1990 07 23CHN~HRSSEN CXTY COUNCTL
REGULN~ HEETTNG
JULY 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the FLag.
COUNCILtEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Oialer and Councilman Johnson
STAFF Pltl[SDIT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul
Krauss and Dave Hempel
N~PROUN. OF N;EN~: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman O/mler seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilman Johnson moved item lO(a) to
the first item under Unfinished Bus/ness; Councilman Workman ~anted to discuss
Zipcodss under Council Presentations. ALL voted in favor of the agenda as
amended and the mot lon carried.
CONSENT l~.d[NO~: CounciLuoman Dialer moved, Councilman 3ohnson seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda item pursuant to the City Hanager's
recommendat'ions:
a. Final Plat Approval, Market Square.
b. PMT Addition:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Development Contract Approval, PMT Addition
c. Resolution J~O-80: Accept Feasibility Study for Park PLace Phase I!
(Chanhassen Lakes Bustness Park 5th) [mprovement ProJect No. 85-13B; CaLL
for Public Hearing.
g. Resolut[on ~90-81: Accept Street and Uttlity /mprovemente, Curry FArms 2nd
Addition, Project 88-5.
h. Resolution 1~:)-82: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Advertising for Bids for Lake Susan Park Expansion Improvement project 89-3.
t. Resolution ~N)-83: Approve Eurasian Water MILfolL [nspectlon Proposal.
J. Final PLat ApprovaL, Sathre ~ldition.
k. Approval of Accounts.
1. City Council Minutes dated July 9, 1990
Park and Recreation Commission Hinutes dated June 26, 1990
m. Ree~lution 1~0-84: approve Contract Amendment No. I for Lake Drive East
improvement Project No. 89-6.
All voted In favor and the eot[on carrtnd unarrteously.
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
D. APPROVE CONTRACT i~IE~NT NO. I FOR COUNTRY HOSPZTALZTY SUZTES ZI~OROgEI~ENT
PRO3ECT 89-25.
Councilwoman Dieler: ! was just wondering if we could send that to the HRA. Put
it on the HER agenda. ! don't know if they've had an opportunity to look at it.
Don, could you explain that procedure?
Don Ashworth: Is Todd here? I'm not sure if they have looked at this or not. I
know they have gone through the overall project and the amount proposed to be
assessed. I'm not sure on the change order. Are you aware?
Gary Warren: I don't believe it went to them. It's part Of the assessment
portion of the project which is why it came to the Council. The costs are to be
totally assessed against the partnership.
Don Ashworth: And as such, there really is no HER participation in that area.
councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but they don't need to approve the amendment then?
Hayor Chmiel: It's basically because of soil conditions that they had that they
checked on that too.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. Do you want to know why they're doing it that
way? Okay. Then I move approval of item (d).
Counc[lean 3ohnson: Second.
Resolution ~90-85: Counc[l#oaan O[mler moved, Councilman 3ohnson seconded to
approve Contract ~endaent No. I for Country Ho~pitalltv Suites /aproveaent
Project No. 89-25. All voted In favor and the sot[on carried unanJ~oumlv,
E. 1) li~oPRO~E TRUNK H[GHIMIY 5 CONSTRUCTZON PLI~IS ~ SPEC/F/C~TZONS FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY SEG~IENT I~B..RftILROP~..BRIDGE ~I~r:NT,.CZTY PROJECT
NO. 88-21~.
2) APPROgE COOPERATZYE ~BREENENT.
Hayor Chmtel: Whenever I read something in here, tt says trust me on this one.
What you've said here, just make me feel a little more comfortable with this.
Even though you're fully comfortable as you indicated.
Gary Warren: On the plans themselves Hr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Gary Warren: Basically the elements, this phase of the plans is the Hennepln
County piece so it's a smaller piece in the city of Chanhassen and we've been
working with thee and coordinating the storm water drainage and intersection
configuration at Dell Road which is probably the biggest piece of the puzzle out
here and in the construction of Dell Road to the south to hook up with our Lake
Drive East from the HcOona[d's site. Those are the real key elements that we
worked with HnDot to get some understanding of the common elements tn the road
City Council Meeting - July 23,
section and everything else so there aren't any, what should I say, hidden
agendas as far aa special treatments, planting programs or any of that tn this
phase of the project. I don't know what else I could tell you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that sort of answers that part-of it. The other part was
regarding the contract when available in detail any exceptions or concerns with
the contract at Monday night's meeting that you were talking about In here. The
cooperative agreement on this for the Omi! Road ts going to come up to
$77,399.007 Now is that part of Eden Pralrle's coat Incurred tn this as well or
is that strictly ours?
Gary Warren: Strictly Chanhassen's share. Eden Prairie has a little larger
piece actually. I think It's $99,000.00 or something because there's more work
obviously In Eden Prairie on this piece of It. Again, It's reflecting the
percentage of storm water drainage that we are conveying. Some of the culverts
have been sized to accommodate some of our drainage from the Press area and
such. The watermaln extension to the south along Oel! Road, that's strictly a
city project Improvement. Those specific things. Sidewalk on the west side of
OelL Road connect with the Lake Or£ve East sidewalk.
Mayor ChmieL: That 20 foot berm up there?
Gary Warren: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I move that item l(e), I and 2. Is there a second?
CounciLman Johnson: Second.
Re~olution ~90-86: ~[ayor CbmIel moved, Counc/]~an Johnson seconded to a~rove
the follouiee:
1. approve Trunk rLtgh~ay $ Construction Plans and Specifications for Hennspin
County Segment and Railroad Bridge Embankment, C/ty Project No. 88-28R.
2. Rpprovo Cooperative Rgreement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
F. iUTHORIZE HNOOT TO PERFOI~ SPEED STUOY IN Pt~T ~FILL ~ODITIOM.
CounciLman Boyt: Gary, this Is an Item from Dave Hempel to you on speed study~
Gary Warren: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Can you cite any example where a speed study has reduced the
._
speed limit In Chanhassen ~n a residential area?
Gary Warren: I cannot speak specifically to every speed study that's been done
in the City but ones that we have done, I can't recall any reductions that have
occurred.
Oon Ashworth: TH t011 believe.
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about a residential area Don. You can call TH 101
a residential road if you want but I don't think so.
Gary Warren: I'm sorry, prior to my time a speed study was done on Pleasant
View Road west of TH 101. The first hairpin turn there. That was reduced to 25
mph to the west and that was due to the geometrics.
Councilman Boyt: Well, living on Frontier Trail and having the State come in
and say you've got, you know the first big hill that comes down when you're
coming from town and heading north on Frontier Trail? That has an advisory
limit on it of, ! think it might have been 15 mph. They wouldn't change the
speed limit, all they'd let us do is put an advisory sign up which has no, you
can't enforce it. There's two other major turns in there which also had a
reduced advisory. [ think what this ia doing is delaying a decision that the
neighborhood would undoubtedly ilks to have something done and we're Just
putting it off. MnOot isn't going to be out there tomorrow if we pass this to
do that speed study and when they do, having walked that road several times and
comparing it to Frontier Trail, you don't have enough traffic on there to
warrant, you know that whole business, you're not going to be able to put stop
signs in there according to MnOot. and I'll bet that HnOot will not come back
with anything other than that's a residential street and the minimum for a
residential street's 30 mph and there's probably nobody in the room here that
thinks that 30 mph is the right speed for in front of their house. So I 5ust
think this is delaying a decision that the City should be making. I'd like to
see this directed to the Public Safety Commission instructing them to come up
with the best way to reduce the speed. They want to get this done quickly.
MnOot is not going to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: What is the timeframe on that Gary?
Gary Warren: It's strictly up to HnOot. I haven't been informed exactly what
their timing would be on it. Usually this time of the year ia probably a little
bit better than others for them to do them. The weather cooperates a little bit
more but it could be a month. Could be more. Could be less. I guess our
initiative in having a speed study done was to at [east have that done so that
we had the answer from MnOot was not to circumvent anything else that the
Council or whatever chose to initiate in this area. But certainly from a legal,
enforceable speed standpoint, this is a step that has to be done if you're going
to be able to have something out there that's enforceable, it was not meant to
be the only project or effort that was going to be done for the neighborhood.
Councilman 8oyt: Well you say something that's enforceable. Tell me just a
little bit more about that. If MnOot doesn't reduce the speed limit, we can't
reduce the speed limit and enforce it.
Gary Warren: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: So that's not one of our options. Unless they do it.
Gary Warren: Well you're saying, you're presuming that MnOot will not reduce
the speeds.
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Boyt: Well I can support the study If we're doing something else at
the same time because In 4 years I haven't seen that happen and I'm living right
next to an excellent example of where the speed should be reduced and It wasn't.
So I'd like to see us move ahead with other avenues rather than waiting for
HnOot to come back with.
Councilman Workman: Bill, what are the other avenues? I mean we know that
HnOot is a nepotent on this subject aren't they and so what are we going to be
able to do? What ts public safety going to be able to discuss? The problems
been recognized by engineering. What's public safety going to be able to do In
the interim?
Councilman Boyt: Well my guess, having worked through this tn Near Hountatn and
a few others. Fox Hollow. A few other developments. What we'll end up being
faced with is do we put stop signs out there or don't we? If we put them out
there, we know that that's not going to be supported by HnOot but we have the
right to do lt. We've done it all over town. And so what I'd like to know ts,
before we make that decision, le there anybody that's creative enough to come up
with a better plan? I think folks that that's what It's going to come down to.
Ooes'the Council support stop signs In here or do we not. And there Isn't.going
to be any engineering support for them and HnOot Isn't going to support them.
So that's why I would suggest referring it to public safety and seeing if they
can work out some reasonable solution.
Councilman Workman: So Gary we can put stop signs wherever we want but we can't
decrease speed limits?
Gary Warren: We can put stop signs where we want. Roger may want to address
the legality of somebody contesting a stop sign that Is not Justified from the
Uniform Hanual on Traffic Control Oevlces for example. The Commissioner of
Transportation, State Legislature has ruled that that manual Is the book as far
as what's right and what's wrong about placing signs. If you're placing
something that blatantly goes against that criteria, then the enforceability of
that I would think gets suspect. Roger, am I correct?
Roger Knutson: Yes, generally. Although we have no control over speed limits,
basically no. On stop signs and other kind of signs, we have more discretion.
There is the Uniform Manual and If you don't follow that to some extent, It
could result tn some problems but you have a lot more discretion with stop signs
than you do with speed limits. You have none with speed limits basically.
Councilman Boyt: And tf you use the criteria that the State will give you, we
don't have, there might be I or 2 stop signs tn Chanhassen that are justified
but most of them don't have the cross traffic that would warrant the stop sign.
We've been through this, I don't know how many times In 4 years? So all I'm-
asking is, I can support going to HnOot as long as we don't watt for that to
happen before we start thinking about what are we going to do because I'd like
to see this thing get solved pretty quick. I'm sure the neighborhood would. I'm
sure you would.
Councilman Johnson: So you want to refer it to Public Safety and send the
request to MnOot at the same time?
City Council Meeting - July 23, [990
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilwoman Oimler: Is there a cost to this study Gary?
Gary Warren: No, not from MnDot.
Councilman Workman: I think we know that stop signs aren't the fix all either.
But I don't have a problem with public safety looking at this at all.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't either. I think that's probably the way it should
go. Refer it back and then also pursue it with the State. With MnOot.
Councilman Boyt: Then I would move amendment of l(f) to include referral to the
Public Safety Commission. ! guess we have to vote on the amendment?
Councilman Workman: Second.
CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend item l(f) to include
referring the item of a speed study in the Pheasant Hill ~W~dition to the Public
Safety Commission. ail voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I'd move approval of item l(f) as amended.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
ResoLution ~90-87: CounciLman Boyt moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to
authorize HnOot to perform a speed study tn Pheasant Hills PaJdition and to refer
the item to the Public Safety Commission for review. All voted Ln favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
~SITORS PRESENTATIONS:
A. PETZTZON FOR ENFORCEHENT OF WATER SURFACE USERGE ORDINANCE, LOTUS LAKE
HOHEOWNERS RSSOCZATION.
Don Ashworth: The staff this past week received a petition to have the Council
look at enforcement for the Water Surface Useage Ordinance. That petition was
put into your packet, i'm assuming that there are representatives here. In the
meantime or [ should say prior to that date, Counc£lman Johnson had asked that
this item be placed on the agenda and he was looking for information regarding
age restrictions, registration for the 3et Skis themself. What type of
information or other procedures we could put in place for our gate attendants to
insure that illegal 3et Skis did not get onto the lake. That item was included
as item 10. As ! understand it, the Council now has kind of merged these and
put them as item 7.
Councilman Johnson: No. We didn't merge them. This was, they were asking for
something different than what's in at 7. And here's the actual petition that I
was just handed.
City Counc[~ Heettng - July 23, [990
Don Ashuorth= So I would assume that the residents would 11ks to present thts
petit[on at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Would you please state your name and your address please?
J.C. Hurd: Hy name ts 3.C. Hurd. My address is 6695 Horseshoe Curve. We would
be happy to merge the two but If they're different.
Councilman Workman: What Is the difference Jay between the two?
Councilman 3ohnson: This particular petition asks to make some modifications to
our ordinance to change the definition of water craft and the other one talks
more specifically on noise Issues on the lake and regulations of watercraft.
think what they're getting at Is the same thing. This Is Just one way.
3.C. Hurd: Right. They're Just different ways of approaching lt.
Councilman Johnson: As you read through the definition of watercraft, It's so
broad. 3et Skis are actually now covered. What they're asking with the
pet/t/on ts kind of, it doesn't do It. But [ think the thrust of the petition
is noise and we've moved that Item.
J.C. Hurd: Safety.
Councilman Johnson: And safety, yeah. I'll let them tell us what the thrust of
the petition ts but there it Is as It's read.
J.C. Hurd: On behalf of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, I'm submitting a
petit[on signed by 99 Lotus Lake users asking for diligent enforcement of the
Surface Water Use Ordinance No. 73 to promote safety and reduce noise
distrubance. The petition also requests that personal watercraft be Included In
the definition of motorboats. Now on July [gth I had a meeting with Jim charles
discussing these concerns. Jim has agreed to ask the Sheriff's Oepartment to
active[y enforce the Water Surface Use Ordinance, particularly during peak lake
useage times. Particularly on weekends. We agreed that the current definition
of motorboats does include persona[ watercraft and they would therefore be
subject to the same rules. Although Jim thought It would be too lnvo[ved to
formally deputize citizens to help enforce the ordinance, we would like to
reiterate that we are more than willing to help enforce In any way we can. In
order to help educate lake users of the existence and,contents of the rules
governing Lotus Lake, we are suggesting that a summary of the ordinance be sent
city wide. In order that the proper people receive the mailing, we recommend
that they be addressed to watercraft operators as opposed to residents whereby
getting the [6 year olds as opposed to their parents. We agree that diligence
by staff at the boat launch verifying registration of watercraft, ages of
operators, as well as stgnage at the launch describing the forward, counter
clockwise travel requirement would help promote overall water safety. We are
also asking that they talk about the [00 feet offshore minimum wake rule and
enforce the parking down there as Wo[1. Boat launch staff should also hand out
a summary of the ordinance and advise watercraft operators that violators will
be cited. All cop[es of the ordinance or a summary thereof should point out
that Jet Skis are included as motorboats. I know that the definition does
Include them but to specifically spell It out I don't think would hurt. Just as
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
a postscript, I talked to Scott Hark this afternoon and he agreed to order a
sign for the boat launch tomorrow if we could get some action tonight. So if we
want to include, I guess it's real vague as to whether or not it should be
Included with your item 7. I think they are all basically the same. One is,
the approach is a little different.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I just have one question of Roger. Legality of
the Clty. What would be the positlon of the City for any recourse it could have
from this?
Roger Knutson= We're authorized by State Statute to have a water surface useage
ordinance. We have that and as long as it's on the books and we've been
enforcing it, ['m sure that's what public safety intends.
J.C. Hurd: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anybody have any questions?
Councilman Boyt: Well I do. I think that if we're going to get something done
it really hlnges upon enforcement of what we already have. The whole character
of the lake changes when they County Sheriff's boat is out there and they have
been, at least when I've been on the lake to observe, the County folks are
pretty good about checking on everybody. So I don't think a sign is going to do
much. There's already so many signs at the boat launch that I thlnk people just
ignore them but I think if we could get for the remaining couple months of the
summer, if we could get a public safety person out there patrolllng, once the
word got out, that'd be the end of lt. Not the end of Jet Skis but it would be
the end of what you see out there now in terms of the general sort of cavalier
approach. ~s a resident this will tell you, that's got to be one of the most
dangerous lakes around. Especially on a weekend. So I'd like to see us go
about trying to identify a public safety part time person that we could put out
there on the weekends and maybe other high use tlmes that would tell them. If
they didn't change, would have them removed from the lake. Could always call
the County. They're pretty good about responding when they get a specific call
but they'll be real quick to tell you that with, do they have two boats now or
one?
Mayor Chmtel: The County?
Councilman 8oyt: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: I've seen one.
Councilman Boyt: Well I know they have one. I think they have two but we have
7 lakes alone and they have a lot bigger area than Chanhassen to deal with so
they've been responsive but I think they're overwhelmed and I think for probably
somewhere in the neighborhood of $500.00 or $600.00, we could get the word out
that Lotus Lake wasn't a place to go if you wanted to be careless on your Jet
Ski.
