements in the downtown area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you guarantee that there won't be any cracking after
we go through this expensive project?
Charles Folch: Well, what will happen is, instead of, it's the intent of the
project to do significant sub cutting of the poor sotls throughout the roadway
and to also backf111 and create a system to drain the sub grade more
efficiently. Over time the blacktop itself, you know over a 10 to 15 year
period, in a sense dries out and it wl11, wlth a little bit of movement, wlll
crack but here again you're starting with a roadway. With a reconstruction
project you're starttng with a new roadway. New subgrade and you can expect a
design life of 20-25 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, could we, is this project maybe premature? Should
we wait until we can get the County to help us? Is it absolutely necessary at
this time?
Charles Folch: I guess maybe one of the keys is the unknown. At this point in
time it's not in their S year plan to expend any funds on that portion of CR 17.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the things you bring up the fact that the existing
or proposed construction with TH 5 and tying that intersection in w£11 also be
different than what it presently would be now.
City Council Meeting - april 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dialer= My concern is always, we think well TIF is going to take
care of it and it sounds so good but it's still the taxpayer that's paying for
it. I have a real problem with that.
Hayor Chmiel: any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've got a question. It's a real dumb one.
Nayor ChmIel: It's never a dumb question if it's asked.
Councilman Wing: If I had a little better feel for this I could have talked to
Charles. Oon, on the T[F. We're going to put T[F money into this which seems
to be kind of a strange place to be putting TZF money into rebuilding a road
that was kind of Just built that looks good to me to begin with. Why are we
putting TIF money Into this and what's the total amotmt of dollars we're putting
into this out of TIF?
Mayor Chmiel: $1,380,000.00.
Councilman Wing: So the whole thing Is really looked at out of TIF at this
point?
Don aehworth: Well there are some parcels in there that have not developed.
The Paul's property for example. [ think that:s the 9 acre parcel Just south of
the railroad tracks. It's on the right hand side of the road as you're going
south. I know that the amount, the Instant Webb0 United ~ailing, Victory
properties in there is a high dollar amount. $590,000.00 and ! don't think we
looked at that lightly but [ think it also, it should be remembered that those
property taxpayers are paying on an annual basis between, minimum, $&O0,O00.O0
to $700,000.00 just out of those three. Providing one year's Increment back to
thee to help benefit their properties ! don't think is unreasonable. ! did meet
with Mr. Carlson approximately 3 to 4 years ago and he was very much pushing for
it at that point in ttme. What I stated was, we can't really do this or even
consider it. ~ few things. Number one, you're doing, I Just used the word.
The fill area. The surcharge so that Lake Ortve had to be...and the surcharge
had to be down for a period of time. Number two,-the State Highway-Oepartment
had to be in and they had to build the new intersection so-you have someplace to
hook the curb and gutter too. We talked about the whole thing..-~e recognized
some of those Issues and it's taken a little longer to get to this point. Using
TIF dollars for public improvements is probably one of the strongest ways you
can use those dollars.
Councilman Wing: But it's still a road and I don't see it being much different
than the road in front of my house and I'm paying less taxes but maybe dollar
for dollar, tnput for Input, I may be paying more. I don't know ~ residential
and commercial taxes necessarily apply here but they have a lot more land, a lot
more building, a lot more assessed valuation. Am I paying more or less than
they are in reality we get in comparing apples and apples. I'm not arguing
because I don't want Hr. Smith to misconstrue my comments. I'm Just a little
stunned that we're putting.in a road that the neighborho~ has to pay. for
themselves. I don't see it as a necessary, pablic Improvement any more than a
public street in any neighborhood. I realize I can't talk intelligently about
this. This kind of helps clarify it a little bit. Thank you.
17
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Michael?
Councilman Mason: This would be part of what's going on TH 5?
Mayor Chmiel: A portion of it will.
Councilman Mason: So in that standpoint, assuming that it will be done sometime
in the future, I assume there would be some savlng lnvolved because there's
stuff happening at the same time? Is that a reasonable assumption?
Don Ashworth: I think we'd have to do more temporary sections at this point in
time if it was going to be delayed for a longer period. Yes. I mean and all
those temporary type of oonnecttons would have to be torn out at some polnt in
the future.
Councilman Mason: Charles, when do you see that falllng so badly that it has to
be replaced? What if we don't do anything now?
Charles Folch: Well, if we don't do anythlng now, ! guess it's up to the County
to continue to crack fill and overlay the bad sections that are alligatortng and
basically where the pavement ls falllng out, which there was 3 or 4 good slzed
sections that they overlayed last summer. Also, if you look at the roadway,
walk the roadway, you can see where the tlre tracks or where the vehicles would
normally drive. There's actually rutting occurring where you actually have the
dipping in the pavement and lt's going to contlnue to worsen. It's not our
maintenance responsibility but our residents still drive it. These businesses
in the industrial park st111 have to use lt. With some of the thlngs that we're
doing with Lake Drive and Park Road and such, is it compatible to leave a rural
section there which ls in bad condition and wlth lt's drainage problems there
when we have nice urban roadways that tie into it? That's more or less a
philosophy questlon or policy question but it will contlnue to worsen but it's
the County's responsibility to continue to maintain it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, could I ask for myself that we table this just to one
meeting only so that I can get myself educated. I'm kind of lost here and
I apologize for that but I really need to get up to date on what this is and
the ramifioatlons.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think is going to, this won't, this will be probably back
unttl May 18th. Ooes that make any difference as far as any of the construction
activities?
Charles Folch: Well, if we brought this back on the 18th, as you know this
project plans have pretty well been designed. I think what we were hoping to do
is basically get approval and as a formality authorize the preparation of plans
and specs even though they have been pretty well completed from the previous
stage. What we could do on the 18th, is if you felt comfortable with ordering
the project, we'd also do the next step which would be approving plans and specs
and with that we would basically then push back the completion schedule from
around the first of October to probably the third week in October. If we lose
18
City Council Meeting - RprtL 27, [992
any more ground than that, as you can see from thtspast winter, we could be
pushing our luck a Little bit.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One other question that ! had in conjunct/on with that.
How will this affect the industrial development area with traffic flow in and
out? How are we going to address that?
Charles FoLch: Basically the portion of CR 17, south of TH 5 would be closed.
The industrial park, the area, Chart Lakes Business Park would have to take
access from either Park, [ believe It's Park.Drive which comes off of TH 5 and
then also Audubon. They'd have to code in'that direction and the businesses
along.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking about the employees gettinglnto U~ited Mailing
and Victory Envelope?
Charles Folch: Yeah, they would be able to get in from Park Road. The two
other accesses off of TH 5. Park, Park Orlve and Audubon. I belteve there's
one property along on the east side that we would have to matntaia access to
probably coming up from Lake Orive. We ~ouLd try, either coming down south from
TM S we would have to maintain access to but basically the maSorlty of tt~e road
would be closed. 8ut there are alternative routes.
Mayor CheieL: Okay. We had a suggestion. Ooss anyone want to make a motion?
Councilwoman OimLer: If I amy say, I would recommend against tabling.because
I'm ready to vote on it.
Councilman Wing: I'd be happy with that. It's Just if there's going to be...
I'd Like to extend lt.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? If there's no other discussion. And
I think I brought it up Last time about the concerns'I had with this and no
sense tn reiterating my position as I did Last time.
Councilman Workman: Well I think the Council's having a hard time trying to
understand why we're doing th~s at this time. I asked how old the road was. It
doesn't appear as though It's that old. Yeah, there's some al[igatortng and
some other things. If Instant Webb and compan~tes don't have to pay for it, see
we're using TIF, well then they don't have a problem with it. But TIF isn't
free either. The Issue of this section of roadway has kind of popped'up as a
really why. And alL[gatoring doesn't quite do it I-think. And-so we're trying
to figure out maybe the Larger scope of what's, of where we were. You. kno~ we
talk about the history of the project but we started In [990 and the road was
built in 1976. The Instant Webb Companies haven't been there that long. They
haven't been there since the early 80's right? -So maybe we're using this corner
and the trucks are eating the road up harder than we Imagined. Is this, are we
doing this right now because of really what major problems, and [ know what
you're saying about the poor quality and how we have poor soil. Oo we have a
further drainage problem? I guess you're sort of saying that too but we're not,
is it an emergency type situation? Or are we doing It so that we have every
intersection In town torn up? Or because we're working on the north side, we
may as well be working on the south side? The County, don't patch it up. Don't
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
do this. Don't do that but we're not going to give you any money to do it.
It's kind of one of those projects that's all of a sudden popped up. It's very
expensive and we don't really see, we really see why Minnewashta Parkway is
getting upgraded. That wasn't. But we don't quite, I'm speaking for the whole
Council. ! shouldn't be doing that. I don't quite understand the urgency and
maybe we have more costs if we don't do it now.
Charles Folch: I guess I would tend to agree. It's not an emergency situation
to do this improvement. I think as a whole, this community can see that the
main line arterial roadway system is being improved. ~s a part of that, the
city has undertaken a number of projects over the last couple years to improve
what would be considered frontage road type service roads for this, for TH 5 so
people basically could, we don't need to actually get out onto TH 5. To make
use of other thoroughfares to traverse across the community. I think it becomes
a question of, not an emergency so much as is this an opportune time to do it
based on what resources we have available? The Eastern Carver County Study,
which was recently completed, basically eludes to the fact that over the next,
well through the next 10 years, the next decade that that CR 17 will support and
have to support a greater and greater volume of traffic through the area. As
you mentioned, industrial parks make use of it. Certainly it may be argued that
the heavy truck traffic, combination of that and then the poor soils have tend
to decrease the life expectency of that roadway. Yes, it's technically not that
old but maybe it's original construction wasn't up to snuff. It's very
difficult to expect full life out of a roadway if you're not taking care of the
subsoils beneath the roadway. It's kind of like putting a bridge over a mud
hodgepodge if you will. The problem lies underneath. It's not so much the age
or traffic per se as it is the problems underneath that ~eren't taken care of
initially. And part of that comes from being a rural section also. It's very,
very important to take care of drainage and get the runoff off the pavement as
quick as you can and get it into the storm collection systems. That does a
wonder to increase the life expectency of a roadway system when you go to an
urban section. $o I think it's more of, it's just an opportune ties to do this
with the resources we have available.
Councilwoman Dimler: One more question. I see that the subject here is a
public hearing on the feasibility study so I assume that feasibility study has
been done.
Charles Folch: It was completed originally in 1990 and being that the project
was not initiated within I year of it's previous ordering, we basically have to
go through the formality of, what we've done is basically prepared an update
which updates the elements of the improvement project and revised costs and
assessment rolls and presented that to you at the prevlous March 23rd Council
meeting and it's a formality that we need to go through to reinitiate it.
Council~maan Oimler: Okay now. Have we had a public hearing?
Charles Folch: That was tonight basically.
Councilwoman Dimler: This is the public hearing. And no one came to your
informational meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
2O
City Council Heating - April 27, [992
Councilwoman Dialer: It doesn't look like there's a whole lot of interest in
this. T would make a motion that we deny the authorization of preparation for
plans and specificatiorm for Project No. 90-4.
Mayor Chmiel: is there a second?
Councilwoman Oimler: It's your move.
Councilman Hason: i'll second it for Just a little further discussion.
Councilman Workman: Ursula, do you want to kill it?
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah, I think it's premature. I think the soil problems
existed 17 years ago when it was done. Somebody screwed up. I just don't see
putting that kind of money into it right now when it's not an emergency. We
have other roads, I mean like Htnnewashta Parkway went for how many-years?
Frontier Trail went for 25 years you know. I Just don't see it as an emergency.
And like I said, the money is really, It's not free. We tend to thtn.k of it as
free when it's TIF but it's not free.
Mayor Chatel: Oftentimes it is ways of us not taxing the residents wlthtn the
community. Utilizing that TIF;
Councilwoman Dialer: That's right. I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: ...dollars are being moved from one point to another. St£[l
there is a taxing dollar. Hike.
Councilman Mason: For the sake of argument, the comment that Charles made about
other roads along TH S are being upgraded. They're all pretty nice. CR 17
isn't going to look nice and it does look kind of trashy doan there.
Councilwoman Dialer: A lot of it was done earlier right. How about Galptn?
Councilman Mason: Well that's coming. I mean that whole stretch at some point.
And maybe the issue is if we don't do it now, when? i'm throwing that out. ['m
not convinced.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, TH 5 will be growing and extending all the way to TH 41.
The balance of those intersections wilt be addressed and they'll have to. If
you look at CR [7 on the south portion or the south side of that, the curbing in
some areas are there and some of it isn't. Some that Is there is already some
deterioration to them. But not saying that it can't be fixed accordingly but
yet what's the best way for us really to go. Proceed with this proposal as we
have it before us or, in our infinite wisdom Is sttttng up here and knowing all,
as we're supposed to, guess again. What's really the best way for us to move?
I think that's, Tom? -
Councilman Workman: Well, if the eD called~ or the alleged assessed properties
have the tax advantage, the tax increment advantage now, they'.il have it down
the road also. ['a assuming.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Workman: And so it does sort of become a matter of, are we going to
build a more expensive road down in the future? I was one, I know I was one
that was hoping that the County would build a whole jail and justice center
because down the road you knew it was going to be more expensive. This is maybe
something like that. I guess your motion is a little strong for me. I guess
I'd like maybe to give staff a better opportunity to sell this to me. This
project for some reason, since the very beginning kind'of popped up and it's not
your fault Charles. Kind of popped up and we didn't know where it popped up
from or why and we still aren't sure why and maybe we can get a better idea on
the Wednesday night meeting we've coming up or something because I don't want to
make a wrong decision and just put it off into the future.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well see I also don't like to assume, although most costs
go up, there are times when the bidding climate is better than in the past so
you know, I don't really like to count on. Sometimes it's better in the future.
Sometimes it's better and if it's not an emergency, let's hope for a better
time. An option.
Councilman Workman: And I can go along with your motion and still be sold by
staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Let me just interject something here. If we don't put
this in now and we do look at this maybe 5 years down the road, costs escalation
on that project is probably going to go up anywhere 10~ per year.
Councilwoman Oimler: It could go down.
Mayor Chmiel: It's highly unlikely. I'd love to see it but there again, you'd
be adding another $500,000.00 over and above what's existing. I too would like
to see us re-review this and to come back with additional kinds of information
so it would be, so I'd really feel comfortable making my motion in relationship
to this just exactly what Tom is saying. I think that by delaying this, it
could be a benefit to it and as you all know, I'm not all the keen on spending
too much money where it shouldn't be spent but in this particular case, with
that intersection, I would like to try to do that to see how it could fit into
the total project.
Councilwoman Dimler: ¥o me there's not any safety problems that I'm aware of at
that intersection.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: See so that's another.
Mayor Chmiel: It's signalized so there's not that problem.
Councilwoman Oimler: Those are all reasons why I think we could wait.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other
discussions? You' Look like you want to say something Michael.
Councilman Mason: I seconded the motion for discussion. I don't want to get a
rib if I go against my seconding of the motion.
22
City CouncL1 Meeting - ~pr£1 27, 1992
CouncL1uoman Dimler: Oh you can do that.
Mayor ChmLel: You can vote against your motLon even if you seconded
Whatever your pleasure.
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman ~aaon seconded to deny the authorization
for preparatLon of plans and specifications for the County Road 17 Impro~nte
South of TH 5, Pro~ect 90-4. All voted in fauor except Hayor Clmiel ~ho opposed
and Councilman ging aho abstained. The mot[on carried ~ith a uote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmlel: It still has to have 4/5. Either to kill Lt or proceed.
Roger Knutson: It take 4/5 vote to approve
Mayor Chmiel: What does it take to kLll it? A simple majority?
Don Ashworth: But then what Ls an abstentLon?
Councilwoman Olmler: It's a no vote.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a no vote. Well no, Lf he abstaLns.
Roger Knutson: You need 3 positive votes to k111 it.
Mayor Chmiel: If you abstaLn that means Lt's.
Councilwoman 01mler: a no vote.
Councilman WLng: Well, how do I get out from under that?
Councilwoman 01mler: You can't.
Mayor ChmLel: We had a motion on the floor and we had, can I have a hand sLgnal
indicating those who voted aye. We have one, two three. Okay.
Don Ashworth: That's sufficient.
Mayor Chmiel: That's all we need.
Oon Ashworth: [s there any LnstructLon to staff as to when thLs would come
back? I've heard some Councll members say, well thLs can either way Lt can be
brought back.
Mayor Chmlel: It would have to be brought back by the majortty vote if it
wanted to be brought back for dtscussLon.
Oon Ashworth: Treating it as a reconsideration whLch means that someone who
voting on the prevailLng sLde wL[! have to request
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Roger Knutson: You'd have to have the publLc hearing.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmlel: You'd have to have one more public hearlng and redo it all over
again. Right.
Councilman Mason: So I can make a motion now to ask them to study this further?
Councilwoman Oimler: You don't have to make a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: No. You'd have to ask that it be brought back and be discussed
further.
Councilwoman Oimler: But staff can go ahead and study it without a motion and
then ask one of us to bring it back.
Councilman Wing: But they've already studied it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well I guess one of the confusing points was where did
this proposal come from? Who's the initiator? Who's behind it? We're not real
sure. Before we spend this kind of money I'd like to know who's initiating it.
Mayor Chmtel: Julius?
Julius Smith: Historically, as I understand it, this project was initially
proposed 2 years ago and at that time it wa~ more or less just kind of died
because TH 5 construction. It was always thought of as tying it into the TH 5
construct[on as I recall Don. And so I think that's why it came up at this
tlme. I think everybody's sort of, certainly my c11ents expected it to come up
at this time when TH 5 was going in. I might just add, see it's easy for me to
talk because I have some TIF credits. But it's far more than a road project.
mean you're building tratlways and sewer and water and storm sewer and you're
taklng care of some drainage problems that sooner or later have got to, you know
they've got half of Instant Webb taken care of and not the other half. I mean
it was always assumed that when TH 5 came through, thls project would be
completed. So the roadway is a big part of it but it's certainly not all of it.
And of course lt's interesting to note in the updated study that there's about a
35~ to 40~ increase in cost in 2 years. I mean it went from a million dollars
to almost a million four. So it's a significant jump. But I think from a
historical perspective, that's why the project kind of died in tg~O because the
highway was delayed. We all thought the highway would be long finished by this
time. But I think that was the reason. It sort of died. When the highway was
going to be signalized, and the Highway Department builds 100 feet on each side
of TH $ so they're going to be building lO0 feet down CR 17. The Highway
Department will. This is just carrying that on through the bridge to get down
to Lake Avenue. That's how I think it was.
Councilwoman Dimler: So was MnDot behind the proposal to begin with?
Julius Smith: Well, MnOot I suppose doesn't care whether you build it or not.
They are going to build 100 feet on each side of TH 5...and as I understood it,
the City project just takes it from that 100 feet south under the bridge to Lake
Avenue. Lake Street or whatever that is.
Mayor ChmieI: Lake Drive.
24
City Council Heeting - April 27, [992
Don Ashworth: If ! may. Hr. Smith is correct. ! did m~et with both Hr. Beddor
and Hr. Carlson. They talked about some of the problems they were having. We
talked about, we really couldn't do this thing unt-il we could tie tn with TH 5
and tt Just simple made sense for them to be able to get the signals In the full
width and then we could carry it from there. The other part of course was down
by Lake OrIve where again you have that big hump [n the road and that needed to
be in place for a 2 to 3 year period of time to-solid/fy those soils. I ~on't-
tell you that it couldn't do for another few years. The other road that I ~ould
look at is Audubon. When HcGIynn came in, that road I'm sure has had some
additional years in it but if people will remember back, tn terms of driving It,
it was not the best image of Chanhassen. You drive that roadway today, and by
the way there's still trees that need to be planted along that roao~ay and, that
project is still open. But I mean It's a nice asset for our community. Putting
this to an urban section means that those ditches can be filled. The landowners
can have a typical abutting property. -You can put trees In there. You can take
and have a walkway area. They can have street lighting that they don't have.
