1990 03 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
~ MEETING
MARCH 12, 1990
Mayor Ch~.iel called the ~eting to order at 7:30 p.m.. ~he F~eting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL M~BERS PRESENT: Mayor C~iel, councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilw~van Dimmer and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashwt)rth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul
Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, and Jim (]~affee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler m~ved, Gouncilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations:
Councilman Boyt ~anted to disc~s tractor trailers on Lake Drive East, Metro
C~cil lake clean-up and no parking signs on TH 101 and West 78th Street;
Councilman Workman wanted to disc~s the HRA; and Councilman Johnson ~nted to
add the Park and Recreation Cc~ssion appoin~ts. Councilwoman Dimler wanted
to r~ve it~v, l(d) off the Consent Agenda and put it with it~v, 3 on the agenda
and to m~ve both items to Council Presentations. Ail voted in favor of the
agenda as a~ded and the F~)tion carried.
RfLAT~LING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ch%iel drew six names for the recycling prize
for $50.00 each or $300.00.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman m~ved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following consent agenda it~v~ pursuant to the City. Manager's
recc~ndations:
b. Zoning Ordinance ;~ndm~nt to BH District to Allow Banks with Drive-thru
Windows, Final Reading.
e. Resolution 990-25: Accept Feasibility. Study for the Upgrade of Audubon Road
South of Railroad to L.uman Boulevard, Improv~%ent Project No. 89-18; Call
I~l ic Hearing.
f. Resolution 990-26: Approve Contract k~d~nt No. 2 for Lake Drive/TH 101
Realig~nt Improv~nt Project No. 88-22A.
g. Approve Professional Services Agre~aent with Howard, ~.~les, Ta~
& Bergendoff for Audubon Road South Impr~t Project No. 89-18.
h. Approve Professional Se~wices Agre~v~nt with B~ for Lake Drive West
Im~)rov~ent Project No. 90-1.
i. Rasolution ~90-27: Approve Final construction Plans for Trunk Highway 5
Expansion - CSAH 4 to Carver/Hennepin County. Lfne; S.P. 2701-34 and S.P.
1002-51 and Request Preparation of Cooperative Agreement.
j. Approve Specifications for Utility. Department Tels~etry Systs~; Authorize
Advertising for Bids.
k. Resolution ~90-28: Approve Trunk Highway 101/West 78th Street Crossing
Agreement with Soo Line Railroad, Project No. 88-22B-1.
City Co~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
1. Resolution 990-29: ~thorize Feasibility Study for Harvey/O'Brien Sanitary
Sewer Extension.
m. Approve Agres~_nt with EOS Architecture for ~lic Works Auxiliary Storage
~lilding Project No. 89-23.
n. Resolution 990-30: Approve Plans and Specifications for Lake Drive East
fro~L Dakota Avenue to Dell Road, Project No. 89-6; Authorize Advertising for
Bids.
o. Approve Plans and Specifications for ~rray Hill Water Tower Rehabilitation
and Painting Project No. 89-24; Authorize Advertising for Bids.
s. Approval of Acco~u~ts.
t. Approval of Planning Cc~ission Minutes dated February 21, 1990
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AM~gDM/~NT FOR RSF DISTRICT STANDARDS DEALING WITH LOT
FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FINAL READING.
CouncilFan Boyt: I talked to staff about this briefly. This is the ordinance
in regards to private drives and flag lots andmy concerns in the past have
pretty m~h been taken care of by the latest staff report. Experience tells Fe
that private drives have been used in the past as a way for developers to
develop a piece of property without expending the a~mt of money it regllres to
build it up to f~l public standard. The scenario would be, as it was a few
years ago, we're only putting 3 houses back there and they're a half a mile off
the road and we just can't afford to put in a public road to get there. That
kind of thing. So what I would like to see us provide for is to have the
right-of-way so that when that does have a de~and that needs a public road on
it, the City doesn't have to go back and buy that property because we don't have
the easement so I'd like to see us get a full easement on a private drive. If
it's a private drive. Re~mins a private drive. Never bec~s a p~lic road.
At so~e point all the property around there is developed and it's clear it won't
be and we give them the property back as we have done several ti~s in the last
year with easements the City had. Up until then, it si~ly gives the City the
property it Fay need to turn that private drive into a l~blic road.
CouncilFan Johnson: The way I read the ordinance, we won't allow a private
drive if there's a future need for it to be a~x~lic road and there's adequate
space and there's no impact on wetlands. We'll Fake it a public road now, the
way I read this.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why a couple years ago you voted against it being a
private drive but it nevertheless passed. I'm just saying that people can make
a pretty strong econ~Lic argument for having a private drive at the ti~. By.
having that eas~nt, it gives us s(~ flexibility to deal with that sit[mtion
without burdening the city to cc~ back and then ~rchase easements fr(~. those
property owners in the future.
Ci,ty Council ~cting - March 12~ 1990
Co~ncil~an Johnson: See, that m~ght be a way that they could negotiate at the
ti~e. Saying okay, your ordinance requires me to put in, see here it's even
stronger I think. If they had that option to either do a public street. If
it's right in the ordinance they have an option to do a public street or do a
private drive now and give the right-of-way, then that even makes it easier for
~, to c(~e in and say we're going to build a private drive but we'll give ~x)u
the right-of-way right now for a public street in the future. I see it as a
c~r~ise in the exception to the rule. We make the hard and fast rule. If
it's feasible to be a [a~lic street, make it a public street. Then if something
c(m~s up that we r~ to cc~prcmise on that, the c~mur~mise would be that we get
the right-of-way. I don't know how to write that in the ordinance without
weakening the ordinance.
Mayor Ch~el: Paul, shed a little light on this.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance is designed so that it's only intended to
be used in those instances when you determine that a public road is not
feasible. You shouldn't be doing a private drive unless that deten~,ination is
made and the ordinance provides that the only things that you should consider, I
m_~an you can do what you want to do but the only things that the ordinance asks
you to consider in making that determination is the location of existing
property, lines and ho~es, local geographic conditions and the existence of
wetlands. It says nothing about econ(~dc necessity, or anything else. I guess I
share Councilman Johnson's concern that structuring the ordinance in the manner
that was suggested opens the door to an alternate route ~hich this ordinance was
not intended to do. Also, I think you might recall at the last m~ting when
this iss,~ was raised, I expressed a concern that physically it's often not
possible to get 50 or 60 foot of right-of-way onto these properties. It might
be a constrained pennins~la surrounded by. a wetland for exanple. You have
setback iss~=s that ccme into play which you don't have with a private drive.
And if we j~mt take an eassment, there's no setback from an easement, you could
have a hc~e that wo~%ld sit a few feet frc~ a potential road and if it has those
kinds of probl~,s. I don' t know, does that ~r your question?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes. I think it does.
Councilman Bo.vt: Well there's no setback fr~ an ease~=-nt. We do that all the
ti~.
Councilman Johnson: Isn't the easement considered a road right-of-way so the
house has to be so many. feet?
Pa~%l Kra~s: ~en you take a road right-of-way, yeah.
Council~an Boyt: Well that's what we're taking. So there is a setback frc~,
that.
Paul Kra[ms: ~t if we were just to take an access easement over a piece of
property, that may one day be converted into a road, I don't know.
Co[u~cil~an Boyt: Well we wouldn't ~nt to just take an access easement. We'd
want to take a road right-of-way, or I would want to take it and the reason is
an issue a little later tonight. We've got a private drive that is a half a
mile long. Now if those folks had c(~ in here off of Lake Mfnnewashta and we
City Co,.~cil Meeting - March 12, 1990
said to th~.~, you've got to mmke that a public road. ~neywouldn't have built.
They couldn't have afforded to build. What I'm saying to you is we're going to
faced with those issues in the future as well. It's going to be 2 houses. It's
going to be 3 houses. It tomy be 4 houses. They're going to say economically we
can't ~x~t that kind of money into this road. Well, if we write it into the
ordinance now, we've got the right-of-way. At s(x~e point in the future we want
to give it back to the,, fine k,~t it's not a mmtter of negotiation. We have the
right-of-way where it's feasible and Paul's scenario, it's on a penninsula. It's
impossible. Okay. Well, it's iF, possible. We don't have it but where it is
possible, this is a chance for the City to protect it's future.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger. Fro~, a legal aspect, where does the City stand?
Roger Knutson: There's a fair am. oung of disco~.fort with having a public
right-of-way for street ~m~rposes and allowing people to have a driveway over
your public right-of-way. First and forevost I g~ss because of liability. If
so~=one is in here because of sight lines or pot holes or whatever, then there
bec~es an argu~.,ent that the City owns the right-of-way. Is it a public street
and you say it is and you say it's a private drive, w~ll you can ~larantee if
there's a lawsuit, you'll be nam~d as part of that lawsuit. The whole world
shouldn't be concerned, be driven by fears of liability but that is certainly a
concern. That's the basic problev,. There are other probl~ but that's the
basic problev,.
Mayor Chv, iel: That's the only thing that I could see basically is the liability
aspect of it because then you can be named into that respective suit.
Councilmmn Johnson: Can I ask Roger a question?
Mayor Chv, iel: Sure. Go ahead Jay.
Councilmmn Johnson: Do you see a way of writing in what Bill wants in here
without weakening it to where we're opening a door? There could be so~e
wording? I agree with what Bill is trying to do but at the same tim~ it loosens
something that I'd like to make a little stricter and it sol, times mmkes sc~e
parts of it stricter. What I'm afraid would happen is sc~_body will cc~ in for
a variance and get a variance granted without the access so they would have
sc~.~thing that is developable and somebody would grant them, a variance on
econo,,lc grounds.
Roger Knutson: You're not supposed to do that.
Councilman Johnson: I know you're not s,~pposed to but it's been done more than
once.
Roger Knutson: I can draft, it's possible to write something that would look
good and says there's no liability which is not to say that when someone is
injured that they won't challenge what I write. Saying I don't care what you
say, a rose is a rose and it's a public right-of-way and you have a duty to
m~intain it. There's also the issue, and maybe it can be drafted around, is a
right-of-way or an easement to the City for right-of-way purposes is a right to
use the property for a specific purpose. Once you gain that right, you don't
have rights to sublet or let sc~.~one else ~t a private use on ~lic property.
Maybe you could draft around that. Is there a fool proof way of solving the
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
probl~? No, there isn't. Is it possible to write s~ething that will best
protect you rather than other things? Yes but there's no fool proof solution
when it' s contested.
Councilman Johnson: You're saying if we obtain an easement for right-of-way,
and we grant an easement more or less for his driveway to go up our right-of-way
a private driveway, that w~uld be...
Councilman Workman: A double negative.
Co~cilman Johnson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I think we're maybe enc, av~ering it too m.~ch because the
lmxrpose of this ordinance as we stated earlier, was just that the prevailing
develolmv~nt pattern Fakes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a lm~lic
street so I'm wondering if w~'re not just try. lng to do something here that we've
already covered by. saying the only ~ay we'll allow this is if it's iDfeasible or
inappropriate for a public street.
Co,~cilman Boyt: I can assure ~u that the scenario I just gave you would
generally be inappropriate to construct a public street. And it Fright be that
way for econ(~,ic reasons. I'm m~an what Paul is working off of, I have no
probl~, with this. If the Council now and in the future says we're not going to
let these go in anywhere that we're going to ~nt a public street in the future.
~lt I'll put my $5.00 on the table that that won't last because that's just not
the way things work. ~ you're under economic pressure, the 2-3 houses a
quarter of a mile off the road and we've still got property, that's going to
develop that way, you're not going to tell them they have to build a public
road. I'm not going to tell them they have to build a public road.
Co~ncilman Workman: ~hen I'm thinking of a flag lot, I'm not thinking of a
quarter mile flag.
Councilman Boyt: No, this is private drives. ~nis is different than the flag
lot.
Council~an Work~an: Okay, because when ~u say in n~ber 6 that we r~ at
least 30 feet wide, to be located within a strip of property, at least 30 feet
wide, you're talking about widening that to 60?
Councilman Boyt: I'm saving that the City. would have ~ who is in control
of this would give the City. a road easement, if you will. A public road
easement over that which would in fact be 60 feet. But they're not going to
pave 60 feet. I would like to see the Attorney work on this. It mae in fact be
im~ossible but before I think we agree that it can't be done, I'd sure like to
see him try. to do it.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Do you think ~u can do that about in 15 ~[nutes Rsger?
Councilman Johnson: What's that little subdivision that went in with the gravel
road?
Jo Ann Olsen: &%v~et Trail.
City Co~cil Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Sunset Trail. Now there's where we built a public street
and w~ only built it to rural standards with.
Gary Warren: Not even that.
Councilm~n Boyt: NOt even that. A gravel road.
Councilman Johnson: It's a gravel road that weshes out. It has a whole lot of
proble?~. There's one where w~ cc~rc~,ised and it's been a problem. And a few
others.
Co[%ncilman Boyt: I've got another.
Council~n Johnson: Well w~ could pass this and then if we could figure out
some other language w~ could amend it.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than sitting on this and debating this, let's see what the
legality aspects of it is and see if there's sc~thing that can't be addressed.
co~ilman Boyt: ~nank you. I'd like him, to look at another iss,~ in regards
to this. I think in its, 2 talks about who's going to maintain it and the
fourth line down says covenants concerning mmintenance shall be filed against
all benefitting properties, covenants generally aren't worth the paper they're
written on. I think we should say further, if the road is not mmintained in
good condition, the City may maintain the road and assess the cost back to the
property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101.
councilman Johnson: This should onlybe for multiple houses on a private
drive. If it's a one person house on a private drive, we can't say. He can
m~intain his single driveway any way he wants to.
Councilman Boyt: Well we have said from a public safety standpoint that we want
it plowed within 24 hours when there's more than 2 inches of snowfall.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill I think mmybe if you just str~k those covenants concerning
you, just started out with a capital M on that. Maintenance shall be filed
against all benefitting properties.
Roger Knutson: A co~v, ent. The only tim~ you can assess is if the mmintenance
or the unplowed condition reaches a point where it's a public safety hazard. I
m~an your private drive could be...
Mayor Ch~,iel: What's that determination though?
Roger Knutson: Who makes that determination?
Mayor Chv, iel: Right.
Roger Knutson: Ultimmtely the District Court. Initially City Council. So if
your driveway is alligatored and has a non~ml n[=~er of 2 inch potholes or
whatever size they are, and you can still get through it even though it's l~npy,
you can't assess that. But if it reaches the point where the public safety
vehicles cannot get through, then you can.
City Council Meeting -March 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about
harrassing a ~wner about whether or not their driveway's broken up but I
just don't think relyirg on covenants is going to help us.
Councilmen Johnson: I think the covenants should be in there because we're not
relying on it but I still think we should have, sometimes they. are worth more
than the paper they're written on but like you say, we've seen a lot of times
they're not.
Councilman Boyt: Well if you ~nt to leave it in there, I think we should add
this cc~%ent about the City. has the ability, to assess tt~ properties if it's
delved to be a dangerous road condition.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not convinced, I know of a situation where
s~ebody's going to have a quarter mile private drive and there's 4 or 5 houses
on it, where they. wouldn't maintain or plow it.
Paul KZatms: If I Fay Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ch%iel: Go ahead Paul.
Paul Krauss: The ordinance to some extent relies on self interest. The reason
we proposed setting up the covenants is not so the City- could enforce them but
so that individual owners, through the subdivision process, would have a
F~chani~v, whereby, they could cooperatively maintain this thing ~lves.
We're talking about people building new hemes in the c(x~xnity who have
significant investment. 99% of the time it's going to take care of itself and
we' re only looking to cover that instance ~_re we ~ to take some action.
Councilman Boyt: That's why.~x)u'vegot number 2 in there though about snowfall
is it's a stop gap measure that 99% of the time we'll never have to use. That's
my thought about maintenance. It's a fewwords right now in the ordinancebut
it Fay save us a big probl~av, in the future and then again, ~mybe we never use
it.
Councilman Workman: I don't know, 2 inches of snow on a private drive just
doesn't tome constitute a public safety hazard. I think it's appropriate for
the City to plow that when it's on the road hut if they've got a long gravel
road, 2 inches and if it's not off in 24 houzs, I get nervous when we start
putting things on people and we're constantly heading in the direction of
assessing and fining.
Co, mcilman Boyt: I think what we're talking about here is, not that scmebody's
goirg to go out with a ruler and poke it in there to see if you get 2 inches.
Cot~cilman Workman: Alright, let's make it 5.
Councilman Boyt: If there's a fire and the truck's got to get back there, we
want confidence that it can Fake it.
C~cilman Workman: I'm just saying, we're going to make darn sure that
everything will happen but if it's not ever going to be used but ib's one more
little rule ~here we're setting a trap for people.
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
CounciL, an Boyt: Well I don't know where staff came with 2 inches. I like the
intent which is the City has control of a private drive frc~, a public safety
standpoint.
Councilman Johnson: I think it needs to be a little more general than 2 inches.
Councilman Boyt: I've got one more it~ and we're probably going to table this
anyway. In item, n~m~er 4, I think it's important that private drives not have a
separate street name. It says street addresses or city approved street name
signs, if required. I don't know whether ~ need to state that or not but I'd
sure like to have in the record that the City isn't going to allow private
drives to have their own name.
Mayor Chniel: The proble~L exists is how do you dispatch your fire department or
e~ergency vehicles to that specific area if you don' t have a name of a street or
whatever?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, what the ordinance proposes is that you rec~lire the
posting of street address signs out on the right-of-wayby where the driveway
enters onto the street. So for example you might have 3 or 4 addresses on
Lake Dlcy Road say with the houses being at the end of the driveway.
Don Ashworth: This was a reco~vLer~ation tho,.~h back frc~, police and fire. If
you look off of Pleasant View, there's a number of the roads up there that are
actually private drives but frc~, a police standpoint, it's much easier to find,
I'm trying to think of Christmas Lake Road. The one, I'm sorry. I can't think of
sc~e of the names. Teton was one of th~,. Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant
view, but anyway there's about 4 or 5 of th~ up there that are private drives.
Councilman Workman: And na~d?
Don Ashworth: And they do have a street sign out off of Pleasant View so it
says Pleasant view and Pleasant View Cove. If the fire truck needs to go there,
they find Pleasant View Cove. Go down that road and find the house.
Mayor Chmiel: I think from that standpoint we should just leave that in.
Co~u~cilman Boyt: Okay. I would m~ve to table item, l(a).
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the final reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards deadling with lot frontage
and access by private driveways. All voted in favor and the m~tion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
FINAL READING.
Councilman Boyt: This is m~ch simpler. I know that a lot of this language was
just lifted out of our existing ordinance. I've got, I'm assuming and I just
want to be sure t_hat when we say trader permitted accessory uses for R-16
district, when we say one dock, that that builds in with it all the controls we
City Co~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
have over docks. It can't be one dock with 16 boats off the end of
Mayor CPm, iel: It~, nu~er 7?
Council~mn Boyt: Yeah, ite~, 7. Is that everyone else's assumption that this is
under all the other limitations of docks?
Rsger Knutson: If that's how you handle docks in every other zoning district,
that's understood.
Co~cil~an Boyt: Now ~hen we talk about percent of coverage, I think that's in
this ordinance.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Maximum lot coverage?
Mayor (~,iel: That's it~ 2 under Section 684. 2~-684.
Councilman Boyt: Thank you. I would direct .your attention to the apartments
across the road from Kerber and staff has confirmed that's listed at 35%
coverage and look at it. I m~an there's a lot of ground covered there. I think
35% coverage, which is apparently good enough for R-12, is good enough for R-16.
If anything it's all the more reason to have scme greem space.
Pa~%l RXauss: Mr. Mayor, as Gouncilman Boyt indicated, I did look up that
coverage in the staff report pertaining to that develolm~nt and I was frankly a
little taken back because it certainly does look like it's more than 35% out
there. It doesn't appear as though the f~lture right-of-way pavement was taken
into account with that but we can't be sure. In any case, I felt quite strongly
that the 5~% requirement was ~ed to support the kind of develolx, emt that you
would no~mally get in an R-16 district and the documentation that was su]m~.itted
to you includes a lot of back-up information of what other c(m~nities are doing
and what other projects have come in. I would ask you to note a couple things.
First of all, we compute our hard surface coverage after we've taken out park
dedications and whatever else and wetlands. Well wetlands we would include. We
don't. So you're sort of stacking the deck against a project. You're saying
you've got to knock out streets. You knock out wetlands. You knock out parks
and then we'll cc~te the hard surface coverage on whatever is left. That's a
pretty tough road to follow. We've also proposed greater setback standards than
exist in the R-12 district right now. We're proposing that tl~ yards, front
yard, side yard and rear .yard be increased to 50 feet so projects in this
district would have greater than non%al setbacks. All and all I believe that
50% requir~nt is pretty reasonable...
Council~n Boyt: I'd like to respond to staff if I might. Maybe cc~ing from a
cc~nnity where the standard 7~% coverage, 5~% looks good. But coming frc~ a
c(x~,unity that's primarily an open residential area, I'd say 35% looks crowded.
fl~ina has 35% according to your staff report. Why. should we be more, have more
coverage than they do? Well I take, it says building coverage and I don't know
exactly what building coverage means.
Councilman Workman: We're talking about total hard suxface aren't we?
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: Apple Valley has 25% building coverage. Bloo~,ington has 30%.
Paul Krauss: We have a much stiffer ordinance. We're incl[~]ing sidewalks,
parking spaces, anything that's paved over. Blilding footprint. Most of the
other ordinances just deal with the building footprint.
Councilman Johnson: Tne parking lot can be almost as big as the building.
CounciL-an Work~an: I think in light of stress that these things and we're
putting on the parking and everything else, I think it Fakes it tougher to leave
it wide open doesn't it?
Councilman Boyt: Well it does.
Councilman Work~an: I m~=an you've got to have a pretty big lot to start...
Councilman Boyt: Look at what 35% looks like though. I m~an it looks covered
and now we' re going to say we're going to let they, cover another 15% of that.
Councilman Work~an: I don't think it looks that bad.
Councilman Johnson: You don't know how far it goes to the west as far as their
property.
Councilman Boyt: But they didn't plat the whole thing Jay. We're just talking
about the part that was...
Co~cilman Johnson: Yeah, I know. We only see it from Kerber. We only see the
east side of it.
CounciL-an Boyt: Well, I gather there's a sense of the Co~ncil here. I would
like to see this cc~e to a vote though and I would move approval of item l(c)
amended to read 35% coverage as a maximum.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Not hearing a second it dies.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to disc~s, on the first page of the
ordinance our preoccupation with keeping ho~ occupations with an ~,ployee out.
I'm not sure quite what hc~ occupation would bring an ev, ploy~e in but where
that's going to cause a problem, for s~Lebody. Scmebody maybe does telephone
soliticing or whatever sc~~y might do at ho~.e and bring an e~,ployee in. I
don't know if we're going to be able to stop it anyway but what are we going
after here? Are you going after daycare?
Paul Krauss: At the last m~eting there was sc~ desire on the Council, or it
was mentioned that we might look at eliminating bc~ occupations entirely. When
we looked into that, it was our recc~tendation that we not. That we not treat
the~, any differently. In all likelihood, if the building's rental, it's taken
care of by the manag~'~_nt and if it's owner occupied, there will be covenants
that restrict the abilities of individuals to do anything that would disturb
anybody. Given that, by way of ccmprc~,ise I guess, we looked at the home
occupation ordinance and the only thing that see~ to have any potential for
impacting anybody was the outside e~)loyee which would then bring another car
into the parking lot and presumably if many people did do this, you could have a
10
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
p~oblem. Realistically will ~u have a prohl~ leaving it the way it is now?
Probably not.
Mayor (~,,iel: Okay, any other discussions?
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm still try. ing to figure out what hc~e occupation
would draw that person in but I'd like...
Councilmmn Johnson: Do you want an example?
Councilm~n Work~n: Yeah.
Councilman Boyt: Almost any one of ths~ up here could. Here's your list of
home occupations.
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to be running an engineering firm out of my
house. At first it's only me and my wife but if it grows, there might he one
other ~v~loyee. If it grows to 2, I have to go sc~place else. You're only
allowed one e~lo.~=e.
Councilman Workman: Well what I'm saying is, where does painting, dressmaking,
hc~ crafts. This to m~ doesn't, I guess if an elderly person is doing
something in their hc~.~ to make some incc~ and they have somebody, one person
cc~ing in to help them,, I don't see where the probl~ is with that. Maybe we
limit it to one ~91o.~=e.
Councilman Johnson: The ordinance already does that doesn't it?
Councilman Workman: This says any.
Mayor Chniel: Without any outside employees.
Councilman Johnson: But there's a lot of difference between an apartment being
~un as a business and sc~ebody's individual h~me. I've got my own private
driveway for the~, to park in and everything like that. You can't have cus~rs
c~,~ to your place either. That's another restriction of a h(m~ occupation if
I re~v~_r right. Things like that. S(x~e of the~ can be pretty, intensive. My.
neighbor across the street ran a, he was selling for a phanmaceutic~.l cc~%pany
and it was the UPS guy cc~,ing in 3 or 4 times a week and leaving all these
boxes. Of course he was never there so the neighbors had to get the~.