Councilman Johnson: One of the main things we need there of course is a boat
which brings In some of the homeowners. The boat our Fire Oepartment has is not
golng to exactly impress anybody. OK chase anybody down. I think that's a good
C~ty Council Meeting - Ju~y 23, L990
idea but I'm not sure tf this Is the proper place to actually discuss it since
! want to take action on this Item tonight and tn Visitor's Presentation we
don't.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we can't on this particular part right now.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Are you proposing we uait until 7(a)?
Councilman Johnson: Right. It's fairly quick stuff inbetween hopefully.
Mayor Chmiel: I know what you're saying. I sat on the lake a week ago last
Sunday and just coincidentally the Sheriff's patrol came over to our boat and
checked for life preservers, fire extinqutsher. Everything.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Is this Lake Lucy?
Hayor Chmiel: Pardon?
Councilwoman Dtmler: On Lake Lucy? On your lake, Lake Lucy?
Mayor Chmlel: Oh no. On Lotus. I did that specifically. And I did watch the
actlon on that lake. There were a lot of skiers that had been going. There
weren't any Jet Skis on it that particular day but just as we were leaving,
there was a Jet Ski coming on so I'm aware of some of It and of course previous,
last year in going down and requesting a few of the people that were using 3et.
Skls to be in conformance with what our ordinances basically are and they
weren't aware. And I think as I'm mentioned, they were from Excelsior and
Minnetonka so they had no 1des as to what it is and what it conststented of. SO
I would suggest then as mentioned already, that we hold off on this until item
7.
B. PETITION FOR COt~LETION OF BIKE I~TH BETIJEEM S~~ ~ ~ 61tEEll
Colleen Murphy: My name is Colleen Murphy. I live at 910 Saddlebrook Pass.
When my husband and I bought our house 2 years ago we were told that a bike path
would be going in that would link our neighborhood with Meadow Green Park. I
and many of our neighbors looked forward to that because there was no paved
access to get to the park. No way for kids on bikes or mothers pushing
strollers to get to the park and that's why I brought forth a petit[on with 44
signatures asking that we can move this forward. That's all ! have to say.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Johnson: Does anybody know the status of this path?
Mayor ChmieI: Yeah, I don't.
Councilman Johnson: When It's scheduled to be put in?
Mayor Chmiel: Or where at ail?
Councilwoman Otmler: Was it on the original plans, yes.
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure it was.
Mayor Chmiel: There were 44 signatures on that petition too.
Councilman Johnson: This particular subdivision went in just after Bill and !
had finished a fight to get paths put to a city park from a neighborhood where
the developer wanted to not put the paths in. That was before we were on the
Council and now that we're here, we've been pretty diligent to let people have
access to their parks.
Councilman Workman: Where specifically does thts trail run because ! know Gary,
he's still not here now. Where's Gary?
Councilman Johnson: He's good at slipping out at the right time.
Councilman Workman: We've got the whole map here and I imagined it off of.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's where Trotter's Circle comes into Saddlebrook
Pass going out to Outlot A?
Councilman Workman: Okay, there it is. I noticed in the Adminstrative Pack
that we just got done paying for sidewalk construction in there in the amount of
about $20,000.00. Wasn't this supposed to be a part of that whole thing?
Oon Ashworth: That was for the sidewalks along the streets. A decision was
made initially that the developer was to build those and later that came back as
a petition for concrete and then there were cost differentials and it literally
has taken the 2 year period of time for billing that out. The trail as it would
go from the neighborhood back over to the park area, I left a call in to both
Mark Koegler and to Rick Murray. I'm sorry, I don't have an answer regarding
that particular piece. They did not return my calls.
Councilman Workman: Is this something that we should be referring to the Park
and Rec to find where they're going to come up with the money to do so7
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree.
Councilman Boyt: Well when this went in, the reason it went from bituminous to
concrete was the price difference was almost nothing at that particular time.
This was a sidewalk/trail system that was to be put in as part of the
development contract. As I recall there's so many lots in there, I think that
the trail assessment on these lots made it a wash to the City. This is we're
talking something was done 4 years ago so I'm a little sketchy on all the
details but this is the development where we learned a little bit about the
timing of when you put sidewalks in. In terms of driveways and people moving
into thelr houses. Certainly It makes sense to have Park and Reo conflrm all
that but I'm pretty sure that ail of this is in the development contract and I
won't say more. I'll just get tn trouble.
Councilman Workman: You're saying it should already be paid for?
10
City Council Meeting - 3uly 23, [990
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Now where those funds went, that's a different matter.
tie have built a fair chunk of expensive trail.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what should be done. Refer this back to Park and
Rec and have them come up with some kind of an answer. See where the dollar
allocation is or where it's gone or where it's at. Thank you.
C. PUBLIC S~FETY COI~/SSZON, PUBLZC S.~ETY DIRECTOR'S RES/GN~TZON.
Bill Bernhjelm: My name is Bill BernhJelm. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail and I'm
the Chairman of the Public Safety Commission. I want to make sure that
everybody knows that many of the other Public Safety Commissioners are here.
Craig Blechta, Barb Klick, Oave Oummer and also some of the department
employees. At our last meeting on the 12th we discussed some issues that had
occurred. Obviously the resignation of Jim Chaffee as Public Safety Otrector
has occurred and a public notice of that in the media and we expressed a concern
that we had not been formally advised of the resignation and felt that perhaps
some things were not being properly attended to. We drafted a letter to Mr.
Ashuorth and sent copies to the Council. I'm assuming that you.all have seen
them. I uon't go into the exact uording of the letter. I won't read the
letter. Our concerns primarily are, is the Public Safety Coamis-aton being
ignored? Is this resource that we have in the community being properly
utilized? Tonight I understand we'll be getting an l~ue that needs some
attention and that's one of the few that has come back to us from Council and
I'm glad to see that. A major concern again is rumoring and that kind of thing
that takes place when a position opens. Is the position going to be refilled?
Who's going to fill it? Those kinds of things. I don't want to get into the
personnel issues here. That's clearly the perview of Hr. hshworth and you
folks. However, what we're looking for is to make sure that we have some
continuity here before 3im does-leave. He's leaving the State. Going to
California. I think we need to see some strong leadership in the department.
It's groun to a department of 12 full time employees at this point. Public
Safety we feel is very important in the community at this Juncture especially in
the developing years. We think that the basis and the foundation for a good
public safety department has been created and we'd like to see that continue.
Primarily again, we understand that there are some concerns amongst employees
about communication issues. Are they being ignored? Again, these people are
dealing with the public on a daily basis and they talk to.probably 20 times the
number of folks that you do as Council people and I'm sure. they have a lot of
insight on what's really going on in the nuts and bolts of this operation and we
feel again that they should be listened to. At least given an opportunity to
speak about changes that may be on the offing. We again want to offer our
services. We have people with military background. We have people with fire
background. We have police background. Medical services background. We feel
we were appointed because of our varied backgrounds and we want to be able to
contribute to the community in the way that we are best qualified..We want to
be involved. If there is going to be reorganization or some changes going on,
we want to be involved in that and promote some open discussion about what's
going on and what the future of Chanhassen's Public Safety is going. That's
all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay Bill. Thank you. I think at least from my standpoint, I
don't feel that we're trying to ignore anybody. In fact, I would suggest that
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
ue probably sit down at some time as we've done before, with the Council, ulth
the Public Safety Commission and at least understand where we're coming from
with what we're looklng at right now. The replacement for Jim is already in the
move right now. Whether that particular position's going to be replaced, that's
something we have to review and scrutinize that a ltttle bit too. And so !
guess that's probably where I'm really coming from. Hopefully the communication
problem should be much better between staff to the employees and understanding
what their concerns are as well and Z think that's already being addressed as
well. So hopefully we can take care of much of those items.
Bill 8ernhjelm: Okay. We're going to meet tomorrow evening. We're still
planning on meeting tomorrow evenlng to agaln dlscuss anythlng that may come up
tonight. I don't think that we're probably ready to go for a joint meeting.
Maybe when some proposals are put forward. Maybe we'll get together then.
Thank you.
Councilwoman Dtmler: I could make a comment too. I wanted to say that, you
know that you mentioned you have not been formally advised. Well I have to tell
you I haven't elther. Z read it in the paper.
Mayor Chmie1: That's pretty much all of us.
Councilwoman Oimler: So if you're thinktng that we trled to hlde something, we
didn't. We're Just waiting for the formal announcement as far as I'm concerned.
I thlnk the openness has been there. The avenues have been there. They just
need to be used.
Councilman Boyt: Didn't we get a letter from Jim Chaffee?
Councilman Johnson: Didn't we get a letter of resignation?
Don Ashworth: The Clty dld.
Councilwoman Oimler: I didn't.
Don Ashworth: The City did recelve Jlm's resignation. That has not gone back
to City Council so to the best of my knowledge, no Council member has seen Jim's
resignation. The lnterim period I have talked with Scott Hart. He has been
offered the interim director position. He is currently deciding as to whether
or not he wlshes to accept that.
Councilman Johnson: That we have been copied on because I remember seeing that.
Don Ashworth: I don't think so. All of thls is relatively recent.
Mayor Chmlel: No, it's probably what you read in the paper.
Councilman Johnson: No. A memo from Don. Maybe I was the only one on the
Council he copied. I don't know. I feel prtvlledged here.
Don Ashworth: Without question that has been the statements made through thls
office but I'm sure you have not seen Jim's resignation.
12
City Council Meeting - July 23, [990
Councilman 3ohnson: No, I haven't seen Jim's resignation. I saw something
where It stated that we're offering Scott the Interim position.
Don ashworth: and again, Scott ts currently considering that.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think that was In our adminstrattve Packet for
this week or something. I'm not sure where I saw lt. What I hear Is a group
saying here we are. We're ready. We're able. We're willing. Give us the
green flag and us're going to go start working for you on evaluating the needs
of this position. Whether this position should be refilled. Reorganized at
this time or whatever. ! think we ought to give thee the green flag here pretty
quick and get the race going.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess my comment ~ould be, I think ~e should follo~ the'
proper procedure that's always been followed and if that's been hiring through
Don, then he should look at it. I see the commission as being advisory and not
the elite organization for the decision.
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's basically a personnel problem that should be
addressed and tt will. and the commission will be advised accordingly as I said
because I think the communication Is there, at least between us and appreciate
Lt.
Willy MoInau: I don't know, this might be out of order but ['d like to ask a
question.
Hayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up and state your name, although we know who
you are.
Willy Molnau: I'm WIlly Molnau. ! 11ye at 8541 audubon Road and ! come to
Chanhassen quite'often and something baffles me. For &$ years [ thought a stop
sign was a stop sign. But on the west end of main street tt says complete stop
required.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: It's required everywhere.
Willy Molnau: Well If you make a complete stop at that point, you'1! be there
the rest of the week. I always thought that a stop sign as long as the safety
council Is here now, why does It say complete stop required on that one sign?
Mayor Chmiel: Supposedly Willy there was going to be two signs at both atop
signs. The encroachment of people not stopping ts a problem. Of course that's
not our problem per se. It's the police enforcement iuue. But people teere not
stopping for that stop sign at a11. You could sit at those Intersections and
It's Just an automatic right or an automatic left without even stopping fully.
That's what the stop sign basically say~ is stop.
Willy Molnau: There used to be In Wisconsin a right turn no stop.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That's right.
[3
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Willy Molnau: Maybe that's the way it should be. A right turn no stop because
a complete stop at that point, and you're locked there for the rest of the week.
Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully you'll move at some time.
Councilman Johnson: One of the problems there I think was the left turn no stop
that was belng taken there. Or the left turn no slow down.
Mayor Chmiel: Rs we see that, it's a real problem and I think the reason that
that was put there was.
Wllly Molnau: Well they say that laughlng ls good for the soul.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
Willy Molnau: We got everybody laughing. Maybe if they could all get up and
stretch now, they'd feel good too.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Go ahead Tom.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, you know It ts difficult Blli. I read the letter and
everything and the only place I have officially heard about Jim Chaffee's
resignation ls in the newspaper. The only place I've officially heard about
Bill Boyt leaving the City Council is in the newspaper. I'm hoping Bill's going
to tell us tonlght when he's leavlng. We don't know that yet. Bill hasn't told
me as much as he's told Chris Burns and I'm not going to respond to Chris Burns.
Or the newspapers because that's the way, lt's a two way street. So you guys
feel left out. Sometimes I do too. And certainly we don't have causing
problems for Publlc Safety in mind with this whole issue, it's a topsy turvey
situation but I need to be informed on a lot of this stuff too and I know Jim's
a good guy and sometimes 8111 can be but you know, I don't have all thls
information and [ can't beat it out of people either. And so I have to take
things as they come to me too and there's an awful lot of things going on. So,
do you have an announcement to make?
Councilman Boyt: No. I have not resigned so that's why you haven't received
not£flcatton of that. ALthough I'm willing to talk about it if you want. I
would, let's see suggest, well ftrst. You mentioned something's going on so
far. What's going on so far on this? Who can fill me in on Jim Chaffee's
replacement? You sald something's tn progress. What's tn process?
Don Ashworth: I have offered to Scott Harr interim director's position. That
was offered at the mlddle of last week. Rs of Frtday Scott was considering that
and would let me know today. We have not caught up with each other today.
Councilman Boyt: Alrlght, is there anything else that's gone on up untll now?
Oon Ashaorth: Well, we have Jim's resignation.
Councilman Boyt: Anythlng else?
14
City Council Heeting - 3uly 23, [990
Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of.
CounciLman Boyt: Okay. So the current status Is that ue haven't begun a search
for a person. Right?
Oon Ashworth: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and we have offered the interim position to Scott Harr?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: ! would suggest that the, since Public Safety ts meeting
tomorrow night, that the Council direct them to prepare their recommendation for
a job description for the Public Safety Director.
Councilman Workman: We've already got one.
Councilman Boyt: That they review lt. That It would be a good function to
involve the citizens in the community tn. Saying this ts sort of a
transttionary opportunity. What do we want that job to look like? The Public
Safety Commission was originally formed to perform what then later became Jim
Chaffee's position. When Jim was hired he was, I believe interviewed by Dick
Wing and the Hayor at that time so the Public Safety Commission had a very
active role In hiring 3Im. I would like to see them have a similar kind of, you
mentioned advisory. Certainly It's advisory but tt can be an active advisory
role. I would like to hope that when it comes time to-Interview candidates for
the job, that like when we hired Paul, that we would offer the Public Safety
Commission the opportunity to come tn and participate tn the Interview. It
makes a good start and I think you want to hire someone that's going to be
accepted by not only staff. I think tt goes without saying staff would probably
accept any qualified person you hire, but that the citizens have as much Input
as possible. I think we can begin that by asking th/s group to review and if
they seem fit, to suggest modifications to the Job description and the
qualifications for that job.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else? If not we'll move on.
Carol Dunemore: Carol Dunsmore, 730 West 96th Street and I'm a secretary In
the Public Safety Oepartment. I'm here on behalf of the staff of the Public
Safety Department that whatever discussion Is going on about any possible
reorganization or whatever replacement of the Assistant Public Safety Oirector
or the Public Safety Director, that staff Is advised and is asked for their
Input. I've worked with Jim and Scott now for over a year and a half very
closely and those two positions ! feel are very well needed positions and 3tm
and Scott have done an excellent job tn those positions.- It really Is sad to
see Jim go and I know there's some rumors possibly going around at this time
against the Public Safety Oepartment and I Just ask that the Council and the
Public Safety Commission and any personnel staff, do address the Public Safety
staff and ask for their opInLon also because I know one side of the story Is
going around at this time and no one has come forward to ask for the other side
of the story. So of course there Is a two sided street for everything but I'm
just asking that the staff of the Public Safety Department keep well Informed
and have their input asked for I think ts very Important. Thank you.
15
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Workman: Carol, what's the rumor?
Councilwoman Oimler: I haven't heard it.
Carol Dunsmore: I don't feel this is the place to talk about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll talk later.
Councilman Boyt: Does it require a motion to have the Public Safety Commission
review that job description?
Councilwoman Oimler: Well you would have to...
Nayor Chmiel: No, it's under Visitor's Presentations and I'd say that it should
come back later.
Councilman 8oyt: We're meeting tomorrow night.
Councilman Workman: But you're referring it to the Public Safety?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: Just like we did (b). Park and Rec we didn't vote on it.
Councilman Boyt: 8ut we can refer it to them. I was Just simply asking if it
needs a motion. If it doesn't and you're in support of referral, we've
accomplished that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Alrtght. Anyone else for visitor's presentation?
pUBLiC HEARIN(i~ STREET VACATION REQUEST TO VACATE AN UNUSED PORTION OF OLD LAKE
LUCY R~ BETWEEN WHITETAIL RZOGE AND ~000 DUCK LANE, PAUL PALHER.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll open this public hearing. This is for a street vacation
request to vacate an unused portion of old Lake Lucy Road between Whitetail
Ridge and Wood Duck Lane. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we received a petition from the owner of Lot & to
vacate a small portion of old Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. It's now called
Whitetail Ridge Court. The old Lake Lucy Road right-of-way of course has been
surplanted by new Lake Lucy Road which runs to the south. We no longer need
that area for roadway purposes. Therefore we are recommending that the vacatlon
be approved. We are however recommending that an easement for utilities which
happen to be in there, you can see where the sewer line runs, be maintained and
also that the park board reassess whether or not that a trail easement is needed
in there and pendlng the outcome of that, that a trail easement be requlred If
they do recommend such. With that we are recommending that the vacation be
approved.
16
City Council Nee[lng - July 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Zs there anyone wlshtng to address th[s
spec~ fic ~tem?
Paul Palmer: I am Paul Palmer, 1930 Whitetail Ridge Court in Excelsior, 55331.