You go anywhere else in the business park, this ts nice. People can see where
they're going. You go Into that section, you can't see where you are at night
because there's no street lights. You can't put them anywhere because you can't'
put them into a ditch. So there Is.
:
Counciiwoman OimIer: I understand what you're saying but. you know I still have
last Honday's aeet£ng In ay mind. When the taxpayers were all here and I
thought ! don't want to forget that. And ! can just hear t~euproar out there
saying, why are we spending this money? Why are ue spending this money? Rnd [
can't justify this project, I'm sorry.
Councilman Workman: See ['m confused because tn 1990 we did getlsome resistance
from those property owners if I remember. That's when they thought It was their
money.
Hayor Chmte!: That's right.
Councilman Workman: No~ It's our money. Easy for the. city to spend other
people's money but when Lt comes to be our money and /t's $t.4 mil/ton, and I
don't quite have the feeling for the project that I' should, that's when ! want
to be a little blt cautious. I did vote, I was part of the prevatlLng so I can
perhaps bring tt back up but I'd like to sit down with Charles. ['ve got a list
of th£ngs with you Charles but sit down and get a little better handle on all
that.
pUBLTC HEIMLI:NG: ZONING ORDINIMICE ~iIIEIlDHENT TO REGUT. RE TI~T BO~TS flOORED IN
FRONT OF UtKE FRONT ~LS BE ~ ~ID RE6/STERED :DJ THE IMtIE OF THE LAKE
FRONT PROPERTY OMAR. "
Publ[c Present:
Jac£e Hurd
President, Lotus Lake l~oweo#nerm Assn.
Paul Krause: Hr. ftayor, in 3anuary you passed an ordinance that affected where
a boat can be dock, moored and where the dock can be placed, fit that time you
25
City Council Meeting - AprLL 27, [992
had reconsLdered a provision in the ordinance that didn't specLfically address
that but pertaLned to ownershLp of boats docked on those plats. The orJginaL
ordinance limit the boat dockage to the owners' boats. 7he owners of the
properties. The change that you adopted at the Last minute, or the Council
inserted at the second readLng ! guess it was, would have opened that to other
people docking on those piers with the wrLtten permissLon of the property owner.
That ordinance is now in place and in effect. There was some concern raised
that that has the potentLaL for opening the door for abuse. That there may be
situations where people start renting dock space with commensurate impacts on
Lake frontages and public streets. And staff was asked to bring back an
amendment that kind of turned back the clock on that session. To bring back the
requLrement that those boats be owned by the property owner. We've done that.
This is not a portion of the Zoning Ordinance per se. It's the watercraft
ordinance thus the pubLLc hearing and adopt£on together are held at the City
CounciL. We hope that this does what you were looking for and we'd recommend
that you take action on it.
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah it is and I think that my main concern was being that if
there is anything that is, any watercraft that's moored or dock Ln the name of a
blood relative of the owner, that be at that particular Location rather than
doLng what you just recently said. RentLng out dockage to anyone that'd Like to
put their boat there. Before ! go any further, let's open this up for
discussions and then we can come back. PLease come forward. State your name
and your address.
3acie Hurd: My name is 3acie Hurd. I live at 6695 Horseshoe Curve and I'm
President of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Assoc[atLon. I've been before you before
about this and [ just want to reiterate my support of the proposed change in the
language of th~s ordinance. I think that L~mitLng mooring rights to rtparLan
owners is consistent with the goal of keeping, of improving the safety and
quality of the city's lakes and I'd L£ke to thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one else, can ! have
a motion to close the pubLLc hearing?
Councilman Nason moved, Counc[luoman O[mler seconded to close the public
hearLng, all voted [n favor and the motLon carried. The public hearLng ,as
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion, or is there discussion? Do you want to
discuss something Tom?
CounciLman Workman: I want to ask the attorney if he has a problem with the
word blood relative. [f I'm an adopted son or somethtng, do we have a problem?
Roger Knutson: By operation of law, you're then considered a blood relative tf
you're adopted. You have the same r£ghts.
Councilman Wing: I'm on the fire department and blood relative doesn't scare
me. Why blood versus family member. Why was that a choice? I'm just curious.
Roger Knutson: Primarily because that's a term that was used here and it is a
term of our's that's defineabLe. It you can Look £t up Ln any dLctionary and
26
City Council Meeting - Rpril 27, [992
I did Just to make sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Councilman Workman: ['d ~ove approval.
Councilwoman DimLer: Second.
Councilman ~orkman moved, Councilwoman Dtmler seconded to approve the first
reading of an ordinance amendment to Section &-27(b) of the Chanha~sen City
Code. ~11 voted in favor and.the motion carried unanimously.
AMARD OF BZDS: ~h4RKET SQU~RE 72' STOR~ SE#ER ]]~ffENT PEOOECT NO. 90-13.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Where'd Charles go?
Councilman Mason: i'd move, can you Just move approval?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
Councilwoman DimLer: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: We've gone through this. Thank you C~arles. We appreciate that.
Resolution 1:92-55: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to
a~ard the Market Square Store Se~er and Road Improvement Pro~ect No. 90-13
contract to Rvan Contracting Company, [nc. in the amount of $149,759.70. ~tll
voted in favor and the motion carried unan/mousl¥.
A~RR~ OF BIDS: NINNE#~_SHTR P~Y UPGR~ ~i~T PRO3ECT NO. 90-15
(CONTINUED FROM ~PRIL 13. 1992).
Public present:
Name Addr~
wayne Brown, Brown & Cr/s 19740 KenrLck, LakeviLle
Von Bergstrom, Imperial Oevelopers 900! Grand Avenue South
Dave Headla 6870 Ninnewashta'parkway
Kevtn Cudahy 3900 Stratford Ridge
Greg Oatillo Red Cedar Point Road
Charles Folch: Basically, as you recall,-this award of bldewas tabled at the
last meeting to allow staff and the Council an opportunity to take a closer Look
at the issues and elements involved in deciding bet,sen a G foot and an 8 foot
trail. What I tried to do Ln my staff report.is just outline some of the pros
and cons that staff is aware of. I'm ~oingwith both t~e 6 foot and an 8 foot
trail. I guess the bottom line is we can construct either width trail. We can
construct a 6 foot trail. ~e can construct aR-8 foot trail. The only thing to
be aware of or issue to be aware of is t'he additional cost that would be
involved in doing the wider trail and potentially environmental impacts as far
as tree loss, etc.. Basically we'll leave it up for Council discussion and
2?
City Council Heating - Rpril 27, 1992
decisions. We can certainly build either one. It's a matter of what apparently
appears to be most appropriate.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. I think one of the concerns were of some
discussion having pedestrians and bicycles on that walkway. That would allow
that much more space for them but I'm not sure that I'd like to see bicycles on
that walkway with people walking at the same time. Especially the numbers I've
seen walking on that street in years past. ! guess bicycles could use it.
Probably maybe when no one else is walking, I don't know. But it bothers me a
little bit in having bikes on that same path at the same time people are
walking. Not that people aren't cautious but sometimes when you do get people
driving their kids or whatever, it could cause a problem. But I guess I'm not
in opposition to either or as long as it doesn't take out more trees and cost us
justifiably more dollars to accommodate this. And my understanding is it's not
going to do that. So with that, is there anyone wishing to address this from
the Minnewashta Parkway? Is there anybody here? This isn't a public hearing
but just to get sort of a feel. If there's someone who has an objection or not
an objection. I'd like to hear that. Please state your name and your address.
Wayne Brown: Wayne Brown. i'm with Brown & Cris. Mr. Mayor and Council, I
have kind of a selfish interest. ! happen to be the low bidder if we have an 8
foot path and my friend, Yon Bergstrom back here is low bidder if it goes to 6
foot path. And so ! wanted to point out just a few things if ! could here.
Hayor Chmiel: I'm glad you called him your friend yet.
gayne Brown: ge are friends and we'll be friends no matter who gets the Job
here and that's part of it. I would like to, number one was cost. What I've
done is gone through in kind of a hurriedly way but these figures are pretty
accurate. I have the cost laid out as to what it would cost to go the & foot
path, an 8 foot path and I've got what I call an 8 foot path by saving the
trees. I'll try to explain this very quickly because I don't want to take a lot
of time here on this but the base bid is the number shown there and the cost is
the original estimate for this project was $[.6 million. Fortunately the bids
came in a lot cheaper as competition is pretty tough these days and we're way
under the estimate and so the actual cost on the base bid originally was like
$875.00. Now these are numbers that ]'ye got kind of second hand but ! think
they're pretty accurate. Based on this project, 80~ is paid by the State ~id
and 20~ is assessed back to the homeowners. So the cost figures out on the base
bid of, let's see does someone else want a copy here? a cost on the base bid
would be $731.00 for round numbers. The State ~id pays for a 5 foot path. They
don't pay for a full 6 or 8 or whatever and so the additional portion of that
path has to be paid for fully by the homem~ners. So on the base bid there's an
additional $33.t8 and the total then is $764.00. With the alternate bid, the
cost as you can see is $753.00. The original path of 2209, taking Brown & Otis'
bid which was bid at a $~.00 instead of a $t.50 a square foot makes that
cheaper. Rnd then the additional 2 feet is like $28.76. These numbers are
based on 366 homes in the area there and as you can see, that cost comes out to
$804.00. That's if the bid were awarded as bid on the alternate. And ! have
another cost laid out here because [ think there's a better way without taking
trees and [ call it the save the trees cost. And anyway, the bottom line come
out the same way. it's $794.00 which is $30.00 more per household for an 8 foot
path over a 6 foot path or to take the trees out, you could be at $804.00. Now
28
City Council Meet£ng - april 27, 1992
/'ye got another pass out here because I'm not the best talker In the world but
! can give you some pictures. Thts ~s a typLca! sect[on of the p[ans
the 6 foot path as shom~ on the plans. I've sho~ where the road~ay. Then
there's an area between the roadway and the path which Ls 4 feet of greea, area.
That green is a path by the way but closer to the road there's a 4 foot green
area. Then there's a [ foot area between the retaIn£ng ual! and then you have
the retaining wall. and the reason, th~s Is typical. This is about 348 feet of
wall which is the Longest section we have out there. Totally there [s about 866
feet of retaining wall to be put in. This is the only critical areas of the
pathway system. The rest of the, it's about an 7,000 foot path and so about
of the path is in a critical area where the room is 5ust very small because of
the retaining wall and trying to save the trees. So what I'm suggesting to do,
because there's a ! foot area between the retaining wall, to move the path. To
put an 8 foot path in. Oon't take out any more trees. Don't build any more
retaining walls. Put it tn the same right-of-way and move it I foot closer to
the retaining wall and I foot closer to the blacktop which would give you a 3
foot green area on 866 feet. The rest of the area, the 87~ of the p&th would be
a full 4 feet from the roadway and still have the same green area. and so that
explains why ! think you can do one of two things. Either you can put an 8 foot
path, move the retaining walls back, take out the trees or you can save the
trees and make the path fit Into th~s area here. So that explains the size of
the path that [ think an 8 foot will fit in there. The other factor is the
State of Minnesota, this is a State ~td proSect and the State of Minnesota has a
MnOot bikeway design manual show£ng the dimensions of a bike path. Now th£s Is
strictly a bike path and let me pass this out to you here. If you would turn to
the back sheet, I've circled It In red. This is the section that applies to the
dimensions of an off road bikeway approaching roadway sections. It sho#s the
minimum bike path width [s 8 feet. They she~, they prefer a 10 foot path but
the minimum includes the provision for pedestrians but you can have two bikes
meeting 4 feet, each taking 4 feet of the path. Two bikes can meet on th[s-
roadway so It's a 2 way path for both pec[estrians and bikes. I called the State
of M£nnesota, ta[ked to Greg Padis who is the head of the bikeway design and his
comment to me was the absolute minimum width for a bike path is 8 feet.
anything Less is a sidewalk. You need 4 feet on each side for a bike to go two
ways. That was his statement to me and from what ]'ye learned is that Hennepln
County has adopted that bikeway design manual. Host municipalities have'done
so. ! know you haven't done that out here but this is a-typica! design for a
bikeway. [ have one sore handout here i'd like to give you. This happens to be
from the City of Eden Prairie. Doug Ernst is the foreman for parks and trails
and he's In charge of the snowplowing and maintenance. To go through this
briefly, Eden Prairie has well over 50 mi[es of 8 foot trails and they have a
few 6 foot paths. They use a pick-up truck with a Western PLow that measures 7
[/2 feet. When it angles It's 7 feet. -hnd it works great not only for
but it also does intersections and driveways, which [s very important because it
Just doesn't push the snow back out into the rosd~ay where the cars, where the
streets have already been plowed, and on a ~ foot path, they have purchased a
$48,000.00, he called tt a German machine with a V pJou.- ! don't know what the
name was but It's a German aachine~ it's 4 feet wide. [t does not work to
clean intersections or driveways and It Just dumps the sno~ on the street and
the Street Oepartment's unhappy with It. In the report, which I'd Like to refer
to too, it says that there's sod that ts torn up. I have drive several miles of
bikeways £n Eden Prairie in the Last few days. I found very, very fas areas
ahere actually the snow plowing had torn up the sod but it does happen and
City Council Heeting- April 27, l~92
something that would happen with either machine. The other problem is
maintenance. Sea[coat is required to maintain paths Just like your streets. If
you don't seal them, pretty soon they're going to deteriorate. None of the
equipment is ava£1ab[e and Eden Prairie has never patched or seal coated any of
their paths because the regular equipment that fits on the streets cannot be
used for this. They do it to the 8 foot path and th~s ks something that will
have to be done. Another comment from Doug Ernst said that a 6 foot path ts not
safe. This was just thrown out, because the b£kes will use it anyway. Walkers
with Walkman radios can't hear them coming from behind. In other words he just
said that they would never have another 6 foot path out there. Are there any
questions on what T've covered and then the only thing ! have left to do is
maybe go through the pros and cons a little b£t on the report that was given to
the Council members.
Hayor Chmiel: Any questions? Ursula.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes Hr. Brown, I'm looking at your assessment cost per
home and I want to make absolutely sure I understand it. The original cost per
home was $875.00.
Wayne Brown: That was an estimated cost, right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And you're saying that you can put in the 8 foot
trail for $794.74?
Wayne Brown: That's correct, without putting in more retaining walls or taking
out more trees. Now that option is st£[1 maybe a viable one and that would only
cost another $10.00 more.
Councilwoman Dimler: $o the homeowner will not be charged any extra. They'll
actually be paying less than they originally were estimated.
Wayne Brown: No, it's going to be less. It will be, you know it's $75.00 or
more less than what the original.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Because I don't want to be, you know cost more to the
homeowner. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Wayne Brown: No. If anything I'm high on these numbers because when I backed
in the trail cost there, I Left some stuff in there so if anything it's a couple
three dollars high.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Also, can you assure me that the enttre 8 foot path
will fit completely into the rLght-of-way plus save the trees plus allow for the
retaining wall?
Wayne Brown: That's right. Absolutely. There are a couple areas that you may
have to maybe infringe over 2 1/2 feet from the roadway [nstead of the 3 feet.
Depending on how it stakes out in the field.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, but it will be in the right-of-way? You won't
require the purchase of extra right-of-way?
3O
City Council Meeting - April 27, [992
Wayne Brown: No. The 6 foot or the 8 foot path will fit tn the same easement
or shoulder together. Either one wilt f£t In there.
Councilwoman Oimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Don Ashworth: May I ask a question? In your cos-t ~timates, did you include,
did you just divide then what would be the base bid by the number of homes or
did you add in? I mean typically we have administration, bonding, co, ts of
undergrounding electrical. Typically you're up to 30-3S~ as an add on to a base
bid. Does this number?
Wayne Brown: Th/s number includes only the amount of the bids. 20~ of the
total bid is assessed against It you know plus the additional path. I think,
may ! ask the question? The origins! estimate, that must have been done the
same thing. That's uhat I based It on because the original estimate, if It was
$875.00 and the estimate uasa $1.~ million, tt would have come out the same
number so.
Don Ashworth: Well Charles can respond but I'm sure that's not the case.
Charles Folch: No, that's not the case. The original estimate was correct, a
construction estimate but as Oon had poieted out, the additional c4~sts
associated with the project, administration, electrical type things, add on
about 30-35X to the construction costs which yielded a total project cost which
divided by, well basically 20~ of that divided by the number of units deriving
benefit from the improvement determine the previous aesessme~t number that was
given. This is Just based on a constructLon cost. This doesn't incorporate any
of the additional admir~tstration costs.
Oon Ashworth: 8ut my point though is, we don't know if adding, going with the 8
foot ts going to produce a higher cost to the homeomters. We do kno~ that the
bids were very favorable but we've also taken some other hits that were higher.
Cost of burying electrical for example. So! can't tell you that it's going to
be more or less and I don't think the representative from Brown & Cris can
either. We won't knou until all of the numbers are i~ but we do know that there
is a higher cost associated with the 8 foot bikeway.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, Don are you ~a¥ing that the extra coat though are
going to be in the 80~ that the city pays or are you talking about adding those
costs onto what the residents have to pay?
Oon Ashworth: Well as I understand it 8ill is, since the State is only paying
for 5 feet, any additional costs are going to go solely to the property owners.
So [ mean, he's going to pay LO0~ of those additional costs.
Wayne Brown: And I've shown those on here. Yeah.
Councilwoman Dialer: And you're still coming in at least than what was
originally estimated.
31
City Council Heeting- April 27, 1992
Wayne Brown: Oh absolutely. I don't know what the administrative costs are and
that would not change. This is based strictly on the amount of the contract and
I don't know what the City adds onto that. I wouldn't know what that woutd be.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. I was going to ask Bill. There were a couple statements
that Hr. Brown had made and I just wanted some clarification. Areas where we'd
infringe on another half foot or so. Can all this 8 foot trail be accommodated
in that right-of-way without bothering or cutting additional trees? ~aybe you
could come up to the mic there.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor. The reason the 8 foot trail was bid was because
the Public Borks Department had requested an alternate bid because they felt
that it'd be easier to maintain. That they could reduce their maintenance
costs. Be accommodated that request and as such ue provided the alternate bid.
The alternate bid lays out the additional trees that we felt in all likelihood
would be taken. Be felt that you would have to have additional walls to
accommodate that 8 foot trail and we felt that you'd have to naturally have more
blacktop and more rock and more excavation and we laid those out in the
alternate bid. That's what the alternate bid was comprised of. The amount that
Brown & Cris, for example bid on tha alternate bid was roughly $35,000.00. Now
that is the amount I think that you have to look at. Whether ~e save trees or
not, if we save the trees, that's going to be a plus on our side later down the
road. But I think your decision has to be based on the actual bid and based on
the quantities that were bid and what we think the contractor's going to take
out. If we can save the wall, if we don't put as much wall in, it's by the unit
so we don't pay for it and we ~ould save that money. But up front we have to
look at what the actual bid was. Now we wouldn't have put in, Charles and !
discussed this numerous times during the design and we wouldn't have put the 8
foot in if we felt it couldn't be built. Be would have said no, we can't build
the 8 foot trail and we would have left it out of the bid but we felt it could
be built. Be felt it could be built within the confines of the right-of-way and
any easements that we are requesting to take up there and so that's why the
alternate bid was included. But there will be additional costs. 3ust for
clarification too, on the assessment costs per home so that nobody gets the
wrong idea here. You have to take your bid amount, whether it's the base bid or
the alternate bid and multiply that by 1.3-1.35. That gives you total project
cost. Then you take that total project cost and multiply that by 20~. 20~ has
to be assessed, a minimum of 20~. Be have 536 units up there. Not 366. Rnd
so the estimate based on the $1.6 million construction costs per unit was
roughly $751.00 I think is what we ultimately came out at. If you're going to
build the 8 foot trail, ! think what Hr. Brown here has demonstrated is that
you're going to have an increase in costs. That increase in cost is going to be
$19.00 to $20.00 to $25.00 additional on there but because ~e have very
favorable bids and we're way below the estimate, you're not going to see all of
that. But we want to bury the power now and do some things to get the whole
project complete up there so we're probably still looking at about the $751.00
when we get all done.