Councilman Workman: I used to work for UPS. i?~_re's an awful lot of that going
on in cities everywhere. I don't understand why...
Councilman Johnson: Well this wouldn't restrict it. I'm just saying in an
apartmemt it's slightly different. Lifestyle, I have no probl~ with taking the
one e,{sloyee off and allowing it.
Councilman Workman: There's a situation near my hc~ where a w~:.an, she's a
single parent and she's doing daycare out of her h(~e. Now this doesn't involve
the City but it involves their covenants and their hc~owners association, ire
homeowners association says you can't run a business out of ,?our h~me so
effectively they're telling the ~anan ~u can't do daycare in your home.
There's not a real glut of daycare, in h~ze daycare for people and if we're kind
11
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
of backing that up and saying you can't~.
Co~ncilman Johnson: How ~ny e~,ploy~es does she have?
councilman Workman: I think it's just herself.
councilman Johnson: Tnen she could do it here.
councilman Workm~n: Well she's got covenants. I'm just saying, I'm not cp~ite
sure what is going to impact this thing. If people are able to make a b~ck.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Tc~.,, maybe if w~ just said h~e occupations with one employee?
councilm~%n Johnson: Well you don't have to because hc~e occupations is designed
in another part of the ordinance says you're limited to one ~,ployees and
customers aren't allo~=d to come. Here's where daycare is the obvious
exception. Custom, ers have to be allowed to cc~e in for daycare.
Councilm~n Workm~n: Well I would item l(c) then by scratching n~er 6.
councilwoman Dim]er: Second.
councilman Johnson: Wait a second. You just eliminated hc~,e occ,~pations
altogether. You don't want to scratch it. You want to modify n~mber 6. Put a
period after the word occupation.
councilm~n Workm.~n: Period after the w~rd occupation. Tnank you Jay.
councilm~n Boyt: There's a little discussion here possibly. We're talking
about the highest density residence in our city. You're talking about r~nning a
business out of an apartment. Initially I was against that altogether. I can
accept it but I think we're adding to potential problem. Now we're saying it's
not just you running your business. It's you and an employee running your
business out of an apartment. We're talking about an intense use here. Why do
w~ want to p~lt this burden on people? '
Councilman Workm~n: Why do w~ want to mmke it difficult for people who have no
other option to make a living make one? Not everyone can afford the high valued
property downtown and the square footage to run a business. We've done a lot to
artificially inflat that. I'm just saying, tell me what's s~v, ebody going to do
in their apar~.~_nt that's going to create this probl~,?
Councilm.~n Boyt: Well I have no idea. One of our limits on ho~e occupations is
it says you can't have Fore than a 220 volt syst~v,. Well you can do a whole lot
of stuff with 220 volts. Another part of it, industrial kinds of things. Now
we've said that isn't supposed to happen right but there's a hc~e occupation in
your neighborhood, I believe, a barber shop. Isn't there a barber shop in your
neighborhood? Beauty shop?
councilman Johnson: Beauty parlor.
councilm~%n Boyt: Beauty parlor in your neighborhood. That's not on our
occupation list but it's going. We're talking about a situation in which we
have fairly limited parking here.
12
City Oouncil Meeting - March 121 1990
Councilman Workman: I guess Bill, I understand. I'd like to pass it the way it
is and this is. mmybe a completely differemt discussion that we can raise as a
separate and individual it~.
Councilman Johnson: Under the definition of hcme occupation.
Councilman Word,an: Because you're right. If a guy's working a metal shop out
of his apar~v~nt, then we've got problsms. I'm not being stupid b~t I would say
that single, f~%ale parents and elderly, this would probably affect most.
Councilm~n Johnson: Handicap.
Councilman Workman: Handicap. Amd so if we're, there's probably quite a few
people that are out of cc~liance in this city. I don't think a guy's going to
run a tire rim shop.
Council~n Boyt: Well, nobody's called me and said this is a big issue to thm~.
Oouncilm~n Workm.~n m.~ved, Councilw~v~n Dimler seconded to'approve the final
reading of Zoning Ordinance ~c~%ent to create an R-16, High Density
Besidential District by a~nding item 6 to read: (6) Pkm~ Occupations.
All voted in favor except Councilman Bo~vt who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Q. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY S~3DY FOR COUNTRY SUITES P~0TEL SITE ~ NO. 89-25;
~%IVE PUBLIC HEARING, ORDER PLANS AND SPH2IFICATIONS, APPROVE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Mayor Ch%iel: I just have one brief comment to make on that and I've had s(~e
discussions with Gary. Is that wa're accepting a feasibility study for-the
Oountry Rlites Hotel site and we're waiving the public hea~ing. Order plans and
specs. Approve plans and specifications and advertising for bids. I have just
ome mvmll concern is the blue lime drawings that we have with it are still
preliminary and there's not a PE sign on that particular drawing. My opinion it
should have a professional e~gi~ signing off so if there's any modifications
or changes that were really made without our knowledge, that at least it's
certified as such. Rather than just preliminary.
Councilm~n Johnson: So let's table this.
Councilmen Boyt: ~hat do we do though, wait, when we table this? Maybe we just
pass it with that revision.
Mayor ChvJel: All I can say is that I would not suggest that we table it. Is
that it proceed as such but get the PE signature fox it.
13
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Gary Warren: Your correct and as I discussed with you earlier. ~ne plans, BRW
has been conservative on signing the plans partly because the way the plans have
been incorporated into the Country Suites building plan set and they had not
been through our final approvals here. We recently got the bus issue completed
and the plans do need to reflect the change in the curb cuts for the bus, the 36
foot wide curb cut on West 78th Street as you and I discussed so that will be
added to the plans as a note here and then they will be c~v, plete for
distribution and I would request the Council to consider approving it with that
understanding.
Mayor Ch~iel: With that understanding I would so move it.
Councilw~mn Dimmer: Second.
Resolution 990-31: Mayor Chmiel moved, Cot%ncilwc~mn Dimder seconded to accept
the feasibility stray for Country Suites Hotel Site Project No. 89-25; waive
Public Hearing, order Plans and Specifications, approve Plans and Specifications
with the understanding that the plans get a PE signature, and Authorize
Advertising for Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
U. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF AUXILIARY PUMP FOR BOOSTER STATION.
Council~mn Work,mn: I believe we have Fmps in the City that show where this
pump station. I didn't have time to talk to Gary today but briefly before the
~meting, that we, I believe we have ~mps that show a road going off the end of
Lake ~y Road and connecting with TH 41 and we're putting a pu~p there and I
guess I'd like Gary to tell tm if the road is going through there and we're
going to bemoving the pu~.~ later.
Gary Warren: Councilmmn Workman, the existing water booster station does exist
on the west end of Lake Lucy Road at Galpin. That is correct. The aligr~,ent
for the extension of Lake Lucy Road to TH 41 is a paper aligre~nt that has not
bccn had any engineering input except to doclm~_nt that we want to make that
connection so we can gather State Aid r~s on that on an annl~l basis which we
are doing. The booster pum~ which is on the agenda here for approval is to add
that to the existing station. There's an existing pot for that pump. When the
ti~e is right for Lake ~cy Road to be extended to the west to TH 41, which
I think we all agree will happen sometime, we will look at that alignment
sim, ilar to what we're doing at this point in time with Lake Drive West between
CR 17 and Audubon Road for the access to the new Redmond site. We do have roads
where we do have physical separation. It isn't necessarily implicit that that
aligr~nent continue straight through there. There ac~mlly could be a physical
separation where if you travel north or south on Galpin to get to the next leg
of Lake [A~y Road. Tnat's not unco~v, on and mmybe the case. Cn the other hand
we may look at moving the full booster station at sc~e time if it's appropriate.
But right now the booster station exists and this is just a pump to add to the
existing pit.
Councilmmn Johnson: So you'd move the pump right with the booster station?
Gary Warren: The whole thing would move.
14
City Oouncil Meeting - March 121 1990
Mayor C~,iel: Everything w~uld go]
Gary. Warren: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Makes no difference? It's already there? It's already in
Gary. Warren: Right. For this installation.
Councilman Workman: When w~uld that extension occur?
Gary Warren: The MUSA extension up in that area?
Paul Krauss: That is within the area that w~'re looking at for the MI]SA
expansion. As to when it develops and ~s a road, that's anybody's guess.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Most things are t~z~x)rary are of a permanent nature.
Councilman Workman m~%~d, Councilwoman Dimmer seconded to authorize the purchase
of an auxilliary [x~9 for boos*er station as recommended. Ail voted in favor
and the m~tion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOP DISTRICT ~D. 1 AND TAX
DISTRICT NO. 2.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Honorable Council. At your January 22, 1990 m~eting you
established March 12, 1990 as the public hearing date to hear-citizen comv~nts
regarding m~dification in Developer District No. 1 and TIF District No. 2.
Under State Statute the City. Council m~st hold this hearing to take citizen
convents and review the proposed changes, t~der this plan you're looking at
specifically the reconstruction of the State Highway 101 and 'State Highway 5
interchange. The monies that c~me from this district ~uld be specifically used
for the reconstruction of this roadway. Notices have ~ sent to both Hennepin
County and to Chaska School District for their review. No convents have been
received as of .vet. Staff recommends approval of this district.
Mayor C~miel: Is tbe~e anyone here wishing to address this issue? ~is is a
public hearing as I m~ntioned.
Councilman Johnson m~,~ed, Gouncilw~an Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion ca~ried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, Todd uses the w~rd modification. Maybe he can
explain what's being medified.
Todd Gerhardt: ~nis last .u~ar Council direct staff and we've ~-n w~rking
closely with Becky. Kelso and Senator Schlitz in getting a special legislative
bill passed in that those monies from the tax increment district be solely used
for the reconstruction of TH 101 and TH 5 interchange. .Right now that roadway
15
City Council ~seting - March 12~ 1990
syste~L is very difficult for trucks to ~aneuver as they're heading east on West
78th Street. Through that construction we would, those trucks would be able to
~mke that ~neuver. We needed special legislation to extend that district for a
2 year period of time. This plan outlines that those monies would be solely
used for that reconstruction. This is very unique. I think it's the first time
in the State of Minnesota that a tax incr~nt district has been extended and it
is extended for just the 2 year period of ti~ and everybody should be credited
for their efforts in this, especially Senator Sch%itz and Kelso in their
efforts.
Don Ashworth: I should note that this is, at the Hennepin County District there
was scale concern as far as spending Hennepin County dollars basically on the
Carver County side which TH 101 at that particular is in Carver County. Todd is'
correct, this is putting to paper the work that was done with the legislature
this past year.
Mayor Chmiel: There was a lot of tiN~. A lot of effort and a lot of lobbying
that took place in trying to accc~91ish this.
Councilw0~an Dimler: I move approval.
CounciL*an Workman: Second.
CounciL*an Boyt: Before we vote I think it's important to point out here that
without that tax increment district, this road wouldn't be straighten out.
Todd Gerhardt: That ' s correct.
CounciL*an Boyt: Tax increment districts get a lot of heat frc~, the public and
s(x~e of it's well deserved. In this case, this is a million dollar project and
the State didn't want it. Nobody wanted it. 3 million dollar project? Excuse
~. 3 million dollar project. So it clearly wouldn't happen without the tax
incre~_nt district.
CounciL*an Johnson: We'd still have TH 101 running past a grade school and two
churches.
Resolution #90-32: Co~mcil~a.~an Dim]er ~ved, CounciL*an Work~an seconded to
approve modifying the Develo~,ent Program for Develo[ament District No. 1 and Tax
Incr~'~nt Financing District No. 2. All voted in favor and the F~tion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND
10.2 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF ~D, EAST OF LAKE MINNEg~ASHTA, PETER AND DEANNA
BRANDT.
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll just give a brief s~mry and then I'll let Gary address the
engineering aspects. I believe this was tabled 2 weeks ago at the'request of
the applicant to allow the people that live nearby to be present and comment.
The reason it was tabled originally was to give staff an opportunity to look at
the connection of the proposed subdivision through Crimson Bay to TH 5.
Originally several years ago that was looked at briefly but then with c(m~nents
fro~, Planning Cc~Lission and Co~ncil that ~as not pursued. Today we have new
topography that shows that there could be a connection to the south to TH 5
16
City Council M~eting - March 12~ 1990
throtE~h Crimson Bay. We've also received cc~ments f~cm ~l~Dot that has said that
that would be an acceptable connection. That t~. would approve of that. So in '
light of sc~e of the new information, w~ are proposing that they. do provide
right-of-~my for connection to Crimson Bay. Not saying that this will happen
but to preserve that in case that we do ~ant to improve a street to the south.
We still wish to maintain the 30 foot eas~emt going hack to the east to still
provide a loop through the r~,aining 80 acres. I think Gary's got the
transparencies frc~ before if ~u may want to go through. If you have
questions.
Mawr Chulel: I think it might just be a good idea to put that transparency, up.
Gary. Warren: Dave H~el who's in Hawaii did this so I feel like it's important
for me to be able to show off his work. Basically this is I guess the heart of
the issue as far as considering the extension of the access. The areas in grc~n_
here outline the cleared areas already. Here's the ~t fr~m the ~ line
that was cleared and it's obviously the access area to the existing buildings.
If you recall, when we initially ~_re dealing with this topic back in 1987, this
easement had not bccn cleared and I think that was one of the key issues as far
as the relunctance to consider extending that road further. As things happen,
now with the easement cleared, I guess it doesn't provide, the dam~e is done so
to speak fr~, the utility standpoint. T~%uorary cul-de-sac would be proposed.
That's sho~n here in yellow .for access to the property. The area in brown
thro[,~h here would show the ultimate extension of a 60 foot right-of-way from
existing Dogwood, Lake Drive as it shows here, to the Crimson Bay Road and
obviously without additional 25 feet or actually 35 feet, would have to be
obtained if a 60 foot right-of-way would be continued here on the Arboreta%
property.. The concern as far as the street grades ar~ the difficulty with that
terrain had ~ looked at by. the developer's engi~ and the width of the
clearing area that would be necessary...
CounciLman Soyt: There's an extra bulb in there. You can just flip the switch.
Councilman Johnson: It's probably burned up too.
Gary. Warren: I was basically done. The width of the cut thro~h the terrain
with a 7% grade proposed by in the alternative looked at by. the developer's
engi_r~-cr. By. c(~,prc~,ising the City's 7% standard and utilizing a 10% grade and
scme retaining wall, we feel that the width of the cut can be reduced
considerably to help ~[nimize that. We have done that in the past in Near
Mountain and other areas on an exception basis for ite%s such as topography of
the environv~ntal issues cc~ into play...
Mayor Ch~,iel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time?
~=t Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, m~0ers of the Council. Enrt Laughinghouse, 281
Norman Ridge Drive, Bloomington.. This piece of land has ~ before you as you
know plenty of times and we appreciate }Du~ graciousness and the staff's
persistence in creating these heavy, duty reports. I really think that the
issues have been thoro~E3hly discussed. I'm going to let, if I might, the people
m~st closely involved, the people who intend to purchase the property, speak to
the iss,.~ specifically but generally we agree with the staff report with
exceptions. We have great reservations about the idea of building a road, or
even taking an eas~%ent for a road that is going to benefit these properties,
17
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
right straight through these two properties, ihat's n~er one. And secondly,
the 30 foot easement across the north edge of the property is placed where it is
only because it's the edge of a 20 acre lot. I think that those two
requir~nts are in excess or non, al platting, lot serving procedures. I think
I should just defer to the two property owners and I know there are other people
here who want to speak to the issue and then if there's an!a~Lore discussion, we
can talk sc~ more. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ch~iel: Thank you.
Deanna Brandt: I'm Deanna Brandt. Co-applicant along with my husband Peter for
Lot 2. I don't know where that thing went. Maybe I 'm here for no reason.
Mr. Mayor and Councilm~ers. I've outlined briefly 5 points that I'd like to
present to you. Right now our intent for this land, for the 10 acres, are to
build a house and I don't know, possibly have horses or a s~.~ll hobby fan~,.
Maybe a garden. The choices that this piece of property offers is one of the
benefits. One of the things that we really like about it. The lake. The
country. The rural and lake setting. The privacy that the location now offers.
We also intend to someday have kids and feel that this property is ideal for our
children to learn about the environ%ent, animals, lakes. Kind of like growing
up on a farm. I think that would be nice to have kids have that at~)s~here. Our
desire for the conditions of the subdivision. We agreed and agree to the
recc~~ations sutm, itted by the Planning ~ission. This includes providing a
20 foot trail ease~_nt on the east and south sides of our property. I can't
Fake reference to it, and easement for a c~]l-de-sac leading from Dogwood RDad.
There was an exception there. They didn't like it being called Lake Road.
That' s okay. We don' t care. That was just for d~,onstrative purposes only.
We'll call it whatever you guys want to call it. Omce it extends into our area
there. We do not wish to have a road easement frc~ fki~on Bay Road to Dogwood
RDad across the middle of our property for the following reasons. Maybe if you
can re~m~er what the thing looked like or if you've had s(ane previous things...
Council~n Boyt: We have a Fmp.
Deanna Brandt: Great. Wonderful. It roughly cuts the property into
approxi~..mtely a 3 acre piece and a 7 acre piece. Here's number one. I 'ye got
five reasons and then I'll get out of here. Nu~er one is the road easement
provides absolutely no benefit to this particular piece, which is Lot 2, of
property while it incurs a Fmjority of the burden. L~der the current purchase
agreement we have with the seller, Tim Foster, all of our essential needs
regarding this property are addressed. We have access to both utilities and to
roadways. Your plan actually places a burden on this land FAking it less
valuable without any benefit to the property. Furthermore, there's absolutely
no cc~sation being given in consideration of this reduction in value and
additional burdens being placed on the land. The plat approval without the
roadway ease~,ent ~ets all of the legal and normal use requir~,ents for a
subdivision of this nature. You axe essentially claiming this land today as a
so called precautionary measure for future develo[atent. I can appreciate your
wish to save the City money since we axe almost future city dwellers here but
you're essentially doing it at our expense. If the ease~,ent were not taken, the
other properties around us were to be developed and you decided a road through
our property made sense, then the property of course we all know would have to
be conde~med, we would be cc~,pensated. ~he ~thod you' re using here is to hold
the subdivision plat approval, you're holding it hostage while giving us nothing
18
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 199~
~n return. Point m~er t~D. ~he road easevent limits our current and future
use of the property.. The roadway easement will limit our use of the land in
terms of hc~e and garage placement. Fences. We've got 2 dogs and w~ don't ~mnt
the~, running into neighbors places and their's runnirg into ours. Any other
buildings or gardens that we might ~nt. We couldn't place it on that 6~ foot
wide swath c, ltting right through the property.. We will also have to refrain
fr~m planting anything in the easement area with the knowledge that anything w~
plant, any trees, will eventually be destroyed when a road goes in. Essentially
you've taken over a half acre of our property, which is ~hat that av~)unts to,
and rendered it completely useless to us. We've got nothing and also made it
diffic~%lt to use the property on the other side of the potential road. Number
3. The roadway easement contradicts the reasons we are actually buying the
property, or want to. As w~ stated previously, our major reasons for buying this
property, are to enjoy the privacy, the land now offers and to provide a safe,
healthy enviro~nt for our family and animals. You can tell w~ don't have kids
.vet. Our dogs are really important to us. We realize that there's a perception
that the current road access is considered unsafe. ~er, the reality is that
fire tr~ks have ~ able to get in and out of the area. It has already
happened. ~at the eamav~nt does do is to potentially take away our privacy and
present a darger to our fs~,ily and animals. I don't mean to really harp on this
danger thing but if you own this property and you know you ~nt to go across the
street to weed your garden, I m~an you have to keep going across this street to
your own property.. It's kind of crazy.. If a roadway is built along the
easev~nt, it will present a dangero~%s situation for our children who would have
to cross the street in order to access a barn area, stable or garden, greenhouse
on our o~n property.. I just said that. Number 4. Neighborhood opposition. We
understand that our neighbors on both sides have acquired property in this area
for s~ve of the save reasons we have. Putting a road easement in with the
potential that a road would eventually be built also negates many of their
reasons for owning property and living in the area. I believe s~me of them are
also here tonight to voice their opposition to this plan. We darn to speculate
that you would find no one frc~, this area that wants this plan adopted with the
road easement. Finally, n~v~er 5. Lack of an overall plan for any future
development in this area. Lastly, we don't know what the plans are for future
develoim~nt in this area. In fact in hearing and reviewing some of the previous
minutes, there doesn't see% to be a plan for develoIm~t, the big overall plan.
Without any plan, why. should we be burdened at this time for potential future
development. It would sexy, to make more sense to decide where roads should go.
When and if the properties can be developed rather than burdening us for years
until it happens. Do you have any questions?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Anyone have any questions? At this time, I guess not. Thank
you. Anyone else?
Ken Daniels: I'm Ken Daniels. I've been before ~u before. I think I've been
out here 4 or 5 times listening to a number of things. Now I understand you
want 6~ feet of the property that I have on the wast side of my property.
That's goverr~nt Lot 1. Now I'm hearing you want the 3~ feet for an easement
on the north side. What do .~Du guys ~nt to do, make am airport out of
this? And who's going to pay for all the assessv~nts that would ccme in there
if you put those roads in? Having an easement on the north side Just doesn't
make sense to us at all. There's nothing there if you look at the property. I
think the concern before m~ght have been, which ~sn't brought out, with regard
to the easement over the west side. I can see that. My. purpose in granting her
19
City Council Meeting - March 121 1990
the eas~v~_nt ~as so she's have sc~e access to her property, i'nat's the only way
she'd have an access to goverr~nent Lot 2. I don't object to that. ~lt to take
the north end of this property just doesn't Fake sense and I think you people
ought to have your head exs~,ined for doing that. You are trying to Fake an
O'Hara field of it L~nder the circ[~tances. You're saying that 1,130 feet of
the north side of that property, there should be an eas~nent of 30 feet on that.
l'nen you're saying on the other side, 600 feet. You should have an easement for
60 feet. I don't go along with it and I think you're crazy.. Now the thing that
was brought up before was access and ingress off of TH 5 onto Crimson Bay. I
think it was discussed that that might be a problem., on anybody's left turning
off of TH 5 going east. I don't know if that's been studied or not. I don't
have anything ~re to say. I think that if you do what you're asking for, you
Fay involve yourself in a lawsuit. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chv, iel: Ken, I might just add that I don't think we're crazy but
appreciate your comvents.
Nick Dennis: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council ~ers. My. ns~e is Nick Dennis and
I own Lot 5 in CrLm, son Bay. I'm a little r~,iss on what's going on because I
haven't been very active in following this. When I originally bo~E3ht the lot I
got a letter with the City letterhead that was given to me along with other
materials and things to look at when I bought the property but it said on the
second page, line 12. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement
along the southerly and easterly property lines. I wasn't really aware that
that was going to be a road. My. concerns are that there's really no planned
transportation scheme overall of what's going in there and with the Arboretum,
across the street. With cars going in front of the lots. What's the plan?
I don't really know what it is and I guess I'm concerned from, the standpoint,
there's sc~e pretty nice maple trees. There's a drainfield in front of my lot
that I'm; concerned might have to be reworked. I guess my overall concern is I
think there ought to be an overall transportation plan before this is done.
~nat's my only co~r, ent. Thank you.
Mayor Ch~.,iel: Is there anyone else?
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, me~bers of the City Gouncil. My. name is
Dan Herbst. I'm at 7640 Crimson Bay Road. As I reiterated the first time I
stood before you, there Was a great concern with our access to TH 5 with 5 lots.
I'm kind of wondering where that concern has gone now. It ~ like your
concern with 5 properties creating egressing from, that site with the busy
Arboretum, traffic there, you se~, to have no concern now with bringing out the
whole loop road and the people that live on Dogwood and Tanadoona. I also agree
with the previous speaker, Mr. Dennis. It seev~ somewhat arbitrary if you're
just taking an eas~v~_nt without the benefit of an overall transportation plan to
where you're going to service that property in the future. It see~ that with
80 or 100 acres that's going to be developed sometime in the future, there's
s~stantially less traffic on TH 41 than there is on TH 5 and we're not
compounded by the Arboret[m,. I think that ought to be the F~)st logical spot.
It is true, when the approval for CriF, son Bay was m~de by. the City Council,
there was a 20 foot ease~,ent for trail purposes placed over the 25 foot,
additional easement that was placed on this side. I'm wondering what the plan
is for that trail now. If you're going to ~ant a 60 foot easenent that doesn't
even line up with the 25 foot eas~_nt. So those are my 3 q~estions. I'd like
to see if sGv, eone can address those.
2~
City Council M~etlng - March 12~ 1990
Mayor ~el: Is there anyone else?
Tim, Foster: I 'm Tirol Foster, 637~ Pleasant View Cove, Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor,
Council F~ers. I've spoke to this issue before and obviously you've heard
fro~t a number of the residents and the proposed new residents and it appears
that there's sc~ewhat of an undue hardship I think with the nmv~_r of eas~aents.