I am the developer of all of Whitetail Ridge and this lo the final [st to be
sold at the end of the cul-de-sac. [t really has no further need as a road and
[ think all the neighbors to the east of me would be Joyous tn hearing that
there isn't going to be a road in their backyards. Because the vacation hasn't
been completed through the entire stretch of Lake Lucy Road, which ks part of
uhat engineering and staff and everyone anticipated doing as a part of neu
Lake Lucy Road redevelopment. As a part of that, the City had planned to vacate
this port[on and commence the process. Through repeated telephone calls and
contacts, we ,ere not able to convince the City to of course move ahead ,[th
this uhen your time requirements and your budgets and your staff needs are
al,aye pressing and of course then you have people resign and go on to other
things or whatever they do. Which only puts more er[rain on the entire process.
As a concerned citizen for Chanhassen ! feel [t is my duty to bring this
vacation to head because as you know, the rest of the property s/ts out there
producing no revenue for the very city that we need to support. So as a good
citizens, the City should from a business standpoint, vacate the rest of that
port[on and put [t back on the tax rolls ,here [t can pay for itself. [n the
process we are able to generate revenue for the park system which ts badly
needed [n that quadrant up there. The only quest[on that ! have for Council is
whether or not you feel that the trail system should become a part of this
overall plan because ! ,ovid recommond it on the south portion of the old
Lake Lucy Road. That portion only adds additional land to really unuseable
portions of their lots so these people on a tax basks become burdened by this,
So if ,e put the trail on the south side, we could tie that tratl right into the
park that.I think is still in the ~orks to the east of us. Then all of the area
to the west can funnel doun Galpln and dmm Lake Lucy Road and to the park and
all the school kids and everything else can have a path In which to stay off of
the county roads which Just keeps our trafflc accidents In hand. So ,lth that,
['m open to quest[one.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any questions? Is there a motion?
Councllean Boyt moued, CouncLloan 3ohnson seconded to close the public hear/rig.
voted in favor and the mot/on carr/ed. The publ/c hear/rig ~as closed.
Mayor Chm[el: Discussion?
Councilman Johnson: ! don't remember why we didn't vacate this in the first
place when ,e dld this subdivision.
Mayor Chmtel: They probably should have but they didn't es now it's time to do
it.
Councilman Johnson: I remember there was a reason.
Resolution ~l:)-O0: Counc/1ean #oriman uoued, Counc/ltan Johnson seconded to
approve Vacation No. 89-10 for that port/on of Lake Lucy Road w/tlttn Lot 6,
Idh~teta~l R/dge w/th the follo~/ng cond/t/ono:
17
City Council Meeting - July
A 20 foot permanent utility easement over the sanitary sewer on Lot &,
Whitetail Ridge.
2. Provisions of any trail easement as requested by the Park and Recreation
Commission.
All voted in favor and the eotlon carried unanieously.
Paul Palmer: How's the park coming to the east of us? All the neighbors kind
of want to know.
Councilwoman Oimler: So would we.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll let you know.
Councilman Boyt: Oon, do you know more about the development there?
Don Ashworth: You're talking about the Carrico property?
Councilman Johnson: Oon't we have an option to buy it now?
Don Ashworth: Yes. The City has entered into an option to purchase. Koegler's
in the process of sending out a hearing notice to the neighborhood to invite
them in to show them the alternative plans. To receive their comments as to
whether or not the City should exercise it's right to purchase that property or
not. I can't recall the date for when that proposed meeting between staff and
the neighborhood is to occur. My recollection was towards the end of July, like
the 28th. Somewhere in there. $o it should be very soon.
Councilman 8oyt: This is a good example of where, and this happened prior to
anybody who's currently on the Councll but when a development comes in of that
size and the City doesn't put any park space in there, then we come back and we
have to buy a piece at a great deal more money. So we've learned...
Mayor Chmiel: It's less than what they wanted but.
Councilman Boyt: But still. Oh yes, it's dramatically less than what they
started out asking for.
PUBLIGHE~TRNG: PROPOSED VACATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-#AY AND UT/LITY EASEHENTS,
~EST 78TH STREET ~ND PICHA DRIVE, MP~KET SGUARE CENTER PRO3ECT.
Hayor Chmiel: Who's going to address that, Dave or Gary?
Councilman Boyt: Can we dispense with the staff report on this?
Mayor Chmiel: We can. Is there anyone who mould like to address the issue?
Oon Rshworth: I was going to say, I did distribute earlier a map. It shows a
revision and there's an additional easement that is proposed to be vacated. It's
the area that's x'ed out. With the total surface area we do have the other
easement now shown on the new plats so this particular easement is not required
as a part of the existing plat and is proposed to be vacated as a part of the
18
City Council Meeting - July 23, [990
action you're taking tonight and a description for that Is behind there.
Councilman Johnson: I suspect that without any public comment we're going to
pass this thing unanimously very quickly.
Mayor ChmIel: It would appear as though unless someone wishes to address it.
John, did you want to?
3ohn Rice: No. I'm here to answer questions but ! wouldn't think of delaying
your vote.
Councilman gorkman moved, Councilman 3ohnaon seconded to clese the pub]lc
hearing. ~11 uoted In favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~a~
clesed.
Mayor Chm£el: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I Just had one question of Is it Dave or 6ary
here. [t says that you would have no problems with this If ~arket Square goes
ahead and develops as proposed. Well what happens if they don't? Does that
cause a problem?
Gary Warren: Market Square has a reconfiguratlon of a watermatn and ~uch In the
plat so if the plat does not go, then the vacation needs to stay tn place to
cover the existing.
Councilwoman Otmler: So It's the same either way? Okay, thank you.
Resolution 190-89: Counc/lman ~orkman moved, Couecil~oman Dlmler ~econded to
approve vacation of a portion of lest 78th Street, Picha Drive and ~onterey
Drive and the underlying utility and drainage ea~emonts as &~acrJJaed on the
attached exhibits contfngent upon satisfaction of the following cond/tiona:
[. A trail/sidewalk easement shall be provided to the City to accommodate the
proposed trail/sidewalk along West 78th Street.
2. The applicant shall receive final plat approval and site plan approval for
Market Square and record the plat with the County.
~11 voted in favor and the motion carrt~md.
PUBLIC )E~RING FOR COIJNTY R~ 17 ~ FI~ TH 5 SOIJTH TO L~KE DP~ #EST;
~UT)M)RIZE ~EP~TIOM OF ~ ~MD SI~CIFIC~TIOE.
Gary Warren: Gary Ehret can give a brief presentation at ),our discretion.
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: We've been over this so many times. Do we really?
Mayor Chmiel: Well let's just see, In case there's someone who wants to ~et
their memory refreshed.
19
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Gary Ehret: Mayor, members of the Council. The project that we're addressing
tonight, we brought to you a feasibility study approximately a month ago. It
looks at upgrading CR 17 from TH 5 on the north down past the intersection of
Lake Drive which was built last fall. It also includes a small portion of Lake
Drive in this area which is currently being surcharged through that project.
County Road 17 as it exists today consists of a rural divided section through
this area and two lanes in each direction and left hand turn lanes. It does not
have right turn lanes. It has kind of gravel shoulders and it has just a ditch
and two catch basins structures and there's only a couple of storm crosses.
There is no pathway system along that route either. The project that has been
proposed again...south of Lake Drive. The project would upgrade the roadway.
Add curb and gutter. Redo the bituminous surface. Adding bituminous pathway on
the east side of the project. Add storm sewers throughout and make appropriate
other corrections. The facilities, with the exception of storm sewer are fairly
well complete. There's a major city watermatn that's down the west ditch line
of the roadway. Sanitary sewer is provided to the adjacent parcels through the
adjacent roadways. This project would have to add storm sewer throughout the
length of the project. The storm sewer would tie into the pond that was built
as a part of the Lake Drive project last fall. In addition, there is a short
piece of i8 inch waterma£n which we are proposing to be reconstructed primarily
due to the conditions that have changed over that watermain. That watermain was
constructed at a depth of 7 feet approximately back in 1978. With the new
alignment of Lake Drive and filling that has occurred with the Empak site in
this area, that watermain is now buried at a depth of about 20 feet. We're
concerned about proposed that that stretch be reconstructed to the normal depth
of 7 feet in the roadway. If you refer to Alternate A, the cost for this
project, totals about 1.1 million dollars. A little bit less than that. That
consists of primarily a little bit of watermain construction. $160,000.00 for
storm sewer. Clearly the bulk of the cost would be in reconstruction of the
roadway of about $600,000.00 and then the appropriate...adminstrative costs,
etc.. The schedule at this time for the project, this should be July 23rd.
Tonight's meeting. We'd have plans and specifications returned to the City
Council either in late winter or early spring. The primary intent would be to
coordinate improvements with the TH 5 improvements. The schedule is a little
bit undefined at this time other than the current direction would be to have the
plans and specifications for the project ready for construction next spring. I
think with that I would conclude. I do have charts that I can put up on the
assessments. How they relate to different properties, etc..
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue
at this time?
Jules Smith: My name is Jules Smith and I'm here representing Victory Envelope,
United Mailing, Carlson and Beddor who own a corner lot and Intant Webb. As you
know, we had been aware of this project since it was initially talked about a
couple years ago when part of it was done on the north side and so we're not
here opposing the curb, gutter, etc., etc.. Just a few questions were raised.
One, we're curious about the pond on the lot that's shown there. Whether that
is going to be in any way changed as part of this project. The lot isn't
exactly shown correctly there. It shows a pond below it. That'd be in the
southeast corner of that intersection. That pond is actually on that lot.
There's been a lot of discussion about that. When it was first put in, whether
when they put storm drainage in. That pond currently has an outflow to the
2O
City Council Meeting - July 23, [990
storm drainage that currently, the ditch that goes down the road so we're just
kind of curious what's going to happen to that. And the second part of our
interest is the cost. We really would like to see the assessment roles as
proposed and we've Just had discussion with City staff about that and we'd Just
like to get some clarification on how that's proposed to be paid for. Other
than that, that's all we have. Thanks.
Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. Anyone else? Don, before you start, If I could, I
have several questions that I have asked of Gary which he has a list of and he
will address each of those. Go ahead.
Don Patton: Okay. My name Is Don Patton. ['m representing the Lake Susan
Partners and although the project as it's proposed does not affect us, there are
a couple of things that [ am concerned about and [ did talk to Gary. There is a
mistake in the report that he agreed to correct. Some of the nomec[ature as to
outlots and P[O's that do pertain to Lake Susan are Incorrect In the report and
do need to be corrected. The other thing that I'm concerned about and ! think
it's probably the same thing that the previous speaker was. According to one of
the alternates that was in the report, the amount of the assessment against the
two parcels south of Lake Drive are greater than the cost that the land Is for
sale and there is a legal issue in here. Assessments can only be In the amount
of £mprovements to property. Certainly the assessments being equal or greater
than the cost of the land doesn't add that value so that does have to be dealt
with if the other alternative, or if in the future that would happen so It's
sore of a registering of that caution concern tn the way the assessments are put
tn place.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not seeing any, I would ask for a
motion to close the public hearing.
Counctleoean O~ler moved, Councilman tlorlman seconded to close the publ/c
hearLng. ~11 uoted In favor and the ~otlon carried. The public hearing ,as
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess some of the things that I have, I provided Gary a list
and I'd some answers to each of those specifics 'and if you would, just pose the
question and give your answer to those.
Gary Warren: Okay. guestlon [. Who pays for assessments north of Lake
Susan Hills Drive? The assessment methodology which has been prepared tn the
feasibility study ts based on our typical approach as far as 50~ of the storm
sewer and such and a certain port/on of tax increment monies have also been
Incorporated to be looked In here. There are, and Mr. Patton Is correct, that
any assessments would have to stand the test of benefit as far as we can't
assess more than the benefit to the property so that hasn't been looked at In
detail as far as doing any appratsa[s on the property to see what burden they
can accommodate. That's a part of the assessment process which we know has a
separate hearing in Itself but uttlitization of tax Increment funds and such,
this is Incorporated In the redevelopment district plan and the percentage of
the dollars and the split on that as far as assessments really are some crude
estimates right now but there will be some assessments proposed against the
fronting property as laid out in the report, guestIon 2. Why the need for
relocating storm sewer at a cost of $40,000.007 [ believe you meant the
21
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
watermain. That's what's being relocated. Gary went through that. Was that an
okay explanation on that?
Mayor Chmlel: Yes. ! thlnk he explained that.
Gary Warren: Why are we ripping up County Road 177 Why not just overlay?
There are several elements to that logic. County Road 17 does have some areas
that are poor. There are other areas obviously that are okay but we are
constructing a storm drainage system now which is going to tear up a lot of the
pavement and put the pipe underground. We've got some changes in the laneage
out there. We have left turns and right turn lanes now that would be added to
the road sect[on to accommodate the traffic projections for the area so we're
beefing up the road width out there. The current roadway has super elevation on
it which makes drainage improvements a little more expensive to accommodate
because of the super elevation. We try to avoid super whenever possible because
of the added cost so the grades and such Just don't reaL[y work with the
exist/rig pavement section out there. So those are the basic concepts that we
looked at as far whether indeed it could be overlaid or not but there's just so
much construction utilities and adding of lanes and such to the section that
would really require [t to be redone.
Mayor Ohmic1: What tonage road is that going to be?
Gary Warren: We would be design£ng for a 9 ton road section. L£ke TH 5. Mayor
and Councilmembers want a thorough review of bid proposal for project. Afraid
of unbalanced bid. That certainly is done when we come to request authorization
for bidding. Plans and specificat£ons. The bid proposal are a part of that
package and [ didn't get a chance to talk to you about the specific concern on
unbalancing of bids but that is one of the things that we scrutinize before we
make a recommendation for award is to see that that doesn't happen. It's
certainly one of the items on our checklist. Is Carver County picking up any
assessment for County Road 177 Carver County has been involved with and is
fully aware of the City's intentions on County Road 17. They have verbally
indicated to me, the County Engineer Hr. Gustafson, that the County does not
have funds for rebuilding this section. They are working w£th Lake Susan Hills
Partnership to provide fill about 100,000 yards, although I think that number is
shrinking, of fill for the future extension of CR 17 so there's some
participation from the County on the grading and fill that's needed for the road
section to the south but they have not volunteered any outright particlpat[on at
this point in time. [f we are paying for improvements and assessments and if
so, where are funds coming from? I don't know if I touched on that earlier
here. Accommodation of assessments and tax increment. Was engineering contract
just given to BRa and why? This is an update of the ortgtnal feas[b[lity study
that was done by BRW for the West 78th Street detachment back [n 1987. Now this
went through a couple of b[derattons relating to the Burdlck r/ght-in/right-out
issue so BRa has, this £nitial report covered both the north and the south side
of the improvements. So BRW had all the background. All of the plates and all
the material to sufficiently update the report for this project so yes, [t was
basically negotiated with them to continue to upgrade it for this step.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Rny other questions?
22
City Council Heetlng - 3uly 23, 1990
Councilman Workman: I guess maybe reflecting some of the concerns, it does seem
like, when was this originally updated Gary? It seems like not too long ago.
Gary Warren: The original report was done In July of '87 and Council
reinlttated the report August 28th of
Councilman Workman: So the construction of the service we have out there now
was when?
Gary Warren: On Powers Blvd.?
Councilman Workman: Yeah.
Gary Warren: 1979.
Gary Ehret: 1978-79.
Councilman Workman: Okay, it seems like it wasn't even that long ago so it
seems like It's kind of quick and like we're redoing something but we're really
not I guess. I am concerned about the County's participation. I know the
legislature wasn't klnd to them either as far as and the coming next year.
They're not going to have, they're going to have less next year aren't they for
funds? A sunset clause there for the funding that they're going to be getting?
Gary Warren: ...I know that's a sunset in their participation may be shrinking
as a result.
Councilman Workman: It would appear as though, and certainly the Burdick or the
West 78th detachment was a situation where they seemed to have agreed with us on
the right-in/right-out after some anquish but they wanted to kind of tell us
what to do and we paid for it pretty much and we're doing the same thing on the
south side and so they are going to maintain and clear this road?
Gary Warren: Maintenance? Snow plowing and such?
Councilman Workman: Right.
Gary Warren: That would remain. The City has a cooperative agreement with the
County that exists right now that was passed I believe It was even through this
Council, for the work that we're doing on the north side with the West 78th
Street detachment. In that agreement It spells out that It's still the County's
road for maintenance and such. The County requires that the road, they have
final approval of the plans and specifications Is another reason I meant to
mention for why the need for the road to be reconstructed. They require the
road to be built to State Aid standards and that also changes the picture as far
as some of the geometrtcs out there but they would still be responsible for
maintaining it. The sIgnage. The striping. The plowing. The repairing of lt.
Roger Gustafson has provided me recently, and I haven't had a chance to get it
before the Council with his long range capital Improvement program which he
currently, the way I understand it, ts trying to work with the County
Commissioners to see about, I guess It's an eye to the future which we need to
have as well on how to fund some of the long range construction programs such as
this on County roads. He not only has problems here tn Chanhassen but
23
City Council Heeting - 3uly 23, ~90
throughout the county trying to get funds shook loose because it's not coming
from the State Legislature. So I intend to get that to the Council here in the
near future Just to see the package that he is up against. I would not want to
leave the impression that the County is not interested in trying to help us out.
It's just that they're trying to balance priorities like we are obviously.
councilman Workman: It's just, you know sometimes it appears as though, to me
anyway, that there's a perceived ability to pay in Chanhassen maybe versus maybe
some other area or other end of the County and I want to make sure that.
I don't know where we're getting some of the highway funding. I know Roger's
getting probably 300 more projects than he does funds down there but does
Chanhassen receive a portion of some of those? I'm not asking you for specific
figures but there does seem to be a growing east end of the County and there are
needs out on the western side but are we able to defer some of the assessments
that are happening here? I hope I'm making myself clear.