Councilwoman Dimler: The burying of the power was not in the original plan?
Bill Engelhardt: No, because that's strictly NmP or the power companies thing
and they will move the poles at no cost to us. ~nd we felt that in looking at
the dollar amount for that kind of money to bury the power, at that time it was
32
City Council Heeling - April 27, 1992
just out of the ballpark.
Councilman Wing: Bi11, is it a clear issue at this point then that if-we choose
an 8 foot trail that Brown £s the Low bidder?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes. There's no question about that. And if you 9o with the
base bid, Imperia! OeveLopers would be the 1o~ bidder. That's not an uncommon
thing. I've had many bids that way and it's simply because the types of
quantities that were bid as the alternate, blacktop, retaining walls, crushed
rock, if you look at Brown & Crts' bid versus Impertal's bid, those unlt prices
for those particular Items were a Little blt [ower. They'd pull back and forth
and so when the alternate came In, Imperial had $42,000.00 t~creass tn cost for
the 8 foot. Brown & Crls had $35,000.00 and on a $1.3 mi[L~on we had a
$1,300.00 difference which is pretty tight bidding. I think we got, it makes no
difference as far as the contractor goes. Either contractor, we've worked with
them both. The City has had both of them aa contractors tn the community and
both of them have done excellent work. $o from the contractor's standpoint,
there's no problem with either contractor.
Hayor ChmIeL: Any other comments?
Wayne Brown: One comment on my end here and ! guess I'll be open for-more
questions but, the real Issue gets do~n to whether you want a ~ foot or an 8
foot path. And the-6 foot Is a walking path and an B foot ts a bike path. And
you can't tell me there aren't going to be bicyc[ss out on that path, whether
It's called a walking path, a sidewalk or whether It's a bike path. I think
that's the Issue, thanks.
Von Bergstro=: Hr. Hayor, Council. Hy name is Von Bergstrom. I'm with
Imperial Developers. I was impressed by Hr. 8roan and the homework that he had
done. If we came to you to bid a job with an alternate and-a base bid, and it
being Laid out as so many trees would be taken under one, so many under another
and not come up and change it in the m/ddle of the game. You kno# I could have
gone out to the homeowner and said hey, the City's going to start taking more
trees, which is proposed under the alternate.. But I didn't choose to do that.
[ just came to you right now. Now we've enjoyed a ~reat work£ng relationship,
as Hr. Brown has and I appreciate consideration of the bids that ~ere turned In
and we just want an answer. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Appreciate It.
Dave Headla: Hy name Is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 HInnewashta Parkway.
got a call Friday night from a gentleman who wanted to talk about the & foot
versus 8 foot trail system. I didn't realize it was coming up before the
Council tonight and we spent quite a bit of time talking about the-w£dth. Being
a trustlng person, I went out the next day and started measuring-trails. ! find
that, Like Eden Prairie has 8 foot tra/ls. Almost predom/nantly, 8 and 10 foot
trails. If we plan to hook up with them, I'd like to see.all 8 foot trails, l
called HnOot today and their posit£on, if you have a two way bike trail, they
want to see 8 foot minimum. Let's see. And then I'm under the impression,
and I talked to B/il about lt. Now they can put-In the system, the 8 foot
trails but we do not have to move the retaining wall back and lose-any more
trees. The gentleman was pretty firm on that. ! did talk to a thLrd party who
33
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
didn't get the bid but he spoke very well of the gentlemen who did beat him out
and thought if they said they could do something, they'd have every reason to
believe they could do it. And today I talked to a mother over at Eden Prairie
that she does quite a bit of biking. She has a 7 year old son and even on an 8
foot trail, when the two of them meet someone else coming against them, somebody
gives way and goes on the boulevard or goes off it. An 8 foot just isn't that
wide. On snow removal, I guess I'd kind of like to, that was interesting what
Hr. Brown had to say. I didn't realize there Nas other equipment and there
might be a cost advantage on going to an 8 foot where you could get the 3eep in
there or a blade. ~nd another comment is, if [ can't let my 7 year old grandson
ride on the trail over to like Stratford Ridge where they've got kids that are
young, Nhy in the heck do we even Nant the trail? Forget the trail. Let's just
leave Hinnewashta Parkway the same way it is. So I really want to see an 8 foot
trail and I don't understand these [0~, 80~. I understand that if ~t's going to
cost me less than $50.00 more. I understand it's less than $S0.00 more. I'm
for it and I've talked to some of the neighbors. Some are here and I haven't
found anybody who would prefer the 6 foot over the 8 foot or who is really
fighting the extra assessment. Thank you.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, I think one thing needs to be clarified on these.
Everybody's referring to HnOot trails. HnOot trails, if you were going to build
a bikeway. That's a separate department or separate unit in MnOot. They
require an 8 foot. We're talking about something completely different here.
We're talking about a pedestrian walkway. Basically a sidewalk that's going to
accommodate both. I've got plans signed by L4 people at MnOot so obviously ~t
was done correctly. Is an 8 foot safer than a 6 foot? I'd have to say yes
because obviously you've got 2 feet additional blacktop but just for
clarification, that HnDot is something completely different.
Kevin Cudahy: Kevin Cudahy from 3900 Stratford Eidge. ~ fen things to cover.
First of all ! think we have to realize that, as mentioned, we're dealing with a
concern generally stemming from about [3~ of the total length of the way. [
think that as we sit here and ['m sure that anyone here can tell you they don't
know exactly what that width ~s going to be. Once it goes to 8 feet, if they
have 6 inches to the wall. If they have 18 inches to the wal! or if it's a true
4 feet to the road. [ think that's something that the 2 of thee will have to
work out at the time. If that means that it's 3 ~/2 feet instead of 4. If it
means that it's ? [/2 feet instead of 8 feet on this bikeNay/walkNay, I think
those are comprimises that may be able to be made out on location. But overall
~ know that we sat out here and had a really heated discussions last FaLL and I
can tell you as a homeoNner that I think there uss expectations of safety and
expectations of, you knoN this is a bike path. it's more than a NaLking path
and come to find out we'd all be disappointed if in fact it was 6 feet and we
weren't successful at really getting Nhat we Nanted to get which uss some safety
for the kids. I haven't found a lot of people that I've ta~ked to that cost is
a big deal. And I think that [ speak for some of the people in our neighborhood
association that are for the extra, whatever extra assessment this would be
based off of the bids that came in loner than originaLLy projected. Personally
I'd only say that if on a bid of $1.3 million that there was a $[,500.00
difference ahich is some number far less than [~, that he possibly and maybe
it's just the law of the city, to step back and look at who you can work best
with because it's a statisticaLLy insignificant difference on a bid. And aho's
the one who are going to get it done the best or the fastest. So that's it.
34
City Council Meeting - April 27, [992
Greg Oat[llo: Your Honor and the rest of the Board. l'a Grog Dattllo at Lake
~[nnewashta on Red Cedar Point Road. The one thing I just ~ant to stress is [f
we go to a 6 foot and we find out 6 months fros now or 2 years from now or 5
years from now that we should have gone to an 8 foot because the children are
going to be the ones that are going to have to go in the street. Because right
now when a car comes by you can at least drive off in the weeds, t~hen you've
got an 8 inch curb, the children are going to be the ones that are going to do
to the street because we're not going to get the walkers and the elderly out in
the street again. It's going to be the children in the street. ~nd that is the
hope I have that you'll go to an 8 foot because it's the children that's going
to be the ones out on the street before anybodY/ else and that was the whole
intent[on of me getting this whole thing started was to get the kids off the
street. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Rnyone else. If not, we'll start at your end
Hlchael.
Councilman Mason: I think having a ? year old that learned out to ride a
wheeler without training wheels East year, I don't want her on lttnne~shta
Parkway. I would just as soon see an 8 foot section there. I think while I
hear what you're saying about the bikes Oon, I personally with the #ay I ride,
wouldn't ride on the bike path but I think kids and purely recreational cyclists
will be using that and [ think yeah, I'm certainly in favor of an 8 foot path.
Councilman Workman: I have to agree with Hike. 'I'm glad that we have tso very
good and highly respectable developers that because the cost Es [nsignif£cant,
we don't have to choose one or the other. ! think ue have to go with
b£dder because, [n whichever case we choose, because they're both ge~.
wouldn't want to get into a picking and choosing. I think it sounds like the
assessment [s going to remain at or below the $75[.00 and ! think they're going
to be getting an awful lot more. I'm about & feet 2 and that might sees kind of
tall to some people but [f [ were to lay out and that were the Length of the
path, that is not very wide. If you're going l0 mph and you're... If we eight
be able to maintain some decorum here. 8 foot sure makes the difference. You
know if ! were laying out, I couldn't, unless I was reaching out my arms. I
just think we're getting an awful Lot sore for the buck and we ought to go for
it.
Councilman Wing= It's all been said Don. Hy only concern was the discussion
was always a & foot and it was a very sensit[ve project. I would sure hate to
throw an 8 foot In and have the majority say, what are you doir~ to us now. Has
it been public/zed? Has the area been nottfLed? Oo they know we're going from
a 6 to an 8? I don't see any opposition whatsoever. I support an 8 foot. It'd
be nice if the public's notified of this change somehow and I'm sure Mr. Laplc
would Intend to do that but that's not our responsibility. Is it an issue that
the public should be notIf£ed? The area assessment should be notified or ts It
just too?
Mayor Chmiel: ! think betueen the differences in cost are so minute.
Councilman Wing: ~t least I'm on record of having been concerned about It.
Thank you.
35
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: For all the same reasons, 8 feet and it's already been
stated plus I like the idea that it's lower maintenance cost to us in the long
run. And also I did go out and measure the path on Kerber Blvd. and I have to
tell you that that is 8 feet and I think that's precedent setting in our city
for all the main roads like TH 101 and Minnewashta Parkway and Kerber. We want
it to be consistent so 8 feet would really have to be the one that I would go
with.
Hayor Chmiel: I'll call the question.
Councilman Workman: In the cons, the question that Ursula asked, that
everything would fit within the right-of-way but in the cons on the 8 foot
trail, I know Bill Engelhardt said that it was going to be within the right-of-
way but Charles is saying it's not. Where do we get the additional right-of-
way?
charles Folch: Well, if you want to maintain, that statement was based on
trying to maintain a 4 foot boulevard behind the curb. If you comprimise that
boulevard space, you wouldn't need the right-of-way.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, and it's been compromised on Kerber too in certain
areas.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor of having an 8
foot trail and award the bids to Brown. Wayne Brown,
Councilman Wing: That's your motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I've thrown things all around here and go back to it. I think
the motion would be as such. I'm looking for that motion.
Councilman Mason: I'll make that motion. I'll make a motion to approve the 8
foot path with the bid going to Brown & CriB.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Mayor Chmtel: And the balance of what we have to the other successful bidder
for the road.
Charles Folch: The low bid, if you're using the alternate with 8 foot trail is
$1,379,285.05 as submitted by Brown &Cris.
Councilman Mason: And this is the one that saves the trees?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: Wait a minute. This is split now?
Councilman Mason: No.
Councilman Wing: The bid goes to Brown?
Mayor Chmiel: The bid goes to Brown on the total project? Clarify that Bill.
36
C£ty Council Heettng - April 27, L992
Bill Engelhardt: Total project is Brou~ & Cris with an 8 foot trail.
Resolution t)92-56: Councilman I~ason mo~m~J, C~uncllm~man IXtmler eeconded to
a~ard the bid for the Ktnne~ashta Parlatmy Street and Store Dra/nage ~rovement
Project No. 90-15 with an 8 foot w[de path, be a~arded to Broan & Cr~s ~n the
amount of $1,379,285.05 contingent upon acquiring a signed cooperative agreement
with the C[ty of Uictorla and HM)ot State Rid concurrence. Ri! voted-in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
AUTHOR:]:ZE PREPN~%I'J:ON OF FEII)S]:B!L]:TY STIJI)Y .FOR STRt[ET AND I~[IL:ITY ~TS
TO THE NIJ1/4 ~ SI~I;:T:I:I)N 10 ~ 1lIE: _11!~':1/4 ~ SE:CI~]:ON 9. LtJND6RE:N BROTI~E:RS.
PRO3ECT 92-5 (CO I(TZNUED FROII N:q~:l:L 13. 1~2:).
Don Ashworth: The item was tabled at the recommendet[on of C[ty staff, What ::[
wanted to do was just put together really a Listing of everythLng that had been
approved by the City Counc[l with the idea that ~e're try[~9 to stay under the
$~0 million arbitrage ILeitatLon that ~ould be tn effect for 1992 and ~993. tS
million per year. ge are at that point by .the uny. We are at the point of
l~terally having approved close to $~0 mLlL~on tn projects so far this year that
are underway or one stage or another. That's not necessarily bad. ! mea~ [f
Hoody's wants to know that the projects are reaList£c and to the extent that
when ~e went in ~[th bonding the actual, to obtain the proceeds for thls year's
bonding, Oave will take them out and actually sho~ thee ~ork in progress and
again that does say a good factor. Rs it then dealt ~[th the Lundgren proposal,
one of the things was of concern to me teas the fact that potentially the city
would be acquiring probably through condemnation approximately one-half of the
dLstance of the roadway and that condemnation and the associated assessments for
that part of the property ~ould be against property that currently ts within
green acres. Heantng that ~e ~ould not be able. to...assessments off of that
portion of the project. !n light.of that, [t ~oald not neet what ! would refer
to as f£nanc/al test wh£ch basically is to insure that we're protect/ng the city
[n case of, we're protecting the city. an alternate to that, ! dld neet with
Terry Forbord and uedLscussed some of the alternatives. Those alternatives
included the ability of the clty to continue with the public [nprovement [n
terms of the se~er and ~ater and those extensions going through other
properties. Tn other words, they could not take on those portions theeseltves
because they would not have the ability to take and make the extefls£on-across
somebody else's property. We looked then at the total number of un[ts that
would be assessed back against their property and basically .again that portion
of the project would meet the fi~artclal test that 3; ~ld put in my report. /~s
[t ~ould deal ~tth the roach~ay, ~hat I suggested was, in fact maybe it ams used
by thee, as it dealt ulth the pr[mary road that ~ent through the Near Nounta[n
section. That ts that they built 200 to 300 feet of t~hat !'Il call the primary
road adjacent cul-de-sac which allm~s ~hatever number of homes to-be constructed
tn that particular year or part of the year. 30-40-S0 and then the next section
of roadway ~as built and that recommendation were acceptable to the Planning
Commission, City Council, eventually the roadway ~ouLd in fact be built over to
the Song property. We ~ould not [Rcur that sign[f[caRt expense of condemning
the Song's property, building a roadway which apparently they don't really care
to take and have and quite truthfully proulde an opportanity for them to
potentially speculate at our expense... Rny~ay the recommendation as i've laid
thee out, ! believe are acceptable to Near ~ountain. One of the [saves that
Terry knew that [ was exploring was the requirement for a-letter of credit
City Council Meeting - April 27, 199~.
guaranteeing the sewer and water assessments and one of the issues that we did
not talk about was what timeframe that that may exist. I think he'll tell you
you can't get letters of credit for more than a one year period of time. So
therefore a requirement until 25~ of the property was built out really doesn't
work. But we've had letters of credits before and they have gone for a longer
period of time. It's simply a matter that they have to renew it... The
requirement there was to have it set. Letter of credit stayed in place
guaranteeing assessments until at least 25~ of the project were built out and
again the rationale for doing that is the fact, assuming the worst of all
economic conditions and you had to, there was actually a foreclosure on the
project itself, the city would need to know the value of those vacant lots is at
least equal to the amount of money that potentially is due to the city. Once
you start getting houses out into a project, it pretty well assures that those
land values will be higher than any level of assessments. But I would be a
little more leery if the project area were, there were no homes out there at all
and you were kind of the first one going in so that's where that 25~. ~gain I'm
not sure as to whether Hr. Forbord supports the positions ! presented. I think
most of them he does. I'm sure he has comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Terry, do you have anything to address
basically what Don has said?
Terry Forbord: Pardon me Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Oo you have any comments to make to basically what Oon has said
in relationship to the letter of credit and any other reasonings as to what he
looked at?
Terry Forbord= Your Honor, I'm Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros., I~35 East
Wayzata Blvd.. Point of interest. You cannot heard hardly any comments that
the Council or staff is making from the back of the room here so a lot of us are
kind of going like this and I'm not sure if the volume can be turned up but [
was doing the best I could to read Oon's lips and I think I did a pretty good
job. [n theory I think ue support what [ believe Don said. The part that got
real unclear was the letter of credit. But ! believe, I'm sure there's a way
that we can work something out with the City to give the City the satisfaction
that they need or the security they need where they feel comfortable. There's a
number of ways that have been done before. Whether it's that particular way or
not, ! think that's open for discussion. ! think the issue tonight is whether
we should order the feasibility study or not and then the assessment hearings
and subsequent things like that would commence and all of those fine details
would be worked out at that time.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
Mayor Chmtet: Any discussion from Counc117 Tom.
Councilman Workman: $o Terry, you're in favor of us doing that?
Terry Forbord: Of doing what?
38
City Council Heeting - April 27, Z992
Councilman ~orkman: Ordering the feasibility study.
Terry Forbord: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: ! guess as ! uss reading through this report ! thought to
myself, oh Oon must be against this because you ~ere giving me ail the reasons
why we shouldn't go ahead at this ties. and then at the end ! was rea! surprised
to see that you were recommending it. [ guess my concern is, and i've talked to
some of the other property o~ners out there and they wanted to be here this
evening but couldn't, and their comment was this project is going to force sose
assessments on us. Ze that correct? ! said ! don't kno~, Z'l! check. #il! it
force assessments on these people out there?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Dialer: No? Okay. I have no problem with it then.
Oon Ashworth: If [ may clarify. That Is a true statement as it deals with
Song's. Were there, and of course unti! you have the feasibility study in hand
you haven't identified all of the potential properties that may benefit and what
is the best way of charging the costs back. But the primary cost element is
with the road, is basically being eliminated-as far as the potential cost back
over to these people. Whether or not there might be a ee~er or water
assessment.
Councilwoman Otmler: Right. The utilities I think is what they ~ere concerned
about.
Don Rshworth: ~nd Z, have we done preliminary analysis to the point where we'd
be comfortable? Rte all of the other properties under green acres as well? [
think there's like three in total.
Charles Folch: [ don't think that we've looked at that in total yet. ! don't
think we've defined exactly the service area which ~ould be the first step
before we take a look at it but i'll have an answer for that tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so essentially don't know. ~e could go ahead and
approve the feasibility study and then if the details come in, ~e can deny the
project?
Charles Folch: Yeah, that would definitely be addressed as a part of the
feasibility study.
Hayor Chmiel: You don't kno~ until you once get a feasibility study.
Councilman Workman: i'd move approval of it.
Councilman Hason: Second.