It's just two lots that they're basically asking for and there's approximately
12~,0~ sq%~are feet of easements that are being asked for 2 residential lots
which see~s to be a fair a~unt. ~hen in reality to continue the road the ~ay
they had agreed to with just off of Dogwood or Lake Road, I think is in my.
opinion sc~ething that the proper time to take the necessary, easements would be
with an overall transportation plan and when this property is developed. So in
view of the co~nts that I've mede that are on record in the past, I think it's
just an und~ hardship for just two residential lots coming in to have ease%ents
ak-~)st all the ~ay aro,~nd it for roads or for trail so I hope ~u take that into
consideration and just let the% build their hcm~=s and when it develops, o0me in
later. So thank you.
Mayor Chv, iel: Thanks Tim,. Is there anyone else?
Fred Hyde: Mr. Fayor, Council ~em~ers. My. name is Fred Hfde. We're the owner
of Lot 1 at Crimson Bay. We're currently residing in Plla~)uth and getting ready
to m~ve to Crim~K)n. We're not as directly affected as a n~r.~_r of the people
who have spoken this evening ~%t we did ~a~nt to be heard that we're also opposed
to the proposed easevent. Again, not because we're directly affected by. loss of
property. ~lt frc~ a practical appearance to us as la~%an, it doesn' t appear to
Fake a whole lot of sense under the conditions that are laid out right now. No
plan and the fut,.~e ~ for a road may or may not ever be ~med but we can see
that if a road is ever lm~t in down there, that you have a very bad intersection
at ~H 5 and the A~boret[~ and Crimson Bay. Currently it's a non-controlled
intersection and I don't know to what limit it will be an uncontrolled
intersection but being on Lot 1 which is right next to TH 5, it's not very
pleasant to envision the number of accidents and what not that could occur down
there next to our property. Also, we have a concern about the safety with
children and animals. It has 5 lots in there right now. It's currently set up
and there's not going to be a tr~..~_=ndous m%ount of traffic but if an eas~v~nt
and a road is eventually put through, that's going to increase the danger to
every~x~dy in the~e and there doesn't ~v~, to be, at the outset a lot of benefit
for the general public to that access road being through there or an eventual
road being through there. And we have the sm~e concern about the future
possible crime going up with strange traffic cc~,'lng in and out of a residential
area which there really isn't a great ~ or ~, to be a great r~_~ to
increase these risks for not a lot of reasons. So thank you.
Mayor Ch%iel: Thanks Fred. Is there anyone else?
John Getsch: John Getsch. Owner of part of the property., the 7 lots that are
along Lake Mi~shta, right where all the green, is. We're opposed to this
from the standpoint that it's just kind of grabbing the land for the purposes of
saying well, maybe this will take care of the probl~,. About a year and a half
ago a plan was looked at, I think 3 or 4 different alternatives on how to solve
the problev, of Dogwo(x~ Road and a mile long cul-de-sac. I don't see how running
this road through is going to solve that probl~. You still have how is the
land going to be developed. How is it all going to fit together so we really
21
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
don't see this as a solution to the problem. It's just kind of, w~ll in case we
need it it's there. That's kind of our general feelirg on it.
Mayor C~.;iel: Thanks John. Anyone else? I0~rt.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, regarding that 60 foot eas~nent. If the
Brandt's were to draw a building permit on Lot 1, if it were approved with that
ease~_nt, would they have to have a setback fr(~, that eas~nent? Building
setback.
Council~mn Boyt: Rlre they would.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that they would.
Rl%rt Laughinghouse: So now instead of occ~%~ying only 60 feet, I suppose it's a
30 or a 35 foot setback.
Council~n Bo.vt: 35.
Kurt Laughinghouse: 35. 30?
Councilman Boyt: 30.
Kl~rt Laughinghouse: Okay. So now the City is occupying 120 feet wide. Tae
City's preventing the use of 120 feet wide swath of land through there which
~kes it perhaps nearly an acre of their 10 acres. Let F~ ask this then. Those
red lines were prepared by the engineer, Harold Peterson. Jim Hill and
Associates and they do represent a normal way of preparing, of building that
road in there. Obviously that can be confined to so~ s~ller a~ount if you use
walls. Retaining walls trait first of all that's extremely expensive. The
q%~estion would have to be asked, would the adjoining property owners, which in
this case is one party, Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, would they then have to pay the
ease~_nts for on both sides of that road? You're shaking your head yes.
Mayor Ch~iel: No...
Kurt Laughinghouse: You're saying it's a fair question? That's right. Right.
And clearly they shouldn't because they. don't want the road. It's not their
road. The road is for the other 100 acres or the 100 acres plus Ca~ Tanadoona.
It's for so~one else. And either sc~one else should pay for that road if it's
ever imposed on that land, or the City should pay for that road if it's i~,posed
on that land. It is not a benefit to that land. And, and I'll just leave that
point and just talk about it for a second, the overall transportation plan. I'm
going to ask Jo Ann Olsen if she has a chart that shows the whole 1~0 acre
property. Do you have a transparency, that shows that?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't think I do.
Kl~rt Laughinghouse: Let F~ j~t talk for a second even without a transparency.
I think you realize kind of the sit[ration here but look on the eastern side of
that drawing. That is the edge of the cornfield. Of that whole 100 acre
property that's been dealt with here over the last couple years, sc~ 30 or 35
are wooded and that ends there where you see that green line on the east side
and then the balance is cornfield. It's not wooded. We don' t know at all. Let
22
City Om.mcil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Fe step back and grant you the point as you all have made, and your staff
members have made, that you have to take the birds eye view of this and
~lture view of this develo[mvent. ~nis ~hole corner of TH 41 and TH 5. I can see
that. I think everybody involved can see that but if that's true, which
concede, w~ haven't yet taken a birds eye view of what really, where' that road,
where that main road that's going to serve the 100 or 200 acres to the north,
should be. Perhaps it should be there. Probably not. Probably not when you
look at the topo and you look at the woods on this e~d. I'm sure that you all
have traveled Do~ Lane by now probably more times than you care to and that
is a treacherous, narrow land on the edge of a bluff. If you drive too far to
the w~st on that road, you'll tumble down a hill. Well that's not where, I
don't think, necessarily anyway, where you're going to put that rain road that
will serve that 160 acres or 200, whatever it is up north. You ~ay w~ll put it
to the east of that woodline and go even further, and I hope the representative
fray, the Arboret[~ isn't here tonight because he's, reading his letters his a
pretty tough guy, but you may well have to go further east and properly go
further east and go through the Arboretum for the best develo~v~mt of that
property. ~lt if you install an easement here, if you take the easement here,
set aside whether it's right or not or proper, but if you do, then that's where
~u' 11 [alt the road. ~me easement's here. A developer com~=s in and buys
Courtenoy's 80 acres and said I want the road where the eas~v~t is. Public
property. Petition for the road and ~uou put it there, even if it isn't the
best. So I think that the plea that has the most power in this whole issue is
here's a 100 acre property. The owner in effect sold it to 3 different parties.
~ney want to build 3 different single fanily h~v~=s. They ought to be able to do
that without a great deal of im~0osition. But the discussion isn't heading that
way, well I don't know where the discussion. Oouncil hasn't discussed it this
evening but the rec~v~dation of the staff doesn't head that way. It says well
we've got these guys here under the m,'[croscope. Now's the ti~e to get the
eas~v~nt. I don't think it's fair. It may not be the best planning and it
certainly ray not be enviror~entally the best scheme for this property. Thank
Mayor Ch~,iel: Taan~. Is there anyone else? Discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I've got a c~stion for staff. In our old alternate B frc~,
the relocation stL~]y we spent a bunch of r~ney on a few years back and w~nt
through a lot of heaxtache on, we called for making that connection to Crimson
Bay that wo,%ld eliminate that fairly long cul-de-sac and poor access conditions
for e~ergenc~ response and also would make a connection into Dogwood by going up
the south side of this property and around the north side and back down
basically.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~hich one? B?
Co,~cilman Johnson: Yeah. It's Alternate B, Exhibit 3. It's right behind the
staff report a ways back here. But we're not asking for any easev~nts to the.
See at that time we had thought that ~ couldn't rake a 10% grade or even a 7%
grade up that hill but there's alwa~ ~ this concern. That's why we kept 25
foot roadway easement fro~, Crimson Bay over. To give a backdoor to Crimson Bay
and a back door to Dogwood. They're t~D long cul-de-sacs with potential
probl~s. Kind of like Russian roulette. You know 5 out of 6 times you don't
have a problem. It's that sixth time when the fire engi~ can't get through or
the paz~ic can't get through in the middle of a storm. Does it make a little
23
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Fore sense at this point to extend the eas~nt up the edge of the Arboretum
property versus going on the north side and going right ~?mck through this
particular lot? So that in the future w~ could extend a road down fr~, the east
down the south property line and then intersect the 25 foot easenent there.
Gary Warren: You're talking about Exhibit 6, Alternate D Jay?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Alternate B. Exhibit 3.
Councilman Boyt: Have you got a transparency of that one Jo Ann?
Paul Krauss: Afraid not.
Gary Warren: I think it shows as Alternate 6.
Councilmen Johnson: That's about halfway through. See that way w~ didn't cut
up their property. ~nat one lot. (kit c~lrrent zoning ordinance is what's
holding us back here. The lots have to be 10 acres. Or the lots have to be 2-
1/2 acres.
Council~mn Boyt: 2 1/2 acres. It's a 1 in 10.
Co~ncilFmn Johnson: Yeah, with 1 in 10 density.. I F. ean this thing could
theoretically be split. ~ne lot to the north of the proposed street and the lot
to the south. Or to the east and west.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Jo Ann, you're talking h~tting up to the Arboretum property.
Co[mcil~..~n Johnson: That's assuming the Arboretum at some ti~e might, I don't
see any indication that the Arboretum, would ever want to leave. I think we F~de
a mistake a few years ago and I probably said it then. Taking only 25 foot
along the Arboretum, property frc~ CriF~on Bay because the chances of ever
getting the other 25 foot are slim. At that time we should have gotten the full
city right-of-way in there. Taere's an opportunity lost because we've only got
25 foot right-of-way and there's not much you can do for a 25 foot right-of-way.
One way road.
Jo Ann Olsen: We talked about the roadway easement cc~,ing thro~K3h. ~rning
around rather than cc~,ing right up the middle.
Councilman Boyt: I r~,~er when we discussed that. Why did we rule that out 3
years ago or 2 years ago?
Jo Ann Olsen: This was F~)re for just to look at alternatives and the cost I
believe was one of the reasons and the topography.
Councilman Johnson: Why are w~ taking the land frc~. these lots? Why not the
other lots? Tb~ third lot that's being created here. We're creating three lots
right?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. This is already a separate.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, this is where we already created four lots. At one
ti~ we created 3 lots in here.
24
City Councll Meeting - March 121 1990
Jo Ann Olsen: No. It began with 100 acres. And then it came in with a 3 lot
split and then that just died. Then the 80 acres was split off and because it
was large enough, it just w~nt straight, it didn't have to go through th~ City
approval process.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so the 80 acres are no longer involved with this?
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Councilman Johnson: So now we've got a 20 acre site that's try. ing to be
subdivided.
Jo Ann Olsen: Into two.
Councilman Johnson: Ah ha. And the 80 acres got away without any impact. The
80 acres split got away without any impact.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We didn't have the opportunity, to get eamav~mts.
Gary Warren: That alternate was shown in the feasibility, study, Exhibit 6 or
close to that. I think it pointed to the fact, the reason we were thrust into
the feasibility concept was to try to crystal ball if you will and keep the
options open for the future. I think that's all that staff is saving at this
time is that as it's been discussed by. several people this evening, where's the
plan? Where's the concept? It's the chicken and the egg sometimes here. When
the land is ready for develol~nt, especially in areas of tough access and tough
topography, it's very valuable to the City. frc~, a road access standpoint, to have
options. To have easements that are available to either use or not use. You
can look at the Carver Beach area for example. We have lots of paper streets
and easements and things there that have never been used for various reasons.
Topography. and otherwise. Looking at this option that Jo Ann just sketched out,
I think part of the interest, especially fr(xu a dollar standpoint or assess%ent
standpoint against properties, is to try. to take the most direct route of
constructing roadways so that you are minimizing the assess~%ents as much as
possible against the property. Hare we'd be running quite a long distance to
get to the save point at additional costs that would be questionable as far as
assessing against the rest of the subdivision, depending on how it ~as
subdivided. I would say at this point in time it's difficult but any. n~_r of
scenarios can be put together for roads through this subdivision or this
property.. This happens to be a direct route and a way of eliminating two long
cul-de-sacs and that's I think why. the e~hasis has gotten to this connection
here.
Councilman Johnson: That makes a lot of sense. ~his particular plat has to
cc~e in because there's no street frontage for these t-wp lots? Is that why. it's
being. ~fle 80 didn't have to cc~e in because it met all the requirements? ~
does this one have to c~e in?
Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe Roger can explain that but State Statute.
Roger Enutson: Yeah. State Statutes provide that if your property, is more than
20 acres in size, has m~)re than 500 foot of width, you aren't a subdivision
under your ordinance and you don't have to see the City.. You can just go ahead
25
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
and do your division and go down to the County and record
Councilman Johnson: As long as it's a straight one division? If they tried to
Fake four lots out of it.
Roger Knutson: Tney can Fake 100 lots out of it as long as each lot is at least
20 acres in size.
Councilman Johnson: Tnat's why they got exactly 20 acres.
Roger Knutson: Good guess.
Councilman Johnson: I ~.u~derstand the 80 acres is being built ~)on by a private
individual that' s putting up a tremendous ho~. I haven' t seen it .vet but I ' ve
heard sc~thing about it. Generally that's not the type of person that puts [~
that kind of house wants 80 acres around their house and they're not going to be
looking to subdivide and put a bunch of $100,000.00 hom~s aro[~d him,. I don't
know where this is going but...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was just going to ask, what's the point Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I'm kind of thinking out loud. Dogwood has always been a
problem,. Like I say, it's a gun ready to, w~'ve played Russian roulette and 5
people have taken their t~rn and it hasn't gone off .vet. Crimson Bay we've only
taken 1 or 2 shots on the gun. With both of them, there, I think it Fakes sense
to F~ to Fake that connection. It did when I was here for Crimson Bay and got
that through but it's a tough thing to happen to that lot. I think it's for the
overall public good eventually. Then if that 80 acre ever does develop, which
I kind of do~t it might for a very long tiF~ ~nless so~thfng really drastic
happens, Faybe we won't need that. But it's better to have that now than try to
condem~ so~.~body's house and F~ve their house or garage or something like that
i f they build upon t t.
Councilman Boyt: Well Faybe I can F~)ve this along a little bit if you'd like.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Go ahead Bill.
Councilman Boyt: I find there's a lot of irony in these situations with long
cul-de-sacs that are being put through. It wasn't long ago I was sure fighting
one of them,. Tne Council has talked about this earlier and m. aybe this is the
i~'~etus to get it done. That we sure could use a comprehensive road plan for
this city. That when Crimson Bay cam~ through and we didn't win the fight to
have that easement off the end of the cul-de-sac, I think we may have set the
tale for what's going to happen tonight. If you live on a c~ll-de-sac, you don't
want it put through. I can't imagine s~nebody cc~,ing in and saying they now
what the cul-de-sac put through. On the other hand, as Jay has m~ntioned, as we
talked about a month or so ago, there's a lot of good reasons to minimize
c~l-de-sacs. We have sc~ of the people tonight saying take the big view but
don't take it now. And this is only too natural for all of us to say not in my
back yard. You ought to do it but not now and there are sc~ very good reasons
for why not now. We've heard th~ all. I don't think I need to go through
them,. I think we ~ a cc~,prehensive answer and MnDot is saying we'd rather
have you go out TH 5 than TH 41. That's in the staff report they prefer the
exit at Th 5 through CriF~on Bay or m. aybe sc~ other place. We're dealing with
26
City (k~mcil Meeting - March 121 1990
the Arboret,~, property and they're saying not over our dead body are you going
to get and I can jLmt imagine the challenge of tryir~3 to take land away frc~ the
Arboreta,. Interesting sit, ration to have one government body trying to condemn
property fr~, another one. So I think the answer that nobody wants, I don't
~mnt it, but probably the truth of the ~atter is, w~'re never going to put this
road through. That's not the answer I want. I want the road to go through but
folks, unless you're really convinced that we're going to, that this is real
important. It is important. I guess what I would like to direct staff to do
and I'd be willing to table this until we get it. I want to know how the roads
are going to go in that area. I want to know how are we goi~3 to get any other
access into this besides Tanadoona and until we know that, maybe we can't give
us this easev~nt which we're probably never going to exercise but raises a lot
of grief. JUst a m~nth ago the new hc~~s were saying we won't buy it if
you split our property up. We've heard about a lot of ~c impact and
I recognize that it's another economic impact to put off the decision but if we
don't have any other way out of this piece of property, we're never going to get
one without a plan. I'd like to ~ us have a plan before we turn down the
chance.
Councilm~n Johnson: One of the controlling factors is the Arboret~ because
they've only got 25 feet off of Crimson Bay and the other 35 we need is
University of Minnesota property. If they ever develop, which is probably even
farther out than what the guy that bought the 8~ acres would be, that's one tim~
we can get the other 35 feet and then maybe the ~ole 6~ feet going up through
their property.
Oouncilman Boyt: Have you ~n out to the Earl Brown farm? Up in the St. Paul
c~mm. There is develoi~.~nt all around that place but the University. isn't
talking about selling it.
Councilman Johnson: Universities never sell land.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I'd like to -_.~_~ staff directed to come back to
us with some sort of a plan for how to get a comprehensive road plan in this
area. Particularly this area. Eventually the whole city and I'd like to see us
hold up on this until we find out what that's going to be.
Councilman Workman: I think if public safety, b__~_ a chance to look at this, and
they didn't m~et this m~)nth, that they'd probably, where's our public safety guy
anyway? Upstairs. He's probably listening to us upstairs. That public safety
would probably suggest that we put this through. I don't think this connection
is baseless by. any. sense of the imagination. When we were asking questions
about the new Near Mountain, I think it's the 7th and final or 8th and final
phase of Near Mountain and I asked, well why. couldn't we have one connection up
on that hill. That had to be one-third the length of this and I was told
because if sc~thing's blocking the road that a fire truck couldn't get to the
top of the hill, then everyb(x]y would die on top of the hill or sc~=thing. It
would -_c-~_, to m~ that this is ~agnified by. 4 at least and the connection. I too
think that we ~ to maybe look at this thing a little bit further. Mr.
Laughingho~me at the podia, you should know better than anybody, that city.
goverr~_nt does things that don't always make people happy. How tall people can
build buildings next to residential, etc.. It's really tough s~etimes to take
the proactive birdseye view and here ~ are attempting to do that for hc~es that
aren't even planned .vet and we're being told it's a bad birdseye view which if
27
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
I lived on Crimson Bay RDad I'd be having a heart attack right now. I find it
very difficult to split this lot, apparently it splits it into, it could
potentially split it in and it could be sold off on the lake as something else.
I'm not c~ite sure how that works out but I believe in a transportation plan as
well as anybody and I thought w~ were beginning to do that with this. MnDot did
agree with sc~ of it. There's a lot of it that's missing obviously. The
entire pie that ~'mybe we need to look at and I rarely, as Bill knows, demand
trail ease~,ents frc~., people because or roads because it is an infrirge~nt on
what people ~Bnt to do. i'nis is a very beautiful area out here. But everything
that I have learned on this Council about this long road, which may or Fray not
be developed while we all live, goes against everything that engineering has
ever talked about. So this is no deviation. I guess I might need ~.~re
infor~mtion.
Councilwo~...~n Dimler: Basically I feel that I'm not, we do need F~)re infon~mtion
and I guess one of the things that I talked to Don Ashworth about today was the
possibility here of MnDot ~king sc~ i~orove~nts on that roadway to iF~orove
access into and out of CriF.~on Bay. Don, did you have any co~n.'~ents on that?
Don Ashworth: No, I did not get an opport~bnity to relay those to Gary to find
out his reaction. I guess the question was really one of would the State
Highway Department be considering any type of a F~ian extension as a part of
upgrading TH 5. I do not have an answer for you this evening.
Councilwoman Dim]er: That's certainly sGT~thing I think that we should take
into consideration because I do think there's a safety, probl~,, it could be a
potential safety probl~, there. Also, Paul isn't this the land when we're now
considering extending the MUSA line, isn't this land in there?
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dim]er, this is outside the area that we're looking
at.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is? Okay, so the potential for develol~.~nt is not
im~,inent?
Paul Krauss: Wouldn't anticipate it, based on this plan, until after the year
2000.
Councilwoman Dimler: I g[~ss I would favor Bill's proposal to table this until
we can get a c(m;prehensive road plan as well if that would be the desire of the
rest of the Council.
Gary Warren: Concerning Councilwoman DiF~ler's question on TH 5 improvements.
W~ have a right turn lane as it exists into Crimson. TH 5, and we're seeing
this out of o~tr ~rrent Eastern Carver County Transportation Study that's in a
very preliminary fashion, but the de~ands on TH 5 appear to be significant
enough to justify a 4 lane road all the way out to Waconia event~mlly but ti~e
obviously is going to be a factor and H~ney. But interpretting the c(mments
that Dave He~,pel received fro~ MnDot, which he included in his earlier staff
report, MnDot would entertain at this intersection, turn lanes as a minim~ to
address the traffic move~'~nts that are proposed for this location. I think as
you see at Market here now with our new intersection there, that's a significant
safety improvement to the intersection like that without even having the four
lanes all the way out to that point.
28
City Co,~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilman Boyt: You said turn lanes?
Gary W~rren: Turn lanes.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I w~uld feel more ccmfor~le putting a road through there
in the future if we had better access to TH 5.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah, I'd like to come up with sc~e kind of a solution to this
thing but I too see some real given problems here. Trying to address some of
these concerns. I think we've got to do a little more, have a little more study
and get sc~ more additional information or try. to cc~e up with a conclusion to
do what's best for everybody. Try to make ever.ub~dy happy. ~hich almost makes it
impossible. Ku~t you know that.
~urt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, I was going to agree with Counci~r Workman.
It's not the Council's duty. to make everybody happy, and you can't do that. I
agree but I'd like to discuss this safety business for a m~nute fr~ this chart.
Everyone understands the situation in having a cul-de-sac that is a mile
or however long it is down at this point. Taking this eamm~t though, all the
discussion, that portion and everything in it, that the road will not be built
through there until sewer and water comes. So ~u're not solving a safety
probl~ for 10 years ~lt you axe im(~osing a burden on this lot right away.
There's a dozen other solutions to this probl~ and they may include, let's put
it this way. When this was first brought to the Planning (k~ission, I w~nt to
tb~ Planning Om~,ission F~eting a year or so ago. One of the Planning
Cc~dssioners said, can't we deny a plat if the plat is premature I think for
utilities? S(~ething like that. You can help me with the language. That's
part of your code but if the 80 acre parcel that is now Cortenoy's parcel and
yes, they axe building a huge h~ and I don't expect th~m to develop but as we
know, things can happen and they. can charge their plans. If they propose to
develop 80 acres and they have only one access to TH 41 over Tanadoona, there
you can say to that proposed developer, that sewer and water sitting there on
TH 41, there you have a right to say .~x)u can't put 160 hc~s on one access.
There you have a genuine new safety, probl~.. You could say to that w~uld be
developer, and there isn't a chart that we could put up here, you can say find
another way to get to TH 41. Have a loop road or create s(~ve loop road or do
sc~thing that Fakes that a legitimate entr.~way into that 80 acre parcel. Or
you can require that developer to purchase enough land through here or across
here or alm~)st anything else. There you have a legitimate, that's the time to
create the solution to the probl~ of develoIx~_nt but just to take the eamaaemt
here doesn't solve the safety, probl~ for the current residents or the people of
Crim.~on Bay at all until the road is put in. F~_=ver, there is another solution
and that is this hated NSP ea~a~ent. It's really travelable.
Mayor C~,iel: Not NSP.
Gary. Warren: Minnesota Valley.
E~t Laughinghouse: Minnesota Valley. Friends of mine. They do good w~rk...
But I think that your ~mergency equiBv~nt, if there's a felled tree s(m~=where on
this Tanadoona which is a precarious road, that darn ~t is probably m~)re
travelable than the road. So there is an alternative there. Now it did,
Councilman Workman brings this question up. The public safety approval. The
29
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
public safety people did look at this and they're the ones who required this
cul-de-sac be built. Originally we had designed it dow~ here at the corner of
the two lots and then after disc~sion staff agreed to have it designed ~p here
at this end of these two lots so it could better serve the 3 or 4 lots in this
neighborhood. So this is the result of current public safety thinking. Now
staff Fay want to check ~e on exactly what they said and when they said it but
they did look at this plat as you see it. It's not as if they haven't had a
chance to look at it.