Gary Warren: I understand what you're saying. In fact one of the points that
we're anxious, we're still anxious Paul and I to get out of our Eastern Carver
County Transportation study and this is an important thing for Roger himself and
the County Commissioners to look at, is a combined capital improvement program
for the County that would not only highlight City needs but also County needs in
a coordinated plan so that we aren't upgrading Powers Blvd. up to a certain
point and the County isn't going to deal with the rest of it for 50 years so
that it's a more coordinated approach. I can't speak for the County but I
would expect, at least the way Roger's indicated to me that with that tool in
hand and with his own CIP that he hopes to get from the County, to start getting
some commitments to the City's on their priority list at any rate and the
County's priorities so that you can deal with these questions a little bit more
comfortably as far as well can they or can't they and who is getting the money
if we aren't and it's fairly distributed. I don't think you will see that it be
fairly distributed on a per acre basis because the needs sometimes are not that
way.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a question on the State Aid standards. If
this was built in 1978, why wasn't it built to standards at that time?
Gary Warren: I don't know. Gary, do you know the deficiencies that are out
there7
Gary Ehret: It was built to standards at that time but the standards have
changed. An example of that would be in 197~ a ~0 foot left turn lane was
acceptable. It's no longer acceptable. They require 14. Those standards were
changed in ~83.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's the only thing though? Is there any other in the
construction itself? The courses you have? Old you take some shortcuts?
Gary Ehret: The other problem would be in the curves. This curve right here,
as Gary referred to was designed for 50 mph in ~978-79 and they could achieve 50
mph design if they super elevated the roads. You cannot do that today. Today's
standards cannot post that for 50. Since it was built and constructed then,
it's not required to be changed until such time as you upgrade the road but now
the 45 mph speed through that curve is not acceptable so it's a combination of a
24
City Council Heeting - 3u[y 23, 1990
left turn lane, super elevation. Those are the two biggest.
Don Ashworth: Well Gary, if I could add to that. I see Jules Smith. Xaybe
remind him of the meeting that Jerry Carlson and Jules and I had in my office.
There was a desire I think at that point in time to see that section of the
roadway up to a ful[ urban section but what it really came down to is without TH
5 in place, being able to run a storm sewer system through there, we really
couldn't put the curbs on as you might ordinarily have them so we ended up then
with the rural ditch design which currently exists In there which then precluded
our being able to put any street lights in. Again, the storm sewer system. Any
type of a sidewalk system, etc. and back at that time we talked about well, how
soon can these things occur. How can we bring this thing up Into a typical
street or a street as it matches within the business park and I think we were
talking about 2 or 3 years and now it's S-7 years later and we're finally
getting the thing done. But my point there Is that some of those original
improvements were done knowing that that was the only way we had to do them at
that point in time and that at some point In time, that it would have to change
as that area changed from a rural section to an urban section.
Councilwoman Dialer: Were they assessed at the time it was done in 19787
Don Ashworth: No, there were no assessments for the roadway section. I believe
there were assessments associated with the sanitary sewer and water lines. Jules
is shaking his head so I must be close.
Councilwoman Otmler: I do have one more question and it's on I think It's page
7 when we're talking about alternative A. I guess I don't understand why the
tax increment has no share In the roadway costs there. Can you explain that
Gary? Todd? One of you.
Gary Warren: Okay, the roadway cost. It was again, consistent with what we've
done in the past on some of these things. I think there's a lot of discretion
yet to be worked out as far as...
Councilwoman Dim[er: Okay, I was going to bring up the point If we want to, at
some point you have a too! to lower the assessment. Is that a possibility?
Gary Warren: Right. This again Is Just to give an idea what the funding would
look like and that could be manipulated any of severa! ways.
Councilwoman OlmIer: Okay. Thank you.
Nayor Chmiel: I guess there's still one question that was asked by Jules
regarding that small pond that hasn't been addressed.
Gary Warren: We are very anxious to accommodate and work with that property.
We also hav~ a pond on the east of the bu£[ding that I think we've improved on
here. It wi[[ be improved when the West 78th Street project Is re-routed
because we'[[ be taking a lot of the Burdick drainage out of that pond so that
should help you there. On the other pond, we definitely as a part of the
detailed design will be working with that to see what makes sense. We will not
stop It obviously. We will probably be making that an Inlet for It and
conveying the drainage as it Is today. We have, the problem with the Empak
25
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
property that us're anxious to resolve as well with the storm sewer because of
the runoff, that there is a Lot of water that comes through that drainage swale.
$o we'll be working with 5ules and the people out there as we come up with the
design of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? I'll entertain a motion.
Councilman Workman: I'd move to authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for County Road 17.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Resolution ~90-9~); councilman Workman moved, Council,oaan D/mler seconded to
accept the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and
speciftcat/ons for County Road 17 upgrade south of Trunk Highway 5 and that a
public hearing be called for 3uly 23, 1990. All voted In favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
AWARD OF ~ZDS: UPGRADE OF AUDUBON ROAD FROH SO0 LZNE RAZLROAD TO LYNAN BLVD.,
ZMPR~E~ENT P~3ECT 89-18.
Gary Warren: Mr. Hayor, bids were advertised for the project as noted in the
staff report and we received four competitive bids on the project. We've
reviewed them and are satisfied that there was a competitive bidding climate.
The low bidder, Imperial Developers has had several projects in the City and the
base btd, which includes the trail element, ts for $&17,684.$2. Very close to
the engineer's estimate. At the request of Council, we did include alternatives
within the bid. One was to, Alternative ! was to delete the trail paving. To
actually do the grading for the trail but to delete the paving of the trail at
this time. Imperial's offered a deduct of $45,742.50 for that. The second
alternative was to delete totally the trail. Grading and the entire works and
that net resulted in a deduct of $84,854.50. That was the direction that we had
to get the alternatives for you to consider as far as what do we want to build
out here. [ guess we can report that we have a competitive bid with [mperial,
whichever way you want to go. There's a manager's comment. Don, you wanted to
elaborate?
Don Ashworth: Potentially if ! could. Z did add manager's comment and that is
to the effect that we've completed a number of sidewalks as they would lie
within the downtown area. The ability to interconnect sidewalks through Market
Blvd. or to Rosemount and the Lake Susan Park. As a part of Lake Drive, we can
look to a sidewalk system that will get us from the easterly edge of the
community over to Audubon Trail. We'll look to approximately 3 touchdowns with
sidewalks in terms of Park Brive, Lake Drive and I forgot the name of our new
street in that area, ~ith Audubon. If we are to look to being able to have a
trail that would connect with our school system, specific Chaska Schools, there
really are only two areas that that could occur. One is off of CE 17. The
other is off of Audubon. I think that the residents would have a good point in
bringing out or stating that by building this trail at this point in time,
you're interconnecting nothing. The trail basically ends on either end.
However, we have in progress right now the interconnects as they're being
constructed on the northerly end and ! personally do not believe that it will be
26
City Counc£l HeetIng - 3u[y 23, 1990
that long before we'll see an interconnect in the fore of an upgrade off of
Lyman and CR 17 to the school. [ would hope that the Counct[ would very
strongly look at the Alternative A which ~ould ensure that the grading would be
complete for a future sidewalk but wou[d not necessarily have to construct It at
this point tn time. If you were so inclined and would construct it, I think
that that wou[d be good as well but [ think to miss the opportunity and not have
it graded in would put us into a situation very stai[ar to what you have on TH
101. I think everyone supports the desire to have a sLdewaIk along TH 101 but
if you drive that section of roadway, there Is absolutely nowhere where you can
put it tn. I mean between ditch sections, swaap= and everything else, It
be a very costly project. Here we have an opportunity as part of a construction
project to ensure that the future grades for where that sidewalk trail would go
are in place and at a relatively nominal cost be able to have that instal[ed
3, 4, 5 years from now when tn fact the true £nterconnects on the south side
would be in place. Staff, at [east this office would really recomaend that
Council strongly consider Alternative A.
Hayor Chmtel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this?
Doug Bar[nsky: Hr. Hayor, ey naae Is Doug Bartnsky. I live at 8731 Audubon
Road. I think because of our previous meeting the Counct[ has heard some of ay
concerns but I think everyone is aware from the previous meeting that may
property tn particular is significant and envtronaental Impacts depending on
which one of these alterant£ves the Council should select tonight. As an
exaaple, we had the City consultant, a landscape architect out there the other
evening and he said depending on what you do and if there was not a trail graded
for it at this point in tiaa, we have the posstbi[ity to save our two 75 foot,
80 year old Austrian Pine trees which are pretty valuable to us anyway. At the
3une 4th City Council meeting when the Audubon Road taproveaents were proposed,
there was a large group of Audubon Road residents that appeared before the
Counci[ and expressed their concern as to why the City stall would propose
spending a large, but at that rise, unknown aaount of aoney to build a sidewalk
Ira1[ through their properties when none of these residents neither wanted the
trail nor could see a purpose for It. After [earning that the total actual cost
of this trail is alaost $100,000.00 and tf you were wondering how I'a adding
that up, you need to take the Alterantive A deduct and add at least $12,000.00
to it for the retaining wall which would not be necessary in front of ay
property without the trail, ge feel that the facts are even now clearer that
this is an unwise use of taxpayer dollars in Chanhassen. We are st11! appa[[ed
that the City staff would st~l[ propose sending over $50,000.00 at this ttae to
build something that may connect to something in the future. Some other facts
need to be brought out. Two weeks ago [ attended the City Council seating when
the subject community center was thoroughly discussed by the Council. I was
pleased to see that the Council decided that the taxpayers should decide whether
they want a comaunity center. That uss a good decision. What ~e don't
understand is that Chanhassen taxpayers have voted several rises that they did
not want to spend addltional tax revenues for a comprehensive tratl.p[an. In
spite of those votes, city staff continues to push ahead for tra£ls on every
iaproveaents project including Audubon Road. One should be asking the questlon,
when [s the city staff going to [£sten to the voters on the Issue of trails?
The major justification for the Audubon Road Ira1! by the City manager Is that
the Chanhassen needs to connect to a Chaska traI[. The actual fact Is that the
current Chaska trail plan does not have a trail coming north of Pioneer Tratl on
27
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
the east side of TH 41. We have a copy of that plan. I'll be glad to share it
with anyone that hasn't seen it from Chaska. It is stated that the Audubon Road
ls the only alternative. We also do not feel that that's a clear fact. The
proposed current new land use plan has a continuous strip of land from the
Chanhassen Buslness Park to the Chaska Industrial area along the current Soo
Line Railroad. Since the cost of putting sidewalks and streets into that area
will be paid for by the developers, thls wlll be a very good alternative for
Chanhassen to get the sidewalk connection to Chaska that it's looking for at no
additional cost to the taxpayers. Based on these facts, the Audubon residents
feel that the Chanhassen City Council should accept the Alternative to deduct
without a trail on Audubon Road south. This will save our taxpayers in total
almost $100,000.00 and the residents along Audubon will have less damage to
their trees and frontage property. We thank you for your consideration on the
entire issue and we're sorry we keep bringing it up but you can see it's a
pretty key issue to some individuals personally as well as we think the amount
of money that came out of this bid process was a pretty wise decision to look at
it. I do have a suggestion that dldn't get brought out. The City continues to
battle the concept of trails and public access along connector type roads. I
really thlnk what the City of Chaska has done along Ploneer Trail merlts some
consideration because they have been faced with the same problem and at a
relatively low cost have decided to put an 8 foot paved strip along the road and
it appears to be working out fine. I think that that's the type of thing that
might be under consideration for some of the roads. Maybe that's something that
should have been looked at on Audubon. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Doug. Is there anyone else?
Tom Michel: My name is Tom Michel. I live at 8941 Audubon. Now, since this
thing has started, it has been objected to pretty well by all of the residents
involved. The thing is going down to terminate in a cornfield at the present
tlme. But what interests me ls the amount of property that they plan as it
pertains to my personal property. In the past the City as I understand now,
claims they have 33 foot right-of-way whlch I don't thlnk was ever designated or
how that applies to the law. However, when that was an original farm, there
must be, I didn't measure lt, must be 200 feet of property they took off that
land to upgrade that road when they did back probably in the early 50's. And
they took all of that where they cut the h111. They put it all in the fill down
at the bottom of the hill which encompasses an awful lot more feel than what
we're talking about here. Now, I have seen probably 4 different plans of what's
going to happen down there. The last person that was out, that Softsoap artist,
whoever came out with the bill of goods says, no. This is not going to be this.
It's going to be this. I haven't seen anything. I have practically all the
trees I have protecting myself from the road are involved in this and I'm not
proposing to give them up and I'm not proposing to put either a permanent or
temporary easement for that purpose through the area that involves the house
itself. I'm not too concerned below that or above that because it's not
pertinent but right there, I'm not going to have to give up any extra number of
feet of property for the purpose of putting fill in there. I'm not prepared to
do that. Now, as I understand it, this is a State subsidized road or whatever
you want to call it. Now, I understood that the slope where it pertains in
front of my place, that the State requires 3:1 slope. I'm sure Gary can expound
on that. However, I was told they would put in a 2:1 slope in order to minimize
this distance. Now as !sald, I haven't seen anythlng since then. They're
28
City Cguncil Heeting - July 23, 1990
putting this down there. Now, if they want to take whatever you're talking. An
8 foot shoulder and a 6 foot something else thing here and they're going to cut
this down, now in my opinion I don't know what the laws are but I would say that
if they cut that to a ~ 1/2 or 2:1 ratio, they would have to put barricades or
something up there because that would be pretty dangerous and I'm just not
prepared to do that right now and I Just want to let everybody to know that.
Hayor Chaiel: Thank you Toe. Anyone else? If not we'll bring It back to
Council. Any discussion or any questions that you might have? Tom, how many
trees to you have there that you're talking about?
Tom Michel: I suppose there's probably, oh 20 or 30 that might be £nvolved.
What they do is they shield, they kind of shield the dirt from the road si) to
speak that come down. Now the person that came there said they wouldn't even
touch the tree. Haybe they'd take 2 or 3 or 4 or S or something and they
wouldn't have to come to the bottom of that grade to get In there. Now I don't
see how anybody could get in there and do anything from way up there to come
down this far down the hill that goes clear down here. They're not going to get
any equipment in there as I can see
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Any discussion.
Councilman Johnson: Actually my concerns on the trail issue is more on the
north side of the project than the south side of the project. Again, I'm not...
informed of what the plans are towards Chaska High or whatever but letting the
Lake Susan Hills folks that live on the west side have an access to the north up
towards Park Orive was more of a priority to me between their development and
Park Drive so they'd have a continuous path to Lake Ann through our industrial
park. That's the part of the path that I was most concerned with and that we
preserve that part of the path. Once you get past Park Drive, the path doesn't
make a whole lot of sense. It runs up to Prince's studio and that's about it.
That does have, for some employees of the lots that are along there, it may be
helpful for walking but in going to the south, it didn't seem to make a lot of
sense. South of Lake Susan Hills subdivision. But I'm still concerned
from Lake Susan Hills subdivision up to Park Orlve where it will interconnect
with the other city pathways that will get the people to Lake Ann w~thout having
to go all the way over to CR 17. Somebody says yeah, they can go over to CR 17.
Well, we know what's going to happen. They're going to go down and cut across
the railroad tracks. That's the last thing we need the kids doing is cutting
across the railroad tracks and through the back of the industr~al park. Somehow
I'd like to see us preserve just that one stretch of the traEls. I'm not
totally convinced at this point that the southern side of Et is necessary. So
we will be getting trails on Ce 17 eventually all the way down to Lyman and that
would be a connection between our downtown and Chaska.
Councilwoman Dtmler: I agree. I think that I still would l~ke to see us save
those trees if possible. I'm not real sure, I think the ~nterconnect to Chaska
and to the school site is a great idea but I'm not real sure it's practical at
this point. If you would take a look, I don't think Chaska's going to put
trails in on CR 17 and 18. It's pretty rural there yet and I suspect they have
other priorities and I th~nk that we do have other alternatives. Like we talked
about CR 17. Going down to Lyman and that could be the connection to the
schools if at some point that gets to be. I like the idea of Just having Et on
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
the northern part only. I think that would solve most of our problems.
Mayor Chm£el: Okay, thank you. Tom?
Councilman Workman: Yeah, the Chaska High School connect. Like I said, I used
to ride from Sandy Acres to the drug store in Chanhassen. Sandy Acres down in
chaska when I was a kid and a lot of hills. The only trail I can envision from
Chanhassen to the High School would be let's say down Audubon Road, onto Lyman,
up CR 17 which is steep and kind of down. Then down the big hill and then up
Engler which is another really steep hill and then if you've got to come back,
going up CR 17 is one of the biggest hills in the area. So it doesn't seem like
a real easy way. There's not a real straight, pleasant way to get there even on
a trail and from my understanding of Chaska, they're not going honkers with
trails other than on TH 41 now and they're spending, it looks like 2 million
dollars on a trail along the side there. For Comp Plan sake, I think it would
be ideal for us to have something designated along here eventually for a trail.