Re~olution ~92-57: Councilman ~orkeaneoved, Co~ncileanNason eeconded to
authorize the preparation of a feeeibiLtty study for street and utility
improueeents for Project No. 92-5 for Lundgren-'Brothers. alt voted In favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
39
City Council Heating - April 27, 19~2
PRELIHINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR ~t? SIN~L£ J:'AHTLY LOTS ON 9 ~CRES. AND fl WETL~p
ALTERATION PERHIT FOR ALTERATION, RELOCATION RND HITIGATION OF A~
WETLAND. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INTERS£CTION OF LILAC .LANE AND TETON LAN~ ZTHZLIEN
ADDITION. ~ILLOWAY CORPORRTION,
Public Present:
· Name _~e~ddress.
Richard Bloom
3im Fenning
Naomi Carlson
Florence & Frank Natoli
Oonna Pickerd
Representative for Applicant
Applicant
5955 Cathcart Orive, Shorewood
6251 Teton Lane
Lilac Lane and Teton Lane
Paul Krauss: As you indicated, the proposal calls for subdividing a 9 acre site
into 17 single family lots. It will be served by a new cul-de-sac extended from
Teton Lane. The site is zoned for single family development and is cortsistent
with the use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Average lot size on this
propose! exceeds 16,000 square feet. The subdivision itself is a relatively
simple one. it's fairly well prepared. There are really very few minor detail
changes that are necessary. Essentially all lots meet or exceed ordinance
requirements. The history of this pro~ect though is probably the more
interesting aspect. This came up as you recall during the Curry Farms
subdivision. At that time there was an ascertain by the then property owner of
this lot and others in the neighborhood that this would never develop and it had
implications from a Teton Lane upgrading. The property's gone through some
changes in o~nership and nou of course it is bein~ developed. This is actualZy
the second phase of development on this one. If you recall last year the
corner, the upper right hand corner, one acre lot uss split off from the Donovan
property and that's since been sold and it had an existing home on it. We
really don't have any questions at all of a serious nature ~ith the plat itself.
There is a wetland alteration permit with this proposal. There's a small Class B
wetland located in this area. Oo~n here at the intersection of Teton and
Ashton. It really is a very poor quality wetland. [ think the applicant's to
be commended. They worked up a very ~ell conceived ~etland enhancement and
relocation plan. The wetland shifted a little bit further to the southeast to
support the development but the ~ettand's being upgraded from a Class B to
basically a Class A. It also includes the NURP pond that we've been requiring
for the last year so that the quality of uater flowing through this is going to
be the highest possible quality and it really meets, it's meeting all the
guidelines that we have yet to establish with the Surface ~ater Hanagement
Committee. But it's basically the current standard in the city. Access to this
site is likely to be a primary concern given the history to this. The
applicants have petitioned for a feasibility study for improvements and that's
nearing completion and really your decisions concerning access upgrading are
going to come at that time. ~hat we're anticipating is an improvement to Teton
Lane and to that stretch of Lilac east of Teton Lane uhere the intersection is
down at CE 17. In the past some residents from Curry Farms. The barricade was
put tn as a concern that Curry Farms traffic would impact an existing
neighborhood. Over the past 2 years we've heard once or twice I believe from
Curry Farms residents in that vicinity who at that ttme were asklng that the
barricade come down. We've also had an incident where our fire department got
40
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
stuck on the wrong side of the barricade trying to respond to a call. Staff and
the Planning Commission discussing the matter, ~ould recommend that you co,s/der
removal of the barricade with the Improvement of the street, ge think it's
warranted from an access and a safety standpoint. However, again you're not
acting on that at this point in time. That will come with the feasibility
study. In fact the Planning Commission wanted to convey my thoughts to you, or
their thoughts to you on the removal of the barricade but they ~cifJcally
removed the condition that would have attache~ that to the subdivision on the
premise that the developer can't remove the barricade. Only the City Council
can. M/th those comments, again ~e think this plat £tself Is relatively
straight forward. It meets or excee~ all ordinance requirements arid we're
recommending that you a~rove it without variances along with the wetland
alteration permit. Thank you.
Hayor Chm£el: Okay, thank you Paul. Zs the develo~r here? Oo they have any
comments to Paul's review? ~.s to what be just recently said.
Richard Bloom: Good evening Hr. Hayor, members of the City Council. Ity name is
Richard Bloom and Z'm the planning consultant representing Hlllo~ay Corporation.
I Just might note, we have carefully gone over the staff report. The numerous
stipulations that you have in here. ge don't really have a problem with any of
the conditions imposed upon the approval of the plat. ! might also note, since
the report was originally drafted, there was a number of recommendations in your
staff report about shifting Lot lines to eliminate variances and that sort of
thing. Me actually have done that already and resubmitted that plat back to the
staff for the£r review so I think a lot of these issues that are raised In here
are more of the minor nature. Z tlGnk ~e've been ab)e to adjust that out.
guess the only comment that we ~ould make, and ! guess the objection that we
would like to make is in fact the stipulation nulber 8 aRcl ue talked at length
about this at the Planning Commission meeting. 'I might .also add at the
neighborhood meeting which we also held. Basically the stipulation no~ reade
that the final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the
feasibility update for improvements to Teton Lane are knc~, the public hearing
is held and the Council then orders the improvement project in. [ guess I just
might say, we've done everythi~g that was asked of ua by your engineering staff.
We posted the money to authorize the feasibility study upstate. Me f~ve
cooperated with your engineers and your consulting engineers relative to the
study. [ guess our concern is, we are in fact anxious to pro~ed with the final
plat but now we're actually, there was a political decision that oba~tously you
folks are going to have to make here tn the near future that [s really beyong
our control. The barricade was also beyond our control but as far as ordering
in the project itself, that Is something else that's also beyond our control and
! guess with that we would object to that one item.' But the other ite~ that
are tn the staff report, we are in concurrence with that. Thank you.
Councilwoman Oimler: Can I ask a question?
Hayor Chmiel: Certainly. Hr. Bloom, la [t your feeling that you mould want to
go ahead with the pro~ect even if the barricade were not removed?
Richard Bloom: Perhaps so, yeah. The barricade [ guess as ~e perceived it, was
something that was obviously tn place well before we came along. Z think the
last go around, or at least from the reading of the H£nutes the last time th£s
41
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
issue was raised was as a result or in conjunction with the Curry Farms
development. [ think at that time it was felt, and frankly a lot of the
neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, many of them were from Curry Farms and
they did come and express the desire to have that barricade removed. I guess
from our standpoint and the way oar plat is laid out, ~e don't see a need for
our residents to want to turn right and go south on Teton and wind through their
neighborhood. I do think he,ever though, especially the emergency concerns.
was a former Planning Oirector at Hinnetonka. I can certainly understand where
your staff is coming fron as far as the concerns of the access to the Curry
Farms neighborhood. Sut as far as our plat is concerned, I don't think the
barricade really affects us that much one way or the other.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have one specific question. In looking at this,
at the purchase agreement. It indicates that it was signed Oecember [6, 1991
and in looking at that, being that we're in ~pril, 90 days has lapsed from what
the standard purchase agreement indicates. Is there an extension that you've
provided for this?
3im Fenning: We have a minor title objection...
Richard Bloom: The other thing I might also add. Not all the purchase
agreements were given to you. There was actually two different agreements on
the property. Only one appeared in your packet. There is another one beyond
that.
Mayor Chmtel: The one that we have here shows that and I guess my concerns are,
I am assuming that you did extend that or have another purchase agreement with
them and I'd 1tko for us to be able to at least see that at that time or at the
time staff can have it.
3im Fenning: At the time of final platting we will own the property in fee.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I'm saying right now, from what it shows here,
technically you're not really the purchasee of that property, lhe time
limitation has lapsed and [ was concerned as to making sure that you're going
through proper application showing that you are that individual and do have
rights to that property.
Jim Fenning: The purchase agreement, first of all my name is 31m Fenning. I'm
...Hilloway Corporation. The purchase agreement, in the fine print, says that
closing will be delayed pending resolving any title objections and that's, we
have a minor title objection that is being resolved right now. So we can close
anywhere from a week to two weeks. Something like that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Oimler: I have a question of Paul. Paul, did you have a chance to
look over their proposal for the mitigation of the Class B wetland?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
42
City Council Meeting - april 27, [992
Councilwoman Dialer: Do you find that it's in accordance with ever~hlng that
us're trying to do?
paul Krauss= Councilwoman Dtmler, yes ~e did. In fact ~e thought it was one of
the better mitigation plans we've seen to date.
Mayor Chmiel= Paul, one other thing that ! had flagged here too. The City of
Shorewood is going to ~evie~ the proposed subdivision. Have they done that and
have they commented?
Paul Krauss: Z'm honestly not sure Hr. Mayor. To the best of ay knowledge ue
did send a copy to them for review. Z haven't heard from 30 ann that ~e had any
response. We've also been contacted by the city relative to the street
improvements. Charles has been in contact with them.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the only other thing that ~e have to come to a~d reach a
conclusion. Maybe you can, somebody can correct ae on this. If I reaeabare~
right, we discussed this at the tiao back when ~e did put the barricade and the
discussion at that time was when and if this specific property ~ere to be
platted for residential develo~ent, that that barricade would then at that time
come down. Does anybody recall that?
Councilwoman Dimler: Hy memory's Dot that good. ~e'd have to look at the
Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to see if we could pull that out at that time
but I'm sure that ~as some of our anguish at that particular time and making
sure that that protection was there for the Natoli's and the other People there
because of their concerns of the amount of traffic and speeds that entailed on
that particular road. ! should say cartway at that particular tiao because it
was not a full street. Yes.
Florence Natoli: ...when we ~ere here. Florence Natoli. You should kno~ ae by
now. I think I'm going to run for office because I seem to ae here almost as
much as you guys are. Anyway, when we were at the Plannl~tg Commission, Paul
Krauss didn't give us a real good arrs~er on whether ~e, that's the three of us
on Teton are going to be charged for the se~er and stuff put lm on the other
side of the road. Inasmuch as we ail have se~er and water, ~e don't see why we
would have to pay assessments but Paul wasn't too ~ure.
Paul Krauss: Mrs. Natoii raised the question and I had the opportunity in fact
this afternoon to bounce that off of Bill Engelhardt who's the consulting
engineer on that and Charles, correct ae if I'm wrong but the answer was no.
You're not going to be charged. That you,ve already paid for your sewer and
water. The only assessments that are possible ~ere related to the street and
that has yet to be determined.
Florence Natoli: Okay. Then Just one little thing. TAts is all this junk I've
had around for years and I got Lt out yesterday and tt said, ~e estimate that
approximately 21 new hoses in the Curry Farms development would tend to use
Teton Lane for ingress and egress. Using standard traffic guideline of LO trips
per day per household, the households will generate 200 and tripe per day. This
includes service vehicles and the like. Not necessarily Just the vehicles o~ned
43
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
by each household. And this is the part that you were talking about. If the
Oonovan property uss subdivided at a future date, several of the larger lots in
this area, divided the number of trips per day could more than double. So that
would not be solved. We'd still have then 420. $o that's the thing. And
inasmuch as they were saying that their outlet to Teton is closer to the other
road, it seems like there's no need for them to go all through the Curry Farms
but another thing in all this. tt was agreed by Centex to put up a break away
and they have never put up the break away. We have had 3 or 4 or 5 pilings and
so I don't know if you can get back at Centex but it would seem to me they were
supposed to put a break away and that's what should be there. Then there
wouldn't be that problem because everybody's hollering about the looks of this
blockade. $o if you put that in, something like the ones that are over there in
Shorewood around the lake, Christmas Lake. They've got them there so.
Hayor Chmiel: The reason why I'm thinking it does look like the Berlin Wall, as
you say.
Florence Natoli: Yeah, it looks bad and we don't like it anymore than anybody
else but it was supposed to be a break away and that's not our problem. We
haven't approved of this. That's what was put up and someone at the same time,
that same meeting made a statement about those two great big cement. I found
out in here they're called J-something or other, cement. They're still there
and they don't need to be there either. Except that when they first put just
the blockade, people would try to go around either on our side or on Oonovan's
side so they bought those cement J-blockades in there so it is a mess. I'll
admit that. Okay, that's a11. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Donna Pickerd: My name is Donna Pickerd and I live on Lilac Lane and Teton
Lane. I guess my main concern would be what Frank brought up, and Florence.
What the cost would be to the people already living in the neighborhood to
street improvement and the addition of new utilities. I guess I'm really
worried that in trying to decide the right-of-way for Lilac Lane, which might be
really tricky, we might lose quite a bit of our land. We're right on the corner
there and ! don't know how you're going to resolve this with Shore~ood. I think
it's going to be real tricky because [ think the residents on the Shorewood side
are going to say well, why should we have to give us the right-of-way if it's a
development that's happening in Chasnhassen. And then we're going to be dealing
with an issue where we'll be losing trees off of our lot. We have trees that go
real close up to Lilac. So you know, this is obviously not this particular
issue. This should be discussed at the public hearing and when they start doing
the feasibility study on the street up, grade but [ want to make sure that
condition8 that he was talking about, it makes sense to take the barricade
issue out of there. That doesn't make sense. 8ut [ think that in order to
approve this plat, I think you have to keep the stipulation that that
feasibility study needs to be studied first because to me I think there might be
some costs that should be incurred by the development or by the people who are
going to benefit directly from making the road wider. Which is not us but
people who live up in Curry Farms and people who are going to live in this new
Hilloway development. $o I would keep, I don't know. [ forgot what you were
calling it. Whatever it is. One of the things that they had to, one of the
requirements that they had to do. [ would keep it the way it's worded now.
44
C~ty Council Xeettng - hprtL 27, 1992
trying to think if there was anythlng else. Also, I think read some4~here that
they were talking about only having to improve LiLac Lane from Teton Lane down
to Powers Blvd. but if they're talking about dumping se~er from Lots I thru 5
into L£Lac Lane, you're go/ng to have to puLL up the whole street anyway so
Shorewood's going to want to do the whole street anyway. So that was soaeth/ng
that [ was just kLnd of working through tn my mind. 8ut anyway, thank you.
Mayor Chmtel: Thank you.
Florence Natoli: Hr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Florence Nato11: Shoreuood does not know anything about this. I called them...
They didn't know there was anything going on with LiLac Lane. At least that's
what I was told.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Courmll. Al Larsen, a representative
of EngeLhardt and Associates and myself met with Hr. Herms, the City
Adminstrator, thelr Public ~orks Director aRd aJso their Planning Director last
Thursday to go over the elements of this proposed project and discuss some of
the specific elements and also p~tential cost sharieg of the improvements
between Shorewood and Chanhassen. So at Least the department management Level
there is aware of this potential project.
Mayor ChmieL: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Councilman Workman: Do we need to make a deciston on the barricade tonight?
Mayor Chm[eL: No. BasicalLy aL[ you're doing [s Looking at a preliminary plat
to subdivide those 9 acres. To also look at the ~etla~d alteration permit to
alter a CLass 8 wetland as weLL.
Councilman Workman: We've already done the feasibility study and we know what
it's going to coat everybody down there, don't we?
Mayor Chmiel: This ia what utll be done now.
Councilman Workman: I'd be curious.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. A feas/btlity study looking
at three options for improving Teton Lane was Looked at back in Late [988 into
1989. What you have done recently is authorize an update to be prepared to that
feasibility study to re-evaLuate the needed improvements and associated coats so
it was prepared once at one other time.
Councilman ~orkman: It's not being prepared again?
Charles Folch: It's currently being worked on and our schedule is to bring that
back to you for receipt on the next Council meeting which would be in Hay and
call a publ/c hearing for the first meeting in 3une.
45
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Basically with the, from when they did it to now. Z'm sure
there's going to be some cost differences and that's why they're redoing it. If
we can get it done for that price, it'd be fine but ! don't think it's going to
happen. Okay, any other discussion? Seeing none, did someone raise their hand
there?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of preliminary plat to subdivide 9 acres
into i7 single family lots, Ithilien and Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a
Class B wetland.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that with the comment that I too was, I thought
what they're doing with the wetlands is really good. Nice to see that. It
definitely will be a nicer looking spot.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman #orkman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat
f92-4 as shown on the plans dated Harch [4, 1992 and #etland ~lteratlon Permit
~92-2 as shown on the plane subattted by Barr Engineering dated Harch 9, 1992
subject to the following conditions:
The following easements shall be added to the plat:
a. A 20 foot drainage and utiL£ty easement along the common Lot line of
Lots 2 and 3.
b. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of
Lots L4 and L5.
c. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of
Lots L5 and [6 to provide vehicle access to manhole.
d. A drainage easement along the rear lot 11ne of Lot 14.
e. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot Lines of Lots L4 thru L7
and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer.
f. A drainage easement for the wet/and pond for the boundary at the /004'
contour.
g. a conservation easement for the wetland over the 1001' contour.
h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated.
2. A 12 inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 inch orifice plate shall be constructed
as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom
shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to G inches of topsoil.
3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an
erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall
not exceed 3:~.
46
City Council Heating - April 27, L992
4. The interna! watermain system shall be Installed uithtn the proposed new
street right-of-way and shall be Looped to Lilac Lane or to ashton Court.
5. ~n additional santtary sewer manhole shall be located along the common
line of Lots 15 and 16 and ~ehicle access shall be provided from-the ne~
street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16.
~ 60 foot wide street right-of-t~ay shall be provided for the net~ street
proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right-of-uay shall be granted
along the east plat line to provide a 54) foot wide road right-or-#ay for
Teton Lane as cons/stent with right-of-way dedications along Teton Lane
north and south of this area.
Lots 1 thru 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street.
8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the fIndIrtgs of the
feasibility study update for Improvements to Teton lane are known, a public
hearing is held and the Improvement project ts formally ordered.
9. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary securities associated with the development.
10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to-prouide the required 90 foot
frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and &, Block 1. Lot 10 be
adjusted to provide a more suitable butldtng pad area.
Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of Land dedication.
12. The applicant shall reta/e a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the
sub-surface soil conditions on the proposed s~bd[visIon and recouend
corrections at proposed house pads, If necessary.
[3. The location of proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest
floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan.
Owel[£ng type designations should be:
R Rambler
TU Tuck Under
#0 Ualk Out
SE Split [ntry
SE~O Split Entry ~alk Out
14. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed tn the 8arr
Engineering memo dated Hatch 9, 1992 including the t~o pond system,
interspersed with open water and subaergent plant species, and Landscaping
of a mixture of emergent plant spectes and uetland shrubs.
tS. Otsposal of dredged material Is prohibited uIthIn the ~etland area.
16. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours pr/or to commencing the
alteration to the wetland and.shall aqaLn notify staff within 48 hours
after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and approual.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
17. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall include
financial sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, including
landscaping and as-built plans.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARO_OF AO3USTHENTS ANO APPEALS FOR AN Il. FOOT ~ YARO
VARIANCE REQUEST, 1840 PHEASANT. DRIVE, OAV~O SCHISSFL,
Sharmin A1-3aff: This is an after the fact variance. The applicant built a
deck that has dimensions of 24 x 14 feet. It requires an Il foot rear yard
setback variance. The Zoning Ordinance requires all decks to maintain a
distance of 25 feet from the rear property line. The subject deck is set back
14 feet from the rear property line. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. AIl
the structures meet the required setbacks. We determined that the difficulty is
self created. Had the applicant followed procedure and applied for a building
permit before building the deck, we would have pointed out where the buildable
area is. ge believe that there are other alternatives for the deck to be built
and maintain the required setbacks. On April 13 the 8oard of Adjustments and
Appeals denied this application due to the fact that approval would set a
precedent, staff is recommending denial of this proposal. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Oavid Schissel: Good evening Mayor. Council. I'm Oavid Schlssel and I thought
it would be advantagous [f [ showed up tonight. ! do strongly disagree that it
was a self created hardship. I'd like to talk a Little bit about the fact that
yes, ! didn't get a permit. ! didn't think ! needed one. The house was fairly
new. I intended to build a deck when the house was built and funds were an
issue so ! delayed that. As far as, ! didn't hide anything when ! was building
the deck. They were building a house right across the street. So given that
fact, when Steve tagged my door. Said ! checked on file down at City Hall. You
didn't pull a permit. I called him the next day. Said I didn't think I needed
one. He said you do. Once you close on your home, that's it. You have to
apply for a new permit. So that's when I came down to City Hall and applied for
a permit. That's when sharmin got involved and notified me that I've got a
slight problem here and I guess that's what I'd like to talk about tonight.
think given the fact that the permit thing, that's said and done. You know
apologize and I think it was an honest mistake. Now [ just want to see what
can do to keep the deck, given the fact that I think it isnt' a self created
hardship that given the topography of the lot. I don't have a front yard for
use. We have a 6 year old. I don't have a back yard for use. Mayor, did you
happen to go out and look at it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes ! did. Those are your evergreens on the far side?