Councilman Workman: When was that?
Kurt Laughinghouse: ~re in the last 2 months. They looked at this plat.
That is correct isn't it?
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ney have reviewed this.
Councilman Wor~an: Have they talked about this eas~v~nt?
Paul Krauss: We' re not certain.
Councilman Boyt: What they reviewed was what kind of turn around circle do we
need if this is a cul-de-sac. They didn't review should we put it through or
not so we've got to be straight about what's being discussed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too of Paul and Jo Ann. If we were to
wait until we had a c(~,prehensive road plan, what time frame do you anticipate
you could get that done in?
Gary Warren: If I could I guess respond. Council had a feasibility study done
in 1987 on road access to address this question I guess. In there we looked at,
I don't know, 6 or 7 different alternates for access to the site. I would
I guess like a little better direction fro~, Council how m~ch further or what
additional we would be looking at at this time to address that c~lestion that
perhaps wasn't addressed in that feasibility study. A lot of it co~es down to
as we've all seen when a developer cc~es in with 80 acres or whatever, he comes
in and he gives us a plan and then we, there are sc~e judgm~_nt calls here. I
think we've really looked at the topography and s(~e of those access issues in a
number of different potential accesses to the site here already in that
feasibi 1 ity study.
Councilwoman Dim, let: Do you have any idea on timewise what?
Gary Warren: Timewise?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, if we were to do that, how much would we be holding
this up? If we were to rec~;ire a comprehensive road plan before we would
approve this?
Gary Warren: Again, it depends on the detail and I'm looking for sc~e direction
on what we're missing fr(x~, the original feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: Do you think there's any m~re detail to he had? At this
point, when we're talking 20 to 30 years in the future, can we make a
cc~,prehensive road plan for an area that won' t be developed under current
30
City Oouncil Meeting - March 12~ 199~
standards? We don' t know what the standards are going to be in the year 2ggg.
In 2~2~ if we're even driving cars an~,ore. If we have any old dinosaurs to
stick in our tank artware.
Council~m~sn Dimmer: So this feasibility, study is what? That's it? There's no
need to go any further?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Bill and ! w~nt through this a year and a half ago.
Mayor Ch%iel: Yeah, this is back in '88 that they had the feasibility.
Councilman Johnson: The question ~ss a little different.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, the question then, part of it was the people on
wanted to know, should we Fake this a public street? Should the City take
over? How much is it going to cost us? What will be the destruction to trees
and so on? ~nat ~ss one study. ~hen ~ came in and when Tim Foster was looking
at developing it, we did you know the thing Jay just talked about. One of the
options was let's loop the road all around the property. But I think ~hat we
need to look at is, we want tM accesses into this piece of property, someday. We
want to protect that when ~ get the chance to, I want to protect it when I get
the chance to protect it. This isn't looking like a good possibility. I'm
relunctant to let this one go if I don't have anything better. Can w~ find
s~mething better?
Gary Warren: I would venture that wa could put in any of a n~%ber of access
loop roads through the subdivision, either back out to TH 41 which would be the
path of least resistence so to speak when I guess the ~)st likely subdivision
scenario would be that a developer cc~es in. Buys off the re%aining parcel out
here and says here's my plan and here's how I'm going to put the roads in and at
that ti~e Council looks at ccmpleting the loop road back out to TH 41.
B0ger Knutson: A possibility I was just discussing with Paul. It hasn't been
discussed before, or at least I don't think so, is in lieu of taking an easement
at this time you could officially map the property.. The official mapping
process as you recall preserves the corridor for a future right-of-way .vet does
not take the easement. The only impact it has is they can't build in that
corridor once it's officially mapped without coming in and getting a variance
and they can' t get a variance unless they can show they can' t bu/ld an.uplace
else on their property.
Councilman Boyt: The drawback to that is it does about 5 things that these
people don't want done because when ~u officially map it, as you said, you
can't build in there so it's basically saying to ths~, there's a road. It's
doing alm~)st what we're doing now. The only difference is that we're saying
that the City is then going to pay for the property ~hen we ~ it.
Roger Knutson: That's true with the exception that if you were just to leave
it, say approve this without the easememt going through and just say so~e day we
m~tght be back and see you and knock on your door or as long as that is a
possibility and I would assume it always ~Duld be or could be a possibility,
there's aiways that concern that you might knock on their door in the future and
say wa ~nt your property. As you can do, they can go through my house with a
street or through yours. This just makes it, puts the% on official notice that
31
City Council Meeting - March 19., 1990
this is an aligr~nt we're serious about and we suggest you not build on it and
you have to go through a process if you want to. The only reason we threw it
out is it's kind of a middle ground.
Councilwc~n Dimler: How long does the official mapping process take?
Roger Knutson: We need an al igr~ent study.
Gary Warren: An aligr~,ent and center line survey.
Roger Knutson: Center line survey. P~ow long does that take?
Gary Warren: A few weeks. Couple weeks.
Roger Knutson: So 6 weeks. A month process.
Councilman Boyt: But this is not an easier out because we're saying to those
people you can't put your ho~%se in there. When you buy this piece of property
you're buying it with the prospect that it's going to be a 3 acre ar~ a 7 acre
piece sc~day. 15 years from, now. Whenever. Someday. ~ 5 things that...
Councilm. mn Johnson: 4 or 5.
Councilm~n Boyt: 4 or 5 that Mrs. Brandt listed as her reasons for opposing
this, we've still got them all if we do the official mapping.
Roger Knutson: Well, so,re of the reasons she ~as talking about, if I can j~p
in, were concerns about, she mentioned issues like taking. Those issues vanish
if you use the official m.~pping.
Councilw(~n Dimler: Right. That's the one issue that does vanish.
Councilm~n Boyt: We pay for something we don't have to pay for. That's good.
Councilm~n Workm~n: How bad do we want so~thing if we have to pay for it?
Councilm~3n Boyt: I don't think we have a good answer here and...
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilm~n Johnson: I'm not sure a study's going to give us a better answer.
Mayor Chv, iel: Well it could conceiveably Jay give us a better idea than what
we've got existing. I think what we want to do is try to be as reasonable as we
possibly can. I think at this particular tim~ Bill m~3de a motion to table it.
I would second that. That we cc~ back with a feasibility study on this and
dete~,ine what we can do after that. I've looked at scm~ of these previous
feasibility studies that we've got here now and so~ of these even look logical
enough to m~ at this tim~ but I think it's sc~thing that we should look at and
discuss at another tim~.
Councilm~n Johnson: How much m~ney are we going to authorize for this?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Total dollars, how m~ny dollars do you think will cost?
32
City Oo[~cil Meeting - March 12 ~ 1990
Councilman Bo.vt: Excuse me but I don't think we have to spend a lot of m~)ney.
Mayor Ch~iel: I'm try. lng to find, deten%ine total dollars.
Gary Warren: I believe we spent $3,5~.0~ on that original feasibility, study.
Mr. Foster foot the bill on that one. That would be the other question I guess
is who's expense would be used.
Councilman Boyt: ~hat we're talking about here is rethinking the issue. I
think the data is there. We've got s~me new topo maps we didn't have a couple
years ago that might help us sort through some of this stuff and I'd like to
think that we're talking $2~.~ or $3~.~0 or $5~.~ worth of staff tim~ and
not talking about tho~nds of dollars to reanalyze information that's already
~ basically looked at.
Tim, Foster: Going back into the history of this, again it was looked at for a
develoD~nt of 32 lots and I think you spent a fair amount of time when you
looked at that and they withdrew that prior to going to 2 1/2 acres. ~his study
was done whic~ was paid for. The only thirg that that study, didn't do, it had
several alternatives but no loops. It had no, it was just two cul-de-sacs so I
don't know if we need, have to be rocket scientists to understand it if we just
put a loop there, that a loop would work. Okay? So therefore I think it still
gets down to the point we're looking at two lots and what do we want to impose
on two lots? Let's say wa only ~anted one lot. g~en as Jay had mentioned, well
how did we miss out on the 8~ acres? You know you'd miss out on the whole deal
if we just ~nted one house on 2~ acres. Okay? So therefore it's still the
fact that we're looking for 1 m~)re house, 2 lots and it seems to be-an awful
imposition just for 2 lots. You know because of the fact that if I was just
going to build a house there personally and move from where I an now. Still
stay in Chanhassen. We wouldn't even be here so we're asking for one more lot
and just imposition after h%position so I would suggest and rec(mmend that you
consider not tabling it and just do it and go after the roads when it's going to
ccme in for development. The MUSA line is beyond the year 2~0~. I mean how far
in advance do we have to plan? And I understand Jay that well let's get it
while we can but the point being is that it's an awful imposition for 1 more
house. So thank you.
Councilman Johnson: It's too bad that the 8~ acres ware able to go by~-bye
wi thout...
Mayor C~v~iel: That's sc~..~thing that's gone and forgotten. We best deal with
the i sm~ in front.
Councilman Boyt: But that is a case where we might go back in and officially
map the 8~ acres if we decide that that answers our c~pr~sive road plan.
I guess I'd take issue with Tim, and say the best time in the world to do this is
when the pieces of ground are big. When they. get to be 5 acres, it gets tougher
and when they're 2 1/2, it's tougher. Now is when it's the easiest time to do
it. It is an imposition. It's a very. im~oortant imposition for the City. to be
planning.
33
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
CouncilHmn Boyt F~ved, Mayor Ch~Liel seconded to table the Preliminary Plat to
subdivide 20.9 acres for Peter and Deanna Brandt for further study on the access
situation. All voted in favor except Council~3n Johnson who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Gary, with the discL~sions that ~'ve had, can you see if you can
pull sc~thing together so w~ can have s~,ething? Do you have a timefraFe that
you're going to need?
Gary Warren: We'll be hard pressed to get it back at the next Co~bncil. I would
say the...
Mayor Chmiel: Tne first Council m'~eting in April is what you're saying?
Gary. Warren: Yeah. April 9th.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, w~'ll bring this back on April 9th with hopefully sc~e
conclusions. Thank you for cc~,ing. Appreciate it.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST, 7007 CHEYENNE TRAIL, CHARLES HIRT, LOTUS LAKE
BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION.
Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lotus Lake. Tne property is 1 of 3
that filled a portion of the wetland last...without first receiving-a wetland
alteration permit. We went thro~E3h the process with the Corps of Engineers and
the DNR to verify exactly what the DNR wanted to have r~noved since it was in
violation of the DNR regulations also. The DNR has agreed with the applicant to
r~.~ove a certain area of fill that's shown in the heavier dark area. What the
City staff did was go back thro~E3h the history to try to determine exactly where
the edge of the wetland was to begin with and to require the applicant to r~,ove
all the fill that was placed illegally on the w~tland. So w~ are rec(~nending
beyond what the DNR proposed for thsm to fill and instead of a 25 x 36 x 30 foot
area, we are rec~~ing that it be a 25 x 45 foot in depth area to be removed.
~ne Planning C(~ission rec~nded approval of the staff recc~.ndation adding
that it had to be re,Loved by June 15, 1990 and that the applicant, adding
condition 5 that the applicant has to suk~,it the plans for city staff approval
prior to any grading of this site.
CouncilFan Boyt: I'd move approval.
Counci l~an Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: What about the other two lots?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're co~,ing through. They're going to be seen by the Planning
C(m~,ission the next meeting. The applications came in separately. Staff will
be ~king the same rec(m~,endation for them.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue?
Councilman BoytF~ved, Co~mcilFanWorkman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit 989-1 with the following conditions:
34
City COUnCil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
1. The applicant shall re%ore 25' x 45' x 30' of fill measuring fr~m the
property limn adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill
will be removed by June 1§, 1990, using the typical cross section provided
2. The applicant shall be peunitted one boardwalk through the restored wetland
to provide access to the dock.
3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural state.
4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as
recc~vemded by the Fish amd Wildlife Service manual, "Spread, l~ct and
COntrol of Purple Loosestrife in North knerica Wetlands".
5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit for
City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE PLANS AND SP~2IFICATIONS FOR FRONTIER TRAIL UPDATE IMPI(~]~]9~ P~OJECT
89-10; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BID~.
Gary Warren: What would your pleasure be Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chv, iel: Very lightly. We've gone over this emough times.
Gary Warren: Plans and specifications have ~ prepared as directed. A
mnighborhood meeting was held February 6th which we were able to discuss amd
review the plans in the draft form with the interested neighbors who w~re able
to attend the m~_~ting. The controversial it~% that appears in the plans is a
sidewalk along the aligr~nt which as directed by COuncil we looked at in detail
in locating it with the tF~terstamding that it was to be brought back for
consideration as a part of the plan and spec package. Current engineer's
estimate for the project is about $716,000.00. That's without the ~lk.
walkway is esti~mted to be approximately $52,000.00 cost. That's with our
overhead applied to it. We' ve been able, we' ye taken the input frc~ the
residents and concerns about the magnitude of the storm sewer improve%ents that
we were looking at in the feasibility study and we have been able to reduce that
cost by about $40,000.00 by our detail look at the topogralmhy and such.
Similarly, through rehabilitation strategy we've utilized has also reduced our -
sewer rehab estimmte by about $63,000.00. On the other side of the ledger, the
road sections out there and the soil borings and such that we dealt with have
indicated a need for a little bit more significant road section and the costs
for the road section have increased. Net botbmv, line is that we are close I
think to tl~ feasibility study estimate. A little bit above it. The
of the project that %~_re proposed for assessing however are pretty close to our
original estimmtes. The ite% is before the COuncil for consideration and
approval for authorizing advertising for bids.
Councilwo~n Dim]er: Mr. Mayor, if I may start on that one.
Mayor ~iel: Yes. Go ahead Ursula.
35
City Council Meeting ' March 12, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in order to make this simpler and move it along,
since 83% of the hc~eowners on Frontier Trail do not want the sidewalk on either
the north or south side of it, and since it is my intention to vote with what
the majority of the people on Frontier Trail want, I would move that we r~nove
the sidewalk fr~L the plans and specifications for the Frontier Trail upgrade
project 89-10 at this time and we can discuss it clearly and move the rest of
it.
Mayor Chr, iel: Is there anyone else here wishing to address that issue?
Councilman Workm~n: I would second her proposal at this time for discussion.
Mayor Ch~..iel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Hearing none, is there any
discussion by Council?
Councilman Boyt: Sure. I take issue with the thought that the majority of the
homeowners don't want the sidewalk. I think it depends upon what the conditions
are in which the sidewalk is being proposed. I certainly don't have a
cc~,prehensive petition to offer you but what I do have I think is a significant
piece of information. If we make so~e assumptions about the sidewalk, which I
think are pretty reasonable assumptions, all along I think the City ass~ed that
the cost of the sidewalk would be carried by the City. There is, as the
original plans were first drawn by Mr. Engelhardt, they showed a 5 foot buffer
which I think is the preferred plan of the engineering, probably for some good
reasons. But it doesn't match the neighborhood and the fact that there are
existing homes. If we elim~inate the buffer zone and put the sidewalk up
abutting the curb, which by the way would have been a better idea on Laredo than
what we've got there. ~t if w~ do that and if as the staff report says the
trees can all be saved, then I think you're going to find there are a good many
people who no longer support the initial petition that they signed. When you
pull those names off of that petition, you find that there is a good bit of
concern in the neighborhood about this issue. I don't think it's partic~larly
resolved in the neighborhood and I'd really like to see the neighbors have a
chance to think this thro[~h so~e more. ~nis is another one of those decisions
that's going to be with us for an awfully long time. Yesterday in going through
the neighborhood and asking people, given those assumptions and another one
about snow r~,oval, which based on our conversation of a week ago at the
Council, I think it's a fair assum~tion in 20 years of experience in this city
with what little sidewalk we've had, the City is not going to require anybody to
shovel the sidewalk. Tne exception would be if the City cc~es down and shovels
it, or plows it or whatever but we're probably looking at a sidewalk that for in
a no~al winter is going to be not of use. But 9 months of the year, in all
likelihood would be very much of use. There was the hc~es, the people that were
ho~e and unfort~mately I didn't get out with this thing until Sunday evening t~t
of the people that were hc~e, I had 3 hc~..eowners who said they were against it
and if there was an overhead or something I'd be happy to show the locations of
those. I had a few homeowners who said well, I'm kind on the line either way.
And I had, as you can see, if you go down through, let's see here. If you stop
with the Arons, I think that's at the point, well then you go down to the bottom
of the list there, you can pick up 7195. But w~ere I try to reach people with
the most diligence was on the side with the sidewalk because I felt those were
the people who wsre going to have the greatest impact. I think put simply,
there are a good m~ny people in the neighborhood that if we look at how we can
36
City Council Meeting- March 12~ 1990
build it rather than how we can make it difficult for people. If we look at .how
w~ can meke this sidewalk acceptable to people, I think .uou're going to find a
mejority of the people that live on Frontier Trail support the sidewalk.
Councilw~an Dimler: Okay, I guess I'd just like to point out that I'm looking
at Mr. Loebl's petition here. Has 72 signatures om it. Then this one you just
handed us Bill, and I see your name is at the top of it. You do not live on
Frontier Trail.
Councilman Boyt: Well don't count m~ne. That's fine. But I think people
probably expected me to support my ow petition.
Councilmen Dim]er: Okay, so you are the initiater of this petition? Okay.
~hen this work was originally done, I would just like to know why you as a
counci~er that is listening to ~hat the people ~ant then would go out and go
contrary to what they have already, told you they. want. Okay? I don' t
understand why. this petition was solicited. And even if these 15 signatures now
are legitimate, then that still leaves 56 or 55, no 57 that are on this side and
that means a mejority, and I had stated that I intend to vote with the mejority.
The majority still do not want the sidewalk.
Councilmen Boyt: Well, I don't know if you want me to ans~ar that or not.
Councilwcman Dimmer: Well I just don't understand the reason for all this. And
the other thing is, where do you come up with the idea that there's not going to
be a boulevard? That was never approved by. any of the rest of the Ooumcil.
Councilmen Boyt: There was, what I said to people ~en I went around with the
petition is let's make s(~e ass~Hmtions. If the as~ions aren't true, then
you can forget about the names on the petition. ~hat I was looking at is how
can w~ build a sidewalk to improve the safety on one of the m~)st dargerous
residential streets in our c(x~v, unity and to do that, we need to eliminate that
buffer. Can we build it without the buffer? I'm sure Gary will tell you yes we
can. If you look on La~edo, there's only a foot there. ~nat's ridiculous. I
m~an you don't have a buffer zone. What you've got is 12 inches of grass that
you've got to fool with. So we're talking about here is building the sidewalk
right adjacent to the 6 inch curb which is a big improvement over putting people
on the street. It's not as good as a 5 foot but we're talking about an
established neighborhood and a 5 foot buffer zone just isn't going to go in an
established neighborhood. And Ursula, if you think that the signatures on that
initial petition were fully infoz~d about this, then maybe we don't have
anything to talk about.
Councilwomen Dim]er: Well they didn't know because these plans ~lves show
the 5 foot buffer so how could an.vbody know that you were proposing no buffer
zone? Do you understand?
Councilmen Johnson: That's why. he did his petition?
Mayor (2~,iel: Jay, this is discussion between the tw~ right now.
Oouncilw~%an Dim]er: But he only got 15 signatures. Okay? I'm saying there's
still 57 on the other side so that's the majority.
37
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: Well I doubt that~
Councilwo~an Dimler: ~ow can you doubt it?
Councilman Boyt: I don't have any probl~, doubting it. When you go to people
and consistently they change their mind given these ass,~,ptions, I think it
raises doubt about the initial petition. I didn't cc~e in here with the
prospect of being able to say to you I now have 78 signatures that want it. I
don't have the time to do that. What I ca~e in here showing you is I believe,
given a different set of ass~.ptions than the initial petition laid out, that
people are interested in the sidewalk. And I don't think we're in a position
tonight to know that. All we're in a position to know is that this is an issue
that the neighborhood, I think would like more ti~ to talk about and work
through.
Councilwc~mn Dimler: Okay, but you assu~e that you were one-fifth of the
Council and you assumed that we w~uld all go along with the no boulevard.
Council~mn Boyt: Are you not going to go along with that?
Councilwc~mn Dimler: Well, I don't know if it's a good idea. Where are you
going to put yoL~ ~.~ilboxes?
Co~cil~mn Boyt: ~ne Fmilbox issue is a good issue that r~cds to he worked out.
However, to think that we can't cc~ up with a reasonable solution to where the
~ilboxes go, I'm sure we can solve that problem. And the reason I'm sure we
can solve it is ~dina has sidewalks and they've got F~ilboxes in their sidewalk.
I haven't taken a good look at that but I'm sure that the engineers can solve
that one.
CoL~cilw~an Dim]er: Okay, the other issue is snow r~oval. Tne public works
cc~s through, takes it off the street. It goes onto the sidewalk. Okay?
There's the only place it can go. Then we want to go and the neighbors have to
go and shovel it. Where are they going to put the snow? They're not going to
put it on their grass.
Counci~'an Boyt: They're not going to shovel it?
Councilw~nan Dim]er: Why not? That's a safety, issue. They have to shovel it.
We have an ordinance that says they have to shovel it.
Council~n Boyt: Ursula, we have never enforced that ordinance and we talked
just 5 days ago, and I don't think you were there.
Councilwc~an Dimler: Are you telling me that if an ordinance isn't enforced,
that F~ans it' s okay? We' ve got a problem,. Then we don' t need that ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that a ~eting that the City Council held just 1
week ago. The 4 of ~.~ who were there said we do not want an ordinance that
requires people to shovel their snow. Am I right?
Councilwc~an Dim]er: I wasn't here so sc~one else has to address that.
CouncilFan Work~an: We all agreed to what?
38
City Council ~eting - March 12~ 1990
Councilman Boyt: That we were not going to require people to shovel the snow
off the sidewalks in Saddlebrook. Off the sidewalks in Lake Susan.
Councilman Workman: I don't r~r agreeing to a omAprehensive sidewalks. I
r~v~er standing up when the m~eting that I attended had all sorts of other
things on the agenda. It didn't have sidewalks. I put on my coat to leave.
I don't rem~m~er to agreeing to that.
Mayor Ch~iel: The position that I took to that at that time Bill ~ms that you
indicated that the City could plow those particular sidewalks. I wasn't in
favor of having the City. do that.
Councilman Boyt: Well, this probably isn't the time in which to discuss that.
What I said to people was, if you sign it, you're signing it with a certain set
of assumptions. You' re not signing it with a carte blanche, no ~atter what I
want the sidewalk. And what I ~)uld maintain and I still maintain this, is that
none of you will vote to enforce that ordinance to shovel sidewalks. You w~n't
do it. I'm silre you won't.
Councilwoman Dimmer: Well I'm going to tell ~u that you can not say that we
have an ordinance but since it's not being enforced we'll just forget about it.
There isn't any other ordinance that we do that with. Okay? And also, I do
want the citizens to be info~r~d that we do have that nuisance ordinance and in
Section 13-2-C(1) it states that all ice and smow must be r~%oved fr~. public
sidewalks within 12 hours after the snow and ice have ceased to be deposited
thereon. This implies that the homeowner is responsible for that clearance.
Okay? Failure to do so is a misd~%eanor and is punishable by $70~.~ fine
and/or 90 days in jail. And at some point we may not enforce it all the time
because we don't need to because ~)st homeowners are reasonable and the public
safety officer goes and says, you ~ to clear this off, they will do it.
However, in the case of a personal injury, you can bet that when that case goes
to court and we say yes, we do have an ordinance but it ~sn't enforced, that
the City. is in big trouble.
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask Mr. Ashworth. Have wa ever enforced the ordinance
to your knowledge?
Don Ashworth: Not to the best of my knowledge. You have to realize that you
have, up until this point in time, sidewalks within the downtown area which were
plowed by. the business. Well really by. the City. as part of the snow clean-up.
The only other section I can think of was right in front of St. Hubert's church.
There's a 2 block section and I believe the church has cleaned their section.
I'm not aware of anyone cleaning ~ section that would be the next block down.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would suggest to ~u, as I did a minute ago. If you're
dete~mi~ that people will clean their sidewalks, them we n~ to take action
to enforce that and I suspect the si~lk on Frontier Trail is a dead issue.
However, you haven't d~nstrated you're willing to do that and I'll bet you
won' t.
Councilman Johnson: Are wa willing to change the ordinance?
Councilw~.an Dimmer: Yeah. Any ordinance has to be enforced.
39
City Council ~=eting - March 12~ 1990
CouncilFan Boyt: Well not if we change it. We have to get it off the books
because you're not going to go into Saddlebrook and tell those people they have
to shovel their sidewalks. I'm not going to.
Co~mcilvan Johnson: If we're ready to do that, then we can leave that ordinance
on the book. If we're not ready to go in and tell everybody to do that, then
like any other ordinance that's not being enforced and w~ don't plan on
enforcing it, we ought to take it off the books. Roger, what's our proble~ if
we take that ordinance off the books?
Mayor Ch~iel: You don' t have an ordinance.
Council~.an Johnson: Besides yo~ fin~ earning some extra money for doing the
paperwork to do it.