I'm convinced that the people at the bottom of the hill that own the farmland,
the Oegler's, aren't going to budge for a very long time. My daughter will be
on the Council and for these long stretches of trail that we're thinking of,
Ooug's idea. Chaska's idea about the 8 foot wide shoulder with a strip which is
to me is a safety nightmare but it certainly is cheaper and easier. I don't
know if that would even save his trees because it's still going to be wide
there. I guess I was prepared this evening to say I at least don't want,
wouldn't be concerned with tt being paved all the way down as a necessity
because I don't think it's something that's going to be used in the near future
heavily. Certainly not to a school. $o yeah, I guess I'd agree with Jay's and
Ursula's comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you Doug the 8 foot strip doesn't work and
Chaska won't have it for long. ~e had it on Kerber Blvd.. Cars Just cut
through it. It might be reasonably acceptable for an adult on a bicycle but you
wouldn't want to put your kids out there. So we have this super wide road that
goes almost nowhere. And I read the manager's comments. It see ali kinds of
things that say we better protect this. The Park and Eec Commission, the
current Park and Rec Commission reviews this and says Audubon Road is an
integral part of their plan. ~ don't want to get into the referendum because
that's always a hot issue but what we've never looked at, sidewalks only on the
major corridors and whenever we've talked about that, it seems like that makes
sense to people until it goes through their yard, which is a struggle. And
certainly cutting down 80 year old trees is not something that I would want to
encourage but t would sure like to see us do Alternative 1 at minimum and if you
guys can figure out some way that paving part of it makes sense. The question I
had about holding on the paving is then who's going to pay for it in the future?
If we don't pave it now, are we ever going to have a better funding opportunity?
Don Ashworth?
Don Ashworth: Assuming that the interconnects were built and that they were
built prior to 1998, the current funding source would still be available through
1998 to carry out that construction.
3O
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so that makes Alternative I more acceptable. But are
you saying that the, Z guess one can extrapolate here that the funding would
also be available through the end of the 90's to do the grading.
Oon Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: What do we gain by doing it now?
Gary Warren: The economies of scale I guess would be one thing as far as it
being integrally a part of the gradingwork that the contractor w11! be doing on
the site so we have probably a better unit than if we come back and Just grade
for the trail.
Councilman Boyt: Let's look at how we can complicate this a little blt. What
if we grade except where it would Involve taking out the trees. Do we gain
anything by that or do we really need to do the whole string? Or nothing?
Gary Warren: From a dollar standpoint, ~f that's what you're asking I ~uess,
the toughest part of the construction ts by the trees and maybe that's the whole
Issue of the trail itself. So if you build a trail up to the trees, Z guess
that probably says that in the future there's a pretty good sign that at some
time the Council's going to want tt to go through the trees. So maybe that
issue is laid to rest. The balance of material, just to speak from the
engineering standpoint of grading of a site Is also a factor because we are
taking the hill down S feet to get the site distance Issue resolved. A lot of
that material will go on the south side. The Htchel's property as was mentioned
earlier, will be taking some of it. Our latest balance ts 10,000 yards. We
need 10,000. So If you don't grade onto the Barinsky property at this t~e,
then we will need more fill.
Councilman Johnson: How much more? If we need 10,000, we need another 1,000 or
are we going to need another 1007
Chet Harrison: Are you talking without the trail?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Gary Warren: How much material Is coming off of the Barinsky property would you
estimate for the trail?
Chet Harrison: It isn't a lot because of the wall. We're going to do the
wall... [,000 yards maybe.
Gary Warren: Less than 5 for sure.
Councilman Boyt: So It's possible that we could grade for the trail except
where it Involved removing stgn/flcant trees. We've got that done. We've
demonstrated that someday if the whole interconnect system goes in, we'll
probably have to either go deeper Into the yard or sacrifice those trees.
Something will have to happen. So we've laid the groundwork for It and we have
the economies of scale to Justify tt but yet we haven't taken the trees out.
Gary Warren: Our position, and I have not had the benefit yet to talk with Gene
31
city Council Heet£ng - July 23, 1990
Ernst who's the landscape architect that we had visit with the Barinsky's here
recently, [ haven't had the benefit of his comments on it but our position all
along has been that the trees are suspect for survival no matter whether you do
the trail or not. The side slope grading. The trees. The branches hang out
quite a ways already into the roadway. There'd have to be extensive trimming at
least in the lower portions of the trees. That's where the root zone is as we
know. Maybe we're conservative but we're trying to paint the worse picture
there that those trees even without the trail are going to be suspect for
survival.
Councilwoman Dimler: That does lead me to the question. Do we need to have a
trail system both on CE 17 and Audubon going to Lyman? I think we can make a
clear choice. I don't think both roads need to have it. We will have that
route to'interconnect if we do it on CE 17 and to me CE 17 seems like a more
logical choice because the northern part, it is industrial and also, to my
knowledge, there aren't any [arge trees along there and the driveways don't come
directly, the residents' driveways don't come directly except for a few, don't
come directly onto CR 17.
Gary Warren: There's a few, did you say?
Councilwoman Dialer: There's a few but there's no large trees there that they
would be concerned about so CR 17 to me is the route of choice there and we can
leave Audubon alone.
Councilman Boyt: Unless you're coming from Lake Hinnewashta and then CR 17
isn't your road of choice.
Councilwoman Dtmler: Then they go TH 41.
Councilman Boyt: The Park and Rec Commission said they can...
Councilwoman Dimler: They can go TH 41 Bill.
Councilman 8oyt: If I read them right, sidewalk is currently envisioned as part
of the Minnewashta State Aid project and that this is a connect to that?
Gary Warren: Hinnewashta Parkway?
Councilman Boyt: [ don't know exactly if ! read that sentence right or not.
Councilwoman Oimler: Why can't Minnewashta people use TH 417 That would be
much easier.
Councilman Boyt: Is there a trail on TH 417
Councilwoman Oimler: There will be. Huch easier.
Councilman Workman: Gary, if this 8 foot or the wide shoulder concept came into
p[ay at the Barinsky place all the way down to Lyman because that ts a slope.
Tom's concerns are real with that slope there going towards the bottom. Do we
Lose anything? Trees, if we do that? Again, you said yeah, it's suspect
whether they'd survive or not but are we seriously coming back from all of this
32
City Council Meeting - 3uly 23, 1990
tf we keep it closer to the road for that stretch?
Gary Warren: We looked at the Hichel's property. The current side slope out
there, my recollection and Mr. Michel's can correct me if i'm wrong, is that we
currently have a pretty steep side slope there. 2:1 or there shouts and we were
shrinking that shoulder to a & foot wide shoulder in that area to try to
minimize the amount of easement basLca[[y necessary on his property. Now
I don't know, do you recall the tree issue as far as the Hichel's? ! know Hr.
Michel's had mentioned he was concerned about trying to improve the drainage
problem on the property where it currently cuts sort of diagonally across his
property and our plans did address trying to, with the storm sewer pull that in
and try to take care of actually getting him back some of his drainage area
there but the trees, I don't believe that we were proposing taking any major
trees.
Chet Harrison: The point ! was trying to make with the resident uae that there
would probably be 3 trees of 6 or 8 inches in size that might be lost. It's
questionable. We'll do what we can to save them and stay away from them but we
are filling along this. The bottom of the existing slope where it was before,
they raised the road to where it is today has a stand of trees and he wants to
protect that particularly and of course some wild trees, I guess if that's the
right word to use, start growing in the embankment coming down the slope and of
course those are going to be lost during construction but they're not big.
They're relatively small but the trees at the bottom of the slope are 6-8
inches. Maybe a little bit bigger some of them and we may wind up losing those
because we're going to going right down to the bottom of the existing slope.
Based on cross sections that we've done, we shouldn't go beyond the bottom of
the slope used to construct the road originally.
Mayor Chmiel: What are those small trees? What size? What height?
Chet Harrison= Oh, probably 10 or 12 feet h~gh. Haybe 15 feet, 3 Inches
probably the biggest.
Gary Warren: What are they?
Chet Harrison: What are they? I think they're elm If I remember right. Haybe,
Tom do you know what they were? What kind?
Tom Michel: Those are elm. Now you're talking coming, to me you're talking
coming this far down the slope before you hit the trees and I've got this much
down below there where the trees are and I fail to see how you can get in there
and do the job that is proposed without having to do something from the bottom
which is my biggest concern because that's where my trees are and I've got some,
probably 40-50 year old, maybe older than that trees in there and that's Just
about all the trees that ! have on that side of the property and that's what I'm
concerned about. We're talking about 4 or S, probably 3 inch trees. 2 to 3
inch trees that are along the slope that we discussed in addition to possibly 1
or 2 of the larger trees at the top. My point is, how is that bank going to
go? Is It going to go straight down and how are you going to protect the
motorist If Lt goes straight down? If it comes down the slope it is now, which
ts already steep and if you're going to Increase that distance, then you're
going to increase that distance at the bottom right into my front yard in
33
City Council Heet£ng - July 23, 1990
addition to wiping out all of those trees because you can't possibly do it
anymore,
Chet Harrison: We did look at those cross sections and it doesn't show that
we're going to go beyond the bottom of what [ call the first slope because
what's happen now is there's an embankment and then there's also a ditch for
drainage water at the bottom of that embankment. We're now taking that drainage
water and putting it up near the road in a swale and carrying it down through
the new...we're building. Push the water in there so we are in fact not, this
slope down at the bottom is going to probably remain about the way it is but we
are not going to encroach on that based on our cross section that we drew up for
that area. We're staying at the bottom of that first slope. The one he's
talking about.
Tom Michel: Can I also add something else real quick?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Tom.
Tom Hlchel: The project ls to run the dralnage and it runs doun to Bluff Creek
where it's supposed to go. However, there's quite a bit of hill left and that
water when it gets to the bottom is golng to dump right onto my property where I
already have a drainage problem from previous road stuff on Lyman. All that
dumps tn there and pools. In addttton to what we've already discussed where the
existing drainage right now dumps right out into the middle of my pasture and it
can't get to Bluff Creek. It slts out there. You get down to Lyman then the
rest of the water, I don't think there's even anything on the plans that deters
any water from Bluff Creek to Lyman. If there ls, when it gets down there now,
it's on the east side of the road and tt comes down to Lyman... Now I've got
drainage from the west slde of Audubon that cuts through down by Lyman onto my
property and I also have dra£nage from the west side of Audubon coming by my
upper drlveway that drains right through onto my property on the exlstlng
drainage. Now I don't know how come that water isn't going down on it's own
slde of the road. It's all comlng over to my way and ! thlnk that has to be
addressed.
Hayor Chmtel: Thanks Tom.
Councilman Workman: Don, with my tnitial question about the 8 feet that wasn't
quite answered yet. How much more, I mean I'm assuming that on Tom's property
the trail's supposed to be moved over and not against the road so if we move the
road over, or the trail over, 8 foot wide shoulder. Whatever, from the top of
the hill down to the bottom, do we save trees? The large older trees, etc.. Do
we still get our trail and I guarantee you if I was on my bike and I was going
down that hi11, I won't be on that trail going down that h111. I mean lt's not
going to, I don't know how much that trail's going to be used by bicycle riders
and I don't know how far people are golng to walk out there. Currently anyway
but does that save us some, do we st£1l maintain the integrity of our trail plan
whlle savlng the trees, etc.?
Gary Warren: Specifically as it relates to Hr. Hichel's property?
Councilman Workman: And Barinsky.
34
City Council Heet£ng - 3uLy 23, L990
Gary Warren: When we get to the Hichel's property, because the slope is
dropping off tn that location, we do not have to include a drainage swale
anymore so we're able to build a trail right next to the shoulder of the road
and then we don't have to do our 3:[ drainage swale because the water's Is
shutting off so that saves us from having to take a larger swath of property
Like we do on the northerly part of the project. So that ue stiLL need to get
the 6 foot shoulder and the trail in there which does push out our side slope
somewhat on the bottom and that's what we're trying to minimize with the 2:[
slope. The trees that he's addressing ! guess as we negotiate with Hr. HIchel's
on the easements that are needed out there, that's certainly something we'LL
have to work with him on as similarly with Hr. Barinsky on it. But the saving
of the trees, [ don't know. ['m not answering your question [ guess but [ don't,
they're in jeopardy either way. With or without the traiL.
CounciLman Workman: What I'm saying Is, okay. We're building the road. And
now we're going to run that 8 foot trail right along side the road on the road
Like Lake Lucy Road.
6ary Warren: If you would do that option?
Counc£Lman Workman: Right. So if we do that option, are ~e doing no more than
we otherwise would with the road not a trail?
Gary Warren: If we would take the t2 foot travel Lane okay and you're saying
put an 8 foot?
Councilman Workman: Well we're already going to have a shoulder there right?
Gary Warren: We're proposing right, a 6 foot shoulder tn that area.
Councilman Workman: So we're adding 2 feet onto this thing rather than moving
the trail over even further?
Gary Warren: We would move the traiL. We still need the shoulder area because
we're dealing with the clear zone. We're still trying to get the clear zone as
best as ue can out there. To plop the trail right on the edge of the roadway is
something we're not recommend£ng.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? I guess I basically agree uith 4 of
us here with this. [ guess I don't want to see any trees Lost reaLLy. [ don't
know whether that road is going to be actually utilized that much ts another
concern. With CR t7 being a trail system, whether Audubon would be there. So
guess ! rather than to go through and reiterate everything everyone else has
said, I'd Like to caLL a question.
Councilman Workman: Don, can ! ask one more questlon because I want to make
sure about this 8 foot. You're not recommending It because why?
Gary Warren: We're not recommending putting the trai! on the roadway system?
CounciLman Workman: WeLl 8 feet alongside of yes.
Gary Warren: Because it's basically an on-street trail which is.
35
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Workman: Well what did they do on Pioneer in Chaska? Isn't it the
same thing?
Gary Warren: Well I don't know the specifics about that one.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that Park and Rec, and they probably say the
same thing, does not recommend those.
Councilman Workman: Well yeah. [ understand that but we've got an issue
between 80 year old trees and.
Councilman Boyt= Why not just avoid the trees? If in 2 years they die from the
stress created from the road, which I hope they don't do. But if they do, it's
a different issue and you've got everything up to that point.
Councilwoman Oimler: We still don't need it.
Mayor Chmtel: No, that's my opinion.
Councilman Boyt: Your commission is recommending that you do this.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they have an alternative on CR 17 which they maybe
haven't considered. I don't want to cut the Park and Rec Commission out without
any system but I think they have two alternatives and CR 17 is one of the good
ones. TH 101 is another possibility south.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree. CR 17 is much flatter and it's a well utilized area and
not having as many hills.
Councilman Johnson: TH lOl's out of range of all of Lake Susan Hills people.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah it is but I mean for the school. You could go TH
over to 18.
Councilman Johnson: We've got to think about the new middle school too. That
would be going a different direction altogether.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone willing to make a motion?
Councilwoman Oimler: I'd make a motion that we adopt Alternative 2 with no
trail or pavement. The reduced cost of $84,000.00 whatever.
Councilman Johnson: What about the north side?
Councilwoman Dimler: If that's possible. I haven't heard any on how that would
be possible.
Councilman Johnson: That'd have to be rebid that alternative.
Gary Warren: Well at Council's direct we could negotiate with the contractor or
the low bidder for a change order to consider constructing whatever piece that
you want and bring that back for your approval. You will recall the Lake
36
City Council Meeting - July 23, lgi¢)
Susan Hills 3rd addition has a trail segment already to be built there. In fact
they're ready to do it anytime ue say go but we've held them off because of this
so there is that increment there that is planned to be.
councilwoman Oimler: They're going to connect up to the northern section?
Gary Warren: No, they would go just to the north where the pond is right now.
Within the confines of their frontage for the subdivision. [t-~ould not go all
the way to the north.
Counc£Lman Johnson: Yeah, it only goes to Rudubon Road.
Gary Warren: To the drainage pond basically.
Councilwoman Oieler: So they can still go ahead and do that?
Gary Warren: Yeah. We were only waiting to see where ue were going.
Councilman Boyt: Which side of the road it #as going to be on.
Gary Warren: That was one of the qaestions.
Councilman Workman: Gary, visualize this for me in 3 segments. Okay, from TH 5
to Park. Okay? It's on the west side. Okay, from Park to Lake Orive it's on
which side?
Gary Warren: The east side.
Councilman Workman: Okay. And then now we're talking about this segment. No,
now you've got another segment to Heron which is on.
Gary Warren: The east side.
Councilman Workman: The east side and now we're talking about basically this
next segment. Maybe moving it to the east side.
Gary Warren: That's currently designed for the east s~de.
Councilman Workman: So the west side potential.
Gary Warren: We initially started with the whole thing on the west side and
then because of the crossing issue of pedestrians, we went to the east s£de.
Councilman Workman: But we're not going to get a sidewalk on Prince's aide?
Gary Warren: Sidewalk on Prince's side, no.
Councilman Johnson: From TH S to Park Drive.
Gary Warren: The thinking, at least that we followed through and at your
discretion was that the pedestrian traffic coming from the south wes primarily
oriented to Lake ann Park entrance so keet~ them on the east sicks. Cross the
bridge. Get them to P&rk Road. They'll go east on Park Road to Park Place.
37
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Park Drive. North on Park Drive and when TH 5 improvements come through we
would work with MnOot to get an overpass or whatever pedestr[an structure we
wanted so that that was, If you brought them up to TH 5 by Prlnce, you dropped
them with no place to go.
Councilman Workman: And then the brldge crossing ls on which side?
Gary Warren: East. The brtdge crossing goes to Park Road.
Councilman Johnson: From Lake Drtve.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Could you repeat the motlon?
Mayor Chmiel: The motion is to use Alternate ~2 which is $84,854.00 less.
Councilman Workman: With absolutely no trail?
Councilwoman Olmler: It has no trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Oimler: No trail or pavement.
Don Ashworth: As ! understood you, you dld leave the optlon for staff to
negotiate?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Oon Ashworth: Oh, you're not?
Councilman Johnson: She isn't. I would.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well I didn't, if it's feasible. I mean I said first that
lt's okay with me on the northern sectlon if the engineering department thlnks
it's feasible.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, you mentioned that In one of her previous comments.