David $chissel: Yeah. When we built we cut down 3 evergreens Just like that
and I'm not going to cut down those trees and I don't anybody wants me to do
that. I'd like to talk about the dimensions of the deck. It is out t4 feet
from that door. I'm 1! feet into the 25 foot setback. I'm 14 feet from the
rear property line. [4 and [4 is 28. If I follow, no matter what we cut back,
if T was to follow that 25 foot variance on this piece of property, I'd have a 3
foot deck. And to go around the side of that house, right now currently those
48
City Council Heet[ng- AprIL 27, t~92
dieensions are 7 feet by 8 feet. So It woultdn't be a deck. If ! have to take
the deck down, ['a going to have a deck there period. ! don't know what
going to do. And as ! said, our 6 year old plays there and as ! [eft tonight,
that's where she's playing. [ eean she Isn't going to piny and the neighbor
kids that cone over with the Lay of tee land, there's ove'r 20 feet of vertical
drop from the rear property [£ne to the street. Yeah, [ knew that when Z bought
the house. Teere's only so such you can do when you're looking at a piece of
[and to know how the house ts going to turn out. [n£tIa[[y the house had a
front load[no garage on [t. Rs ! got into this piece of land, ! had to change
the plans to a side Loading garage. That's the ~ay It ~orked. and with the
hill falling doan to the street, ! had to set the house back even farther Into
the Lot. Now it's .33 of an acre. That's not a snail lot but it doesn't have
any depth to it. And if you really want to get down to it, what are tee
developers do[no? ghat Is the city doing for [-guess aonItor[ng that? The back
of the house is at it's minIeue, 30 feet from tee rear property line. Tee City
at the time we built didn't say anything and Z guess [ understand policy has
changed. The City now requires homeowners, after their survey is sent into the
city, the planning, that they s£gn off so they understand in 2 years ~hen you
want to build a three season porch or a deck, you understand what tee setbacks
are to try to avoid these probieee. The City didn't say to ee at that time,
there's no way you're going to have a deck on th~s house. And ! don't fault the
city. [ mean ['a not going after saying, but It ~ould have been nice to know
and quite honestly at the tine ! felt the setbacks were lO feet all the way
around and that's not true. It's 25 from the rear, tO from the sides. ! don't
think iI'e setting precedent. ! checked all the people on this list current~ty
have decks in this development. It's a complete development. CompLeted
developeent other than one lot now. The two neighbors that face this deck are
in support of ea. Esther Stet[er, who has been around Longer than any of us ts
quite disturbed by the fact that ! might have to tear the deck down. She
it the way it Is. It fits tn. I th£nk you saw it. It blends. This isn't an
off the ground deck. I think you can look at other decks, tf you ~ant to get to
it In the neighborhood and they're within Code but take a Look at how soae of
thee look. ! didn't ask Esther to cone do~rn here. She wrote a nice letter.
think you've read that. She's in full support of it, as are-the Ice's ~he also
face the deck. I'e here hoping, bottoa li~e here ts that I don't have to remove
that deck. Yeah, I'e sorry [ built the thing without a perm[t. He'd I known,
would have applied for a variance at that point aay~ay. I aean! think' It's a
good cause to create soeewhat of a fiat back yard. [ don't kno~ what eisa to
say to try to convince that given besides the fact that I didn't get a permit,
that it Isn't a self created hardshLo. I think It's value added aesthetically
to the neighborhood. You say you went down and looked at it. For what It's
worth, I did bring some pictures.
Mayor Chmiel: Did that on Sunday. Looked at tee deck. The dogs were in their
kennel there.
Oavid Schisse[: Barking at you?
Mayor ChmteL: Just a tad.
Oavid Schissel: They just wanted to get out. 14ayor, Esther said she'd come
doan without any hes[tat£on but she doesn't drive at night.
City Council Meeting - Rpril 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I thought it was rather unique to see a tree in the center of
your deck anyway.
David $chtssel: Well it's one we saved. They wanted to tear it down during
excavation but we saved it.
Mayor Chmiel: And the back yard is not flat. It is roiling. ! think
everybody has probably seen that as they've gone. There is not a back yard
basically.
David Schlssel: And I guess ! read through this, Sharmin had added a similar
circumstance or what she v£ewed as a similar circumstance in that development
years prior. I read through that several times. To me the only thing that's
identical is reading through that is that person also didn't get a permit. I
don't see the situation the same. I violated the 25 foot setback quite a bit
more than the person before and that person was dealing with a two tier deck.
guess that's irrelevant but I have the neighbor's support of me.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and we see that.
David Schissel: Even the ones across the street and the ones down the road have
come and looked at it and are in support of me. I don't know what that's worth
but. Thank you.
Mayor Chmie[: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Schissel? I'd like to ask you a couple questions okay.
In the report here it says that staff sent you a letter on the 15th. We[L,
first of all on July 30th you were notified by the Building Department right?
David $chissel: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: And then on the lSth and on the 8th you were notified that
you needed a variance. And then on the 27th of February you got a certified
letter.
David Schissel: To my surprise, yes.
' 'gl or the
Councilman Mason: So you re saying you didn't know about the 15,
October 8, 19917
David Schissel: No, I dropped off a packet of the same thing I dropped off the
second time. I applied for the variance.
Councilman Mason: When did you apply for the variance? I'm confused now.
Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin, do you have that information there by chance?
David Schissel: Yeah, I just found it. I applled for the variance the first
time in October of 1991.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: We never received the application. We don't have a check that
we had cashed.
5O
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
David Schissel: ! have no cancelled check back.
Sharmin A1-3aff: He left the application at the front desk but staff never
received it.
David Schissel: I did all my homework. I had everything on my computer and just
reprinted everything off that ! had applied, or put in the packet on the first
time.
Councilman Mason: Have we ever lost a variance request before that you're aware
of?
David Schissel: Believe me I want to solve this as bad as anybody. I mean
there's no question about it.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't know that that's the only issue here but I think
it's certainly one of the bigger ones.
Paul Krauss: Well, I'm not going to say it's never happened. [ don't know if
it's ever happened but it's conceiveable that it did. But one would think that
if you made application to us and don't hear anything back for 2 or 3 months,
you might call and find out where it is.
David Schissel: Let me state just what I stated to Sharmin the first time. If
you remember the snowfall we got the 3Sst, or there abouts. The end of October.
I personally didn't think we'd deal with this until the snow was gone. Take
that however you want to but that's the way I looked at it.
Councilman Mason: It sounds like some things are changing pretty quickly here
and I.
David Schissel: Well I don't understand.
Councilman Mason: Personally I have a concern about you were notified on the
30th of 3uly, 199l and according to the City's records at any rate, we didn't
hear anything again until March 9 of 1992 and that's quite a bump in time.
David Schissel: I was in more than once visiting with her about this thing.
Councilman Mason: Well, okay. We don't have on file any variance application.
David Schissel: That's true. She just got it. But it's the second time.!
submitted it.
Councilman Mason: In March of this month?
Oavid Schissel: That's correct. It was the second time I submitted the same
packet of information.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
David Schissel: I mean I don't know what you're driving at here.
SI
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Mason: Well what I'm driving at is, I'm a little surprised that
staff would have lost something like that is what I'm driving at. Now maybe
that did happen. Maybe it didn't. That's an issue that we'll have to grapple
with. I think building something, I mean you know, you put a deck up here
without knowing what ail the conditions were and I understand your feeling on
that and the thought of having to tear that down would certainly be very
upsetting to me. It is precedent setting in that it would be the only deck in
the neighborhood that goes beyond the setback lines and my personal feeling on
that is, that's a major red flag. Because if one deck can go in on that
grounds, then what is to say anyone else comes in and wants to change their deck
and what do we teii them?
David Schissel: I understand and I agree with you. Okay? And I'm in full
support of the 25 foot setback. It's good for all of us but don't we have to
look at these as individual? I mean what's the process of getting a variance
then? [ mean why is that even here?
Councilman Mason: Well for one thing, it's generally done before the deck is
put up. And frequently, when they're precedent setting variances, we do tend to
deny them just because we don't want the whole neighborhood, to come up like
that.
David $chissel: Do you really think someone's going to go out? [ mean given
the fact that the way this lot is, I'm in a tough situation. If I can't have a
deck, I mean at this point, 20/20, I wish I didn't buy the lot now but I happen
to like the neighborhood. I don't have a choice. I mean if you went out and
looked at it.
Councilman Mason: Well I live on at least as steep a hill as you do so I'm
familiar with the problem.
David Schissel: My problem is the depth though. Yeah, Z understand. Fully
understand. I just don't think in that development that I would be setting
precedent. I don't think anybody's going to change their deck and you're going
to have a problem of.
Councilman Mason: Well I think you need to understand from the City's
standpoint, what you're saying may be true now but it may not be true in the
future and things like this have a way of coming back to haunt us and then we
have to deal with that too.
David $chissel: I mean I'm here. If I didn't think I, I wouldn't have applied
for the variance. I mean I'm trying. I'm trying to deal with this in the best
way and I think, I'm telling the truth. ! think it was an honest mistake. I'll
say it again, I wasn't trying to fool anybody. They were building a house right
across the street. I mean call me an idiot but.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Just to clarify a point. Did I hear you say you do have a
cancelled check from October?
David $chissel: No, I didn't.
52
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dtmler: Okay, so you too are wondering where that check is?
David SchIssel= We had a lengthy discussion about it. [ mean I was shocked
when I got this certified letter. But before I opened the.
Councilwoman Oimler= But the check...
Sharmin Al-3aff: I never saw a check or an application.
Councilman Workman: Host people are scared out of their wits when they get
certified mail from Sharmin. I know I would be. This whole process is kind of
a cruel and unusual punishment thing for you and for us and we hate it too and
Z know, I guess Hike was on when we had to order two decks torn down that back
up to each other. Were you here?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I don't know if they're torn down yet. Are they?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Wait a minute. They did something.
Sharmin Al-Jaff= They exchanged land with a neighbor.
David Schissel= We checked into it. I think her house is grandfathered in
there. I don't think she's 30 feet from the line. She might be.
Councilman Workman= So you don't have any land you can buy?
David Schissel: No.
Councilman Workman: You know it is a different set up. It's always difficult
to tell somebody to do, to tear down something that they've done. However,
there's very few people that are aware what the parameters are for building
decks, etc.. We've seen that lO0 times if we've seen it once. I just built a
home and I know that I have ample room for a deck. I'I1 also probably get a
certified letter. I guess I'm having a hard time, is it going to set a
precedence? I don't know if I can even address that in this neighborhood. It's
a nice neighborhood. I don't see this deck as degrading the neighborhood. If I
stand on the principle of the variances, it's a rather lengthy variance
obviously. But the terrain does kind of lend itself to the deck and so the deck
doesn't appear as obvious maybe as something else would have. You don't really
have many choices for a deck here if you don't have this deck.
David Schissel: Well, simple math. You're looking at 3 feet.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not trying to be bad guy or good guy. I
guess I'm indifferent. I don't see it being a problem staying.
Councilwoman Oimler= Are you abstaining?
53
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Workman: No, but I'm 6 feet tail. And we're dumber you know.
guess I would be in favor of allowing it to stand. I don't know what we could
do to minimize what's already been done. The terrain, to me the terrain kind of
does that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well, I'd like to speak Mr. Mayor just because we've spent
more time on this deck tonight than multi-million dollar projects and I'd like
to draw it out just to see how long we can. We might set a record. Decks are
my favorite. I voted in favor of this. I found that this deck, this house had
no front yard. It had no back yard. It had no place to play. The deck is
created, it's not visible from the front or back. The neighbors don't seem to
care. I think it's massive but so was the one on Lotus Lake that had 3 layers
of decks going down to the lake and we approved that one so each one kind of is
unique in itself. I support my colleagues decision to disprove this. I think
they had Just cause and ! think it was a good decision. But when I first saw
this and as I stood and looked at it, I really thought it was part of the home.
I thought it was actually structure because it was so massive. What Mr.
Schissel did here, as I see it, is just simply create a back yard that didn't
exist. So given that. The fact that it's not visible and ! think the fact that
it's not visible almost doesn't set a precedent because nobody knows it's there
other than the neighbor behind. I tended to be more lenient on this one. Set a
precedent? I suppose. But I'm on record as having voted for it and I'll have
to hold that position I believe.
Councilwoman Oimler: Wow. Okay. I want it made absolutely clear that I don't
hold staff responsible in this case whatsoever. I do think that you faulted and
even without a variance, you need a permit for a deck. Is that correct? Now
had you come in and even come in for the permit, which is not that expensive.
David Schissel: Oh absolutely. I mean I spent $2,000.00 or $1,800.00 for the
house. I mean I wouldn't have an issue with a $50.00 permit, okay.
Councilwoman Oimler: But, you're still saying you didn't know you would need a
permit to put a deck on?
David Schissel: I simply said the house was new.
Councilwoman Dimler: And a variance would have come to light and probably you
know you would have been told you couldn't do it.
David Schissel: Right.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah.
David Schissel: No, I don't disagree.
Councilwoman Dimler: So I think that staff is not responsible in this case.
Absolutely. I do have a real difficult time in setting a precedent. Z think
this does. And I want to make it absolutely clear that we won't tolerate
anything in the future and I had asked, and I don't remember if we ever got it
54
C£ty Council Heet~ng - April 27, 1992
done but ! thought that there should be a stiff penalty for people butlding
things without permits. Did we ever get anything on the books?
Mayor Chmlel: Normally it's double permit fee isn't ti?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. There's a standing double permit fee in the building code
for a situation like this. £speclally if...
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes it is and that's why I'm saying, I think I asked for
that earller that we should really have something on the books where we can
really slap a $500.00 fine on you know and that will prevent other people from
saying, hey. He got away wtth it you know but yeah, it cost him $500.00. I
really think we need something like that to stop that from happening in the
future and I'd 11ks to ask Hr. Schtssel if the deck is worth $500.00 to you?
David SchIssel= I tell you what. Slap a $500.00 fine on me and publish it in
the paper. Do it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Why are you threatening?
David Schissel: I'm not threatening. I'm begging.
Councilwoman Oimler: That would be precedent setting. Shall we do it?
Councilman Wing: I'm aware of a. fellow that put a beach in out on the lake I
ltve on and got fined $3,500.00. Same thing. He got his beach and it cost him
$3,500.00. What do we gain here? I thlnk if we can enforce the laws ts a
priority.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. I'll approve it with a $500.00 fine.
Nayor Chmtel: I guess I looked at it from the same standpoint that some of you
have already indicated. The lot is a problem. Of course you butlda house on
there and of course the necessary setback requirements are tn Jeopardy of the
setback, 14 feet from the rear property 11ne. I see this as really sort of a
problem with var£ances are made for respective reviews. You know we do it on
one and we allow this to go through as we did wtth a triple and because of the
topography of the land, was the reason that we basically had gone on it. Then
to have children within the area, there's no place to play except in the steep
driveway. Just a minute. You had your say. Hy turn. And I don't disagree
wlth that but there ls the back yard, there's nothing there and it ts steep and
that deck really doesn't look to me that bad. But [ know it's causing a setback
and here too I probably am becoming, I don't dtsagree with staff's
recommendation. I think that's what variances are here for. For us to review
to see whether or not we really are setting a precedent or is it a lot in itself
that we look at? I guess I know where I'm sort of still coming from.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to say that it's a beautiful deck. I thlnk It
fits the topography. I'd love to have your daughter have a place to play. That
is all very good but the other factors remain as well so.
Councilman Wing: Well I'll move approval of this Hr. Mayor, tf I could call it
at thls point and see what happens from there maybe.
55
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you adding the $500.007
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Quick comment.
Mayor Chmiel: I knew we had one.
Councilman Mason: I'm not even going to talk about playing on a steep hill. My
? year old loves it. Had the variance come in before this was all put up, my
guess is I would say,... I don't particularly care for variances but I see the
issue. With what I know about how this city operates, I strongly suspect that
nothing got lost here, which means it got lost somewhere else. I have a real
problem with letting people build things without a permit, without a variance
because I think if we go ahead and approve this now, I think we're sending a
message out to people. Ah, you can go ahead and build it because even if you
don't have a permit or even if you don't have a variance for it, the City's
going to let it stand. Had all of this happened the way it was supposed to, I
know I would be looking at it tn a different way than I am now.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just interject one more thing. As far as checks are
concerned. I sent a check in December for purchase of a magazine. A clothing
magazine for my wife. That check has never come in. Just last week from the
postal department in St. Paul, they sent that check back to me.
Councilman Mason: Anything's possible.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's exactly what happened. And I can't call anyone a liar
because I know there are situations that do occur.
Councilman Mason: Oh, I have no intentions of.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not saying you are. No. I'm just saying that but it was
a unique situation that Just happened to be just recently. So I just wanted to
bring that part up as well. So with that we have a motion on the floor wlth a
second.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, would that include the double permit fee or has
the permit fee been?
Mayor Chmiel: That's just automatic from my understanding. The double permit
fee. Which is, permit fee for a deck is what? I think mine ran me about
$140.00 or somewhere in that neighborhood.
Councilman Wing: Before this is lost totally. Paul, what's the reality of
coming up with a significant flne so that if ~e allow these things, the
applicant has the option to say well okay, we'll let this by because Mike's
wrong. Mlke's rlght. You know I agree with Mike. I mean his comments almost
make me want to sway the other direction because he's clearly right I think.
But what can we do to allow us to penallze the person for our decislon if you
will? In other words, we'll make the decision in your favor but you're so wrong
56
City Council Meeting - April 27, [992
and out of line, rather than make you rip it down, here's what It's going to
cost you to keep it. It's a penalty. It's a penalty clause. It's not being a
nice guy. What would be a penalty?
Paul Krauss: It sounds like sore of a legal question.
Mayor Chmiel: Good to see you back Roger. Earn your money.
Roger Knutson: Right now we have in place, we have adopted the UBC standard
permit fee. Oouble permit fee requirements. We can look at bringing that back
on an amended schedule for double permit fees and use double permit fee with a
minimum of x. Zf the deck's your major problemw then maybe it's $500.00. If
that's what you think is appropriate. You can do that by ordinance.
Councilman Wing: Mike, where would you stand on an Issue like that? For
instance on this one, if there was a sizeable penalty on this, would you tend to
be more flexible or still just?
Councilman Mason: :I'd certainly look at it. Off the top ! don't. I mean I
think it's something to look into.
Councilwoman Oimler: I definitely favor it. I think it's a way for future
Counclls to handle you know. I would 11kc to see that implemented.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we do have a motion on the floor with a second. Is there
anythlng In additlon to that second with any friendly amendment that people are
discussing now?
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to say I appreciate his willingness to pay the
$500.00. He really wants that deck.
Mayor Chmlel: I can understand that. I really do.
Councilwoman Otmler: I do too.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question.
CouncLLman ~ing moved, CouncLlman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request
t92-3 for a 11 foot rear yard setback variance for David Schtssel at 1840
Pheasant Drive. A11 voted in favor except CouncLlman Nason who opposed and the
motion carried uith a vote of 4 to 1.