Roger Knutson: I don't see any. Sc~one could ~t together s(m~ sort of crazy.
notion about liability, because you're Faking people walk on the street or
so~thfng I suppose ~lt you're no w~rse off there than there are lots of places
now where there are no sidewalks so I don't see it from a liability, or legal
perspective an overwhelming problem, by not requiring people to.
Councilwc~.an Dimler: There are sc~e neighbors here. Perhaps they w~uld like to
speak their piece again.
CouncilFan WorkFan: I'd like to Fake a c(m~ent before we let the neighbors.
Basically what you said was if we're going to enforce an ordinance then we
should either r~.ove it or not Fake it.
CounciLman Johnson: That's right.
Co~mcil~an Work~an: ~ne very next it~, on the agenda is basically a pooper
scooper law, which you proposed, which is going to be very, very difficult to
enforce.
Co~cil~an Johnson: No it w~n't be.
CounciL, an Work~an: I'll tell you what. I j~mt drove up to the el~_ntary
school and there's a dog sitting out there and it was a good looking dog but.
And I'm not going to argue...
Councilman Johnson: We'll wait for that until the next one.
Councilman Work~an: I'm just saying, I'm not going to argue for letting dogs
crap on the park hit I'm j~mt saying...
CouncilFan Johnson: ~ne pooper scooper's going to be a lot easier to enforce
than this. This w~ could enforce this too. I mean this w~uld be very. siF~le to
enforce. You just drive around and take house n~ers down.
Council~an Work~an: And I appreciate Bill's continued tanancity with this
sidewalk issue because there, it's an issue that will dog us the rest of our
days. But we have a situation here where, and I do r~m.~er this part of our
discussion at the special Council F~=eting we had last Monday night. Sidewalks
were not a part of it. I do r~a~ saying that what we are doing with
40
City Cot~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
sidewalks is we're Nlilding mother ~et of infrastructure akin to roadways,
F~lniature roadways which for the rest of their lives are going to have to be
maintained and repaired and cleaned and everything else and it's an additional
h,~3e budget it~v,. That was one of the problems 28 new miles or so of trails ~as
going to do and a c(~,prehensive trail plan was going to be, in 15 y~rs we're
going to have replace 28 miles of trail. Bill m~ntioned we do that with roads
but I contend we ~ roads and in s(~e places we need sidewalks. I'm leaving
it to the neighborhood to decide if they ~ a sidewalk.
Mayor Ch~.iel: Is there anyone that wishes to say s~mething?
Councilm~n Boyt: Before they. do, I think...
Mayor Ch~,iel: I think we've had eno~E3h discussion Bill. I think we should turn
it over to the people.
Councilman Boyt: Is that .u~)u don't have any way of knowing what the
neighborhood wants.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Bill, you're out of order. Is there anyone wishing to say
something?
Jim, Mady, 7330 Frontier Trail: I'm glad to see Mrs. Dimler that you're
concerned about safety of t3~ streets 3 months of the year and where the snow's
going to go. How about the other 9 months of the year? The 9 m~nths that kids
are out there with their bikes. Their roller skates. Where are they. going to
be and that's in the street. There were probl~v~ with the first petition that
cave through. When it was presented at my house, it was said that the City
wanted to put a sidewalk through. The rec~lest didn't c(x~e from the City. ~ne
rec~st cave from Joel Jenkins. He's sitting here tonight. He's a resident on
Frontier Trail. Act[~lly owns 2 houses now. ~ne concern ~as that l~s, the
City's going to force you to shovel your sidewalk. That was told to me. I know
at the Park level, Park Omv~,ission level when we look at trails, it has ~-n the
Park Cc~v, ission's discussion for the last 4 l~rs that I've been on it, that
certain areas of this city with trails/sidewalks we w~uld want to have snow
r~)ved. Those are areas specifically where kids have to walk to school. They
have to walk so those have to he cleared. There were specific areas on trails
and sidewalks where we w~uld want ~ left with snow so that cross country
skiers, sno~bilers, what have you, winter sports w~uld have the opportunity, of
using that public access. That public right-of-way. Last ibsm was the 5 foot
m~dian strip. I was told that the neighbor across the street fro~, me w~uld have
his beautiful maple tree r~oved from his yard just to put the sidewalk in.
That's not true. I don' t know an.vwhere where the City has r~oved a har~
tree for any. purpose. What Bill did and I simply haven't had the time to do it
this last co~le w~eks with my involv~m~mt in a very good cause that I 'm
involved with usually this time of year to go out and do it but what he did on
R~day was simply go aro,~d and try. to find out if there was a way in which the
residents of the neighborhood could c(~ve to a compromise to get those of us who
are very, very seriously concerned with the safety on the street. If we can
answer our concerns and those people that live on the r~y who are concerned
about the implication of having sc~..e of their property eaten up. Those are our
concerns and Bill was trying to find the middle ground. I don't believe your
earlier petition reflects the neighborhood accurately. I would like to ~ the
City. [m~t out, either hold a m_-cting here or else do a survey, or a Failing or
41
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
so~,e sort, have all those people there so we can come with a corn, promise. Kids
safety is an issue that will be with [~ forever. All we have to do is rem, ove
the snow ordinance or rewrite it so that it is specific to the downtown area or
to a business area. I don't see a reason why we have to rem. ove the snow 3
months out of the y~ar. Kids aren't walking those streets. Tnere are very few
people walking the streets that time of year. There are a lot of people walking
when it's nice. Tonight the temperature was about 65 degrees. My wife was
driving down Frontier Trail frc~; our house down to Ktowa Circle. There were 8
people on the street at 6:15 today. There's a lot of useage on Frontier Trail.
There always has been. There always will be. It's a major corridor in this
city for people to walk. They get the views of the lake. It connects to a
number of places in the city. I think the City is missing a tre~endo~s
opportunity and Faking a very serious lmlblic safety mistake if they do not find
a way to co~r~,ise on this issue. Thank you.
Co~u~cilw~ran Dimler: I guess I'd like to tell Mr. Mady that I am concerned
about safety 11 months and 29 days out of the year. Okay? So it isn't only a 3
~.'~)nth issue for me. Also, we've had that argu~_nt over and over and over again.
Everyone's concerned about safety and now Frontier Trail has been there since
what, '63? Tell ~e. 19637 Or before. Okay, 1957. And you know our
statistics as far as accidents and that sort of thing, and many children have
grown up there. Many continue and many will continue I'm sure. It j,mt has not
been that much of a hazard. I think people are careful and I think parents are
~'ore concerned about safety for their own children than anyone else and if they
don't want the sidewalk, then that's what I go by because I feel that parents
Fore than anyone else knows what's best for their children. So again, I'd just
like to say that safety is an iss~ but sidewalks don't necessarily equate
safety.
Pat Pevelko: Your Mayor, City Council m~ers. My. na~e is Pevelko. I live at
7203 Frontier Trail. If you're familiar with the area, my house is situated
right on the curve on that Frontier Trail road that we're talking about. It's a
very. dangerous c~rve and safety is a very concern of mine too as I do have 2
children 7 and 3 years old. But as I look at it, if w~ did place that sidewalk
and especially with no buffer, we are now creating a playground for children in
that area to ride their bikes on. To ride their hotwheels on. We are now
creating a space for them, to be in a danger zone and living on that curve is a
very., very dangerous curve and we've seen that this winter as, if you drive down
there and it is icy and it is snowy., you can easily slide into our driveway.
And if there was a sidewalk there and kids playing on that, I think we'd have a
serious problev,. My. second concern is, as we talk about the re~)val of trees.
We do have eight 30 foot to 40 foot pine trees in our yard. In order for those
to be rem, oved, they are approxi~ately about 14 inches and the trunks are 14
inches. Now the only machine that can move those trees, okay and replant
there's only one in the continental United States and that's down in Florida.
And so in order to r~v, ove those trees you're going to have to cut the% out and
take the~, out. Now in talking with tree people, that's at a value of about
$4,000.00 per tree minim~., so we're looking at a $32,000.00 cost to us in
rem, oval from our property and that's a major concern of us. I guess those are
my two major concerns is that those trees cannot be uprooted and placed back.
Even if they could be, the chances of them, s,%rviving are 50-50 and as you see
many ti~es, trees that size are not green but they're brown. So those are my
two concerns. Thank you.
42
City Co~mcil Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Dim]er: Can I ask you, do you feel that ~ur children are safe
without a sidewalk there?
Pat Pevelko: Yes, absolutely. In fact, with the trees that we have there, it
serves as a buffer fr~ the street that w~ have and with the r~oval of those
trees and the addition of a sidewalk, it would create again a playground for the
kids to take their bikes on. To go up and do~n that curve and it would be a
very i%~n ride for the children down the hill and around the curve but as a car
cc~s by. and the kids lose control, I think we'd be looking at ~ajor disaster.
CounciLman Johnson: So a no median sidewalk would require the r~val of those
trees?
Pat Pevelko: Pardon
CounciLman Johnson: A no Fedian sidewalk would require...
Pat Pevelko: Any. sidewalk would cause the r~val of those trees. Any sidewalk
there. With a buffer or without a buffer. Those trees would have to be
r~oved o
Gary. Warren: Staff is not proposing to revive those trees, just for Council's
clarification. The road is going to be slipped to the inside of the radius on
that curvature and we have designed it and believe that we will get by. those
trees without having to re~ve the~ or get under the drip line.
Coumcilm~n Workman: Even with the sidewalk Gary?
Gary. Warren: That's correct. We' re shrinking down the width of the sidewalk
and maybe favoring the curb line as you saw on the details for the 5 properties
where we have landscaping issues. We would be favoring the curb line to get
past sc~e of these tighter areas but we're very sensitive and would not propose
r~,oving 12 inch spruce or pines or anything of that nature because of the cost.
CounciLman Workman: I don't know. I do see that we are r~ving 12 inch
Councilman Boyt: Not r~ving them.
Cot~ciLman Work~an: Well it looks like the sidewalk goes right, through tbsp.
Councilman Boyt: ~~_r that the sidewalk is 5 feet over frc~, what you see on
your map and as Gary just said.
CounciLm~n Workman: And how wide is the sidewalk?
Counciban Boyt: 5 feet.
Gary Warren: 5 to 5 1/2. The concept plan, if I could Mayor, on sheet 3. If
that's what you're looking at Tc~, is not consistent. I mean it's an overview
plan. The actual details on getting past some of these, the restraints will be
field fit with the contractor. There may be other areola where we're going to
move it in and out. The details for the 5 properties show, in the back, the
43
City Co~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
accurate locations and in this area w~ also would be favoring the c%~rb line.
Not planning to do with those trees, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Joel Jenkins: Since I was, Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail and I think the
other one is 7305. I do have a hc~ for sale.
Mayor Ch~,lel: You can' t plug it on TV.
Joel Jenkins: That rec~sted that at least the sidewalk be put in the
feasibility study since the engineering drafting work by. Bill Engelhardt was not
going to be any additional cost. I guess I'm still very much for the sidewalk
and I think that since the initial discussions with Bill indicated that it was
going to be on the side of the street where my existing house was, and then they
~.~)ved it across the street to the house that I bought. Even though it's going
to take 10 feet out of my front yard, or 15 feet, because I think they're
probably going to slide the street over a little bit on that side as ~11, I
still think that a sidewalk is a safety issue. However, I think that we're
totally missing the point of the fact that wa look back at the history of
Frontier Trail. Now until last year that was a dead end cul-de-sac with only
our friends and neighbors traveling it. Even during that ti~ there were 3,
according to my understanding, tragic deaths that happened on Frontier Trail. I
would not want my 3 year old or 5 year old to experience that. Nor would any of
the other younger children in the neighborhood. Now I think that the point that
Bill brought out here, by the way, since I have two residences and we were not
hc~e, there needs to be 4 additional signatures on his petition. And I think
that there should be sc~e kind of a co~,promise and I think initially the
petition was the fact that our neighbors were not here for the Febrilary 6th
~=eting in Fass like we are this evening or in the past. The neighborhood
~eting that discussed the plans. There were about 12 people here. And there
were possibly so~ misconstrued ideas that w~re in the initial petition. And I
do think that snow r~,oval is a big concern because I'm not excited about having
myself out there trying to shovel the sidewalk. However, it's interesting
because Laredo se~..~ to be plowed by the City. down to the last ho~me on the
street, which I still haven't figured out why that happens to be the cut off.
And it doesn't go all the way to the end but you know, it would appear to me
that if Frontier Trail is a trail, that ~'aybe there is a potential for that to
be plowed when it needs to be but this year we maybe needed it twice at the most
and I don't think that the children on the streets are any more better than on a
sidewalk that's 5 feet in necessarily. But I guess my point is, Faybe what we
should do is go back and revisit what happened prior to Co~ncil~an ~brk~an,
Councilwc~an Dimler and Mayor Ch~tiel's joining this on Council and say why don't
we close off Frontier Trail. Let's ~'ake it safe again and then I wouldn't be
pushing for a sidewalk. I would just bring up the attention for those people
who were here before about the long c%~l-de-sac and the safety issues. That one
of the big reasons why Frontier Trail was opened up was because the fire
department r~aded to get down there to service the h~s in Chan Vista and
Shado~mere. There was a Fajor fire there a couple weeks ago. They didn't c~me
down Frontier Trail. My. ~derstanding is they w~nt around and that was our
point all the way through in our arg~_nt about we did not need Frontier Trail
opened up. ~ne traffic has Fore than doubled. In my opinion, we need a
sidewalk or we need s~ type of safety... Thank you.
44
~ityCoL~cil Meeting - March 121 199~
Councilwoman Dimler: I have several points I'd like to. I guess since Joel
brought up the 3 tragic deaths and that alwa.~s shocks everybody., I've lived in
the neighborhood longer than ~u have Joel I believe and I think the one death
I know you're referring to was a UNI, a drunk driver so that has nothing to do
with sidewalks. The other one was a sledding accident. Also had nothing to do
with sidewalks. A sidewalk being there w~uld not have l~revented the death
and I'm sorry, I don't know about the third one, if you care to expand on what
that one was. I don't know what it was. But an.uway, that's just the points.
Rather than scaring the people about these safety issues and bringing up those
things, I ~)uld ask for full disclosure on the details of the accidents and that
the sidewalk really w~uldn' t have saved the tw~ that I know about.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Anyone else?
Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail: To fur~ explain my original petition, I
w~uld like you to know that I visited every, single h~me that is affected by. the
sidewalk. In other w~rds, my n~_rs represent 1~0%. Of the 100%, 83% were
against the sidewalk and not just for the reason of having to shovel snow,
although that was a major one as you brought out in your package to the Council.
A nL~er of people m~ved to Chanhassen to get away from sidewalks. They. came
fr~m Minneapolis and one of ~ I believe came frc~, Hopkins and said we don't
want sidewalks. That's why. we moved to a city which has a rural delivery route
on the ~ail and no sidewalks. Sc~ other people were concerned about their
landscaping. Not to m~ntion Mr. Z~v~ronto who bought the Friedlander's house.
H~ has sc~ beautiful landscaping and if the sidewalk is put in, he would lose
most of it and if he was prc~ised that it would be ~ved, it would be moved so
close to his house that it would spoil the looks of the place. A n~nber of
users, and I'm retired now and I've watched the street all day long, is not
greatly increased. I'm one of the users. I do a lot of walking and I don't see
~any people except perhaps on week~ and sc~e people in the evenings who walk
their dogs. The fact r~ains, if a sidewalk goes in, it starts nowhere and ends
nowhere because no sidewalk will ever be put into Chan Vista because there isn't
eno~E3h ro~m. And no sidewalk will be put on the other end of Frontier Trail
past Hills...
Councilman Boyt: Highland.
Bill Loebl: Highland. Sorry. Thank you. The legal liability, remains ~hether
it's being played down or not. If ~ slips, a kid falls off his
skateboard on your property and breaks his leg, I would think that his parents
would sL~ the property owner because ~a.ube there was a little rock there or
s(~=thing or a bananna peel, and he could easily sue the City because it's on
the City's right-of-way. A n~er of people have told me they. don't want to
lose the privacy that they now enjoy.. S~me of the properties, mine is not one
of th~%, have only 30 or 40 feet betweem their living rocm windows and a street.
If ~u ~ve the street over 5 feet, it still doesn't make enough difference
because on sc~e of these houses they. are actually lower than tt~ street and if
you ~)ve the sidewalk on that side and move it 10 feet inside their present
property, line, they. can look right into these people's living ro~m. If the
sidewalk is there and as Bill proposes to ~ve it right next to the street, the
~ailboxes will have to r~ain. People walking on the street would be
inclined to give the ~ailbox a ~hack with a stick or a cane than they would when
they're drivirg by. or walking in the street. Then of course there's the
possibility of theft. Now all these are more than one reason that the majority
45
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
of people signed my petition. If you poll the ones that signed both my petition
and Bill Boyt's petition, you will find that some of theft have changed back to
my view. Taank you very much.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Anyone else?
Tc~, Pzynski, 7340 Frontier Trail: Cn the safety issue for sidewalks. It see~
like there's two different things happening here. People are concerned about
safety year round but in the winter ti~ when we do get a lot of snow and a
couple years ago we had 100 inches and typically w~ do get 60 sc~ odd during
the y~ar, that we don' t have to shovel sidewalks so we don' t care about safety
during the winter which to me see~ to be more i~9ortant because during the
wintertime the roadway gets narrower. You get ice build-up in the curves and
stuff so people have to walk more into the center of the road. So it doesn't
Fake any sense. I F~an you can' t have your cake and eat it too on the sidewalk
safety issue.
Mayor Chniel: Anyone else?
Dick Pearson, 7307 Frontier Trail: I'm probably the seniorest citizen here and
have lived here longer than anybody else and we've gotten along very well
without sidewalks and I signed the petition and said w~ll we really don't need
it but I've talked to other people and I bring back sc~,ething that ~ son who
spent ~mny, Finny years here. He's in the Planning department at Coon Rapids and
he said in Coon Rapids they feel if they really need a sidewalk, the City puts
it in and the City ~mintains it and I felt the safe way. I don't really know if
we do but if we do, I think it should be up to the City to do it. As far as I
can see, it would be nice for the people from ~trise Hills to walk down to our
beach but that's about the only good it would be.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you Dick. Is there anyone else?
Larry Leibens: I'm sorry to delay this. My na~e is Larry Liebens. I live at
7201 Frontier Trail and I didn't cc~ here to talk but I feel a need to now.
First of all I want to thank CouncilF. zmn Boyt for taking the tiF~ and the
initiative to go around and find out if all of us did t~nderstand the issues. If
there were sc~ alternatives and if there were sc~ ways to take care of this
problem in a different ~u~ner. I was one of the people that originally signed
the first petition and talked to Bill and found out that yeah, there were sc~e
other ways that we could do this. I didn't have to have it run thro~h 5 feet
into my yard. There was a possibility that Fmybe I don't have to shovel that.
That the upkeep wasn't what I thought it to be. I think that there's been
enough c~estions raised to say that we need to take another look at it one more
ti~. 7 people ca~ in here a few minutes earlier and questioned you people and
if you had voted with the Fmjority, how those 7 people had wanted you to vote to
not accept that road but you decided to take another look at it because there
were sc~ good q%~stions raised and they deserved to have another look at it.
It might be a Fmjority issue but the Fmjority isn't clear right now I don't
believe. I think there are enough c~lestions right now that we have to take
another look at it. The second point is, I live on that curve that we've been
talking about and I teach so I'm there, I'm out during the s[m~nerti~. I get a
chance to see the kids playing on that curve a lot. ihere have been Finny times
I've bad to bring children of this co~,unity hc~ in my car because they've
slipped on the curve. Have gone over on their bikes. Done their skateboards.
46
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 199~
The fact is, they are there. They will play there. They do get hurt. ~hey
c(~ aro%~nd those corners on that sand that's in the road and they spill. There
have been many ti~s I've sat in my front yard and watched near accidents occur
with people walking. Walking their dogs and the question coeds down to me is, I
don't want that sidewalk in my front ~uard but what's worse is to have someone
walk up to my front door and ask for an e~ergency situation to use my phone to
help s~one who was hurt in my street. And to ~ that's the worst alternative
and I don't want that to happen.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Tnank you. Anyone else? If hearing and ~cing nothing, we'll
bring it back to the Council. Wa had a motion on the floor to r~ove the
sidewalks with the issuance of the proposed Frontier Trail upgrade and a second.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we table.
Councilman Johnson: We've already got a motion on the floor.
Counctban Boyt: I'll defer it to Roger but the motion tO table has precedence.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: No it doesn't.
Councilmen Boyt: Robert's Rules. Roger, are you familiar with Robert's Rules?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, because that motion was made, it's on the floor and it
has to be removed before another ~)tion can be accepted.
Councilman Boyt: No, that's not right.
Counctl,.wo~-an Dimler: Yes it ts.
Councilman Workman: Is that Council's rules or Robert's?
Mayor Ch~,tel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: we use Council rules and Robert's Rules... I didn't happen to
bring may Robert' s Rules with me.
Councilwce~3n Dimler: If there's a mK)tion on the floor, it has to be acted on.
Councilman Boyt: The motion to table always b~- to have precedence.
Councilw~ean Dtmler: No. No. Not if there's a m~tion on the floor.
Roger Enutson: The Chair makes the decision.
Mayor Ch~iel: My. opinion that we have a m~tion on the floor with a second which
does not allow a tabling issue to cc~e in.
Councilman Boyt: I' 11 appeal the Chair.
Roger Enutson: The Chair can be appealed amd it takes a two-thirds vote to
override the Chair.
47
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilman Boyt: Well, if w~'re going to follow Robert's Rules, w~ should
follow Robert's Rules.
Councilw~van Dimmer: Well I want to see a copy..
Don Ashworth: I have a copy in my office.
Mayor Chmiel: Want to get it?
Co~cilw~van Dimmer: While w~'re doing that, I would like to have maybe make
another point here on discussion and that is, the way that Bill went around and
presented the position was with the understanding and I brought this [~ before.
I don't know how as being only one-fifth of the Council how he can come to the
conclusion that the rest of'~m would go along with the no buffer zone and
present it in that way and also make the decision that the City would upkeep the
sidewalk when that is not the present ordinance. I think that is very
presumptuous and I think that the rest of us, the rest of the four council
m~ers certainly should have a say in that. And then also, because he
presented it in such a way, I have a letter here frc~, a Therese Berquist who
signed the first petition and then she signed the second petition because she
felt that, she would like to have the no buffer zone and not m~intenance but
since that isn't the case, or nobody's made t_hat decision, she then again wrote
a letter here that I have in my possession saying that she now wants to go back
to her original petition that was circulated by. Mr. Loebl.
Councilman Johnson: Did you talk to her and tell her that Bill's petition was
wrong? Why did she change her time this tim~, do you know?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have no idea. This letter was handed to me.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond. What I said when I went to people with
the petition is if these assumptions aren't true, you won't be held to, and
nobody's held to this anyway but I m~an your signing it with a certain set of
assum~otions in front of you. Now the assumption that I was making is that if we
could work it out so the neighborhood wanted a particular type of sidewalk, that
the Council would support that. If you're telling m~ that the Council wouldn't
do what w~ could do to get a sidewalk in there, then that's a different
ballgam.~. I was ass%w, ing, because my kids go down this street. Because I know
that it's dangerous, that if we could make it safer and if the neighborhood
would accept that, that we go with it. Now I'm not representing this as saying
that the neighborhood, the majority says they %~ant it. What I'm saying to you
is that in the few houses that I was able to reach, enough people changed their
mind when given this set of ass[~v~tions that it causes me to wonder if the
initial petition accurately reflects the neighborhood. That's why we moved to
table this is to find that out. I'm not going to sit here and say...
Councilw~van Dimler: I understand that but one of the things, I have...
Councilman Boyt: Can I finish?
Councilwoman Dimler: You may. Go ahead.
48
City Co,~cil Meeting - March 12~ 199~
Councilman Boyt: I'm not suggesting to you that if the majority, of the
neighborhood doesn't ~ant the sidewalk, we ought to have it. I'm not saving
that. What I'm saying to .uou is, let's fir~ out.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Okay, and what I'm saving to .you is that ~u are saving
that the original petition was based on ass~nptions and so is ~urs. That's
what I'm trying to point out. I can't understand why you think your petition
has more weight when it's based on ass~ions and you're accusing th~ first one
to be based on assumptions as well and ~ that one has infinitely more
signatures than yours.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with your point about both petitions make assumptions
and I don't take issue with tl~ fact that the Loebl's are much more effective at
canvasing the neighborhood than I am, on a Sunday afternoon. What I'm saving to
you is that there's reasonable doubt and let's clear it up.
Councilwu~an Dimler: Okay, and the other point I want to make is if we table
this, this holds up the entire project. It is now getting towards spring. It's
going to increase the cost.