Councilman Workman: You're leaving it open for the west side?
Councilman Johnson: No, east.
Councilwoman Oimler: We've already determined east tn a previous meeting.
Councilman Johnson: The trails on the west slde are for the industrial park.
Councilwoman Oimler: But I didn't want to confuse this motion.
Councilman Johnson= If you'll confuse It and include that section of trail from
Lake Susan Hills, Heron Drive to Park Drive, I'll second your mot[on.
38
City Council Meeting - July 23, [990
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's fine with me.
Councilman Workman: So then what are we leaving open as an option to Lyman?
Anything?
Councilwoman D[mler= No. CR 17 would be my, for the Park and Rec to consider.
Councilman Johnson: I kind of Liked Sill's Ldea of avoiding the trees this time
and doing Option [ in that area up until ~ ~t to Barinsky's property or the
lower property where [t cause effects.
Councilwoman Dlmler: It sounds reasonable to me but I'll tel! you uhat I don't
Like about it. It's too piecemeal and it leaves for the future Council a big
mess or decision. ! don't like to do that.
Councilman aoyt: Well, why don't we refer thLs back to the Park and Rec
Commission since they've recommended that we include Audubon Road in their trail
plan. Shouldn't we give it back to them and ask thee to reconfirm that that's
the best plan?
Councilwoman O[mler: No. I think we should make a decision and tell them what
we've decided and then have them look at CR [7.
Councilman Boyt: We don't even have the Comp Plan in front of us.
Hayor Chmie[: ghat is your construct[on start date on this? Yesterday?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, we don't have the time on this?
Mayor Chmiel: We are bumping up the construction season.
Councilman 3ohnson: So they would build this this year yet?
Councilman Boy[: If this goes like Front[er, you're not getting it built this
year.
Gary Warren: Like I say, we're up against ti.
Hayor ChmieL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Clarify your eot[on again
Ursula?
Councilwoman Otmler: Alright. I'd move that we approve Alternate ~2 at this
time which does not include a trail or pavement at the reduced cost of
$84,854.50 with the option open that if engineering department can come up with
a feasible way to put in the northern port[on that does not affect the residents
on the south and will preserve the trees, that that would be acceptable.
Gary Warren: Point of clarification?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Gary Warren: We know we can build the trail on the east side. It would really
be to negot/ate a change order with the contractor to nail down the dollars for
39
City CounciI Meeting - July 23, 1990
that segment. I think that's what you're.
Councilwoman Olmler: Yeah, why don't you work that out with them.
Gary Warren: Because that's in the plans and it's just a matter of saying,
instead of building it to here, build it to here.
Councilman Johnson: I think that's the most reasonable compromise. As such,
second it.
Willy Molnau: Park Drive and Park Road doesn't have a sidewalk or a trail.
You'd be walking right on the street. Is that what you folks are saying?
That's going to be part of the trail system to get to Lake Ann? There's no
trail or sidewalk on either of those roads.
Councilman 3ohnson: At this time.
Don Ashworth: Right.
Willy Molnau: Well, they're established businesses. You can't move a building
£n order to put in a sidewalk.
Don Ashworth: The capital program for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has those two sidewalks as being constructed. I doubt that they will be
completed this summer but they will be done this next summer.
WiLLy Molnau: Well, if they do It on Frontier Trail and have 8 feet of roadway
for a trail, they could do that on Audubon too. Keep the trail right on the
road. ALL you have to do is put a reta£ner there and you wouldn't have to build
a trail out in the middle of my farm or Barinsky's land. Put it right on the
road width. Widen the road...
Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we're not going to.
Councilwoman Dimler: See we're saying north of you. You won't be affected.
Mayor Chmiel: North of your location Is what we're discussing.
Wllly Molnau: It's not going on my place at a117
Mayor Chm£el: Right.
Resolution ~1~0-91: Councilwoman O/mler moved, Councilman 3ohnson ~econded to
award the bid to Impertal Developers using Alternate ~2 with a deduct cost of
$84,854.50 to upgrade Audubon Road from the Soo Line Railroad to Lyman Blvd.
with no trail or pavement except from Heron Drive to Park Road. A11 voted In
favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the morton carried w/th a vote of 4
to 1.
4o
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
~qRD OF BZD: KERBER BLUD. STREET LIGHTTJ~G EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 87-9a.
Gary Warren: [ think this is relatively straight forward. This Ls the
extension of the Kerber Blvd. lighting program up to Big Horn Drive and bids
were advertised and we received a low bid from KLLlmer Electr/c who was very
experienced with our downtown lighting system on a $37,460.00. It's a little
bit above the engineer's est[mate but we've added one light that wasn't
accounted for in the engineer's estimate so we feel we have a good b[d
from Killmer and funding is available through the Kerber Blvd. £mproveeent
project 87-9.
Councilman Johnson: [ move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman ~orkman: Second.
Resolution t90-92: counctlaan Johnson Bored. Councilman ~orkean seconded to
award the b~d for Kerber Boulevard street l~ght~ng extension project No. 87-9~
to Ktllaer Electric tn the aeount of $37,460.00. Rll voted ~n fauor and the
aotLon carried unan~eously.
UPDATE ON M~TER 3ET SKZS, ~SSZST~d4T PUBL/C S~drETY 'D/RECTOR.
Don Ashworth: I think I made notes back on, was it item
Councilman Johnson: 1.5(b).
Don Ashworth: Actually, if [ heard the Council discuss this item from earlier
in the agenda, it appears as though that there were various positive type of
activities that the Council and residents appeared to feel would be workable.
Specifically some type of signage at the boat launch. Personnel to check
registration, age. Also, to check water ski jets for water milfoil as well as
the ski jets. I'm not sure if I had missed anything that you had Jay.
Mayor Chaiel: There was also some discussion, ! think Bill made this, that we
have a staff person.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, public safety to do additional patrols on the lake
like they do on park patrols.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but can't that same person who we're hiring, watching all
these things going in, look at that lake from the vantage point of view that
they have. From where they're at. They can see much of that lake and if
there's a problem, they have a phone there. They can call for that assistance
if they need it. ! just don't see putting another person on.
Councilman Johnson: ~ell I don't think that would be a full time person. I'd
see that as our CSO working something with the Homeowner's Association to get a
ride doing some patrolling. As I sat here reading some of the Information that
was provided this evening, it sounds like we may not have any legs! Jurisdiction
on the lake. That only the County Sheriff and the ONR have, looking at the
41
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
State law that was in here, it seems that they specifically stated that the DNR
and County Sheriff are to enforce water. Well we can enforce our own I guess
over the DNR's. I thought it was interesting that watercraft have to have a
state required noise limit too. What we can do to measure noise from these Jet
skis and see if they meet the State required 82 decibels at 50 feet.
Councilman Boyt: They do.
Councilman 3ohnson: They do?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. That's a lot of noise.
Councilwoman Dimler: We've already checked that out once.
Councilman Workman: so what are you proposing Jay?
Councilman Boyt: Snowmobiles meet it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Jay?
Don Ashworth; So if I understand, one of the items would be checking to verify
that our CSO would be able to be assigned certain timeframes where they would
actually carry out patrol of the lake? Is that what the Council wants?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. I don't think the CSO has any real jurisdiction
does he? That's my first question.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we need to research.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The second thing is, it has to be a certified police
officer I think.
Councilman Johnson: No.
Councilman Boyt: We run, the CSO's currently do park patrol Don and this is the
same thing. All they're dotng ts they're out there asking people to be
reasonable and it's usually effective because one, they're a third party. They
look official and they get it done. And when they don't, they've got a radio
and the County has been pretty good at responding when they get a specific call.
[ think we need sort of a show of determination and that will make the point.
If you're out there now and agaln, maybe it doesn't but if you're out there for
the whole weekend, it won't take very many weekends and people w111 go to
Mlnnetonka.
Councilman Johnson: If the CSO pulls somebody over and gets on the radio and
calls up the County Sheriff and says meet us over at the boat dock and asks that
person to come to the boat dock, more than likely they'll come along and then
the County Sheriff can act accordingly. Or maybe not be able to act. Who knows
but at least lt's a show you know like you say in the blue unlform.
Councilman Workman: How do you, Bill I heard you say the word reasonable. How
do we, jet skls are not reasonable. They're not made to be reasonable. They're
not made for old, older women. I mean my grandma at 87 is not going to get on
42
City Council Meeting - 3uly 23, 1990
thts but she'll get on a pontoon you know. You know so they're not, they're
made for a younger, generally a younger minded set and so I don't so you can't
really ask these things to be, they're meant to be very, very active and how do
you make that reasonable? If you're going to ask Jet skiers to Just go around
[na little circle at about 10 mph, It's never going to happen and although I do
agree, I don't agree with trying to get our problems and put them on somebody
else's lake. Is this the only lake that we have the problem? Rte we go[rig to
have to enforce this on H[nnewashta or Susan or Lucy because we're not going to
have the manpower, person power to do this and so, if we can do tt In a couple
weekends, [ don't disagree there's a problem but short of banning them on the
lake, I think we're going to have a continuous problem.
Ha¥or Chmiel: I guess I look at the speed boat requirements on Lotus, if
I remember right in looklng in the ordinance book. 15 mph at certain specific
hours and then you can go 40 mph.
Councilman Boyt: 45.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, see that seems Just out of.
Hayor Chm[el: And how do you distinqutsh the differences between the two? How
can we do this and enforce It properly if we were to?
Councilman Boyt: I think that what, Lotus ts unique in that it's so narrow
wh£ch [s the reason we have special regulations for Lt. ! think that Jet ski
people will be reasonable if someone approaches them and says your behavior
isn't appropriate like, you know there are crazy people out there tn 150 hp
outboards too so it's not limited to just the Jet ski and ! agree with you Tom.
The jet ski probably appeals to somebody who wants to make a lot of tight
circles and jump wakes and do those kinds of things which these do. I'd like to
see us try some enforcement activity out here and I don't have any confidence tn
the signs. I launch over there at the boat launch all the t[me. I know what's
on those signs but I sure don't stop and read them everytIme I go [n the lake.
You know you're interested tn getting your boat in the water. Getting it out.
You're trailer out so somebody else can do the same thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. Do the CSO's work on weekends?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Yes. Deb works primarily during the week. Bob works evenings
and some weekends.
Councilwoman Oimler: So that would not increase any hours or we wouldn't need
any other people?
Don Ashworth: Well, you'd be trading off. Right now where they placed a
priority for weekends and evenings In the park patrol, you would be giving up a
portion of that park patrol or requiring one of the other CSO's to do some
additional trading.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe there's somebody in the community that would let us use
their Jet ski to do the patrol.
43
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: You can use my boat.
Councilman Workman: I don't know, you know. I think all sorts of good ideas.
Councilman Boyt: What seems to be the worst time? Is it evenings or is it?
Councilwoman Oimler: Around dinner time I would think.
J.C. Hurd: ...I work during the day so I'm not there during the day during the
week...
Resident: You mentioned weekends. All day Saturday and Sunday and almost every
evening. Tonight when I got into my car to come over here, there was one out
there.
J.C. Hurd: Yeah, there was one when I was getting... In fact my 2 year old
daughter was imitating the sound.
Councilman Johnson: Lucy is a unique lake not only in it's width but also the
topography around it being almost in a bow1. The noise is just about amplified
lnto the sldes.
Resident: My house is about 150 yards from the lakeshore and those things can
be halfway out in the lake and you're right. It is a bowl and we all know that
sounds carry, especially when the wind is blowing towards you. And ! can have
all my windows closed and the air conditioning on and I can hear those things.
Councilman Johnson: Well I tell you, if they started getttng popular on Lake
Lucy, that's another lake that the noise travels real well on.
Mayor Chmlel: I thlnk any of them really.
Councilman 8oyt: Can we try this for like 2 weekends and see what response we
get?
Councilman Workman: Well can we be specific about what specifically is being
violated.
Councilman Johnson: There may be persons less than 13 years of age operating
without a license.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's 1G.
Mayor Chmtel: It has to be 16.
Councilman Boyt: The Statute we have is maybe a revision that's proposed rather
than the actual.
Mayor Chmiel: It is 16.
Councilman Johnson: In the back here they've put a thing and it talks age of
operators and it's a DNR publication. On page 23 of that it says persons less
than 13 years of age must be accompanied by someone at least 18 years of age to
44
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
operate a motorboat of more than 24 horsepower.
Resident: These are 4S and higher.
Councilman Johnson: These have 45 horsepower? You can see my ignorance of
these things. I don't even have a rowboat.
Resident: Some of them can pull waterskiers...see them pulling waterskiers.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, well they have thee new edition where you don't have
somebody on the jet ski. Just have the waterskier behind it.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah that thing on the Mountain Dew commercial or whatever.
Resident: I've seen them with 2 people that weren't a boat, because I call them
jet skis too but the 2 people on them and pulling a waterskier. That's
powerful. And a regular clip with no problem.
Councilman Boyt: We have a couple things. Maybe the age can be enforced.
Certainly within 100 feet of shoreline can be attempted to be enforced and one
of the biggest issues on Lotus is direction of travel. That's what will
probably havoc with the jet ski folks because you're going to have a little
trouble consistently going counter clockwise.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have to have a sign where the perspective person is at the
entrance of it? All vehicles stop. Right now, presently they Just go right
past there if they're going down to the lake without stopping so you're going to
have to implement something up on top so they can review this and make sure that
all those vehicles stop.
Councilman Boyt: Well on the weekends we've got our attendant.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's what I'm saying. The attendants, the shack that
they sit in.
Resident: Excuse me. I live directly adjacent to this city access. I thought
the signs at first were going to be a good idea years ago when we first built
the access but no one pays any attention to it at all. The attendant, tf
they're awake and I know they're young kids...somebody's got to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: I know what you're saying. They're reading a book and never
looking up.
Councilman Boyt: I think they're pretty good this year. At least when I use
it, the attendants have stopped me and said do you know the rules for the lake
and have you checked for Eurasian Water Milfoil.
Resident: That's never happened to es.
Mayor Chmiel: On two different occasions that I've used it in the last couple
weeks.
Councilman Boyt: They just don't trust me ! guess.
45
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
J.C. Hurd: What about handing out a summary of the rules...
Resident: It will all end up in my yard.
Mayor Chmlel: I don't think people take the time, as was mentioned before.
Their real urgency is getting into the lake. Getting their vehicle out of there
wlth the trailer and boat wlll oome in.
Councilman Johnson: What are our grounds for prosecution if we have no signs
informing somebody from Bloomington of what our lake rules are? You know,
somebody comes in and they don't know you have to drive counter clockwise on
there, there's no way that they're going to know if they're not from Chanhassen.
Even if they are from Chanhassen they're not going to know unless there's some
rules posted. Even though they don't read the rules, that does not mean that...
Councilman Boyt: Are there even any posted down there?
J.C. Hurd: Sort of. I don't think they're all posted though.
Councilman Johnson: I know there's some rules posted.
Councilman Boyt: Well first that's not, our community has not gone out to see
how many tickets ue can urtte on anything that I can recall and a CSO officer
isn't trained to do that anyway. They're trained to tell people that we expect
them to behave differently and they're usually pretty successful.
Mayor Chmiel: CSO can't write a ticket.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, so I'm sure that they're going to warn them and if they
get some sort of ridiculous response, they'll probably get a hold of the
Sheriff.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was going to ask if anybody knows the hours on the
weekend that the Sheriff is out there because when we were out there July 8th,
it was a Sunday, Z was surprised. There was an acoident and they were there
immediately so they were on the lake. Apparently they patrol quite well.
Mayor Chmlel: They're there. In fact that day they checked our boat. I asked
them how often was he out there and he was out there Friday, Saturday and
Sunday, the day that I was there so they are out there.
Councilwoman Oimler: And then if we're going to have extra patrol, I would
suggest that they coordinate the hours so they're not both out there at the same
time.
Councilman Johnson: Of course, once Carver County hears that we're going to be
patrolling there, they might cut back too.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well that would be the danger. I would hope that that
doesn't happen.
46
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: They may take the opposite standpoint and try to do a little bit
more than what they're doing.
Councilman Workman: I would move this.
Councilman Johnson: They may coordinate with. Where they're both there at the
same time.
Councilman Workman: I would move enforcement of said conversation for 3
weekends?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Workman: And then at that point have Zydoasky or Rand report to us
or Public Safety.
Mayor Chmiel: What about handouts? Do you want to try that too?
Councilman Workman: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Something just printed up saying these are the requirements of
operation of your specific powered boat or jet skis on this lake.
Councilman Boyt: They already do that. At least they did with when I went
through.
Councilman Workman: And then we can move ahead with another alternate plan
after that but try first for say 3 weekends.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second it.
Councilman Workman moved, Councii~oman Dimier seconded to dtrect the Community
Service Officers to patrol Lotus Lake for three (3) ~eekends regarding
registration, age, etc. and report back to the Public Safety Commission and
Council with it's findings. RIi voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Henry Sosin: Mr. Hayor, can ! make a suggestion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Henry Sosin: That you notify the Sheriff's office that you're doing this and
they can expect phone calls from your officers?
Mayor Chmlel: We certainly will.
Henry Sosin: I would like to...in one certain area. You have an ordinance and
we have parking laws, etc. and the Sheriff does go there occasionally. That
doesn't mean that they enforce the law. You can see them, and I have seen this
myself, drive rlght past 2 rtgs, meantnga car and trailer, not parked Ina
parking area but parked along the grass on the side with the boat in the water
47
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
and the people out enjoying the lake and did not cite either of those cars and
trailers.