_~'70NING ~F~_a_~EST FROH A2 TO RSF. NqO PR~...LT~/~MRY PLRT ~~ST F~ 141 S~E
F~ZLY LOTS. ~ETL~ ~T[R~TI~ ~ZT. ~ 8.2 ~S ~ P~ ~ L~RT~
~ L~N ~ EAST ~ ~P~ ~E~. 3~T ~~ ~ T~ ESTATES.
C~EK. ~ ~EN ~S,
Public Present:
Mame
Richard ?
Hark Foster
80[Z Acorn Lane
8020 Rcorn Lane
57
City Council Meeting - April 27, lgg2
Karen Olsson
Mitchel H. Krause
Start Rud
Bruce & Kris Johnson
Hans Hagen
Brad Foley
Robert Lawson
Greg & Julie Sorenson
Jlm Andrews
Jim & Colleen Oockendorf
Dave Menke
Oebra Land
8020 Acorn Lane
2380 Timberwood Drive
2030 Renaissance Court
2051 Oakwood Ridge
g41 N.E. Hillwlnd Road, Mpls.
2061 Timberwood Drive
2041 Renaissanoe Court
8121Maplewood Terrace
151 Fox Hollow
2061 Oakwood Ridge
2041 Timberwood Drive
2060 Oakwood Ridge
Kate Aanenson: Z thlnk everybody else in the room is here on thls lssue and I
thlnk you want to move up so you can hear. This item was heard before the
Plannlng Commission on Apr11 1st and the plat that you have before you tonight
is different than the plat that went to the Planning Commission. This plat has
been revised by the applicant to meet some of the concerns that were addressed
by the staff and the residents at that meeting. I might just briefly go over a
summary of some of those items. The first being that we requested that Stone
Creek Road not go through onto 6alpin. That was a request of the County and our
engineering department. That has been put in a cul-de-sac...more desireable.
Adds a continuity to the berm plus it adds a little trail on that side...
Councilman Wlng: Back up a mlnute. What happened?
Kate Aanenson: This street, on the original plat had gone through and we asked
that, we just thlnk the lots are more deslreable. They're not corner lots plus
the berm and the trail that wtll go along that road. In addition the other
major lssue was the park location. The Park Commission dld hold a speclal
meeting on this issue on April 15th to look at the alternatives. The original
recommendation by the applioant was up in thls area rlght here and the Park
Commission felt like they wanted a flat area. 5.6 acre which would be required
based on the number of lots in the development. The Planning Commission and the
staff felt strongly about the preservation of the bluff. We feel that's a
unlque area. Based on that, the Parks and Recreation Committee dtd have another
meeting and looked at, Mr. Hagen came back wtth another proposal. One showing
down in thls area here and the other one back up in here. He has shown how he
can get a ballfield up tn here, a play area plus a sliding htll which is now 8.7
acres. As Z mentioned earlier, the requirement would be 5.6 acres so he is
dedicating more land than would be the requirement. There's some other issues
that were ralsed by the residents that we have addressed. There was strong
concern about the typing up of these two neighborhoods. The staff, engineering
department felt strongly about tylng these two neighborhoods together. There
was concerns from residents of Timberwoods about the traffic Impact. As we
ralsed in the meeting, we dldn't feel 11ke a lot of people would be cutting
through Timberwood. We felt it would be significantly faster to cut through up
onto 6alpln but based on those comments, we're recommending that a stop slgn be
placed as you're coming out of Tlmberwood in this area. These lots, you'd
reallgn and that thls road would then remaln a thoroughfare. Thls road
eventually would tie back up to the residential area up to TH 5 as that's
developed residentially. Therefore, ! thlnk the concern that the residents had
about Timberwood and being the same name, we could change this name of the
58
City Council Meeting - April 27, [992
street here to Boulder Drive so the Timberwood segment would stop here at the
stop sign and then this would then be called Boulder Orive. The other issues
that were raised in the staff report, again as [ mentioned, had been addressed
by the applicant and the redesign. We did change the compliance tables because
the lots had changed. One issue that still needs to be addressed ts the
wetlands. There are two wetlands on this site. The Large one being up in this
area. It falls in the conservation easement. That conservation easement,
because of the site be wooded, we're recommending that we have a 20 foot front
yard setback to all these. So what we're looking at is having a 20 foot front
yard setback with a home of 40 or 50 foot in depth and then a 20 to 30.foot rear
yard and everything beyond that would fall into what we're calling-a tree
conservation easement. And the intent Is that as the people buying into these
neighborhoods would be made known that the intent is to save these trees and if
they were to come back and put in a swimming pool or whatever, we would say no
and the intent is that these are wooded lots. This wetland does fall Into the
tree conservation easement so these Lots do meet the 75 foot wetland setback
requirement. In addition, we're having a substantial buffering of. that wetland
so as far as any mitigation, there's no intrusion into that wetland at all. On
Lot 5 of Block 5, this wetland here, we're saying at this point is unbuildable.
It cannot meet the 75 foot setback but as you know, we're working through our
wetland ordinance and we haven't come up with that criteria yet so what we said
is when he comes in for final plat is we've asked Frank Svoboda, our consultant
on these wetland issues, to look at this specific site and we know what
direction we're going with setbacks and buffering. We may Look at that one
later but at this time we have determined that it is unbuildable. Other than
that, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision, the
rezoning, and the wetland alteration.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We're Looking at three different things. One being
preliminary plat as was indicated. Rezonlng of the property from A2,
agricultural to RSF. And wetland alteration permit. Ooes the developer have
any discussion on this? Do you agree basically with what star has indicated or
do you disagree?
Hans Hagen: Your Honor, members of the Council and staff. We are in
concurrence with the recommendations that staff has made in the report on
wetlands and rezoning and the preliminary plat. I'll be glad to answer any
questions you have regarding the development.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We'll start from this end. We'll give Hike a
reprieve. Ursula.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh, how sweet. Basically from everything I saw, I don't
have any problems with it. I like the idea of the.conservation dLstrict for the
trees. I think they're high quality trees and I'd like to see them preserved.
[ was wondering about the wetland alteration permit until just now and you know
again, you said that the parameters are going to change here and we'll probably
be able to do that, what they're asking for. I don't have any problem with the
rezoning either. I can't see that that would make any problems for us tn the
future. And this is just a preliminary plat so I'm sure we'LL have further
input as the process develops. Did you want to comment on the road going
through or anything?
59
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Anything you'd like to say.
Councilwoman Oimler: I like the idea of the park being, you know getting more
for the 8.7. £speclally if you can st111 get the ballfield and the playground
in. The sliding hill there, does it go away from the road?...
(There was a tape change at thls polnt in the discussion.)
Paul Krauss: It was never submitted in PUD. Hans and I sat down and worked out
a couple alternative plans for thls before Christmas and bls orlglnal proposal
was to come in as a PUD. The premise was he would put 10,000 square foot lots
in the soybean fleld and larger lots up on the h111. I agreed wlth hlm that Z
saw the merit in that proposal. But having worked with the Planning Commission
for 8 months already at that polnt in trylng to get the PUD through, I couldn't
in good conscience encourage him to spend a whole lot of money and time trying
to work that lssue through so I thlnk what we've done ls we've come up wlth a
pretty good plat under normal subdivisions... It probably would have been a
good candidate for it but at thls point it lsa good subdivision.
Councilman Wing: Up at Trapper's Pass. I was driving through the other day and
I notlced corridor after corrldor of maple hardwoods laying in piles all over
the place and it was sort of disheartening you know when we have so few trees
left and we made such an lssue to talk about them and then cuttlng them down for
any reason seems to be really... Are the trees basically, in looktng at all of
thls, what are we losing?
Kate Aanenson: Well Mr. Hagen has agreed that obviously we're putting the
conservation and at a minimum those have to be protected. But he's gone in and
his objective ls to try to save as many, whether lt's dlgglng the foundation and
even those in the side yard. The intent is to have a rear yard. You're buying
into that subdivision and the wooded area with the knowledge that your back yard
can have a 20 to 30 foot rear yard. Then the remaining portion of that will be
a wooded lot.
Councilman Wing: Just two real quick comments then. Number one, I guess I
disagree with Park and Rec on their need for this elaborate park for this area.
It's one of the last areas where there's some natural amenities we can save and
I would have itked to have seen the park designed to save the trees. Save the
natural amenities and have a passive nature park in thls area. I think short
term thinking to put their play park ahead of the preservation of some of these
areas.
Kate Aanenson: In the areas that they've got the play equipment. This
originally, in the original proposal we had this plotted out and there were two
lots on here. So actually what he's done is taken those lots out and put it
here. There's st111 quite a bit of wooded area right up here through the creek
and we feel that that's a nlce natural area. As opposed to that belng a lot and
knowing that it would be enjoyed by those homes that abut the creek. We felt it
was more desireable to have it open for everyone.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, before we go onto item 12, could I just make one
comment on thls? It's klnd of irrelevant. I'd elther 11kc to make it now or
after we're done with this.
60
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Probably wait until after.
Councilman Wing: I would prefer that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
Councilman Workman: How are we, or what is the buffer between the back of the
lots and the tracks?
Kate Aanenson: The trees.
Councilman Workman: That ts a row of trees there?
Kate Aanenson= Yes.
Councilman Workman: How does that ~lope? Zt's difficult.
Kate Aanenson= It goes down to the tracks. There's kind of a dratnage swale
that runs along the back.
Counctlman Workman= When I grew up the best playground was the tracks. I still
enjoy tr. If my mom only knew what I was doing there.
Kate Aanenson= That issue was raised at the last meeting as far as fenctng but
the city hasn't placed that requirement before on subdivisions.
Councilman Workman= You know, because of the contour and the way the whole plat
lays out, I don't know you know. I guess I'm not so sure I understand how
important tt ts that the road go through. I guess I don't understand why it
couldn't be designed onto itself and have two entrances and exits other than tn
a general sense tt looks rather narrow. Why do we have to have tt come out
through Ttmberwood?
Paul Krauss: You want to have the encapsulated version of this?
Mayor Chmiei: Short.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, real short.
Councilman Workman: My attentton span ts wantng.
Paul Krauss: Well, I'll skip all the normal stuff that Councilman Wing has
heard a number of times. It is the reasonable thing to do for traffic and for
safety and for emergency vehicle access. For maintenance of city streets.
Kate Aanneson: Garbage, busing.
Paul Krauss: All of those. It's much more efficient. Secondly, originally
this plat had 3 entrances onto Galptn and Lyman and we, with the County Engineer
raised some serious questions about that. Zt gets down on some pretty busy
street and determined that it was most appropriate that a single curb cut, major
curb cut instead of multiple access points up and down that. Timberwood was
always designed to be extended. That way tt was terminated tn the woods just
for that purpose. It's an extremely long street as it is. We c~on't think that
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
there's much chance of traffic coming up that way in any significant amount,
particularly with the redesign. We Just have to recommend that that connection
remain.
Councilman Workman: But if, and I agree. I don't know that a lot of people
would go up and out that way. But you're really asking for an awful lot of cars
to go out one cut, aren't you? Out of here.
Kate Aanenson: What we're showing is that eventually this will tie up to, tie
it baok up lnto TH 5. That wlll also carry some of the traffic.
Councilman Workman: Through an industrial zone?
Kate Aanenson: Well if the school doesn't go there, it's.
Paul Krauss: That's open to question. That area is guided residential right
now.
Councilman Workman: But that's going to be next to some commercial.
Paul Krauss: Well, the creek borders the commercial.
Councilman Workman: Well that would be, okay. Okay, that's then. This is now.
Let me, any way you look at it, you're going to have a lot of traffic. I mean
these things are really, there's a lot of houses in here. And for now, lt's
certainly a lot going out the one side. And however, whatever it's going to
take for the next neighborhood and for people to slide out there, TH 5 isn't
really that close. I would think that.
Paul Krauss: Well actually, if that road was extended up on the east side, what
it would tie into is that parallel frontage road. One of the ones that we've
had on the plan and Blll Horrlsh was talklng about.
Councilman Wing: The ghost drawing?
Paul Krauss: I guess, yeah.
Councilman Workman: I prefer that a subdivision kind of stands on it's own a
little bit. I mean I understand why you want to connect them but it is, ina
sense I do understand the neighborhood to the north saying, we have our
neighborhood and now we have a neighborhood with quite a bit of different nature
to it funneling through it and it definitely lmpacts.
Kate Aanenson: That was one of the reasons why the Park Commission was so
adamant about Hr. Hagen wanted to dedicate money but they requested that he have
property because of the need for a park in this area. Timberwood doesn't have a
park. Also, when Hr. Gram develops his property, this will be the park for that
area so we're trying to tie these neighborhoods together and this would be the
park serving that kind of super block area.
Councilman Workman: 8ut Timberwood, do they need a park? I mean they're so
wlde open.
~2
City Council Meeting - Apr£1 27. 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I could make, we live off of Frontier Trail and the
development that came in that used to be a cul-de-sac. The development that
came in behind us is of a different nature than the neighborhood that we live
in. There were many residents in our neighborhood that did not want that to go
through and I can tell you now, it's what? 2 years later, maybe 3 years later,
most of us are so happy to have that other way out to Kerber rather than going
all the way Frontier. And I can see that same thing happening. When the people
want to go down to Lyman, they're going to not go out. They're going to go the
short way through.
Councilman Workman: But that isn't the short way through.
Councilwoman Oimler: It is shorter than going.
Councilman Workman: Going north?
Councilwoman Otmler: No, no, no. The other people coming south.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but Z'm just saying that connection into Timberwood
really, you know I understand the garbage truck and the bus and all the other.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would almost see the Timberwood people being more coming
out this way than the others going that way because most of the businesses.
Councilman Wing: Well Tom's right because had I bought a large 2 1/2 acre lot
on a cul-de-sac in an isolated area, I want us to keep it that way. In terms
of.
Councilwoman Oimler= Z understand that. We went through the same process and
we fought like cats and dogs to keep that closed and now everyone's really happy
that it's open.
Councilman Workman: The two neighborhoods are very much a contrast.
Councilwoman Oimler: So is ours.
Councilman Workman: But you have small lots. I mean you don't have huge lots.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other points Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't get all fuzzy about parks but I guess I do want to
look a little closer at that connection. And I understand and we all understand
why people are anxious.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, I understand their concern. We went through it.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think it's too bad this didn't come in as a PUD. I think
it would made a lot of sense to put the smaller lots on the open areas and I
thlnk that would have maybe solved some of the other problems with the
Timberwood folks too but it wasn't done that way and this looks okay to me. I
flnd it interesting that from tlme to time we hear because some of our
63
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
requirements are fairly stringent for developing but yet we have a developer
come in that says, he wants to save 8 acres of trees. So I think that says
something about the kind of developments that we're attracting to Chanhassen
rtght now. I think that's very good or whatever you say that he did that. As
an RSF, I thlnk it looks flne.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. I guess I just have a couple thlngs and maybe
reiterate some of the things some of the other Council people have said. One of
the thlngs that I have in that second plottlng of emergency overflow through the
rear yards of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4. That's where you'll be eventually
draining out to Boulder Road. How are we golng to make sure that the swales are
going to be maintained and left in place without people doing anything to thelr
contours within thelr yards or bulldlng something?
Kate Aanenson: We just talked about that. Maybe Charles might want to address
it more specifically but we talked about maybe a different alternative than he's
proposing here and that's including pip£ng golng down the street.
Mayor Chmiel: I've seen situations occur in cities where it's caused problems
for other residences.
Charles Folch: Yeah, as Kate mentioned, that's something that had come up when
we talked about it today as it relates to policies that we'd like to adopt and
adhere to ulth our Surface Water Management program. It certainly doesn't
appear to be very prudent design to funnel discharge into a detention pond and
then outlet that pond lnto a swale which then would have the potential of
eroding soil for a couple hundred feet before it's picked back up into another
storm sewer system. I'm seelng if that that's the appropriate way to go so
we're taking a look at an option to possibly having the whole thing kept
enclosed internally ulthout discharging to the rallroad dltch.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. The other thing that I also plcked up on is, I
would like to see that permanent pondlng in place. Havlng a locatlon for that
to go to rather than having,, and also having appropriate drainage easements that
would be provided with that flnal plat.
Kate Aanenson: Wlth the final phase you're talklng about?
Mayor Chmlel: Rlght.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Hopefully we have that resolved as part of the storm
study management program and we know when that would be.
Mayor Chmiel: Water supplies seems to be a concern of mine as I look at this
too. Within that particular area, are we gotng to have sufficient water
suppltes once that area completely develops? And what would our needs be at
that particular time? In other words, how many more towers are we going to have
to have? Or tower.
Charles Folch: Well Bonestroo is still working on completing that comprehensive
policy plan from which ue will try and establish the time table for a
comprehensive capltal improvement program. But maybe Bob can address thls a
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
little further but the overall plan for ultimate development, and that includes
both this area and the entire Upper Bluff Creek area, [ think will require the
installation of one more tower to serve this area and another tower to serve the
area just east of Lake Minnewashta. But at this point in tiao I don't believe
that construction of the water tower is warranted based on just this development
alone.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How do we pick up those costs ~ith the additional develops
coming in? Are we getting any dollar appropriations for some of those things in
consideration that we're going to have to put that in at a later time?
Charles Folch: Based on the study that was completed by Bonstroo on the trunk
sewer and water facility needs of the entire Bluff Creek area Including lift
stations, water towers and such, from that.then we also determined the number of
expected units ~e could generate out of the area as far as development so the
rates that were approved, trunk utility rates of $970. and $127S. that were
approved about 2 months ago, basically take tnto account those other needs.
Nayor Chmiel: I guess the only other thing that I really liked too is that 8.2
acres that we're getting for that park within that particular area. ! think
that's a necessary thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one more question and maybe Kate, you can answer
this. Old I read something In this report about a 20 foot easement between the
northern most lot?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's on here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we considering that yet or has that been?
Kate Aanenson: We had taken that out but then the Parks Commission went back
and put it back in...
Councilwoman Oimler: And is that so that Timberwood people can use the park?
Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If we, ts there anyone that wants to
say something at this particular time? And I'd really like to limit it for a
few minutes. Please come forward. Time is fleeting and we close Council
Chambers rather quickly.
Start Rud: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name Is Stan Rud. Z'm from T/mberwood.
2030 Renaissance Court. [ have 4 or 5 overheads that i'd like to briefly show
you stating some of the concerns that the residents of Ti~berwood. There are
four main points that [ would like to bring up. One is the safety of Timberwood
res/dents due to the increased traffic on Timberwood Drive and the addition of
many cars on the intersection of TH 5 and CR 117. The second one ts the abrupt
transition from rural lots to urban lots. The third one ts the lack of public
discussion after the many changes that were made to this proposal. [t ~as not
discussed at the Planning Commission after all these major-changes ~ere made so
this is our first, the first time any of us have seen this. And lastly i've got
some safety and zoning concerns with a preliminary plat that was shown, some of
which have been addressed tonight. This first overhead, the question was, what
&S
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
is the safety affect of signtfioant increase in traffic on Timberwood Drive and
on CR il7 and TH 5? At the Planning Commission meeting there was no
consideration, no significant consideration anyway glven to the lmpact of the,
figure used earlier tonight was 10 trips per day per household which would be
1,400 trips per day. If all those cars went out onto TH 5, we would have a
major traffic jam there. And if a large number of those were to drive on
Tlmberwood, that would be an lssue there too. The second point is, due to this
anticipated high volume of traffic, the staff report recommended request
deflnlng Timberwood Drlve to a minor collector type street. I don't know what
that means in terms of how much traffic increase is projected onto.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that? That was, normally we have
a 33 foot asphalt width. I think we just recommended a 36 foot just so there's
room for parking oars and that sort of thlng.