Gary Warren: Fr~ a timing standpoint, if I could Mr. Mayor, the project could
be and I would suggest in fact that the project go ahead and advertise for bids
and that we set the sidewalk up as a bid alternative. It's no added expense to
the City. The bids would cc~e in. It leaves us time because we'll at least
have 21 days basically bidding period, or a momth basically before wa get the
bids to where this could be hammered out further and where the bids co~e back in,
then we could at that time choose not to include the sidewalk.
Councilman Workman: Bill, how did you get the assumption of no individual
assessment? Would that mean the City. would pay for it?
Oouncilman Boyt: Right.
Councilman Workman: Do w~ have a cost on that?
Gary Warren: $52,g~.0g with 30% overhead.
Councilman Workman: We've said that even if it was no buffer or not no buffer?
Gary Warren: $52,~0~.0~. The raw construction cost estimate is $41,~.~0.
Mayor C2~,iel: Yeah, $4M,1MM.M0 is what we have in here.
Gary. Warren: And when you apply our adminstrative and overhead expenses, we
cam~ ,~ to about $52,00~.~. That's a generous n~.r.
Councilman Workman: Well this ~t is definitely nothing new. This
neighborhood is just like Curry Farms and every other neighborhood. We've
argued, believe it or not, ~vou can't tell, but we've argued this sidewalk issue
many, many times and Bill's ~_n in that chair and I've ~ in this one
and I 'ye ~n between these two guys who actually really like each other I know.
And we've argued this and argued this and this is a philosophical. It's come
down to a very strong philosophical question of an overall picture and an
overall plan. Bill fought very. hard for a cc~prehensive trail plan. Bill c~m~s,
49
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
I think, I'm retaking assumptions. I guess you get in trot~le doing that, where
you have sidewalks. I grew up on a street in a town where you didn't have
sidewalks. I'm living proof that you can live but this larger issue of where
does the sidewalk go? Who cleans it up? Who's got the liability? When people
are faced with that and they start to weigh things about their, I'm not through,
you very rarely get sc~,ebody that's really, really fighting to have a sidewalk
because it's a high iron, act thing. One of Bill's other issues is trees and now
we're going to be moving trees, potentially killing trees and I think you, did
we pass the ordinance for around the base?
Councilman Boyt: No, but he just mentioned it.
Councilman Workman: ...but maybe we're not. I see trees all over here that as
you constantly tell developers, the drop area around a tree can seriously affect
a tree and when you put 5 feet of concrete near it, it may not live. So unless
you can guarantee everbody out here that their trees are going to live and then
we can move ahead. The issue of safety always comes up and we've had that
argument of safety, in Curry. Farm~ and the people in Curry. Farms were basically
told that they were not very good parents because how could you be if you wanted
your kids to play on a street rather than on a 6 foot wide bit~,inous sidewalk.
I disagree with that theory. I think that issue is always ~med to raise the
specter of what, a false hope of what a sidewalk can acc(m~lish for people. If
so~Jx~y came around that corner., and I do see the speed on this road increasing
sc~~t if it's a nice road. It could beoave s(~vething of a race track but
there's no way I'm going to get behind the issue of guaranteeing people or
children that are on the sidewalk that they're going to be safe and they're
going to be totally safe. I have no idea to what degree they are more safe 5
feet over here. Last year in Milwaukee or wherever, 5 girls were killed walking
on a sidewalk. Cars go over curbs and over sidewalks. I think that's where the
Council takes the view that if these people who have to live with this high
impact piece of concrete want that or don't ~mnt that, it's not going to fit
into a comprehensive plan that we have and it's up to tbsm.
Councilman Boyt: Act~ally it does fit in the, it's on the existing
comprehensive trail plan.
Councilman Workman: Which the voters have voted down twice.
Councilman Boyt: Let' s not get into that.
Councilw~van Dim]er: Yes, let' s do. Let' s talk about what the people want Bill.
Councilman Johnson: They voted down the financing for it.
Councilman Boyt: We've got enough going without getting into the cc~,prehensive
trail plan. The issue about O~rry Fanv~ was, if you'll recall, having gone
through and talked to the neighbors in that area, that in spite of my
philosophical desires, I voted to take the sidewalk out of Curry Farms because
they said they didn't want it. All I'm saying here is, I think there's good
reason to believe we don't know what the residents want and let's have staff sit
down and talk with the residents about what can really happen and then have hhem
decide. If the ~ajority of the people don't want the sidewalk, I can accept
that. What I have a hard time accepting is that we don't have the facts out in
front of people frc~, an objective source.
50
City Oouncil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: We do. We do ~
Mayor Ch~,iel: It's been discussed quite a bit. I think everybody knows ~hat
th~ situation is. Bill's table does take precedent. All t/~se in favor.
(b~cilw~an Dimler: Was that a seconded motion?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilw0~an Dim]er: Who seconded it?
Councilman Johnson: I seconded it because I want the people to have a chance to
tell us what they. want under all the infonmation.
Councilman Boyt moved, Co~mcilman Johnson seconded to table the plans and
specifications for Frontier Trail Upgrade Improvenent Project No. 89-10 for
f~=ther citizen input regarding the sidewalk. Oouncilman Boyt and Councilman
Johnson voted in favor. Mayor Ch%iel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman
Dimler voted in opposition and the ~tion to ~hle failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Ch~iel: We have a motion on the floor.
Council~m~an Dimler: ihe motion is to ra~ve from the project of Frontier Trail
Project 89-1~, to re%ore the sidewalk frcm either the north or south side.
Roger Knutson: Are you also moving to approve the plans and specs along with
that?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, this is just to renove the sidewalk.
Mayor Ch%iel: Just to r~ove the sidewalk and then we'll discuss the other
portions of it.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to speak to it one time. It costs us absolutely
nothin~ to have the contractor's bid the sidewalk in this project and it gives
us 21 to 3~ days to get the issue resolved so I speak against your motion.
Councilwoman Dim.~er: Bill, that's what you said when the first study came up.
You said it cost us absolutely nothing to do the study so we did. My. intention
was to not split the neighborhood and this hair splittin9 is exactly what has
occurred. I don' t think you're going to change anyone's mind in 21 days. The
iss~ is pretty, well, people have made up their minds where they. are. It's not
going to change in 21 da.us. I still believe the majority and I think we should
go ahead and vote.
Mayor Chv~el: Is there a second?
Councilman Work~an: I seconded it.
Jay Legler: Exc~me me I think the issue can change and I'm not on either side
at the moment. My. ns~e is Jay Legler. I live on 7193 Frontier Trail and I ca~e
51
City Oouncil Meeting - March 12, 1990
here for the sidewalk. I really don't know where I am, right now. I didn't know
sidewalks were such a hot issue. I had one for 5 years in Eden Prairie. I
don't know if there was a law to shovel it or not. It never got shoveled. Tne
city cam~ through about twice a year with a big Bobcat. The streets were wide.
It was a straight street. We didn't r~cd them. I've lived here for 2 m~nths so
I don't know whether we need th~L or not. I took my first walk tonight but I do
know that fro~, Laredo west to my house, which is up by the circle, since
Dec~er there's been 5, includir~3 ourself, there's been 5 houses on the m~rket
and there's only probably 25 or 30 houses in there so it can change in 21 days.
Councilw~n Dimler: You think they are going to sell within 21 days?
Jay Legler: ~nat's not the point. In 2 m~)nths there's been 5 houses listed
and/or sold. That's 5 people and we've had, I don't know, 3 or 4 or 5 people
change their minds. That's my point.
Councilw~n Dim]er: Yes, but wa still have 57 to 15 right now. Tnat's quite a
majority.
Jay Legler: So in a year you take sc~e n~ers like that, throw ~, around and
in a year we can have a complete turn over in the whole neighborhood.
Councilw~m'~n Dimler: It's still quite a significant m~jority is what I'm
saying.
Jay Legler: I'm just throwing it out. It can change in 21 days.
Councilwo~n Dimler: It can change but probably not enough to change the
mmjority.
Councilm~n Johnson: Mr. Mayor? What I see is that Bill took, sam.~led the
neighborhood. Not a randc~, sample. It was scientifically a biased sample but a
very large portion of this sample switched their votes which says, statistically
speaking, that if you he had continued and was able to contact everybody that
was contacted in the first time, that he w~uld have still had a large n~er of
people change their votes. I don't know how m~ny because of the bias within the
technique of doing it, he only did the people that were hc~e that day but I have
enough feeling within me that given all the options, that there is a possibility
and a significant possibility that a mmjority of the people along Frontier
end up saying they want a sidewalk under a set of conditions. I don't know what
those set of conditions are. There are s(~ve people out there that under
absolutely no condition do they ever ~mnt a sidewalk. And that's true but I'm
not convinced right now that a majority, absolutely don't want it or a m~jority
absolutely doesn't ~ant it so I want the time to find out what our citizens
want. I don't want to use this on 3 month old info,ration where there's been
new information co~,e ~%~ and new considerations. I'm hoping to swap 1 of the 3
of you to give our citizens a chance.
Co~cilwo~n Dim]er: ~nat's been my point Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, let's give the citizens a chance to restate what they
want.
Councilwo~n Dim]er: And they have spoken.
52
City Oo,~cil Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: They. spoke 3 months ago under a different set of
circ~%stances. Give them a new set of circ~~. Let's see ~hat they want
now. Let's not restrict ~. Handcuff the~ to what they. said under a
different set of circ~ns~.
Co,~cilw~an Dim]er: (kay, at this point then I would like to have someone,
Gary. or someone address the feasibility of having the sidewalks only without a
buffer zone. Is that feasible? Is that done? What are the problems?
Gary. Warren: Yes it's feasible and it has been done. The City. of Minneapolis
has sidewalks all over the place basically and road signs, they have house to
house delivery of mail so they. don't have the mailbox issue but they have actual
road, they have inserts built into the sidewalk for replacev~nt of street signs
and poles and such and I guess I haven't done a survey. It's not an
ins, u~ountable problev, fr~m an engineering standpoint.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mailboxes are not an insurmountable probl~,? What's
likely to happen to them?
Gary. Warren: I guess we all can use our own imaginations. I don't know. The
signs th~elves, frcm a maintenance standpoint, can be done with inserts. We
can put those in so they can replaced if a car hits a road sign and they have to
be replaced. Th~ same thirg we face with the downtown situation.
Bill Loebl: One more brief c~m%ent Mr. Mayor and Council. The neighborhood
that is under discussion is an older neighborhood. The nm,bet of people with
s~all children is, if you ~ant to be blunt, in a ~dnority again. This is ~
most of the people that I spoke with are against tt~ sidewalk. They. don't r._~
sidewalks. Tney're careful. If you Fake 1~% survey, I think you will find
that the number of fs~.ilies with s%all children at the present tim~ is probably
fewer than 10. The rest of them are all adults. Thank you.
Mayor Ch~iel: Thank you Bill. Okay. Discussions we've ~_n having back and
forth and throwing the ball around. It appears as though it cc~es tim~ for us
to cc~ to decision making. I know that we've discussed this many. times at many
m~etings and even though there appears to be sc~e people here who are undecided,
I still see where the majority, is still in the rule and I would call a question
on the particular issue at this t/me.
Councilw~an Dimler ~ved, Councilman Workman seconded to re%ove the sidewalks
frcm either the north or south side of Frontier Trail. Ail voted in favor
except Co~mcil~an Boyt and Councilman Johnson ~ho opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, in addition, let's get a ~tion for Frontier Trail upgrade
excluding sidewalks from Highland Drive to Kio~ Circle.
Co~cilwu~an Dimler: Okay. I do have a few other points on this, as soon as we
settle down. Don't all leave. We're not done. We only did sidewalks. I have
a question of Gary and that ~s, I believe that the original cost ~s based on a
31 foot roadway and now we're proposing a 26 foot. Is that correct?
53
City Council ~=etlng - March 12, 1990
Gary Warren: 27 wasn't it?
Bill Englehardt: 27, yes.
Councilwo~.an Dimler: 27? Okay. Also, I see that you've added about
$120,000.00 more to the cost and the explanation that was given that this was
due to poor soils and a conservative esti~mte. I guess I would like you to
expand a little bit about on that. I can't see that im~rovirg the soil is going
to cost $120,000.00. Is that what you're saying?
Gary. Warren: I've asked Bill to look at his cost estimate to justify, that
number.
Bill Engelhardt: Gary and I have talked about this over the last w~ek n~.,erous
times and looking at the n[m~ers, what we've tried to do is take into account
through the various hc~=owner ~etings, so~ of the concerns about in and out
during the construction zone. One of the potential proble~ we have up there is
if we get rain, if we get a wet season for example. Tne last couple of years
have been very fortunate and had dry years. If we get a wet season, we can't
allow those roads to just sit and dry out and work them back and forth. We're
going to have to do certain things and the things that you're going to have to
do is take out the wet area. Put in dry ~terial, which w~uld have to be hauled
in. Put dow~ a fabric ~'~terial and then put your rock base on it so what I've
done is I've included ite~.~ like that in the bid. ~/nere was about $65,000.00
worth of its~s and that incl~es excavation. Bringing in the borrowed ~aterial
and putting the fabric down. Now if we get good weather this construction
season and we find that a contractor is proceeding very. well, those it~v~ would
not be used and they would not be paid for. They're bid on the per quantity
basis so it's kind of a thing where you want to be conservative and F~ybe in
this case we might have been a little bit too conservative but I think it gives
our chances up there of having a good successful project a little bit better and
the odds of getting it completed a little bit better by doing things, putting
the things we put in there.
Councilw~van Dim]er: So you're saying you added the $120,000.00 t_hat you may
not ~tse at all?
Bill ~gelhardt: I've added $65,000.00 worth of extra q%~qntity in there that we
F~y or ~y not use. I feel that we have to have sc~thing like that in there
from the nat~tre of the project so if we have problems with rain, we have
proble~ with mud getting people in and out, we have to have the ability to use
those quantities versus coming in later on and saying oh my gosh, the project
over ran by $120,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you.
Gary Warren: This w~uld be a unit price contract as you're familiar with so
we'll have to pay as we go so if we don't need the fabric and other things, as
Bill ~'~_ntioned, we won' t pay for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: There's a citizen there and I'd also like to discuss this.
54
City Oouncil Meeting - March 121 1990
Arlis Bovey, 7339 Frontier Trail: I would Just like to have some reassurance
that where this new road is tore out, that I have s~me protection down on my
corner because on tw~ different occasions ~hen the road was being worked on.
I've ~ there for 28 years. Once they take those curbs out, I'm wide open for
the ~atershed coming down the hill and I have lost a lot of property on the hill
frc~ this happening before. In 1987 when w~ had the big wasP,)ut, I had my own
engineer co~e down and check it out as to ~ it happened. ~ney specifically
said that it was because there was no curbs. The curbs were flat in front of my
ho~e and I took on all the water. ~his in turn cost me $7,300.00. I can't
take that again. I can't stand that loss again. I'm going to have to have
protection down there so when he's speaking of extra materials, I hope that I'll
be included. Our area will be included to be sandbagged, anything at the time
that it's being, the road is being torn out because this leaves us wide open and
it does happen.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Gary, what precautions do we take in a situation as such?
~ry Warren: Well we've done I guess 2 things to address Arlis' concern. One
is that we have added catch basins into the design to intercept water further
upstreav,. That's one of the part of tl~ problems is that th~ water to this
point in time has been allo~d to c~me down stream until it hits the bend and
pops the c~rb there. The ston% sewer s.ust~% that is in tbe plans extends
upstream, to catch the water. To get it off the street earlier plus right at the
tangent which is just adjacent to Mrs. Bo~ey's residence, we've added double
catch basins and we've increased tt~ size of the storm sewer proposed for that
area fr~m 18 inch to a 21 inch dia%eter storm sewer so we basically, our
traditional design is to ~~date a 1~ year storm. I don't know Bill, with a
21 inch, we m~t be up to a 50 year storm? Yeah, so we've gotten very.
conservative at some additional expense but we think that's been appropriate to
allow storm water to be captured in this area at that t~e. During construction
the first elements that will be done as we proceed through the construction will
be the r~,oval of bit~inous and the establishment or r~oval of the subgrade
and start working on the ~t utility first and work our way up. So we will
require the contractor as a part of his erosion control plan to be sandbagging
or acc~m~,odating the existing road runoff as this window of construction moves
to the roadway. So what we will be working with ths~ daily to see that he is
both protecting the environment and the h~meowners as far as runoff events.
Arlis Bovey: Weekends are a time, twice I've had it happen on w~ekends also
w~_re I've been flooded out. They'll tear out the road and they leave for the
w~ekend and them the hard rains will come and well, no one is around. So these
are things that I really have to be very, very concerned about. Thank you.
Mayor (~iel: Justifiably so. Thank you.
Bill Loebl: Cme ~re quick question. During the construction, which apparently
is going to proceed now, what arrangements will be made for ~%ergency during day
and night? I'm concer~ because we had this fire right in hack of our property
a few weeks ago and if there's a construction in front of our house, how do the
fire trucks or the av~lances get through if the road is blocked for a certain
length of time?
55
City Co, moil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Gary Warren: It's a day to day control that our inspectors and engineers work
with the contractor to see that access is Fzude available to the sites in the
evening. Tnat the road is Fade passable for at least an e~ergency vehicle to
get in. We also are including in the spec that the contractor be required to
provide access on a 24 hour basis for e~rgency vehicles. So if that ~eans that
he has to have a 4 wheel drive vehicle on site or sc~,ething to see that
~rgency vehicles can pass, that's what he will be responsible to do. We also
are not looking, fortunately w~ do not have the long cul-de-sac issue such that
we only have one access into these properties. At the most we will have one
residence that will have the construction in front of it at one particular time
so if a vehicle, if a fire tr,~k couldn't get in say from the south, he can co~
in frc~ the Big Horn Drive area and get in frc~, the north and that will be
coordinated with the fire rescue people on a daily basis to let the~ know where
we are with our construction.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions?
Arlis Bovey: I didn't quite understand how they're going to get in touch with
this 4 wheel vehicle if there's a ~ to get out or get in.
Gary. Warren: We will coordinate through the public safety department and the
Sheriff' s office.
Arlis Bovey: In other words, we call the sheriff?
Gary. Warren: Right. You still use your 911 if there's an ~ergency and he will
know where our construction is and who to contact if there's any difficulty. Our
public works staff also will, I H~an we're closest in the neighborhood typically
and we also, Dale Gregory our Fire Chief is also our parks for~n and we do a
lot of sharing of people to see that we can pr(~,ptly respond to ~rgencies.
Arlis Bovey: So we would be protected?
Gary. Warren: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Hearing none, disc~lssion.
Council~mn Johnson: Yeah, I was just about to bring that %%~. Of course I'm
bringing it up to the opposite of what you want so you'll probably ~ant to talk
afterwards. Any tiF~ I see an assess~,ent that, you know there's 2 ways to
assess. By. unit or by. front footages. When I see as big of a gap between the
two methods and where it is so overous upon such a few houses, I have to think
that the front footage is unfair to the few. There are sc~tiF~s in this world
you have to be, you can't just say oh, it's better for the ~ajority so we can be
unfair to this few. This is one of those places where those people who are on a
curve and have a very large amount of land front footage wise, are going to have
to pay a lot for having the street iF, proved in front of their house and they're
not receiving 3 times or 4 ti~=s the amount of benefit the person that has a
very narrow frontage is. To me this see~.~ to be a type of project that we can
justify going on the unit basis to all the benefitting homes. That would be the
group on Kiowa Circle there because they're benefitting because that's the
street, one of their primary streets. Now they're off of the exact street. I
think they should be assessed but Faybe at a different rate because they're not
56
City Oouncil Meeting -March 12, 1990
exactly right on the street. Maybe a half assessment or s~ething to that group
of homeowners.
Co~cil~an Dimler: Then when ~u use the street we'll assess you.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We are assessing me because a lot of this is being
paid for out of the general funds. Ckay? ~ne ~hole city is being assessed.
Councilwc~an Dimmer: Yeah but so are we but you're talking about another...
Co,.~ilman Johnson: I'm talking about the people ~ho use it ever2day. In order
to get out of their houses on Kiowa Trail, they. have to use Frontier.
Oo~F~ilwuman Dim]er: We go out the other way.
Oouncilman Johnson: Yeah, but you still go on Frontier. Is it into Kiowa?
There's not going to be an~re construction once it gets...
Councilwoman Dim, ler: Frontier ends right there at King's hc~e and then it
bec~es or it goes off into the new develolmv~nt.
Councilman Johnson: So you never go to th~ school? You never go the otbe__r
Councilw~an Dim]er: I go the other way.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. But anyway, I still think the unit is more, a fairer
m~thod even though it is prejudicial against the majority, it is fairer overall.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I guess I have a c~ment to make to that. I would agree
with reducing the cost. However, instead of, you know the petition has already
~ circulated that most people, again the majority, wanted the front footage
assessment. I would propose to go along with that but there are t~D proposals
to reduce the cost. One, now that the sidewalk is out. The money, that would
have been allocated to the sidewalk, let's add that to the project to reduce the
cost. That's to the tune of about $5~,~.~. And the other one would be that
we go with the split. Instead of the traditional 4~/6~, that ~m go with the
7~/30 since we have evidence by. Mr. Scholler. He testified to tl~ fact that the
City did approve this substandard road and also the Brown report testified to
the fact that this was a substandard road to begin with. Therefore, I would
propose a 7~/30. That would reduce the cost to all the owners and also put the
$5~,~0.0~ in that we would have used for the sidewalk to reduce the cost.
Co, u~cilman Johnson: Are you saying Ursula since the minority of the people in
this town are black that we shouldn't let any of the~ because the majority may
not ~ant? I mean that's the same arg~ae~ts. Exactly same arg~v~mts. We are
prejudicing this project against a minority, because they own on a curve.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. Not at all.
Tc~., Pzynski: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a c(mnv~nt. Tom Pzynski again. 7340
~onti~ ~ail. I ~ ~~re ~t ~ as~~t is~ ~ goi~ ~ ~ ~ at
~ ~ti~ ~night ~ I ~s ~e~ring ~ ~fo~tion for ~t at a lair
~ but I've ~n~~ ~ f~ 2 r~ es~ a~rai~rs. ~ ~t did my ~~
l~t t~ ~ it ~t ~ for ~le ~ ~o~ ~ ~ 7 r~l~rs ~t ~e ~
57
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
this Farket, that t_hat's what they do. They appraise real estate for sale and
categorically all of theft say it doesn't Fake a darn bit of difference by square
foot what kind of road you've got in front of your house. It Fakes no
difference. They don't assess a F. mrket value of your house based on the square
footage of road you have in front of your house. Tney just don't do it. So if
that's the rationale, it's a mznrket value thing. It adds to the market value of
your house. Yeah, it does but it's even across the board as far as I'm
concerned.
Councilman Worknan: I'm not sure what we've done historically but for my
c(m~fort level and again, we don't have much history on this but we need s(~
historical basis for ~king this decision rather than, I F~an because another
road is going to cc~ up and another road's going to c(~e up and we can't keep
changing it. While this road isn't quite as curvy, as Frontier Trail so we
should go with this. I don't know what's, how we should. I think we should set
a standard and apparently we don't have any standard Don Ashworth? Beally.
Councilman Boyt: This is the first ti~.
Don Ashworth: You're talking about the amount of GO...
CouncilFan Work~n: I mean how to go square foot or unit. If we've got that, I
think the only thing we can do is go by what we've historically done in fairness
to prior projects and in fairness to future projects to do. You know personally
I don't care but it's sc~thing that I think we have to have a basis for.
Councilwc~an Dim]-er: I understand that. I want to Fake it perfectly clear that
I do not want to set a precedent for other roads in the city with the 70/30.
However, since it is proven here that this was substandard to begin with...
Councilman Work~an: No, I'm talking about a square foot versus unit.
Councilw~.an Dim]er: Oh okay. Yeah.
Council~mn Work~an: And that's another arg~nent that so~nds like half good and
I don't know what to base that on but I'm saying...
Councilwoman Dimler: W~ll we've aiways gone by...
Council~an Johnson: Not always. Bluff Creek was by unit.
Councilwo~an Dim]er: Because it was what?
Councilman Johnson: Because of the sit,ration and it was more fair by unit.
Councilwoman Dim]er: It was State Aid wasn't it?
Councilm~n Johnson: Well, State Aid and also because of the huge sizes of thsm.
Gary Warren: W~ had off line units. ~ had Hesse Farm off street frontage that
was benefitting. That was their only access.
Co[mcil~n Johnson: Right. Similar to what I was saying for Kiowa. I think
you have to take it, each one. It see~ that you can defend Faybe front footage
58
~City Council Meeting - Ma~ch 121 1990
easier in a color which shouldn' t be what we're looking at is what we can defend
easiex but what is tt~ fair thing for that situation. Not every situation is
the same. It's up to us...
Oo~cil~m%an Dimler: Okay, but again the survey has already been done of the
neighbors and it came out in favor of the front footage.
Councilman Johnson: Of course it w~uld.
Councilw~z~n Dimler: Yeah, because of the few. Right. And also I don't see
why you should institute Kio~a Circle in there an~more than anybody else. You
know, just go with the Frontier people then if you're going to go pe~ unit with
Frontier. my include Kiows Circle?