Mayor Chmlel: Well they should be clted.
Henry $osin: If a little noise came from the City Council, if you tell them you
want the law upheld and wrlte a few tlckets, they mlght do lt.
Mayor Chmtel: I know I did this just last Saturday. Drove down there to see if
there's any cars parked in the handicapped area and there was and I couldn't say
anything to them but as I left that area, I was going back on TH 101 going
north. I just happened to see the County Sherlff coming towards me and !
flashed my 11ght and I did ask him to go there and ask them to remove that.
There is a $500.00 flne for parklng Ina handicapped spot and so I asked hlm to
go there and not to issue the ticket but to make sure that that person remove
that vehicle and understood what those regulations are. But I've been down
there many times that cars are there without a handicapped sticker or 11cense
plates on.
Councilman Johnson: I'd ask them to glve the tlcket. That's the one thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well if you warn them, I don't think they'll come back Jay but [
thlnk if it's a persistent one, then something has to be done. Okay.
RECONSIDERATION OF TH 101 ALZGNHENT RELATIVE TO THE FINAL PLAT OF GREAT PLAINS
GOLF ESTATES, HALLA NURSERY PROPERTY, lO000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., DON HALLA.
Gary Warren: On June 25th, after some discussion of the issue, staff was
dlrected to take another look at the easement required by the right-of-way
requirements that were in the plat approval for the Great Plains Golf Estates
plat and basically the polnt was brought out, concern by the Halla's that the
provision to have an additional 27 feet of right-of-way along TH 101 in the
vlclnity of the Halla Nursery buildings, they're well withln that 27 foot area
and they were requesting of us to take another look at it here to see if it
really made sense because if the road was ever gotng to be realigned, It
certainly wouldn't go further to the west. Well, it was a good point and we did
impose on MnOot one more tlme to glve us a 11ttle blt, a look at the curvature
here through the roadway and albelt, we have significant crosstng of the
structure that will be needed for the road over Bluff Creek tn thls area. We
put together a concept here that shows a 45 mph super elevated curve through
here and the right-of-way that would be necessary to accomodate that belng a 100
foot width. So indeed we could say I guess that the condition to continue, take
27 feet along this portion of exlstlng TH 101 doesn't really seem to make any
sense because if we do, at some point tn time realigned that road and get this
bottleneck out of the road, thls ls closer to the alignment that would be taken.
So we are comfortable with modifying that condition to state that the 27 foot
requirement would be still necessary on the east side of TH 101 as shown on the
figure here in dark and on the southerly west side here along the Halla
frontage. Wtth that, where the tangent points of the revtsed curvature that we
have from MnOot connect, that instead would dedicate 100 foot right-of-way
through this outlot area shown on the map. This ls consistent wlth what was
done on the preliminary platting phase that we anticipated that this proposed
lot was going to be lmpacted...so right now we would say that we would look to
48
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
have that dedicated as 100 foot right-of-way and not require it along the
frontage here as was the concern. That was a major point of concern that we
looked Into. As a result of some of our looking at this, we also have been
dealing with drainage, washout problems along Creekwood Drive across from Lot 1
and started scratching our heads and said well, we currently have a 33 foot
right-of-way on Creekwood Drive along the southerly property here and this plat
is proposing to dedicate a matching right-of-way from our.site but it leaves out
this exception here, Outlot O as it's shown. And it didn't make any sense to us
why that wouldn't also be dedicated or shouldn't be dedicated to the City. for
right-of-way since we would only have about a 33 foot dimension here for
right-of-way if it was not acquired and we are looking to secure that for
maintenance standpoint. A lot of the drainage from this area does come across
the culvert. We had a road washout there in 1987. We have been doing grading
work in there to keep it stabilized and we're also recommending that Outlot 0 be
dedicated to the City for right-of-way purposes. Anything else you wanted?
Also condition 3 of the staff report should have been modified as well to say
that the provisions of the 20 foot trail easements for the off-street trails, it
should follow what we're showing here as the future alignment for TH 101. In
other words, you would need to dedicate a 20 foot trail easement through this
area on and on the bend it would be only in the future areas consistent with
future proposed right-of-way taken so item 3 would be modified then to
acknowledge that as well.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you want them on both sides still Gary?
Gary Warren: On both sides of that 100 foot stretch, that's correct.
Councilman Johnson: So ue'd be looking to officially map then this little
section for future purposes?
Gary Warren: It's at Council's discretion but I don't know whether it'd be
necessary.
Councilman Johnson: Well the other half, we won't have anything.
Gary Warren: The southern half you wouldn't have anything.
Councilman Johnson: That's the part I'd be concerned about mapping.
Gary Warren: If he wants to subdivide or build on that, I mean most of that is
a drainageway. The bluff creek. There Isn't anything really going to be built
there. So the expense of the official mapping and surveying it, I don't know.
Mr. Halla's here.
Mayor Chmiel: Bo you wish to say something?
Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council. I have
no problem with this at all except for Outlot O. The only reason this outlot
has come up is because the City has done several things without our permission
and we started finally rattleing swords against them and I don't know if you
want me to address that in this forum but there has been specific reason for
that. It is something that's being added after the fact. It was not in the
original. I don't believe that it can be added at this point to request
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
additional land that was not in the original. If it can be, then I'd like to
air the exact reasons for it. After the big flood, the City came In and filled
that property. They never asked us whether they could do so. They have
continued to fill that property even when we, at that time I said tf you are
going to f111 lt, it ls agalnst our agreement. You only need to f111 it so far.
They ftlled it considerably more than what was necessary to preserve the road.
That they had to extend our dralntlle areas and so forth which they dld but they
did not keep them in repair and they are broken up as of today. They came back
to us and said they had the permission of the property owner to the south and
they thought that he owned this land and so they could do wtth what they wanted.
A couple of months ago you approved some grading rules and regulations for
various people of the c£ty. We in fact have had to make application to preserve
a dam that ls in dire need of repair and could break at any time and we dld get
ffnally a permit to backfill that with a 1,000 yards of soil, although it could
take 100,000 yards to do it properly so it doesn't wash out in the deep ravlne
in the other side of the property. In any case, the City came out and has been
dumping loads of soll and not gradlng them over for long periods of time on our
property wlthout permission and we objected to that and said that we didn't feel
that was proper. That they should at least grade it off and that we didn't
really want them to do it anymore because they weren't doing it. They just left
the piles there that they don't let the average citlzen do laylng next to the
road. They were using it for their city dump to dump excess so11. Because of
these requests on our part and because of our objections, now they have
requested Outlot O. We didn't have a probiem with them fiIltng it originally if
it was done for a purpose and maintained and done properly but now they felt
that they could just dump the piles there. Leave them sit for a month or two.
Flnally when we requested they push them over, they dld. I wlsh to plant that
area in widlflowers and put it into that type of an area. It's not being
preserved. The Clty is not doing thelr back sloping requirements as far as the
putt£ng on grass and maintaining erosion controls. They require that of us in
our permlts but they're not requlred to do in thelr own areas when they're
dumping. So I would prefer to put it into wildflowers. As you may or may not
know, we've received wildflowers seeds from the State to do both sldes of TH 101
adjacent to our property. We are following thelr guidelines for planting those
and for redolng both the roadway areas there, the dltches and so forth, to
accommodate that area and it will be one of the first ones, at Ieast in the C£ty
to get wildflowers. We wlll also would like to be able to plant wildflowers in
this area and frankly control the City from using it as their local dump.
That's why I choose not to want to give up control of Outlot D.
Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're only approving a reconsideration or did we
already reconsider and thls is the actlon?
Councilwoman Oimler: No.
Councilman Johnson: We have not voted to reconsider?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no.
Councilman Johnson: So we won't be actually taklng actlon on this tonight.
We'lI only be voting whether to or not to reconsider the issues and Outlot 0
would come up at a future meetlng if we vote to reconsider thls whlch to me only
makes sense that we should vote to reconsider this and when you do reconsider an
5O
City Council fleeting - July 23, 1990
item, you open up the whole item. You don't just open up a part of it. You
open up the whole thing. That's why Outlot O [ th£nk Is fair game at this point
but we'll need some more information, especially in light of what ! just heard.
Councilman Workman: I guess I am told that the neighbors are here but there's a
home that we're moving. I'd like to hear about that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that uss one of my concerns that I asked before, was this
sent out to all the adjacent property owners saying what was being proposed and
it's my understand£ng they had been. Is there anyone wishing to address that?
Paul Graffunder: Paul Graffunder, 1001 Great Plains Blvd.. I'm really not
prepared to give any type of a.speech but I am a little concerned. I don't know
how much consideration we've been given. I was just notified ina real plain
letter a couple of weeks ago. The way the road looks, it's going to go right
through my garage there. If it has to happen, it's going to happen but I don't
know if I've been given real'good consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, how much closer is that to your house where the garage is?
Paul Graffunder: &O feet. 70 feet. I've got a detached garage. I don't know
exactly of the measurements but ! can show you where.
Councilman Johnson: We've got an aerial photograph here.
Paul Graffunder: My property is just to the west. The house is located right
about there. The detached garage is here.
Councilwoman Dimler: That brings it real close to you.
Gary Warren: The aerial photo in the staff report shows you h£s property.
Paul Graffunder: Zf that's where the new road goes and everybody's told me
nobody knows where it's going to go, my house is going to go.
Councilman Boyt: It misses your house and your garage according to the aerial
photograph.
Gary Warren: That's the center 11ne that's shown on the staff report so 50 feet
roughly.
Hayor Chmiel: 50 feet either side.
councilman Johnson: It'd be pretty close to your garage.
Gary Warren: We've got a detached garage that'd be tn jeopardy. ! think it's,
I mean we're talking about maybe many years down the road. Not to be
unsympathetic, maybe never and if Indeed TH 101 was upgraded and we'd all love
to see that I'm sure, we would follow whatever procedures are appropriate at the
time for right-of-way acquisition and everything else and any impact to the
property would have to be settled out with the owner here but this
and this ts a severe bottleneck on TH 101 as far as trafflc and speed, this is
about the only alternative you have for obtaining or for correcting this
51
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
situation and for acquiring this portion of right-of-way.
Paul Graffunder: Well you can take a corner off of this site. There's no
ravine to cross either. Just straighten out the corner there and I'm sure you
could get a 45 mph that way. I'm not the one asking for the change.., I never
asked to subdivide or anything. I'm not asking for...and not I'm being
affected.
Gary Warren: Well we're not taking it from your property at this point in time
nor are we planning to build the piece that's shown right there.
Paul Graffunder: No, but you are planning to remove some of my property in the
future. The person who wants to make the changes I would assume, being he wants
to make the changes, maybe he should glve some of his.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know how you could do it at 45 mph.
Councilman Workman: Gary, I don't know how realistic it is for us to get this
done. Are you saying 50 feet of your side of the center line?
Gary Warren: Yeah. We're saying 100 foot right-of-way. 50 feet either side of
that center line.
Councilman Workman: Okay. Because you know realistically this is not the
optimum path. The optimum path is through his bedroom I think probably so
I mean realistically the optimum path would be like this right?
Gary Warren: If you try to do a straight.
Councilman Workman: Even further over.
Councilman Johnson: Straight from Pioneer.
Gary Warren: Sure. We could start from TH 212 and just build it straight all
the way up to TH 5 too. I mean you're trying to work, the road section north
and south from a deslgn standpoint is within reason of belng okay so we're
trying to salvage I guess, and I'm speaking for down the future whenever it
would be done, salvage as much as of the existing road right-of-way as possible
to economize on the construction.
Councilman Workman: I was just saying, if we're going to cause such detriment
here, and I didn't catch your name completely.
Councilman Johnson: Graffunder.
Councilman Workman: Okay. You know if we're going to cause such detriment to
bls property and bls home, ! mean we should almost make, make elther sense to
either take the whole thing and compensate him correctZy or not do it. I guess
you and I have had long discussions on this intersection up here and this st111
creates a problem at that intersection. If we're going straight through, maybe
not. I don't know.
52
City Council Heeting - July 23, ~990
Gary Warren.' You still have the sight distance from the bluff on the southwest
corner there.
Paul Graffunder: I have to admit the road's not good. Everybody knows it all
the way from Chanhassen to Shakopee. There's a problem but what is that going
to do to the resale valud of my home if I want to sell in 2 years? I'd have to
tell them they're going to put TH LO1 through there. I can't say anything
different. It's going to bring the road that much closer to my house which it's
already bad. We chose to live there and I like it. If that's where it has to
go, that's where it has to go but I don't know that it's fair that I give and I
didn't ask to have any changes made.
Councilman Johnson: Actually what's up for consideration is whether we're going
to reconsider this.
Councilman Boyt= It's on the table so if you're doing it, you'd actually be
voting to take it off the tabling and then vote on it. It's tabled according to
the staff report.
Councilman Workman: $o what's our options?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's been tabled to this meeting. Now we've gotten the
information.
Councilman Johnson: The reconsideration was tabled?
Hayor Chmiel: Well, as it indicates here at our 25th ieeting in June, that we
table discussion on the conditions of the final plat approval.
Councilwoman Dialer: Until we got this information,
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, and now we have this particular information that we have.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not doing a reconsideration so it's a misnomer.
Hayor Chmiel: I think it is. Go ahead Paul.
Paul Krauss: When this was on 2 meetings ago Lt was one because Hr. Halls had
requested a reconsideration of conditions that had been applied in the original
plat.
Councilman Johnson: So we tabled the reconsideration until ~e got this data?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman 3ohnson: So we're Just taking up where we left off 2 meetings ago?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So it is a vote for reconsideration?
Counc£laoman Oimler: But we don't need to reconsider correct?
53
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: That's true. You don't have to reconsider.
Councilwoman Dimler: And then the previous conditions would stay in effect.
Gary Warren: If nothing is changed, including the right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We would be taking easements that make no sense in
the future.
Councilman Boyt: We don't know if they will or not.
Mayor Chmtel: Let me ask the 64 billion dollar question. Who's cost is all
thls golng to be?
Gary Warren: When TH 101 is built? If and when. Currently it's a temporary
State trunk highway.
Mayor Chmiel: I know. They've been trying to give it to us. Been trying to
give it to the County. Nobody wants
Gary Warren: They're trying to pass it onto the County and then the City or
however it would go down. It's certainly going to be a political football some
time in the future and what's probably golng to be the drlvlng force uill be the
traffic demands and accidents and hazards that come with it and TH 212 will
probably be the tlming that will klnd of brlng it more and more to a polnt. So
it's going to be like any road. Whoever has the jurisdiction is going to have
to fleld the complaints and the concerns and start looklng at how they're going
to address it.
Councilwoman Dimler: How about leaving it as it is and then if they don't build
the road the way and we don't need the easement, then we vacate it at that time?
Gary Warren: That is always a possibility. Ali that we've ever tried to do
from the start of the preliminary plat with this was to say that hey, this looks
11ke an area that mlght sometlme be an area for correction but not to guarantee
that it would ever happen. ~e can't.
Councilman Johnson: Paul, who voted in favor of the easements the last time?
Paul Krauss: The last time being several years ago?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: I'm afraid I don't know.
Gary Warren: You were here.
Councilman Boyt: I was here. I don't recall.
Councilwoman Dimler: Look in the Minutes.
Councilman Boyt: I don't recall it being very controversial. I think we were
getting lnto some sort of discussion about to the west of this particular
54
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
development and were we gotng to have a thru street. Remember that discuss/on?
Gary Warren: To the east.
Councilman Boyt= East, well there was a question of a thru street.
Councilman Johnson= This was a lesser issue at that time. But I think it
deserves reconsideration.
Councilwoman Dtmler= Who called for the reconsideration?
Councilman Johnson: Hr. Halla.
Councilwoman Olmler= Doesn't that have to come from one of the Councilmembers
that voted on the prevailing side?
Paul Krauss: If I can clarify that. We received a request from Hr. HaLla to
change the conditions of approval. As you know, staff ts not tn a position to
do that so we put It on your agenda for reconsideration of your final plat
approval so it was based upon a request from Hr. Halla.
Councilwoman Otmler: Are you saying the final plat approval was never given?
Paul Krauss: No, it was given. It was never submitted to the County by the
owner. We would never release the plat because Hr. Halla wouldn't give us the
easements that were required to satisfy It.
Councilman Johnson: It's been almost a year now.
Councilwoman DimLer: As far as I know, reconsideration has to come from a
counctlmember that voted on the prevailing side.
Councilman Johnson: A year ago on the final plat. Was it a unanimous vote?
Councilman Boyt: Well, what we've got here, I think you could make a
parlImentary argument at least that this doesn't require a reconsideration.
Since the final plat wasn't filed, what's the life of that final plat? A couple
years?
Roger Knutson: 2 years.
Councilman Boyt: 2 years? So what Hr. HaLla may be really proposing is a new
final plat.
Don Halla= We have one year yet to file that final plat per our restrictions
which gives us 2 more years after that so you're talking 3 years down the line
from where we are at this point in time. What I requested is this 27 foot
easement on the left hand side goes through our well and through basically two
of our buildings and you add the other 20 feet to tt and It d~dn't appear that
that would be anything really feasible now or In the future in that area so
that's why I brought everything forward for discussion.
Councilwoman Oimler= Okay, but we didn't know that when it first came through.
55
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1590
Don Halla: It never came up either in our presentation because not seeing the
surveys or Council putting them on the plats and seeing that they actually had
the 2?...and that's why I said I didn't think it was really the right way to do
it. The cost of putting in a new well and...so when we realized that, that's why
I asked to bring it back for discussion.
Paul Graffunder: A well is cheaper than a bridge. I'm sorry for being so nasty
but he wants to replat for hls beneflt but it appears refigurlng the road that
way is going to take...