Stun Rud: The next point is traffic safety concerns of existing residents. As
evidenced by nearly all of the Timberwood's residents speaklng at the one
Planning Commission meeting opposing the increased traffic volume on Timberwood,
and I belleve there w111 be a petition, if it hasn't already been presented it
will be presented tonight. And lastly, the staff's recommendation to connect
neighborhoods and provlde dual access to all streets has not been unlformally
enforced in the past and I listed 9 different roads there that were relatively
long that end in cul-de-sac type roads in other neighborhoods. So lt's not
always enforced. The neighborhoods have to be connected. Okay the second
overhead. Abrupt transition from large rural lots to small lots and the impact
this has on the environment. This particular area. Ithtnk the City Council
should glve strong consideration to the staff's recommendation whlch the
Planning Commission did not agree with, to use the planned unit development wlth
larger lot slzes in the wooded areas. Roughly the 31 acres that are platted In
the wooded areas to preserve a major portion of those trees. Currently it's a
pretty abrupt transition from the 2 1/2 acre lots tn Timberwood to the .4 acre
lots in this area. In addition with the map that Kathy showed of the tree
easements, roughly 16 of the 31 acres that were platted in the wooded are belng
developed. Would be basically clear cut. Wtth the 20 foot setback from the
road, you cannot preserve those trees because most of them have crowns that are
30-40 feet across and there would be so much root damage there that none of the
trees would survlve in the front yards. And wlth 90 foot lots and houses up to
10 feet away from the edges of lots, very few trees inbetween would survive
elther. $o it would be basically devastated except for the back yards. And
clear cutting 55~ of the trees is, in my opinion anyway, not tn lfne with the
tree preservation ordinance. Using minimum slze lots, basically maximizes the
trees being cut down. Not minimizes them. The third overhead. Just concerns
to the way the lssue was handled at the Plannlng Commission meetlng. There were
major changes to the plan. The staff strongly recommended in the£r staff report
that the lssue be continued untll these changes were made so they could be
discussed with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission bas£cally
passed it as ls and thls ls the flrst tlme we've seen most of these changes.
There were major disagreements at the time, especially concerning the parks. The
Park Commission was recommending large, flat actlve parks. Not wooded, hllly
areas. Although those might be desireable, you have 300 or more children
looking for a place to play and no sidewalks or paths or ballparks and thlngs
like that. That was an issue. As I mentioned, some of those have been
addressed tonlght. The next overhead, the last one. There are some safety
City Council Heeting - ~priL 27, ~992
considerations that I'd like to have the Council consider. The ones ! mentioned
are trails for the bicycles. If there are 300 children out of 141 hoses, there
will be a lot of bicycles. ! think there should be bike paths. 8 foot aide
along all the streets. Not just the main one. He have to keep the kids off the
streets. They need ways to get to the park. They needs paths that go all the
way to the park. Over 20 of the lots have back yards adjacent to the Twin City
and Western Railroad. Some consideration should be given for their safety too,
such as requiring continuous fencing along the railroad tracks. Tall child
proof fencing all the way from Galpin Road all'the way to it. Even past the
bridge on the railroad tracks east of Stone Creek. Possibly going over the
bridge because children will be climbing the bridge and there are no rails of
any kind on that bridge. Several Lots Look down onto the railroad tracks and
there are, it's basically an easily climbable slope up to the track and the
picture [ passed around earlier showed telephone wires that you can reach up and
hang onto. Roughly 6 to 8 feet off the ground so they should be restricted from
that area. [n talking to the general manager of the railroad yesterday, he said
there are, or Friday, he said there are currently-5 to 8 trains per day there
except in the winter months when there's 3 or 4 trains per day. He said they
plan on increasing the traffic in that area so this is not a problem that's
going to go away due to decreased use. He recommended at Least 150 feet to any
inhabited structure from the railroad tracks. ! don't know if that's an issue
or not and again the City should require fencing. [n walking through the flats
last week, there are several wetland areas..! don't know if you officially
classify them as wetlands but they are low, swampy areas that you can't walk
through when it rains. ~nd they are not sho~n on these plats. There's some
drainage areas that are not shown. [t basically makes several, maybe 3 or 4 or
5 lots unbuildable unless there's considerable excavation done, which is
prohibited in this plan. [ think those things should be considered and shown on
the plats and adjustments made on the lots in that area. ! would strongly
recommend at Least one acre lots in the wooded area so we don't Lose over 55~ of
our trees. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Can I just follow up? ~re we looking at a 55~ loss of trees
in that area? [s that possible?
Paul Krauss: To be honest, ! don't know. He didn't make that calculation.
Hhen you look at the site plan, you can see where the tree loss occurs.
where the roads are and ! mean ! think it over states it because of the
developer's intent to save trees inbetween homes but the only ones that we can
guarantee are those that will be protected by that conservation easement.
Stun Rud: Hhere ! calculated goes in this area that's wooded right here. This
area will be clear cut basically for the house and trees.
Kate Aanenson: Well he's said that he's not going to clear cut. He's trying to
do it on an individual basis for each housing pad. His value is saving the
trees.
Councilman Wing: So tt's not a clear cut area?
Stan Rud: Well, a 90 foot lot with a house 20 feet from the road and the houses
that I think they showed at the Planning Commission were 70 feet wide. So there
wasn't much room on either side...
City Council Meeting - ~pril 27, 1992
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to have that marked down as being reviewed in
more depth. If we're the tree city and we have no trees left and we're going to
cut down half the trees every time we put in a project, something's got to give.
Either we're going to have no trees, They're not planting any more trees. We're
not requiring these open lots to have trees. We're just stripping what we've
got, This really troubles me. Just as an issue to look at further, that's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think too though, from a developer's standpoint when
they do develop areas with wooded lots, they try to preserve as much as they can
because they do get better prices for those lots.
Councilman Wing: Oh I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: $o I think from that standpoint.
Councilwoman Oimler: I have a question too. I'm a little bit confused because
it was my understanding that normally when we go with a PUD, that we're allowlng
smaller lot sizes and getting something else so we would be increasing density
here ina PUD and that is exactly, it seems to me that Tlmberwood is asking for
a PUO. Is that correct?
Paul Krauss: Well I think what Ttmberwood is asking for was never considered by
anybody actually in laying this thing out. I mean Timberwood, we heard 1 acre
lots and whatever else. City Code says 15,000 square foot lots. In the past,
the city has allowed PUO's to occur with average densities below 15,000 square
feet. And some of them cause a lot of problems. Frankly you saw one of those
problems just an hour ago with that variance. That was one of those cases.
What Hans Hagen and I have discussed is a PUB that met the 15,000 square foot
lot average but put 10,000 square foot lots in the soybean field and 20 or
25,000 square foot lots in the trees so they were somewhat, they're half again
bigger. But again, I'm concerned about a developer who probably wanted to do it
that way initially but having tried to get this resolved by the Planning
Commission since last ~ugust, I didn't feel in good conscience I could throw a
developer into that argument and say, you figure it out because I haven't been
able to.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying the Planning Commission hasn't been in
favor of a PUB?
Paul Krauss: The Planning Commission has not been in favor, in favor of PUB's.
They like the concept. What they're unsure about is how small should the
smaller lots...
Mayor Chmtel: I think to go through the lot areas for each of these, you have
some with 15,000. You have some with 17,000, Z3,000, some with 33,000. Or
32,000-33,000. 19. There's a whole host of different sizes going in here.
There's just not 15,000. There are several of those.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's none below 15,0007
Mayor Chmiel: No. Nothing. Nothing below 15,000 square feet.
Hans Hagen: I think the average was 15,200.
68
City Council Heeting - April 27, 1992
tfayor Chmiel= Good, thank you. I was going to ask that.
3wile Sorenson: My name ts Julle Sorenson and .I Live at 812[ MapIewood Terrace
in Timberwood Estates. ! do have a copy of that petition from the residents of
T£mberwood about their concern about keeping T[mberwood a dead end. I'd like-to
pass that out to you. First of all I'd like to say that ! appreciate the effort
as far as making that an Intersection with a different name. I think that ts a
step in the right direction. And ! think that would be a second best choice but
after passing, going around and talking with the neighbors and everything,
safety really is a concern as far as the nature of Ttmberwood as a speed zone.
If any of you have driven out on it, It starts out as ahiII that goes up.
Comes down around a curve and tf you're lucky you'll keep tt at 40. And with
the increased amount of traffic, these numbers that people throw out as far as
how many trips per day and I'm not expert at that but ! know if there's 140 new
houses, even if there's 20~ of the people that go through there plus the
delivery trucks and visitors, that's a lot more traffic than 40 or 45 mph
through T£mberwood. Many of the driveways are hiLls right down to the road.
Two neighbors just to the right of me have such Lots with, and they have
children. Whether it's a bail roiling or a b£cycIe out of control or a sled, no
matter how careful of parents you are, if that becomes a feeder street for 140
new houses, that's very much a safety problem. From my experience going through
speed zones in other communities, they're not fo[lowed. ! mean you
behind people, how fast do they go if It's posted 30? Espec£aI[y TI~berwood
Lots are larger lots. They're far apart. The potential danger Isn't seen by
someone who's visiting on an Infrequent basis. [ just think It ts unique in
that way. That it's a residential neighborhood without sidewalks or bicycle
paths with many small children. Many people chose to live tn such an area
because they thought it was a good place to raise kids and all of a sudden it's
a busy street and there's no way to get around lt. It also, In TImberwood
because of the cul-de-sacs that come out into large lots, there's only a few
houses per cul-de-sac which ts nice you might say but say there's this busy
street that goes through it and cuts it right In half. My kids aren't going to
go across that street to play with the k£ds across the cuL-de-sac if there's x
number of cars going that fast on that road. They're so far, there's one speed
zone sign. There's no safety bumps. No stop signs. Nothing to protect the
residents in Timberwood if that goes through. ! can see the fire safety
argument. Of course you're going to want to get to those homes If there Is a
fire. ! would suggest a one lane gravel fire lane connecting that. Ifa break
away gate doesn't work, if it's something that's been found that doesn't work,
then don't put a gate up. 3ust put the grave[ road and post a sign. That sign
ks going to be more effective than a speed zone sign because I tel1 you, people
aren't going to pay attention to a speed zone sign. There's going to be kids
that want to ride bikes. Kids have to wait-for the bus. [ don't know, Ithtnk
that would be very much a safety concern. And for those that don't have
children, they have pets that they enjoy walking. There's a lot of-Joggers. If
that road becomes that busy, there's definitely going to have to be some maSor
£nvestment in paths and other safety concerns. So I think as far as the fire
safety and the snowplows, they could use that gravel path between. Residents
could get to the park either by going back out onto CR 117 and driving over to
it or else just take a walking path into it that would be along that gravel
connection. I think that's about ail [ really have to say except that. I know
that this petition demonstrates that most of the residents in this area feel
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
this way. Whether they will in 2 years, who's to say. Maybe people with
children will move out because it ~ill no longer be a good place to raise their
kids or it ~ill be too noisy because of the traffic, ~hatever. But I, myself
and t~o others ~ent around to I think there's approximately 29 houses. We found
27 residents at home and, let's see where did I ~rite this doan. 25 of the 27
households signed this petition. They wanted to keep it a dead end so I think
that is telling you that far the majority of the residents who live in
Timberwood don't value that other exit. Most, I don't knoa ahere people commute
but I would assume that many have to go east onto TH 5 and out that way. I
don't see shy they'd want to back track. Those people that are on this end,
closest to Stone Creek would like to keep their cul-de-sacs quiet. So I don't
see a need to open that up. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimier: Mr. Mayor? Could I ask a question? I remember we
discussed that argument and it uss in the Kurvers subdivision uhere ~e also,
they uanted access for fire and emergency vehicles. Didn't ue approve a, not a
full road but a, remember that?
Paul Krauss: In Kurvers. Yeah, the project, I think it's typical of the case.
99~ of the time when ~e have a project that's approved in phases with a future
connecting street, the future connector street runs into a brick wall every
time. Kurvers ~as one of those. [urvers ass not as long as this nor did it
have, ! think it had a total of 40 homes? Does that ring a bell?
Councilaoman Oimler= Okay, and do ae have any evidence, has that been done? Is
it ~orking out or isn't it even completed yet?
Paul Krauss: Well, these things are accumulative Ursula. I mean if the only
way to plow a city that's full of cul-de-sacs is to go up and doan every street,
by the time the city's finished developing, there's going to be a significant
factor. You're paying for that. Same with school buses. Same ~tth everything
else. Emergency vehicles ~on't be able to get through. Individually where does
the straw break the camel's back? I don't knoa. On Kurvers ~ith 40 lots, you
can probably get away with it. It wasn't nearly as long. In this particular
case, ~e have two questions. We have Timber~ood ~hich is an exceedingly long
dead end street, which ~as designed to be extended. Tieberwood is fortunate I
suppose to the extent that you only have ! think it's 29 or 30 homesites in the
entire project. 8ut in the Stone Creek one, we'll have 140. And I can't tell
you that ~e can provide t~o good curb cuts out of that project because of the
street that it bounds on. Connecting to Lyaan is out of the question. Lyman is
an extremely busy street and the t~o places to come out on 6alpin, there ~as
some sight, aell this originally did have t~o curb cuts on Galpin and after
talking to the County Engineer, we eliainated one of thee because sight
distances were not that great. So we've got that question. You know in the
information that you've given tonight, there's 9 streets that ~ere sighted as
long cul-de-sacs and I bet if you took another 15-20 minutes, you could probably
find 20-30 more. It doesn't mean that it was good planning. It doesn't mean
that it mas the right thing to do or that it was even thought of because some of
these things are quite old. However, of the 9 that were cited, I note that
Tanadoona/Oogwood, you spent a lot of time a year ago figuring out hoe that
street's going to ultimately be looped back uhen that area's developed. Lake
Susan Hills Orive is a connecting street. Tiuga Lane only has 4 or 5 houses on
70
City Council Heeting - April 27, [992
it and ue would extend it if 212 wasn't coming through. It runs into a wetland.
~nd Hesse Farm Road, which is qukte long, runs over a [00 foot bluff so [ mean.
Councilwoman Oimier: There's no addition coming that way.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. I'm not going to tell you that these things don't happen.
They certainly do.
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay, thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Thanks for that clarification Paul.
Jim Andrews: Hi, I'm Jim Andrews from the Chanhassen City Park Board. I case
here to speak in support of the plat as it's no~ shown as far as it relates to
the park. We did go back and forth with the developer and the Plannkng
Commission about making some changes to the initial design of the park and we
felt as a commission unanimously that the developer presented us w£th an
excellent compromise. Giving us preservation of the natural areas around the
creek and prov~d£ng some additional space for some active play area..And I do
feel it's important that we maintain that active play area for a plan of this
s~ze. I come from the Fox Hollow development which ks about the same size.
About 140 houses and it's definitely necessary to at least have the option in
the future of having a ballf~eld or a tennis court and we've been able to
accomplish that with the help of the developer who ! think's been very positive.
3ust for the record, my address ks ~51 Fox Hollow and I'll speak now, not as the
Park Commissioner but just as a citizen. I really feel that from hearing the
discussion here that the appropriate way to handle this would be a PUO and I
think that you get much more value out of the land and the city would be better
served to preserve the forested areas through the use of a PUD. And to take the
attitude that we don't have time to reconsider that I think might not be
appropriate at this t£me. So thanks.
Colleen Oockendorf: Colleen Oockendorf, 206! Oakwood Ridge in Ttmber~ood
Estates. I have three points and I'lL try to keep them brief. The first ks to
piggyback on an issue that CounciLman Morkman brought up about the volume of
traffic. ParticularLy, first to speak to people getting, ~hich road they're
going to take. ~e've heard again and again that no one's going to take
T£mberwood Orive out. I vehemently d/sagree with that due to the fact that most
people go onto TH S and the quickest way is to shoot through that nice, clean
Timberwood Orkve and hook up real quick, ge saw last year a bus accident at
CR [[7 and TH 5. ~e saw this past winter a women being killed at t~ same
~ntersection and today we had another accident about 4:30. I don't knou if
~e've taken into consideration the volume that TH 5 is going to receive from
this. The fact that it's beLng proposed that most people aLII use the other
access onto Lyman Blvd. and CR [9, not many people take that route to work.
BeLieve me. Host people head west on TH 5. Excuse me, east on TH 5. The
second issue is an addendu~ to my letter of Rpril LO to you which dealt with the
Lot sizes. ~e spent an hour tonkght dkscusskng varkances because of people
building decks. I think you're going to run into many, many more hours
dLscuss£ng that aith the setbacks proposed in this. People are going to want a
back yard. They're going to want space and whether we say you can't build
there, people are going to build there and they're gokng to r/p down trees and
they come up in front of the City Council later and ask for a variance. Hy
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
third issue I completely forgot so. Oh no, I shouldn't have forgotten this one.
It's cutting to the quick of the issue which is, I purchased a 2 1/2 acre lot in
a rural area. I feel that if this goes through, particularly the road, but even
the development itself. Even if the neighborhood were not joined, my property
value and my market value of my house would decrease significantly. And whether
it's a salient point or not, my realtor, a realtor in town told me that that
road would never go through. So thank you.
Jim Oockendorf: I'm Jim Oockendorf. 20610akwood Ridge and I'd just like to
add a couple thlngs. Yeah, lt's true that that road was zoned to contlnue but
to continue into an agricultural estated dlstrict for 7-10 acre estate lots. I
also have the concerns about the intersections that haven't been, there's been
no mention of upgrading them. CR 117 and TH 5 where a motorcyclist was killed
thls afternoon. We had the school bus accldent that everybody's famtllar wlth.
The other accidents have been well documented. I think substantial improvements
have got to be made to that h111. To that road at TH 5 before you can conslder
another 141 homes going into this area. It's a substantial amount of people
trying to make a left turn off of TH 5 onto CR 117, or CR 19. I don't know. I
haven't found a map yet that says it's County Road lq. Or a sign that says
County Road 19. I'd also 11ko to volce the concern that Stun had. It just
didn't seem like the Planning Commission really cared about what the people had
to say. They pretty much had thelr mind made up and they dldn't even 11sten to
any of the people. Any of the concerns that we had. I would like to see if they
have the concern that you have to have a secondary access to Tlmberwood for
emergency vehicles, to go ahead with the bike path or emergency vehicles only
path between the two neighborhoods. That can certainly be done. It's been shown
that we've got it in several different areas in Chanhassen. Noteably off of
TH 101 near Lotus Lake. If we need that klnd of emergency access, it can be
done that way. But people on the eastern side of this development are
definitely golng to be uslng Timberwood and if that means 10 times the amount of
traffic volume, that's just nuts. That's ridiculous. I didn't move out here to
more to Eden Pralrle. I wanted to move lnto Chanhassen. A nlce rural
community. I think it would be a real shame if this road goes through. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. One other things too that, of course you may and
probably are aware, that TH 5 ts going to be 4 lanes all the way to TH 41. $o
hopefully some of those problems we have are golng to be corrected.
Jim Oockendorf: When is that scheduled for?
Councilman Mason: Hopefully within our lifetime.