Councilman Johnson: For the ~ reason that we did it at Bluff Creek.
Councilwc~n Dimmer: Who did y~u include that wasn't right on?
Gary Warren: Hesse Farm Subdivision.
Coumcilm~n Johnson: Hesse Fazms.
Gary Warren: But that ~s because that ~s their only access. Bluff Creek
their only way.
Councilw~n Dimler: ~e have other access. Kiowa Circle does.
Councilman Bo~c: Excuse me. You know, the meeting's getting to be fairly
lengthy for some good reasons I suspect but this particular issue isn't going to
get voted on tonight. We're not going to vo~e on t/~ asses~nt tonight. We
can't even if we ~nted to so I'd really like to see us move further ahead.
Councilwc~mn Dimler: Although it w~s in here in the rec~a~m~dation that the
front footage assess~t...
Mayor (hv~el: Tais is just authorizing the advertising for bids. Basically is
what it is.
Councilm~n Boyt: Right. Whole different topic and that asses~nt thing, I'm
s,=e that's worth a couple hours and this probably isn't the best time to do it.
Mayor (2m, iel: I agree.
Councilw~n Dimler: Otherwise, I move the approval of the plans and
specifications for Frontier Trail upgrade and authorizing advertising for bids
project 89-10 with the r~%oval of the sidewalk which we've already voted on.
Mayor (~v, iel: Is there a second?
59
City Co~ncil Meeting - March 12, 1990
Resolution $90-33: Councilwo~mn Dimler ~'~)ved, Councilmmn Workm~n seconded to
approve Plans and Specifications for Frontier Trail Upgrade Im~rov~,ent Project
89-10 without the sidewalk and authorize the advertising for bids. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER ANIMAL ORDINANCE AM]~DMENT REGARDING CLEANING UP AFTER ANIMALS ON
PUBLIC GROUNDS, FIRST READING.
Co~mcil~n Johnson: ~nis is a proposal to have a pooper scooper ordinance in
town making it, mostly watching. There's already a rule against having dogs in
city parks and on school grounds but people still do it. I think that when
s~ebody brings their dog and does a job in my yard or in the front property in
front of my yard, I'd like to see them, carry that along with them instead of
just leaving it behind. It doesn't take anything other than carrying a plastic
sack with you. If you're bright you ~m.~t your hand inside, invert the sack, grab
it and you're done. This is extr~ly easy to enforce. The only thing is you
have to see the violation occur. (~r animal control people are out there enough
that other cities enforce th~L. I think it's enforceable. I've lost my
opposition here to it. I think dogs have rights but they have rights only in
their own yard as far as I'm concerned. When I used to have a f~ale dog and go
in heat, boy I'd have all kinds of dogs around in my yard. I know it w~sn't my
little Pekinese or my Shelton Sheep dog.
Councilwc~n Dimler: Any further diso.msion?
Council,'mn Boyt: Yeah. &~re. I think it' s a good idea. I know it' s probably
not going to pass but and I say this as a dog owner who is going to be ~x~t at
s~ve inconvenience but it's a justified inconvenience. What the heck. We ought
to have it. I m~an we have it now hit we don't have it clearly stated. I'm
sure that through one of our nuisance ordinances, if the deputies were so
inclined, they could enforce that but I like this because it cleans it ~p.
Co~ncilmmn Johnson: I'd like to see us, related to this, get out there about
6:00 in the ~)rning at the grade school and nail those folks who go out there
every m~)rning at 6:00 in the morning. I've said it before. I'd like to see us
bring our CSO's on a little earlier so we can get it or in the evening.
Councilwom~n Dimler: Okay, let's talk about violations then. How do you go
about enforcing and prosecuting?
Council,'mn Johnson: Well you hand th~; a ticket. Same thing you do with any
misd~anor. You write th~ a ticket and then if they protest the ticket you go
to co~rt and it's the CSO's eye witness version of it versus the dog owner's.
Councilmmn Boyt: I suspect what ~uld happen would be a little m~)re generous
than that given the way we generally do or don't enforce our ordinances. In all
likelihood an owner would be warned. It would probably be as a result of a
known problem., area w~uld be m~ guess and we've got one of those that the City's
working on right now.
Councilw~v~n Dimler: Jim, do you w~nt to address this?
60
.City Oo,~cil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
J~ Chaffee: Yes I would. I just have one question and Faybe it's for Roger.
The way I read the ordinance as proposed would mean that any. homeowner also
would have to clean up the feces fray. his .yard. Is that correct?
Roger Enutson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Even if it ~sn't their dog? Is that what .uou're saying?
Jim, Chaffee: Well the way I read it, it says that every, occupant of a dwelling
unit shall clean ~p the feces in his yard so I j,mt ~mnted to point that out.
Councilwoman Dimmer: Okay, does that mean though if I don't own a dog but a
neighbor's dog does it on my lawn, that I'm responsible to clean it up because I
can't prove who's dog it was?
Jim, Chaffee: The way it reads right now, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Well it's either that or .uou get to leave it.
Co~cilw0~an Dim]er: Well I don't ~nt to get a ticket for leaving it in my own
yard if I decide it makes good fertilizer. You understand what I'm saying?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And then there's a lot of discretion going there
too. In the m~tddle of the winter after a snowfall, you don' t know what was lmlt
there d~%ring the snow. You know, you let the dog out. You can' t go out and
find it when you've got a fenced back yard or whatever.
Mayor Chv, iel: Well you know Jay thot,~h, some of you feel this is almost a
necessity. I feel that there a lot of people, w~ll I shouldn't say a lot but
just recently on Lake Lucy. Road there were sc~ people walking with their dog
and ~ did pick ~ behind their dog.
Co,.~cilman Johnson: Well I'm sure there are people out there doing it but
there's a lot of people out there who aren' t. I saw a gentleman over in Chan
Hills, whatever behind ~Donalds there and he was carrying one of those little
pooper scooper jobs you know that you can buy. in tl~ store. So I stopped and
talked to him, about it and told him. he's the first guy. I've ever seen in
Chanhassen with that. I've ~ it in Minneapolis. I'm not too, the Lakeville
ordinance where they talk about the private owners resident, I had a little
probl~ on that side of it in that how often. It ~ kind of a problem. If
you've got a dog run and do l~)u have to go out there every evening and clean
your dog run or it depends upon how many. dogs you had, lots of things as to how
much of a nuisance it is in your back-yard. But I definitely, you know we've
gotten our neighbors now that keep track on their dog when they. let him out. In
fact because of enforcement from our CSO's, there are several dogs now in our
neighborhood on leashes that the new people that moved in on the next
neighborhood over didn't think there ~s a leash law or sc~=thing but they have
finally enforced the leash law and we have a lot less dogs running loose now
than we've had for years. This is just one more piece. I know people who don' t
own dogs and they find in their yards are very upset.
Councilman Workman: Are you talking about yards or public places?
61
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilman Johnson: Both. Tne Lakeville ordinance will cover other people's
yards the w~y it's written too. As far as I'm concerned, if it's a ~lic
place, it's doing it on the City property and if it's in a private yard, that's
even worse.
Co~ncilman Workman: We already have that law don't we?
Councilman Johnson: Just under general nuisance.
Co, u~cilm~n Boyt: I think we'd have a health hazard if it ~as very serio,~.
Roger Knutson: You have the leash law so it shouldn't be getting on other
people' s yards probably.
Councilman Johnson: Sure. You walk a dog.
Councilman Workman: You walk them on the sidewalks.
Councilm~n Boyt: (~lr leash law is under control. I don't think it's a matter
of on a leash. It's ~u~der control.
Councilm.~n Johnson: No. It's under control?
Co~u~cilman Workm~n: Yep. As long as the dog is within so m~ny feet of you I
think. As long as you can call the dog back.
Don Ashworth: If they're walking on Laredo right here and the dog stops by the
apartments and goes onto basically private property and I still have the leash
in my hand, the owner has in that instance done nothing wrong. We can't cite
him.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Councilman Johnson: If a dog's trespassing on my front yard and the owner can
call him., back, the owner standing on the street.
Councilm~n workm~n: The way I ' ve read it.
Councilmmn Johnson: Now if he does something on my yard and then the owner's,
right now does the owner have to go clean ~?
Councilm.~n Workman: No, you're in violation then.
Councilman Johnson: My kids have to clean [%~, to tell you the truth.
Roger Knutson: If you own property and I see you walking up and your dog is
walking across my property, I can say get off m~ property with your dog or
you're trespassing and you have to leave.
Don Ashworth: Right but if in the meantime the dog has left a deposit, that's
my problem?
Roger Knutson: There is no ordinance on the subject.
62
City Council Meeting -March 12~ 1990
Co~cil~n Johnson: Because he's no longer trespassing once he's done his job
and left.
Councilman Workman: You could get up and throw it at your neighbor.
Co~mcil~n Johnson: Most of my neighbors are bigger than me.
Co~u%cilm~n Boyt: If the sense of the Council is that this would pass if it Ms
limited to public property, I think I'd like to see us start somewhere.
Co~u~cilman Workm~n: I do this now so. I have a dog and when I go to a park,
I have a baggy and whatever and I clean it up. I was trained in Minneapolis.
Council~n Johnson: How does the Council feel about once ~ have sc~thing like
this that right now there's a restriction that dogs aren't allowed in city
parks.
Councilm~n Workm~n: I would vehemently oppose it.
Councilm~n Johnson: Allowing a dog in a city park?
Co~ncil~mn Workman: To allow a dog in a city park, you bet. Where s~ I going
to throw a frisbee with my dog?
Council~n Johnson: In your yard I guess if you can't do it in a city park.
CounciLm~n Workm~n: I r=~ more rock.
Councilm~n Johnson: You just said ~>u opposed the~, going into city parks.
Councilman Workman: Going. Going and leaving a deposit in the city park.
Councilm~n Johnson: (lb. See right now dogs are not allowed in city parks by
city ordinance right now.
Councilm~n Workman: They aren't? Well I'm in big violation.
Councilman Boyt: And you're admdtting it on public TV.
Coumcil~n Johnson: Did you take that down?
Jim, Chaffee: I did. I'd like to caution the Council on just one thing. I'd
like not to see our CSO's becoe~ pooper snoopers. That's a joke.
Councilm~n Johnson: I'm not saying they're going to go out and patrol in
partic~lax. When they're on patrol and they see this, as in any other
violation, they should write a ticket for it. Same as a dog not on a leash or
anything else they do.
Jim Chaffee: We can certainly handle it.
Councilm~n Johnson: They won't be out there hiding behind bushes saying, hey is
that dog going to, you know. So I guess what we'd like to do tonight is give
directions to Roger either to continue this effort or to stop the effort. I
63
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
like the Lakeville ordinance better than the Bloc~;ington ordinance. The
Bloc~,ington ordinance was pretty vague. I think that we can handle an owner's
own probl~,...
Mayor Chv, iel: Is this just going to be dog and cat or...
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'd like to change it to animal too because we've got
horses and stuff aro~%nd here. When scm~_body c~s riding their horse down
Lake Lucy, whatever, I'd ~mke this not just dog but this w~uld be an animal. I
~'~an if sc~'~ebody w~nted to do their boa constrictor, I'm not s~.lre w~ether I'd
try to enforce it.
Roger Knutson: Have you thought about the problem with cats?
Councilm~n Boyt: Yeah, let's shoot the,.
Co%uncilm~n Johnson: Yeah. Well they have to be on a leash.
Councilwo~n Dim]er: Who said that on ~m%blic television?
Roger Knutson: ...req%lire cats effectively to be leashed.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like this just to read animals per se. Cats too. I've
got a sandbox out there. My kids go out and play with. When they go and play
in the sandbox, they find out how re. any cats are loose.
Co~ncilmmn Boyt: Well we tried to change that one tim~ about...
Councilm~n Workmmn: We don't need this animal feces law in a park because no
person shall be permitted to take any animml, including but not limited to dogs
and cats into a park. So if they can't go in there, t_hey can't go in there.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not jilt worried about parks. Street right-of-ways.
The City Hall. The school. They're not allowed on the school property either.
People doing it on other people's property. Or not people doing it, dogs doing
it. Animals doing it. In Texas I had the other probl~, but it was a little 3
year old. So I'd like to move this forward to the next stage which is I guess
to have an ordinance drafted for the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to get in~x~t frc~, the citizens too as to what they
think about this ordinance.
Councilmmn Johnson: You can see how m~ny showed up tonight for this one.
Councilm~n Workman: Well get the word out because Minneapolis was discussing
this, they had a heck of a tim~. It was unbelieveable.
Roger Knutson: That's when you talk about cats.
Co~bncilsan Workm~n: And they had people specifically patrolling the parks
looking for this and there were $50.00 fines.
Co~nciLman Johnson: ~t there were a lot of joggers, there's a lot of jogging
and stuff around those lakes and whatever. My wife and my kids w~nt out to the
64
City Oo,.~ncil Meeting - March 12, 1990
grade school one spring and cleaned up the grade school frc~, what ~as left over
fr~, the winter before. It was amazin~ how much they. picked up.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Well let's drop that subject.
Councilman Boyt: Let's m~ve, moving forward, why. don't we direct staff to do
this. I would Fake a ~tion to direct staff to clean up the dog litter
ordinance and bring it back to us.
Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second it.
Councilman Bo.vt m~ved, Oouncilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to draft an
ordinance regarding cleaning up after animals for the City. of Chanhassen. All
voted in favor and the ~tion carried.
EARTH DAY, PROPOSfD 1990 P~.
Todd Gerhardt: ~nis is a real appropriate item after the last discussion. At
the last Council meeting brought up the issue of Earth Day. Attached is a
quarterly news letter regarding Earth Day Bevisited. Earth Day was established
20 y~ars ago in 1970 and it was done in recognition of preserving and
beautifying our Minnesota enviror~nt. Before the m~-~ting started tonight I
handed out a resolution establishing April 22nd as Earth Day. If it's Council's
wishes, staff would rec~r~md passing that resolution tonight and that w~ create
an Earth Day/Arbor Day celebration on April 27th at which time we would give
away 3,000 tree ~lings.
Councilman Johnson: Don't we do that every, year?
Cou~cilm~n Boyt: Not every ¥~ar.
Todd Gerhardt: I've done it the last 3 years.
Councilman Johnson: That's not really what I'd call celebrating Earth Day is
doing the sam~ thing we've done on Arbor Day and doirg it on Arbor Day.
Councilw~van Dim]er: I think it's a good idea.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see a little more. I'd like to see our
Recycling Cc~,ittee get involved and use scme kind of recycling tbsv~. We're
just starting a new recycling program.
Mayor C~tel: Clean UP our rivers.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Maybe have s(~thing about non-point source
pollution. Maybe wa could get s~. to c~me in. Of course ~ would show
up but the...non-point source pollution is a big thing but I'd like to do a
little more than pass out the trees.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I thought one of the objections here was to get public
involvement too and I don't think we're going to get the public to cc~e and
listen to a point source pollution.
65
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: But the recycling part. If we can ~ybe get sc~.~thing
through the schools to do a, have the kids Fakes recycling posters to be
displayed here at City Hall or sc~thing.
Mayor Ch%iel: That Fay not be a bad idea all through town.
Co~mcilm. an Johnson: Yeah and see if we can post the~, at vario~%s businesses
throughout town. Get the Chamber involved. Whatever. A little more than what
we've done every other year for Arbor Day.
Todd Gerhardt: Should we run a contest?
Mayor Chr, iel: I think that w~uld be a good idea. And each specific grade
within the City.
Todd Gerhardt: Chan El~_ntary?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Chan El~Lentary. St. Hubert' s.
Councilman Boyt: We'd best go up to the Minnetonka end of town since half of
the students live there.
Mayor Chv, iel: Yeah, any school within the school district.
Councilmmn Johnson: Just the el~ntary, 1 thro[~3h 5.
Councilw(~an Dim.]er: No, 8. St. Hubert's has 1 through 8. Are you going to
exclude the 6, 7 and 8th graders?
Co~%cilm. an Boyt: We won't be able to judge the quality of their artwork when
they start getting that good.
Mayor Chmiel: I ' ve judged those.
Councilman Johnson: I like the kindergarters the best.
Councilman Workm~n: What do we got to do to move this here?
Co~u~cilw~van Dim.~er: I'm just saying that that age group is im, portant to be
involved in recycling right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilwc~an Dim]er: They're the ones that are going to help with the c,~rbside
stuff.
Councilman Johnson: Talk to the recycling co~,ittee. They may already have
so~ ideas and we're getting...coordinator.
Councilw0~an Dim]er: Okay, I move it~v~ n~.~er 8 as disc~%ssed.
Councilman Workman: Second.
66
City Council Meeting - March 12, 199M
Mayor C~tel: Also to include the resolution?
Councilwoman Dimmer: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler m~m~d, Councilman Workman secor~]ed bo approve a Resolution
declaring April 22, 199M as Earth Day in the City. of Chanhassen. All voted in
favor and the ~)tion carried.
DRUG A~ARENESS P~ UPDATE, MAYOR CHMIEL.
Mayor Chv, iel: I'll go over this one real quick. So as to keep the Council
aware as to what has taken place. You see before you a letter that was sent out
to the clergy within the City. We all attanded a meeting was held on March 6th
and it was well attended. We had the clergy, fr~, Assa%blies of God, St.
Hubert's, Family of Christ Lutheran Church, Colonial Church, Lutheran Church of
Living Christ, Westside Baptist Church and ~oly Cross Lutheran Church.
Councilman Johnson: That's about everybody isn't it?
Mayor Ch%iel: Tried to and if we missed anyone, we're sorry. I'll be more than
happy, to sit down with them, individually if they'd like to. Margie Karjalahti
also gave her specific presentation on, You've Got to be Kidding. Ever~. was
in agr~t and concurrence that they thought it's a good program. That we
should proceed with what we're proposirg to do in relationship to the Drug
Awareness Program, and hope~llly getting ths~, to assist us, all the clergy, to
assist as well, in one of ~ or an appointed representative to sit on that
specific board. ~_re's going to be a press release in the newspapers
indicating our concerns frc~, the Council and askirg people to serve on this
specific com%ittee and setting out who we're looking for. Other than that,
hopefully we'll get some people who will be interested in participation and the
elimination of dr~s within the City of (2mnhas~. So other than that, it's
just strictly as an informational kind of it~% just to let you know where it's
at. I don' t think we ~ any action.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I think we do. I think the City, as I recall, you
certainly deserve credit for spearheading this thing but I think it's a city.
effort and I think the press release should be approved by the City Council.
Mayor C2~,iel: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Boyt: It's his deal, why don't you m~)ve it.
Mayor Chv, iel: I ' 11 move approval.
Councilman Boyt: I' 11 second it.
Mayor C~,iel m~ved, Councilman Boyt seconded approving the press release to be
presented in the newspapers regarding the Drug Awareness Program. All voted in
favor and the m~)tion carried.
67
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chniel: Bill? Tractor trailers, Metro clean-up and TH 101 and West 78th
Street.
Council~an Boyt: On the tractor trailers. In talking to Jim Chaffee about
what I perceive as a probl~,, tractor trailers. In Gary's report earlier he
F~ntioned that M=Donalds is going to be going through the Planning Cc~,ission to
change their lot and access to their lot to accommodate tractor trailers.
When I asked him what's happening to the~, now, he said well they're parking on
Lake Drive East. I would suggest that we need to post no parking signs on Lake
Drive East because that's clearly not appropriate for th~, and when they park
there, we should warn th~: to move their trailer.
Council~an Work~an: Where are they going to F~)ve them to?
CouncilFan Boyt: They're going to move tb~a~, probably to TH 5. There isn't a
place to park a tractor trailer on Lake Drive East and they shouldn't be
encouraged to do that.
Councilw0~an Dimler: Do you ~ant them to park on TH 5?
Councilman Boyt: They're not.
Council~an Johnson: They're just not going to go to McDonalds.
Councilman Boyt: We don't have currently. Now Faybe given it through the
Planning Cc~mission and such we will have but currently we don't have a place to
a~.odate tractor trailers and we shouldn't have ~, park on that road.
CouncilFan Johnson: There's not F~lch roo~, once a tractor trailer parks there.
Mayor Chaiel: No, I agree but.
Councilw~an Dimler: They've got to stop for lunch.
councilman Boyt: But they have to pick a spot that's reasonable to acco~,~a~
a tractor trailer.
Councilwoman Dimler: Where is that?
councilman Boyt: Well Ursula, that's not my point.
where they're currently doing it.
My. point is it's not safe
Councilman Johnson: If it's not safe for the City, that's another possibility.
Mayor Ch~,iel: I guess what you're saying is that safety, is a factor with us.
~nere's not enough room to get through with other vehicles or it could be a
problem,. In the event that these people want to stop to get something to eat,
I don't know where TH 5, there isn't any place for them to stop. And I agree
that that's not the place for th~n to be is on Lake Drive either.
Councilwc~n Dimler: They can't pull into McDonalds?
68
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Mayor C~,iel: No.
Councilw~mmn Dim]er: They can't make the corner?
Councilman Boyt: But the point is, w~ don't want to create an unsafe situation
so they can get a ~Donalds hamburger. I don't know ~ahat ~den Prairie's doing
but I know that in Chanhassem that's just not a good plan for us.
Co,~ncilman Workman: Do you have any idea how many. trucks this is? ~Donalds is
proposing to expand thei~ operation to service trucks?
Pa~l Krauss: Mr. Mayor if I can address that. We've been w~rking with
M~Donalds over the last tw~ months. They're proposing several expansions. One
is for their parking lot to the east basically to ~odate tractor trailers
and the ability, to have them, turn on site which they. can not presently do mow.
Apparently one tractor trailer did try to go through the drive up and there was
a huge boulder that, they. pushed a huge boulder out into the street and required
a bulldozer to push it back. M~Donalds is also looking to expand seating in the
restaurant itself so it's a ccmprehensive proposal. We expect to have that on
the Planning (km~,ission I believe on April 4th.
Councilm~n Boyt: But in the meantime I'd like to see that posted no parking.
Gary Warren: As part of the consent approval this evening for the Lake Drive
East project, Council did approve no parking on the south side of the road which
is rec~lired by. the State Aid criteria so w~ do have that side that ~ w~uld
post. T~y do park also on tl~ north side. You can just go out there and see
where there isn't grass basically. That's where they're parking.
Councilm~n Johnson: So they're pulling off onto the grass?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Workman: ~here are they exiting, on Dell?
Gary. Warren: No. They're exiting at Dakota.
Councilman Johnson: ~ney're probably going to DataServ.
Councilman Workman: Are they. going do~m to DataServ and turnin~ around? How
are they getting back out?
Gary Warren: S~me of them have actually, they could go through DataServ parking
lot and this way. I've never observed that myself but that would be possible.
Jim, Chaffee: Mr. Mayor? The only time I've ~ semis there, they've been
parking on the north side facing west so however t~. get. I've never --_~ them
c(m~ in and turn around but obviously that's ~hat they're doing but the ones
I've seen have ~n parked on the north side just on the east side of McDonalds.
Councilman Johnson: I would suspect that they're trucks that have delivered
s~ething to DataServ and they're on their way out and they. pull over and grab
lunch versus somebody c~ming actually off of TH 5 because m~st of those
69
k
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
truckers, if they don't know it, they're just going to go to so~place they
know.
Mayor Chmiel: I've seen truckers j~t pulled directly off on TH 5 on the
shoulder and go get s~thing.
Gary Warren: When 184th is opened up obviously they'll be able to get in either
direction then but I think Jay is right. DataServ frc~, our work on the Lake
Drive East design project does have a reasonable number of tractor trucks that
are going in there.
Councilman Johnson: I had a friend who stopped his locomotive and w~nt to
McDonalds. It blocked 4 intersections.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, I think that aspect of what Gary said on one side is already
in effect with our Lake Drive/TH 101 project.
CouncilFan Boyt: Well, but they shouldn't be parking on either side Don.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I know. Maybe if they see it on one side they're not going
to bother... Let's see what happens. Once we get the signs up.
Councilman Workman: I gness I'd like to give the owner of McDonalds an
opportunity to cc~.~ in before w~ pass something to take business away.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd better see what's happening with their proposed plan
but w~'ve got signs on one side right now which is better than no signs.
Gary Warren: We don't have ~ right now but w~ will based on tonight's action
be installing those on the south side.
Council~-an Boyt: So the sense of the Co~u~cil is to allow tractor trailers to
park on Lake Drive East is what you're saying?
Councilman Work~an: No, I'd say the sense of the Council is before we take
business away frc~ a business in town, we ask for his input.
Council~an Johnson: I'd like to see how big the probl~ really is. Is it 1 a
week or is it 1 a day or is it 2 a day or what? I don't have a real good sense
for this. I might get a better sense now being in town ~)re.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, w~ can survey this bet~n now and the next Council
~.-~eting and come back with a survey for you and let you know just what the
probl~, is and how extensive it is.
Mayor Chniel: That'd be a good idea.