Councilman Johnson: We're not configuring the road at this point. We're trylng
to decide whether we want to take the 27 foot easement and the 20 foot
additional trw11 easement along the east side of this road. Whether in the
future TH 101, we're trying to decide whether we have to reconsider this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't thlnk you can do that.
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't even be discussing it at this point.
Councilman Workman: In light of the opening concerns of Outlot D and the
legality and everything else like that, could we refer this back to Don Ashworth
and come back to thls?
Councilman Johnson: It's already flnal platted. If we don't say we want to
reconsider it, then no, I'd say it's a done deal.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, because of nobody knows about the highway, like I
said, we can always vacate the easement later on. I don't think we need to
reconsider at thl$ polnt.
Councilman Johnson: And they are only easements. It's not like we're going to
come out and, we're not going to expand TH 101 another 27 feet wide and throw a
tratl in there tomorrow. £speclally on that alingment. If TH 101'$ golng to
get straightened out, it's probably not going to have a whole lot to do with
this plat. The straightening of TH 101 but TH 101's going to straighten itself
eventually as one of our major north/south intersectors and that's when Paul's
property ls going to get affected.
Don Halla: We do have reserved that half, just about where that line is. That's
been reserved by a previous Council... That already is showing the alignment...
and nothing can be built on that for future possible alignment.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That was part of the preliminary plat 3 years ago.
Gary Warren: I would like the opportunity to look further at the right-of-way
as it relates to the Creekwood Drive, Outlot D area. I guess I have to disagree
somewhat wtth Hr. Halla. I know there's been a Lot of confusion on the fill out
there and such and us'ye been 11mlted by weather conditions as far as being able
to grade out there when everybody wanted us to grade because of the rain and
such but we haven't had a close look at how that right-of-way matches up ulth
the Creekwood Drive as it goes through the Bluff Creek Greens proposed plat and
right now it looks like it's going to be deficient in right-of-way and I'd like
City Council Heeting - July 23, [990
an opportunity to take another look at that.
Nayor Chm£el: Okay.
Councilman Boyt: Shouldn't ~e have erosion control up uhen ue have loose dirt?
Gary Warren: Eros£on control, [ guess [t depends on the impact of the loose
dirt. Hou much and what. Putting erosion control up there, uhen we lntittally
did the work on that, the drainage culverts and we've been having a battle there
uith the drainage and trying to maintain that. Those side slopes. The culverts
as he ment£oned, [ don't know if they've failed. Have they fa£led actua[ly?
Don Halla: They're actually eating out underneath. They've uashed. The soil
was never stable in the first place.
Gary Warren: It's very difficult to stabilize the side slopes ~hen you're
dealing with 30 to 40 foot vertical drops out there. It all po/nts to the
reason and it's not an alterior motive on our part but we are concerned that
that ts an area. The road failed in the storm of 1987 and it uashed out and ue
uere out there having to maintain that area Just points like ~e take side slopes
on any of our roadways when ~e have stability questions, that's our motivation
on this. If there's sight line concerns or planting concerns or grading
concerns, ['m sure the City can write some restrictions as far as that's
concerned to address some of those issues but I don't knoa if that's part of it
or not but I would like a chance to Look at that outlot again.
Councilman Workman: I move to table.
Hayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Leave it tabled?
Hayor Chmiel: We Just leave £t as it is.
Councilman 3ohnson: Somebody needs to move to deny the reconsideration.
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll move that we deny the reconsideration at this time.
Councilman Boyt: If you do that, you have to take it off the table.
Councilaoman Oimler: It's not tabled anymore. It was tabled only until this
meeting uhen the information became available.
Councilman Boyt: If no one has moved reconsideration, then you can't very well
move not to reconsider.
Hayor Chmiel: That's right. By alt rules you have to go through the
reconsideration portion first. And if it's been tabled, it stays tabled so
there's no movement. Is that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
$7
City Council Meeting - 3uly 23, ~990
Councilman 3ohnson: We tabled it until this data was presented to us. The
data's now presented to us so that tabling's over right?
Councilwoman Oimler: Do we need to table it again?
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't need to be tabled anymore but nobody moves
reconsideration.
Roger Knutson: Maybe the easiest thing to do would be just to continue it until
your next meeting.
Don Halla: Ladies and gentlemen, may I withdraw my request to reconsider in the
first place and solve the whole problem?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Gary Warren: I don't know if that solves the whole problem. We still have
Outlot 0 I think that needs to be looked at.
Mayor Chmlel: That's something that you're going to have to look at.
SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AND 3-SEASON PORCH WITHIN
75 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND, 491 TRAP LINE LANE, ALAN PEHRSON.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt came up to me after the meeting and
indicated that he wlshed to appeal the declslon of the Board of Adjustment on
this one.
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't surprise you does it?
Mayor Chmiel: It didn't surprise me at all.
Paut Krauss: What ue have here lsa serles of errors that were committed
apparently by the City that led to a situation where a home was built on a lot
that probably shouldn't have been created in the first place because the
buildable area is quite small. Buildable area being outlined by those dotted
11nes. The home was allowed to get a buildlng permlt even though it was in
violation of setback standards so the existing home violates the wetland setback
standard. And now we have a request for a deck whlch for all intensive purposes
appears to be a reasonable deck consistent with this home and adJo£ning homes
but since the home already has a setback variance, obviously this is going to
make the setback variance worse. We tried to figure out you know through the
chaln of errors how this might have come about and we've seen occasionally
things like this in the past so we think we made changes in the procedures and
pollcies and ordinances so that hopefully this won't happen agaln in the future.
There are some neighboring lots that have stmilar situations and we had an
exhlblt on that that I seem to be mlsslng at the moment. It's In your packet.
That shows [ believe at least 2 of the ex£sting homes have similar variances and
not as great as the 30 foot variance. The variance down to 30 feet that's being
requested here but they are similar and this Ls the last home on this wetland or
the last one that is probably going to be experiencing thts problem. I would
note too that in the most recent addition in thts subdivision, you may recall
when Jo Ann was working on it, that she worked wlth Lundgren to get larger,
58
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
deeper lots by some of the wetlands so there was a replat of the final addition
and it was specifically to avoid problems such as this. So hopefully this is
not the kind of thing that wiii happen before but again they are requesting a
variance for the deck. In our view this is not a self made hardship. The
people who own this lot or built the home, built it thinking that everything was
consistent with Code. The hardship here comes from a series of activit£es that
frankly are the City's. When we looked at the adjoining area, we think it's
consistent with adjoining properties and therefore we are recommending that the
variance be approved. The Board of Adjustment did approve the variance
unanimously and as you heard earlier, it's being appealed to the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Mayor Chaiel: It's been moved and seconded. Oiscussion.
Councilman Johnson: The only thing ! see on this one was the design of the deck
could be slightly modified to minimize the variance. The stLck out portion
there and I guess it'd be the west, northwest corner of the deck cou.td be
re-angled more westerly and decrease the amount of th£e, I mean a slLght.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. Sharmtn and I were looking at that earlier this evening but
what you get here ks that th~s is a 30 foot setback here. Th~s corner over here
is 32 feet. If you swung this at a more.
Counc£lman Johnson: You'd gain only 2 foot. It looks'Like you'd ga£n more but
you don't.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question about, we have it looks like a registered
land survey from June 30, 1988. Was that what you submitted to get your
building permit?
Alan Pehrson: I didn't submit the building permit.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, okay. It was built by Lundgren Bros.?
Alan Pehrson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Paul, is that what they submitted to get their building
permit?
Paul Krauss: I don't know. ! believe it was but.
Councilman Boyt: $o we've got the owner who thLnks they submitted Lt but we
don't know?
Paul Krauss: ! couldn't tell you for certain. [ believe it is but I couldn't
tell you for certa£n.
Councilman Johnson: The deck was added afterwards.
59
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
Paul Krauss: The deck is not there.
Councilman Johnson: But the draw£ng of the deck is done differently than all
other drawings on there. It was done almost freehand.
Paul Krauss: Well yeah. I think that might have been an older survey, right,
where the deck was drawn in.
Councilman Johnson: The deck is just drawn in over the top of this survey which
shouId be noted that it's a modified survey and ali this as far as legalities of
doing something over Hr. Berquist's signature and modifying his drawings is kind
of illegal. Whoever did that.
Councilman Boyt: Well, there's something here that shows, I don't know really
point to point but it looks like the proposed house.
Hayor Chmiel: It should be the existing. At that time it was probably...
Counc£1man eoyt: Okay, so it's the existing house. How many square feet is it
excluding the garage? On one floor.
Alan Pehrson: It's a two story. The first floor is 1,400 square feet.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's ali I need to know. so one of the errors made
here was that the building, it was granted a bu£1ding permit in error?
Alan Pehrson: Yes.
Paul Krauss: Well point of fact. [ think the original error was in the
creation of a lot that really wasn't deep enough to accomodate the types of
homes that they were buildlng in there.
Councilman Boyt: We can only keep them from, if they have a lot that's big
enough to allow a 900 square foot house to be built, it's bulldable. We can't
tell them they can't make that lot.
Paul Krauss: Well except that when we review plats these days and we see
something that only provides for a marginal house, we ask for a deeper lot and
we're successful generally in gettlng lt.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we are forceful askers but it's a little different from
belng able to say you oan't do
Councilman Johnson: This is a PUD.
Councilman Boyt: Then we're unclear as to whether the bullding permlt was
appropriate or inappropriate? Given the lot was there.
Paul Krauss: As Z understood, in looking back through the records. You see
that it says edge of wetland 8-9-85. That was not on the permit on the plat or
the survey rather that was submitted for the building permit. The bulldlng
permit was issued without checking to see where the wetland was.
60
City Council Heeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Boyt: For this house.
Paul Krauss: And apparently the neighboring homes as wet1 but that's
speculation on my part.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so we suspect that an error was made when the house ~as
built in this particular location. Re I right?
Paul Kraues: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: ~lright. That's our suspicion. Now, if we turn and look at
our recently revised variance ordinance, ho~ many hoses out there within 500
feet currently have a deck? [ counted it but ['d be curious as to ~hat your
count was.
Paul Krauss: We didn't use that rationalization for this. Sharein checked it
tn terms of what the setback was. Existing setbacks and that's the exhibit that
you see there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, well as ! count that, there are 5 houses that currently
have a deck?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Against that wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Against that wetland?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. And of those S houses, 2 of them through errors by the
city have been allowed to build a deck that extends Into the wetland setback.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Our ordinance in which we tried to build some flexibility in
by defining reasonab[e use, says the majority of comparable property. Well, 2
of 5 isn't the majority. I'm just reading from.your staff report. ! suspect
it's what you're going to find in there.
Councilman Workman: But the other 5 homes have decks. This house would not be
able to build a deck.
Paul Krauss: That's the other point. That we're looking at a standard of
development in that neighborhood and this proposal is fully consistent with the
standard of all other homes backing on the wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, I see. So what you're saying to me ts because other homes
have a deck, this home has a right to have a deck?
Paul Krauss: That's our belief, yes. And that's certainly, the error is made
on behalf of the City shouldn't compromise their use of their property.
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Councilman Johnson: $o it's reasonable use, not reasonable variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Oo you want to get to the point Sill.
Councilman Boyt: I'm trying to get to the point Don;- I believe the point is
that what you're saying here is that if we've made an error, let's continue to
make it.
Councilwoman Dialer: Let's not hold the other party responsible for an error
that the City has made.
Councilman Boyt: Well if that's the case, then we can throw out the setback
variance.
Paul Krauss: If there were a way to rectify the situation that was reasonable
and plausible and we could carry them out on the other lots, we'd certainly
recommend that. I mean when we first looked at this our flrst reaction was what
can we do to minimize this. It seemed as though the damage was already done.
You could probably, and you could check wlth your City Attorney. I'm sure lt's
within your right to deny the variance. There would be a penalty on the
property owner to do that of course but I think you probably could uphold that.
Again, we attempted to try to minimize damage to a property that was probably
caused by decisions that the Clty undertook. That in itself does not obligate
you to approving a variance.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see how the City's decisions have impacted this
property one way or the other so far. ge're about to make a decision that will
impact it but the fact that 2 out of the 5 houses have a deck that extends into
the wetlands because the City made a mistake does not now say to this piece of
property you have the right to a similar decision and that's what you're
proposing here.
Paul Krauss: What we're saying is that right now we have a homeowner that was
fairly innocent in this whole procedure. They didn't develop the property and
they didn't approve the development of the property. They didn't pull the
build£ng permit on the home nor did they approve the building permit of the
home. We did and the developer dld. They now have a home, their only home on
that slde of the block that does not have a deck. They are not damaging the
wetland. We checked wlth that. If there was golng to be wetland damage we
would have very serious reservations about that. We're only talking about
encroaching into the setback. The wetland is st111 physically some distance
away.
Councilman Boyt: Your last statement Paul would suggest then that we should
change our wetland setback ordinance to say that it's alright to build decks
into the setback.
Mayor Chmiel: No. I think this is a special case in itself of what's existing.
Councilman 8oyt: It may be a special case but it's not a special case because
it doesn't do any damage to the wetland because if you're going to use that
rationale, then we don't need the setback when it comes to decks.
62
City Council Meeting - 3uly 23, ~990
Paul Krauss: Well we wouldn't ask you to change the wetland ordinance based on
a s~ngle case although we would like you to re-examine the whole wetland
ordinance at some time in the near future. We've been asking for that for some
time. We think that the. wetland setback should be upheld and that circumstances
on this one that make that impossible.
Councilwoman Oimler: Z call a question.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call a
question.
Councilman Boyt: There is, you're about to go ahead and do this but what's
going to happen is you've just extended...
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman #orlman ~econded to approve Variance No.
90-4 with the following condltLon:
1. The applicant uses Type III erosion control along the edge of the wetland.
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Boyt: That's not appropriate. What you Just did isn't In Robert's
RuLes.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, maybe lt's not but you're going around in circles and you
haven't come to any basic conclusion so I thought I'd move the question.
Councilman Boyt: Well, you either run a meettng by Robert's Rules or you don't
and apparently you don't.
COMSIDER NJTHORIZING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR k~TER~AIN EXTEMSI)t TO 3OHM
KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 24 NEaR LaJ(E RILEY.
Councilwoman Dimler: ! move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Gary, do you want to just touch on that rather quickly.
Gary Warren: Another good report.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: It was very excellent. If he's paying for it, why not.
Hayor Chmiel: Total amount of $10,000.00. [s that right?
Gary Warren: Right. That's the security we're asking for. It may not cost
that much but.
Mayor Chmiel: Alrtght, but that's what you're requesting and he's willing to
pay lt.
Gary Warren: That's what he says.
&3
City Council Meeting - July 23, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Resolution ~90-H3: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
authorize the preparation of the feasibility study to evaluate the extension of
sanitary sewer and watermain to the 3ohn Klingelhutz property as described in
the attachments and that the cost of the study is to be reimbursed by Hr.
Klingelhutz. Hr. Klingelhutz is to provide the City with a cash escrow or
letter of credit in the amount of $10,000.00 to guarantee payment of these
expenses. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried unanimously.
COUNCZL PRESENTflTZONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Tom. Zip codes.
Councilman Workman: Congress is getting kind of active with the Zlpcode
questlon and I thlnk it might shed some new 11ght on some things. I dld request
information on the activity. Where I really heard about it was the.
Councilman Johnson: Could you be more specific? What is Congress doing wlth
Zfpcodes?
Councilman Workman: What they would do is they would requlre that the Ztpcode
for a unit of government be the same.
Councilman Johnson: Well let's let them do it and let's keep quiet.
Councilman Workman: That's right. What I'm going to do is I'm going to make
sure that Z get through all of thls and make sure everybody gets the
information. I think it's a good 1dew and mtght be coming but it's something
that I'm promoting with my frlends in Congress. I think lt's a good 1dew,
particularly in this city where we have numerous Zipcodes, etc.. I don't think
it means changing too much and it'd be up to the Post Office to get your mail
delivered to the right place.
Councilman Boyt: I encourage you to talk to Dale Geving before you push this
very hard.
Councilman Johnson: Or you could borrow Todd's red sweater he wore one night.
It made a very good target.
Councilman Workman: Anyway, it's not an issue or situation that people are real
anxious about but if Congress does it, it's moving.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. On the joint meeting, we never got to
the 1990 budget update and Z just wondered if we wanted.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'll probably have to carry that over.
Don Ashworth: I'll just very quickly let the Council know that I'm very
concerned with our revenue projections, especially as they deal with permits.
We're looking, we started this year looking at a reduction in the budget as a
City Council Meet£ng - July 23, [990
result of State Aid cuts. That amounted to what we thought would be $32,000.00
at that point Jn rice. Current projections or the actua[ distribution shoms
that that amount is $44,000.00. ! would not be concerned about that with an
approx£mate 2 1/2 million dollar general fund budget. [n other words, that's
less than 2~ but what the statistics show that ! distributed to Council ts that
the building permit revenues could be down by $200,000.00, maybe $250,000.00 to
$300,000.00. i'm hav[ng our financial people put together updates on the whole
revenue projection updates as to potential expenditure cuts. Rga[n, [ was not
worried earlier in the year when the amount was $30,000.00 but now as ~e're
looking to $44,000.00 and then an additional $200,000.00 or $250,000.00 on top
of that, it now becomes a very, what's the word ['m looking for, critical
number.
Mayor Chmiel: Scarey.
Don Ashworth: Scarey so It will be a part of a future Council packet but be
aware that I am very concerned at this time.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman OJ~ler seconded to adjourn tim meeting.
all voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting mm adjourned at 11:00
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
prepared by Nann OpheLm
65