Nayor Chmiel: Hopefully they're looking by
Dave Henke: My name is Dave Menke and I live at 2041Timberwood Drlve and
I just have a couple points here so we can get out of here. There seems to be a
lot of concern about thls cul-de-sac at the end of Timberwood Drive and getting
that connected to something. I'm a little confused because right now Ttmberwood
Drive, whlch we just put in 4 years ago, has 6 cul-de-sacs rlght now and I'm not
sure that fixing one of them really is suddenly going to solve all the problems
with cul-de-sacs. 5o it seems like there's still going to be all the concerns
about buses turning around and snowplows and all that and I'm not sure by
72
City Council Meeting - April 27, [992
connecting that with this Stone Creek development that it really solves many of
the problems. [ mean hindsight is always 20/20. Maybe we shouldn't have put
cul-de-sacs in there 4 years ago when we built the development but the fact is
that we did and i'm not sure that eliminating one of.those right now is really
going to make a lot of difference. So of course ['d like to not have the
Timberwood Drive connect to the Stone Creek development. As 3u[te said, and [
think my second choice is just what's recommended right nou which is T'ing off
Timberwood Drive so it at least doesn't continue out onto Galpin in sort of a
horseshoe shape. ! guess the last point ! have is, ! was here through all the
Comprehensive PLan talks and now through the Plannlng Commission and i'm sure
you guys are getting tired of hearing from Timberwood residents. Rnd one way
[ guess to get us to shut up would be just to not connect that road.
Dr. Bruce 3ohnson: Dr. Bruce 3ohnson, 20510akwood Ridge. ! guess ['e a
neighbor to everybody left in the room. [ wasn't going to speak tonight but now
! am. We ~asted, we didn't ~aste time. We had a good discussion on decks and
we worried about our time on decks. Haybe we can find someplace to order
breakfast. Comments like good enough, okay, ! couldn't se~d thee back in good
conscience. That Is of no concern. You have to do what's right. You have to
do what's cons/stent. You have to do what's best. Time is not an essence. We
didn't do CR [7 because H£nnesota Department of Transportation was going to do
[00 foot on each side. We're going to wait. We put a temporary road in for a
few years to do what's right. [f it needs to be a PUO, bigger lots, smaller
lots, less lots, more lots, take the time and do it right. That's what's going
to add value to my house. Not doing something quick that's good enough right
now. You've got to do what's right. Safety has al~ays got to be an issue.
Comment was made, i'm tired of hearing about safety. Safety had better be an
issue all the time. We went to 8 foot bike paths because of safety. We've done
a Lot of things because of safety. Safety had always better be an issue. One
of the things i'm concerned about on your overlay is you've got-like a triple
cuL-de-sac dead end with one entrance and a lot of homes and no fire entrance
where you come through Tieberwood Drive or any other way. That would be a
concern for me. The word precedence. [ love the word precedence. You set a
precedence, you're talking about our break down or some other things earlier
today on a road up by Trappers Pass and that area. [f that's an option, let's
consider it but there is a precedent set. You can't come to these, ['e going to'
back up. ~e're going to make It midnight, why not. [ had the pleasure of just
moving here from Colorado. ! had the pleasure of moving here from Colorado on
November 2nd. [ had the pleasure of paying $50.00 to get a backhoe, get a skid
loader get the snow out of my driveway so ! could back a moving van in there.
I'm having a hard time finding this quality of life everybody talks about. I
paid $2,000.00 taxes on a $250,000.00 home in Colorado. I'm paying $7,004.00 on
a $250,000.00 home in Timberwood Estates. I'm being told I'm being taxed at
that rate because I live in a seclusive subdivision. Now I'm being told I'm the
same as the subdivision with [4[ lots. Are my taxes going to go down? I don't
think so. I don't think so. So I am not the same as them. You have to be
consistent. If I'm the same as them, do I get se~er, water, gas and cable? I'm
not right now. So I'm concerned about consistency. 20 foot setbacks. That's
only 2 1/2 Tom's. 2 [/3 Tom's. You know we've got 25 foot setbacks. We've got
20 foot setbacks. We've got to be consistent. I'm being flippant and I
apologize but I've paid my dues for 5 hours. I'm concerned about doing what's
right. I'm concerned about being consistent. Community growth in a positive
sense, urban sprawl in the negative sense. We've got to be consistent and make
73
City Council Heeting- April 27,
it positive. And that's the job of the Council. My wife and I are opposed,
one for and one against Timberwood going through because of the different issues
involved. $o we've kind of said, okay. We're just going to go for what's
right. If it's done right, it will hold value. If it's done wrong, it will
detract value and I think that's what all the residents of Timber~ood want is
something that's done right and it's going to be consistent with the growth of
Chanhassen. Thank you.
Brad Foley: Hi. I'm Brad Foley from 2061 Timberwood Drive. To keep it very
brief. I think safety is the number one issue here in regards to the children
and the pedestrians on Tlmberwood Drive. I would only ask your consideration in
taking that. I think as the number one issue and I agree with all my neighbors
that there's golng to be a tremendous increase in traffic here and hopefully you
wi11 see your way through to preventing that from happening.
Hitch Krause: Hi. Hy name is Hitch Krause. I also live on Timberwood Drive. I
don't remember my address anymore. I'd like to say I agree with all my
neighbors. I don't thlnk Timberwood Drlve should be extended. The trafflc
level there now is relatively safe. We take walks every night along the street,
my chlldren and I. A 4 year old and a 2 year old. You have to watch them
careful but the road isn't over used. There is a lot of cars going excessively
fast but they're all neighbors and they do take care at evenlngs and tlmes when
they feel people are going to be around. I think adding the large amount of
trafflc, and ! don't think you can probably qulte comprehend yet how much
traffic is going to go on that road. Out 17 on that would Just make it a very
dangerous street. ! have a questlon maybe somebody can answer about the
snowplows and why they're so concerned about going in and out of cul-de-sacs.
The road I'm used to are 30 foot wlde and the snowplows are usually half as wide
as the road. You have to go in or out or make two trips anyway. I can see a
11ttle blt of your worrles I guess about the emergency access to those areas. A
gravel road as the very most would be what I'd want to see connecting that area.
When I moved out to, or when Z was looking for lots and dld look for an
extremely long time, chose to live in Timberwood Estates. It ts 35 miles from
my house to my work. I chose to 1lye there because I didn't see a big yellow
slgn at the end of Timberwood Orive that said, thls road is going to be extended
so 5,000 more cars a day can drlve here. Haybe I didn't take the tlme to look
into it that it was zoned to be extended further but to me it looked like a
cul-de-sac that was going to stay a cul-de-sac. The very worst I could have
imagined was extending into another development very similar to what it is,
which would have produced relatively few cars that would have been on the road.
8rog Sorenson: Greg Sorenson, 8121Haplewood. I guess the whole problem of
extending, when we say that it was always intended to go through Timberwood and
it was there. Last fall or spring, whenever we went through the comprehensive
plan, had that been 11ght industrial, I can't lmaglne if we would have opened
Timberwood up to the manufacturing plant and facilities. So to say it was
always planned to go through. Had that been 11ght industrial, ~ don't thtnk
that would have happened. As far as people driving, the closest, I mean I am
one of the few that drlve lnto Shakopee to work. Z'11 take the further way out
and I'll go out to, rather than go through Lyman. I mean it's not an issue for
me to have to drlve an extra half mile to work. As far as crosslng Tlmberwood.
I mean my wife is right. I don't know if she'd like me saying this. She was in
8th grade before she was allowed to cross the street as busy as that may become
74
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
and that seriously turns our subdivision into two separate communities because
so many people have kids and pets. Rs far as garbage, using utilities, that's a
private thing. Not a public service. Re have to pay contractors ourselves.
There are multiple service people in there. [ don't think that's an issue.
What the garbage has to do with it. We pay for that our service ourself.
That's our problem and that's the service company's problem. As far as
Timberwood needing a park, ! mean we all have large lots. My back yard is 3
acres. I mean if kids want to play softball in my back yard, they're more than
welcome to play it in my back yard. So ! mean ! have no trees. ! have one. So
I mean, needing a park, and my park is half the size almost of what they're
proposing for this new development. $o 1'11 put the jungle gym up. ! planned
on doing it any ways. And those are ay comments.
Debra Lano: My name is Oebra Lano. I live at 2060 Oak~ood Ridge. We're on a
corner lot on Timberwood Drive. I'm too tired to give a Long speech but I also
would like to voice my support to what my neighbors have said and ! really would
support having a small service road to connect the two neighborhoods. My
husband and ! looked for over 2 years to find a lot and neighborhood like this.
We want a place where our children could play without worry of being run over by
a car. So that's all ! have to say. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay.
Councilwoman Oimler: One more time.
Hayor Chm~el: Tom.
Councilman Workman: Just two very qulck things. Two of the speakers, Mr. Rud I
believe. I don't disagree with an awful lot of these. I do get concerned when
you talk about whether or not democracy is being served or not. I think this
Council anyway is attempting to do that. I don't think the Planning Commission
is guilty of not trying to follow some sort of a democratic process. In fact,
the opposite is maybe true of Timberwood because you guys have an awful Lot of
vacant land around you and you choose to want that vacant land to rematn vacant.
I'm heard those comments since the Comp Plan. But somebody else owns it and
what we want to do and what people want the City Council to do is to do with
other people's property what we don't have the power to do. And when you tell
somebody that no, you can't develop or do this or do that, it has to be within
inside some sort of parameters. Our laws say that if you have 15,000 square
foot lots, you can do those. Within certain boundaries so they can do this but
we have to try and help thee decide with an overall plan of the city. [ think
connecting your two neighborhoods is a terrible idea. For property values, for
safety, for others but other people are using the fact that we need that road to
go through there for safety so we have different opinionsbut ! stand by my
original idea that we need to find ways to get out of this neighborhood other
than through your neighborhood. ! think that makes common sense to me. This
could be light industrial or heavy industrial down here. [ wean that's not
necessarily for us, ! mean it is sort of for us to try and guide but we, ! have
a real hard time telling people how they should do things. [ mean we have to
keep our fingers in there enough to make sure that the public safety is
maintained but [ like to be a little more careful about what is not mine and
somebody else owns. But ! agree. We should take the time to make sure that it
is done properly and not at the expense of the neighborhood to the north. That
75'
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
makes perfect sense. Dr. Johnson. It's really difficult to be consistent ~ith
or to try to keep track of what is consistent because what is consistent in
Timberwood maybe isn't consistent down here. There's so many different things
going on. In fact, every planning book that you guys read would probably say
you need to have mixes. Mix uses. If all Chanhassen had in this neighborhood
were 2 1/Z acre lot sizes, I may not be living here and there's an awful lot of
peopte that couldn't live here and who knows where the taxes would be. $o we do
have mixes. In fact there are those who criticize that we don't-have enough
mixes for people who want to be first time home buyers in this community. So
maybe I'm taking your consistency out of.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I think you are. When I say consistent, I think things like
our developer, Wally Otto. I had the pleasure of meeting him. It seems like I'm
getting awful involved living here for 5 months. He basically said he was told
sewer, water, gas wouldn't be there for 20 years. Now we're bringing it south
of us. Is there going to be water offered to us? No. You're by-passing. !
guess we have to be consistent in our growth plan and when we say something, if
we're going to change it, we're going to have to back up and it is going to get
more expensive as we continue to change the line of thought. As we continue to
change the two things. No, ! don't think it has to be consistent that every
house has to be so many square feet wtth a cedar roof and so many acres, otc,
otc, etc.. ! thlnk we have to be consistent in our thinklng and consistent in
our planning and then consistent in our decisions in terms of if we are going to
by-pass one subdivision for certain utilities, by-pass one subdivision for
certain other options, what are we going to do inbetween? How consistent is the
growth in the city going to be?
Mayor Chmiel: Part of Timberwood's request was to leave them as they are
without providing any utilities to that location.
Or. Bruce Johnson: I think that depended on the cost. ~t one time we were told
that the total cost of that project would be bore by the participants that
received the service. But then on Audubon Road, did they not receive
compensation where they only had $5,000.00 per h(~se?
Mayor Chmiel: Each has to pay their own basically.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: Yeah, but that's not what was told to Timberwood. They
would pay the entire cost of the entire project.
Mayor Chmiel: I put in my own utilities into my own home and I had my septic
system and my own water and after we got all done it was about $10,000.00 that
it still cost me to put that in. $o everybody goes through the process.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I understand that but we ~ere not told it would be $5,000.00
per household. We were told we would bear the entire cost of that project,
whatever it was.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's true.
Or. Bruce Johnson: Well, but apparently we were also told that Audubon Road
paid $5,000.00 per household regardless of the cost.
76
City Council Meeting - April 27,
Paul Krauss: ! think there's a confus[on on issues here and Charles, correct me
if i'm wrong but on Audubon Road it had to do with buildings, hoses that are not
hooked up to the sewer but are paying one unit for trunk charges. If they want
to hook up to that, they're going to have to pay lateral charges, additional
charges to use it. And [f they want to subdivide..., they also have to pay.
Or. Bruce Johnson: They had to pay a $5,000.00 hook-up and subd[v£de was
something different.
paul Krauss: What they're paying is a trunk charge though that does not entitle
them to hook into the line. It's the cost of running it past theLr home.
Dr. Bruce 3ohnson: It allows them one hook-up does it not? It allows them one
hook-up? They're under the impression [t allows them one hook-up.
Charles Folch: They're being assessed as Paul had mentioned, for one trunk unit
at this point £n time. [f at some point in tiaa in the future that they would
request to have actual service to the property via lateral, via connection to
the trunk line, there would be the local lateral charge-at that point [n time
too. Similar to T[mberwood. I mean basically if we were to run utilities
through that project, they would have the same un[form rate of trunk assessment
through that whole Upper Bluff Creek area. But'the people in Timberwood could
expect that they would bear the cost of all the local lateral lines through
their development.
Councilman Workman: Which would be heavy.
Charles Folch: Which would be heavy.
Counc£1man Workman: I mean it wouldn't be reasonable.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Right.
Dr. Bruce 3ohnson: So I think there's some issues that come to bear that
consistency of what we hear. Consistency of what's going on.
Mayor Chmtel: I think you're probably looking at a Council that's very
consistent in what they do in their decision making as well. But it is. It's
something that we looked at even with the PUO. And we're looking at potentially
our requirements as far as square footage for a lot within this city is [5,000
square feet. If they were to go to a PUO, you could have gone to lots that are
~0,000 and lots that are 7,000 or even 8,000.
Dr. Bruce 3ohnson: I won't argue that. I guess my argument is, if everybody
says a PUO is a better route to go, take the time.
Mayor Chmiel: We look at that. We certainly do.
Or. Bruce Johnson: Wel! I heard comments tonight that sa[d, ah. I can't send
them back or looks good enough for nou. You know those comments bother me
greatly. Because it's late, what the hell you know.
Mayor Chmiel: We don't work that way.
77
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Dr. Bruce Johnson: Well, we had those comments tonight and I heard them so, I'm
not in favor of PUO's either but if that's what serves the community best, then
take the time to do it right.
Mayor Chmiel: That was our discussion that they had at Planning Commission that
that was not the appropriate way to go wlth this particular proposal and I think
lt's basically the Council's positlon that we support that particular positlon
as well.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I got the impression we did not have those discussions.
That those discussions were kind of, we did not take time.
Councilman Workman: We've kind of been discussing that for years and we're kind
of up to our ears in PUO's and reverberations from each PUO today. Pheasant
Hlll was a PUD wasn't lt?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, regrettably so.
Councilman Workman: And I mean this lovingly. And I have some friends in
Timberwood, I think. But Timberwood is an anomaly. I mean it kind of came
before everything else ina wlndow of opportunity when they could do the 2 1/2
acre and now the Met Council changed their mind. They can take the 80 acres and
put 8 of them in 11tile lots over here and then save the rest so that people
could afford to put sewer and water and everything else in. But that's not what
people wanted. I think...me to try and continue to try to protect that
neighborhood because it's there and there's nothing else we can do about it so
we have to try and protect them and work with it around lt. But the development
is coming. People own the property and they want to make some money too Just
like the guy who sold you your lots. He cashed out maybe early. So with that
in mind, that's where I am sensitive to this thing and I'll be sensitive to the
east and to the north.
Resident: Can I make a comment? You spoke about the vacant land issue.
think almost every resident of Timberwood here has said that we're delighted
that a residential neighborhood ls golng in that area. We do not expect that
land to be farmland forever. We don't expect it to be not used. We are happy
with that. But like Dr. Johnson said, we want some time and some thought put
into, does it make sense to join these two neighborhoods. Ooes it make sense to
have 1,000 cars a day going down Timberwood Drive where right now you have
families that are going for walks and things like that and people are going 45
mph. That's all we're trying to say. We realize that developers are out there
to make money and we appreciate that. That's great. That's the American Way
but take the time to do things right and that's what your jobs are.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have you got a solution? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Well my solution is not a solution but I think it's sort of a
deliberation polnt that we have. Being that normally our Councll time ls where
we cut off at 11:00, we have gone beyond this particular time. One of my
suggestions ls that we're golng to be meetlng on Wednesday of thls week, which
today is Tuesday. Tomorrow. And this w111 give us an opportunity to at least
78
City Council Heeting - April 27, [992
rethink some of these things that were brought up. Hy suggestion would be, and
recommend to table this item and the balance of the items on the agenda until
Wednesday. And ! 'think we're going to be meeting at 6:00?
Don Ashworth: Right. We should be able to conclude the work session I would
hope by 8:00 so if we had everyone, those who would like to attend, come in at
8:00. As soon as we've fEn[shed that work session upstairs, we can come back
down here and hopefully conclude thts agenda and potentially be home earlier
than 12:00 Wednesday night.
Mayor Chmiel: So that would be my recommendation at this particular time.
Councilman Wing: But that's to address item number lO?
Mayor Chmiel: That's to address tree number lO and 12. And 13.
Councilman Wing: Alright, but we still have spent most of tonight on
Timberwood. ! guess I'm going to state that Timberwood Es fighting for their
autonomy. They're their own separate community. They're not asking for a lot.
Everytime something happens we hear from Timberwood. I'm ready to leave them
alone. They bought their homes on Large Lots. They have their own little
community. They're not an integral part of the success of Chanhassen. They're
an island within themselves and I'm tired of argu£ng about it. I think Ef the
community, their community is set on this issue. ! don't care to discus-s it any
more. I'm going to support Tom's position that we don't connect them. They're
not compatible and ! don't think it's fair. If I'm going to buy a 5 acre lot
and put a $350,000.00 house on Lt... I'd 1Eke to get T£mberwood out of this
discussion. It would sure move this along.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I think that that would probably be, rather than saying
table this. I'd like to rephrase that as continue this until Wednesday.
Councilwoman Oimler: Could I Just make one more comment? You know I know
people in Timberwoed too and Z like them and ! feel that, and maybe the Planning
Commission didn't treat you fairly but I think the Council really has. When the
Comprehensive Plan came up, we listened to you. We didn't make it light
industrial or office complex, we made Et residential. And when this B[uff Creek
improvement came up, you wanted to be left out and we left you out. So I really
would [Eke you to consider that we are fair and that we are trying to help you
and that we will listen to you. We may not always go your way but then there's
a give and take.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, not on that but a point on Wednesday's meeting. I
understood from Karen Engeihardt that we were meeting in the fire station. Is
that because there's a conflict here?
Oon Ashworth: That's true. There Is, that was the reason we couldn't come here
because there was a conflict with this room for that night.
Councilman Wing: Is the fire station available? I can check that schedule.
Don Ashworth: Yes. I did check and verified it for our meeting. For the work
session. I'm not sure if it's very conducive for continuing this agenda item.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Paul Krauss: Unless we did it for old time sake in the training room.
Don Ashworth: Well I'll tell you. I do recall. Jay Johnson has some form of
CAA whatever and our policy position is, if we've got public meetings scheduled,
even if those occur, what I'll call as a last minute format, whoever is the non
city one goes out. So I will inform Mr. Johnson tomorrow that they'll have to
look for another facility for Wednesday night. Or finish up by 8:00. So we can
plan on being here.
Mayor Chmiel: Back here at 8:00 on Wednesday evening to further do what we've
got going now. I'd like to make that as a motion.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to continue the remainder of
the City Council meeting until Wednesday night, April 29, 1992 at 8:00 p.m..
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
This portion of the meeting was concluded at 12:20 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
8O