CouncilFan Boyt: In the F~anti~ you might as well take, of course there isn't
a public safety F~eting before the next Council ~=eting is there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was going to say take it to the Public Safety Cc~ission.
Okay. Metro Waste Control.
70
City COUnCil Meeting - March 12~ 1990
COuncilman Boyt: In the Admin pack, which is always fun to read, I don't know
if you noticed but this time the Metro COuncil took on the City of Chanhassen
and the Watershed District. I had to read the thing to see ~ere they
hitting us.
COuncilman Johnson: I didn't read it close enough to see that. I saw they ~_re
really going after...
COuncilman Boyt: But what they said was, they basically said that w~ lost the
fur~ing for the Lake Riley. clean-up because of the political struggles of local
goverr~nt. Metro COuncil is telling the Watershed District to take this out of
the hands of local government and I'm not interpretting anything in here.
That's what they said. If I can find it, I'll read it to you. They also, as
the cover letter said, the Chair of the Metro COuncil I believe co~menta that he
has not ~n a report from staff that has been this derogatory, of a watershed
district. He says to the watershed, the staff report says, that the watershed
district sho~tld take action to vigorously implement plans and regulations to
clean up that watershed. They. talk about, it is imperative that 'the district
begin planning for non-point source pollution reduction and assess the L~acts
of non-point source pollution on all surface waters. It goes on thzough here to
say, ah here's a c(m~t, and there's no page n~m~ers on this so I can't refer
you to it but it says unfortunately, due to local disagree.~nt regarding the
public access to Lake Lucy., the grant ~ms withdrawn. We might take issue with
that but I would conclude that since federal funding was withdrawn due to lack
of local support, it is unlikely that this project will be reinitiated. ~his is
clearly inconsistent with the Watershed District policy, and then they go on to
state what that policy, is. The Metro COuncil's concern that the water quality.
impacts observed at Lake Riley. are occurring generally, therefore the Council
believes that it is urgent to manage surface water quality in m~re effective
ways. Now another point, it says no comments regarding anticipated charges to
the local comprehensive plans were received from local communities. I don't
know exactly what they mean there but if they. mean that w~ didn't give input,
s~one's confused. ~hey m~ntioned several ti~es in the staff report that
they're basically putting it on us and th~ watershed district and what I would
like to direct staff to do is send a letter to the watershed district telling
th~, that ~ would like the~, to fund the public access on Lake Lucy. and get on
with the show. And they have, as has been pointed out, the authority to tax to
do that. They can raise the $200,~.0~. Put the access ~n a place where
people can live with it and since they're being directed by. the Metro COuncil to
get off t/~ dime and do ~thing, I think the City COuncil should be very.
aggressive in pushing the Watershed District to do just that.
COuncilman Johnson: Non-point source pollution is more than just Lake Riley.
clean-up. It's how do ~ manage fertilizer within this watershed. How do we
manage the old turkey farm within this watershed. Etc, etc..
COuncilman Boyt: A good bit of the mo~ey in that grant ~s to non-point source
pollution. What we're talking about here is in fact the Lake Riley-Purgatory,
whatever ~atershed districts and so, Lucy. is a big part of that. From what you
said about muck depth, the local effort is in my opinion is doomed. They're not
going to be able to afford to be able to attack that kind of muck depth and
clean that lake up. We need big money to get this project done.
71
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilm~n Johnson: Tne other thing is, if I re~er the letter frc~, the EPA
which took the funds away frGr, us, I don't even r~v~_r that letter addressing
Lake Lucy. It see~d to me it addressed, their delay in getting, it's 3 years
ago we gave ths~, this money and we don't even have an approved work plan after 3
y~ars. We're pulling the m~ney fro~, you. Taat m~ney was gone before Lake Lucy
really got going as a heavy issue. They were already working on pulling that
money.
Councilm~n Boyt: Well would it be the sense of the Co~cil to...
Mayor Chv, iel: I think what should be done Bill is to, being this is under
Council Presentations, be brought up next m~eting or whenever it goes on the
next agenda and then move frc~, there.
Councilm~n Johnson: Staff can bring back s~ve suggestions as to what we can do
along the lines of what you've bc~n~ talking.
Councilmmn Boyt: Whatever. I just want to see us. I think we've got an
opportunity here. The Met Council is pushing the~,, I think we should.
Don Ashworth: I should mmke the Council aware that, and I think it was in this
same packet, there are differences of opinion that exist between the Watershed
District and Metro. In fact, Metro is basically looking to take over a n~er
of the powers of local watershed districts. I don't know how much that
disagreement is interferring with what I'll call good policy but we may very
well be faced with an issue of two agencies kind of fighting each other and
using us as a tool.
Councilm~n Johnson: You mmy see sim, ilar reports for all the watersheds ccming
up because it's a political fight of Met Council trying to get more
responsibilities. They're trying to get ~re responsibilities in a lot of
things.
Councilw~n Workm~n: I'd like the City Attorney's opinion on Met Council's water
plan, if he has one.
Roger Knutson: Just a brief c(mment. One of the reasons the Met Council, my
understanding is very excited about water quality is their battle with the EPA
and their effulent discharge limit.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the problem, right there. That's it Roger.
Roger Knutson: And rather than, they would frame it differently. Rather than
deal with the quality of their effluent as it com~s out of their plants and
we've had better which they say is extremely expensive and I'm sure it is, their
solution with the EPA is we'll solve the non-point pollution problem. We'll
lower that. Therefore the quality of the effluent cc~,ing out of our plants
won't have to be quite as good and the net result will be acceptable to the EPA
and that' s, as I understand it, the genesis of the thing.
Councilm~n Johnson: And they've been arguing that with the EPA and the courts
and everything else but I've not seen the~, cc~ forward with any plans on how to
implement this other than telling other people why don't you go implement
sc~thing. They give no guidance in this letter as to what they expect to see
72
City Oo,~cil Meeting - March 12 ~ 1990
the ~atershed do. They just said you're not doing it. You're not addressing
it.
Roger Knutson: I should also point out what the Metropolitan Council is doing
here is commenting as all other state agencies do on the 509 plan of the Riley-
Purgatory. wetershed. They're just making ce.merits. ~hose ~ts will go to
the Board of Soil and Water Resources and they review t/~ actual plans. Based
,~on past experiences, it's very convent for the state agencies and for the
Metropolitan Council to come down very heavily on a watershed and the Board of
Soil and Water ~sources still to say your plan is acceptable.
Councilm~n Johnson: If it m~ts their criteria.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor (2~,iel: I'd suggest that we put this onto future agenda it~, and have
staff address that. TH 1M1 and 78th Street Bill?
Council~an Boyt: Okay. Back to the sign issue. We have had repeatedly had
cars parked there for sale. That is a dargerous corner and I think that the
City staff should be directed to work with posting that so that stops.
Councilman Johnson: FmDot owns that right? Do we have to get ~%Dot's
permission?
Councilman Boyt: No, that' s a private owner.
Gary Warren: MnDot right-of-way but the public safety did some checking
I believe, Jim on the ownership and it turned out he's actually parking on
private property.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah but if we posted the right-of-way they wouldn't, most
of the people park. I don't know if all the people who park there actually have
permission frc~ the property owner either. The van and boat that showed up
there Sunday, they had ~ do~n in the parking lot at...
Co~ilman ~orkm~n: Who owns that property?
Councilman Johnson: The Hardware store.
Don Ashworth: Scott has written a letter several times to the owner. My
recollection of the response we received fr(~% the owner was yeah, I know they're
parking there and they can continue parking there and as far as I'm concerned
the city. shouldn't interfere with me.
Councilman Boyt: I think that wes one instance. I don't think the property
owner has ~n very supportive of the others has he?
JLa, Chaffee: No. That ~s correct in one case. To my recollection, Scott has
~ getting cooperation from the property owner. In fact the property owner
wrote a letter back to Scott and asked for Scott's help. ~he probl~, is it
takes time.
73
City Council M~eting - March 12, 1990
Councilmmn Boyt: Well not if we put a sign up there. Then we can tow them.
You two a co~le cars out of there and that will be the end of it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we were to just notify the sheriff or public safety to
police that and upon seeing the~, notify those people imv, ediately.
Councilm~n Boyt: But it doesn't work.
Jim, Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I re'my. That's typically what we do. We can call.
Every car that's there has a phone humbler and we call the phone num~_r and tell
the~, to m~ve their car. If we don't get compliance that ~ay, then we go through
the criminal procedure. The route. The letters. The certified letters.
That's what takes the tim~. I think that we can by and large get cooperation
frc~, the people once w~ call ~, and ask th~, to move their vehicle.
Councilman Workm~n: Under what basis are we calling these people can telling
them to move their cars?
Jim, Chaffee: There's several, I think there's 2 at least. One that com~=s to
mind right now is under the zoning is outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
Councilm~n Workm~n: In a residential district.
Jim, Chaffee: Right.
Councilman Work~n: I think that's 3 or 4 tim~s tonight we're trying to keep
people fro~, making money.
Councilman Boyt: What we're trying to do is keep people from, creating a safety
hazard.
Councilman Workman: Well we don't have proof that there's a safety problem
there yet do we? Specifically has there bc~n an accident?
Co,mcilman Johnson: Do we have to wait until sc~dy gets hit and killed?
Does ~y have to have a wreck there?
Councilman Workman: Well has anybody had a fender bender? I don't know.
Jim, Chaffee: What we're trying to do is prevent. Last year during the suture, er we
had c~.lite a few vehicles parked there and then on the w~ekend many, many people
would cc~ by and park to get out and look at those other vehicles created quite
a traffic jam,. Tnat's what we're trying to prevent.
Councilm~an Workman: Let's go after those farm produce sellers.
Councilman Johnson: We already handled them.
Councilman Workman: I know. We're handling everybody frc~ retaking a buck in
this town. I don't know. Okay. Well if there's a problem, there, let's take
care of it but let's not, it's a prime spot for selling a car obviously. People
are selling cars there.
74
City Council M~eting - March 12; 1990
J~, Chaffee: I guess I would ~k direction fr(~, Council on how you would like
me to proceed on hhis.
Mawr Chv, iel: Well I don' t know. I think by going through the processes that
you have and notifyirg them. Bequesti~ the~ to remove their vehicles.
didn't notice a car there this morning.
Councilm~n Boyt: There was one.
Mawr C~v, iel: Was tt~re?
Councilman Boyt: There's been a car there every day for at least 2 ~ks.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Sav~ car?
Councilman Boyt: Well up until the last 3-4 days, it was the same car. Now
today it was a new car. Drivin~ by. their twice a day, there's ~ a car there
alAv~t constantly, i~lat's why I'm saying it takes, as Jim will tell you, if the
owner doesn't c(~ly, them it takes forever to work through the zonirg ordinance
violation which requires long waiting periods between steps to get sc~e
c(m~liance.
Councilman Johnson: It'd be sim~le to post it no parking.
Councilman Workman: So no parkirg on that strip?
Gary Warren: It' s not our right-of-way.
Roger Enutson: The private person of the private property, could post it.
Councilman Boyt: Well it sounds like if staff volunteered to put the sign up,
that the property, owner w~uld allow the~ to do that.
Councilw~van Dimler: I'd like to put my fruit and vegetable stand there this
s~_~.
Councilman Johnson: Which nobody can stop. You can only have walk up business.
Mayor Chtiel: Okay, let's get a little direction quickly so w~ can move on.
Councilwoman Dim]er: We can't act on it really.
Mayor Chv, iel: No, we can't really act on it but we can put it on an agenda
and go from there.
Councilman Boyt: Well can't we ask staff to oontact the private property owner
and ask if the property, owner w~)uld support us in puttirg a no parkirg sign on
his property? If he does, we can do it.
Mayor Chtiel: That' s logical.
Councilman Workman: And if the property owner doesn't agree with that then we'd
have to put it on another agenda.
75
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilman Johnson: I think there ~as another letter to ths~, saying you're
creating a public safety, problem, here by allowing cars to park on your property.
If I remarker the letter that we sent and the City will have to take legal
action to prevent you frem, doing this. I think it was more a bluff than
anything else b~.
Councilman Boyt: Well at this point we're asking for permission to w~rk with
them,. Everybody okay with that?
Co~mcilman Workman: That'd be okay but if he has a problem, with that, it's got
to be on a council agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You got that Jim,. Tom, HRA?
Councilman Workm, an: Just when are we going to talk about it? I think the thing
is getting, I'm getting a lot of healthy input fro~, it. I'd like to continue to
get input. I merely suggested that there were people and many people out there
that ~ant to disc~s this issue and look at this issue more closely and the
suggestion that the City. Council bec~me the HRA and I'd like to continue to do
that. I don't know Don Ashworth if we have any kind of a plan to discuss this
either with HRA or make a firm., final decision or what are we doing with this?
Don Ashworth: I've been under the impression that the Council m~.rs were
going through a process of getting feedback fr(x~ the c(x~lnity and during that
feedback period, staff was basically doing nothing while you had kind of
followed your own route. I guess at this point in tim~ what I'd like to do is
talk with the Mayor about when and how we could put this onto the next agenda
and what type of procedure you'd like to follow.
Councilman Johnson: Why not have a joint m~eting with HRA and discuss it with
them?
Mayor Ch~,iel: We did.
Councilman Johnson: A joint meeting with them?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah, when was that.
Councilm~n Workman: At the HRA meeting.
Councilman Boyt: Well it wasn't a joint m~eting.
Mayor Chmiel: There were 1, 2, 3 of us there. That was a majority.
Councilmmn Boyt: It wasn't a formal one?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: Was it on their agenda?
Councilman Boyt: What did they say when you did it?
Councilman Workman: Whatever you want.
76
City Co,~cil _~cting - March 12~ 1990
Mayor (~iel: They didn't really have anything to say at the particular tim~.
They. were thinking about it. Maybe that's a good idea to just down with ~
again one more time and get their input.
Councilman Workman: I just w~uld like to move on it. I know there's people out
there that want it discussed.
Mayor (~,iel: Ckay. Get it on their agenda and make the availability for us to
he with ~, at their specific m~cting.
Councilman Boyt: When we do that, I'd sure like to know, and maybe staff, maybe
Todd can help us with this, I'd like to know what, if anything, the HRA has
approved that we couldn' t have stopped because the other night w~ couldn't think
of anything.
Councilman Workman: Again my ~phasis, and I'll re-e~nsize it, is a
perception. Very strong perception right or wrong, many. people in the com~Anity
have asked m~ to do this. I've done it.
Mayor Ch~,iel: k~n. Okay. Prior to going into that, I'd just like to
interject s~mething under Council Presentation with an addend~ to it and I'd
like to get a motion. This is for the Girl Scouts for a Proclaration for the
llth thru the 17th. Can I get a motion?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to ay, end th~ agenda to add
disc~msing the Girl Scout Proclamation under Council Presentations. Ail voted
in favor of amending the agenda and the motion carried.
Mayor (lmm, lei: The Girl Scouts of the United States of ~rica recognizes that
today's girls will he tomorrow's leaders, and Whereas, Girl Scouts of the
United States of ~_rica is .the largest voluntary organization for girls in the
w~)rld and dra~ upon a large resource of positive adult role models, and Whereas
the Girl Scout mov~nt contains ~mhasized leadership, personal and ca_freer
develol~,ent for girls, and Whereas our c~m~%nity world will he the direct
beneficiary of the skilled young w~m~m ~aho are Girl Scouts, Now Therefore, I
Donald J. Ch~,iel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassem do hereby, proclaim the Week of
March 11-17, 1990 to he Girl Scout
Mayor Ch,,iel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded proclaiming the ~k of March
11-17, 1990 as Girl Scout ~.~k in the City. of Chanhassen. Ail voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPOI~S TO PUBLIC SAFETY~ISSIONAND RM2~IDER POLICE STUDY~ISSION.
Councilw~van Dim]er: I guess due to the lateness of the hour, I'm wondering if
we can, the Public Safety (2mmission does not have a m~eting this month anyway.
I 'm wondering if we could postpone it to our next Council _m~cting because it's
going to he a long discussion.
Councilman Johnson: Do ~u think so?
77
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilwo~n Dim]er: Well yes I do.
Councilm~n Boyt: What about the appointments? Can't we do the appointments and
get that?
Councilw~n Dimler: No, because it's tied ~o. My concern with the Public
Safety Com~.;ission and the Police Study, they're tied in and that's going to be a
long disc%lssion.
Councilm~n Johnson: Tney're two separate issues?
Councilw~r.~n Dimler: No they' re not.
Councilmmn Boyt: I would ask, if we're going to do this, I'd like to put this
off until the first meeting in April and not the next m~=eting in March because
I'm going to be out of town and I'd really like to vote on this.
Councilman Johnson: I kind of thought 2 out of 3 were a shoe in and the third
one ms where we...
Councilw(x~.an Dim]er: Well that's not my concern. My concern is mostly with the
study co~v, i ttee and how this ties in. I don't want to see, after w~ m~ke the
appointments, my mmin concern is that we don' t mmke the Public Safety Omrm, ission
the police study committee as well because it's so heavily, you understand we're
adding mostly policev~n to it.
Councilm~n Johnson: Well we have no choice.
Councilw0m.~n Dim]er: Yeah we do have a choice. Tnat's what I'm saying.
Councilm~n Johnson: well all four of the candidates are polic~vten.
Co~cilw~r~n Dim]er: well m~ybe we should look for so~ more candidates. Dave
Blo(~,er is the only one who isn't a polic~nan.
Councilm~n Johnson: Well could we move on 2 out of 3 so ~ can ~m~t these gu~s
back together and then on the third one?
Councilw~r~n Dim]er: Well there's not a meeting in March an~uway so there's no
need to.
Councilmmn Johnson: I hate to have these people hanging fire for 2 months.
Councilman Workman: Jay, Ursula explained to me sc~e of her concerns about it.
I do concur, w~'re going to get this thing going to 12:30 anyway, but I think
she's got sc~ valid concerns and I would respect that.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Ursula made a motion to put this on the April 9th m~eting.
Councilwo~n Di~ler: Mine was the next but he wanted the, Bill wanted it in
April.
Mayor Chmiel: Since Bill won't be there let's move it to the 9th.
78
.. ~
City Council Mseting - March 12, 1990
Council~n Work~n: I ~Duld second that motion if it needs one.
Councilwoman Dimler ~)ved, CouncilF~n Work~qnd seconded to *~hle appoin~ts to
the Public Safety. (km~,ission and reconsideration of the Police Study. Com%ission
to the April 9, 199~ City Council meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PARK AND ~TION ~ISSIONAPPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Ch~,iel: We have gone through the process of reviewing each of the
applicants. We've had 5 applicants come in and I don't know if everybody's
ready to go through the process. In going through each individual one and maybe
Don can keep a record. One, being the high score. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Councilman Boyt: Are we going to do it that way?
Councilwoman Dim]er: We w~re just going to discuss ~ho we're for.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Fine. Alright with me.
Council~n Workman: I' 11 make my recc~m~endation first.
Mayor C~m, iel: Okay.
Council~n Workman: My. three picks for Park and Recreation ~ssion would be
James Andrews, Jan Lash and Wendy Pe%rick.
Councilman Johnson: You had to get the insurance guy. on there huh? Okay, I'm
on Jan Lash, Ed Hasek and Kevin Kinnear. Even though Wendy's really close
there, m4, he's the most unrepresented portion of our town. Ed's one of the
few representatives. We've got one of the Planning Co~mission and one of the
Park and Rec.
Mayor Chniel: I would go with Jan. I would go with Wendy and I would go with
Jim Andrews. Bill or Ursula?
Councilman Boyt: Gkay, while it still might make a difference. I like Kevin
Kinnear. I guess nobody's mentioned why they. like people but I like that he
deals with the public a lot. I like that he had an opinion but ~t he ~s still
open to listening to folks. I think that one of th~ things I saw about several
of the candidates is they're pretty naive about ~hat's involved in the job but
that's probably to be expected. I'd go with Kevin and I like Ed's desire to
stand up for what he thinks is important. Now, I know Jan is a done deal
beca~me I can count the votes like anybody can on this thing but in all honesty,
I don' t think she represents your neighborhood very. well. ~here aren' t many
people in .uour neighborhood that talk to me ar~ I'm not surprised but the ones,
I actually got several calls about why there ~s no park equipment allocated to
your park. Those folks should have shoan up at the Paxk and Bec ~ccting. They
should have voiced their opinion but Jan, against the interests or the wishes of
several Park and Bec people said that she didn't want it in there. So there's
no ~ to go further here but my three w~e Ed, Kevin and Wendy.
79
City Council Meeting - March 12~ 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'll go along with Jan. I like Jim Andrews and
Wendy P~ ick.
Mayor Ch~Liel: Okay, as I go by what I see here. It would be Jan Lash, Wendy
P~mrick and James Andrews.
Councilman Johnson F~ved, Councilman Work~an seconded to appoint Jan Lash, Wendy
Pe~Lrick and James Andrews to the Park and Recreation Co~,ission. All voted in
favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the F~tion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
Councilwc~.an Dim]er: I would move that w~ adjourn.
Mayor Ch~Liel: No, we've got two other quick
1990 CC~WUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING Ar.r~.ATION, PLANNING DIRfETOR.
Paul Krauss: Our allocation this year is pretty close to what it was last year.
W~'re looking for proposals on how to allocate that. We've got a request in
from South Shore Senior Center for a slight increase over their last year's
budget to account for inflation and that's basically the only prior com~,itment
that w~ have. I've discussed our position on the senior study, the ongoing
senior stL~y with Larry Blackstad fr~L Hennepin Co~mty and I basically told him
we're doing the senior study but would not have results until July. Is there a
way we can park the funds for a senior program or senior projects that re~ains
unspecified at this particular time? He indicated that we probably could do
sc~thing along those lines but we're looking for sc~te input frc~L you as to what
sorts of things you'd like us to investigate for funding. I should also point
out that we allocated or we have allocated in the past funds for low and
moderate inco~ housing rehabilitation loans. Virtually none of the money was
spent last year and we still have $17,000.00 left. It's only speculation on his
part but Mr. Blackstaf thinks that we Fay have satisfied what little de~and we
had in the City for those sorts of funds and we are eligible to reallocate
those. In fact w~ could reallocate them for sc~e planning efforts and one of
the things, or a couple things we might like to look at. We Fay have some
things we may need to have sc~e additional consultant assistance relative to the
C(~,prehensive Plan or we've also talked about a wetlands program. Allocating
s~ of those funds to start that work. Just throw that our for your
consideration that those could be reallocated. If you'have anything you'd like
us to pursue, I'd be happy, to do that.
Councilman Johnson: Any way we could pursue non-point source pollution with
sc~ of these funds?
Councilwoman Dim]_er: I guess FLy Fain cc~Lent there was that I'd like to see us
pursue sc~thing that the F~)st residents would benefit so for Fe that was nu~er
3 and nu~er 6. Public facilities and i~orove~ents and various...
Mayor Ch%iel: I have the sa~ ones, 3 and 6.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Good for you. We agree.
8~
.City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add a couple for consideration. One of they, I
think, w~ ought to look at a mobile library or improving the mobile library, if
we've got one. Maybe even do s(~=thing with getting shut-ins to the library
s~how or another. I'd like to see us look at spendin~ that money on sum~er
programming for the handicapped. I w~uld like to ~ us...
Mayor Ch~,iel: Don't we have that already. Bill?
Councilman Boyt: No. We have next to no programs for the handicapped.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Handicapped accessible. Ch, that's for Lake Susan Park. Okay.
Excuse me Bill.
Councilman Boyt: The other one is a transportation to Chan Elementary for our
shut-in seniors. I think that the City. should also take s~,e of that, if we've
still got $17,00~.00, we should take some of that and aggressively advertise for
people who qualify, and my guess is that m~st of the people have no idea that
that money' s available.
Councilman Johnson: It was published in our official newspaper.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, w~ll there is plenty of opportunity, to spend this money.
in sc~ parts of town if they knew it ~ms available.
~'ayor Chv, iel: And I sort of question about your South Shore Senior-Center
thing.
Councilman Boyt: Well that's an editorial.
Councilman Johnson: They may be losing their facility, and one of their big
~s will be a new facility.
Mayor Ch~iel: But are our people there?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, there are Chanhassen residents.
Mayor Ch~,iel: I've ~n there several different times.
Councilman Boyt: Well and I have too and they're nice folks and they live
generally in that end of town. We've got a fair n~ber of seniors that show up
at Chan Elementary and mc[ght have some more if they thought there ~s some ~y
t~. could get there once in a while.
Councilman Johnson: Plus if there ~as scmething else to do besides play cards
and gossip.
Councilman Boyt: We've spent a lot of money on the South Shore. I don't
begrudge th~, that but maybe it's time we started doing sm~ething down on this
end of town.
Councilman Workman: We could use the money to start a zip code fund to get all
of us one zip code.
81
City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990
Councilm~n Boyt: Boy you really know how to garner votes out there guy2
Mayor Chv, iel: I'm still not getting your direction.
Paul Krauss: Well yeah, I think we got sc~. Why don't you let us do s~v~ more
work on it.
Mayor Chv, iel: Fine.
GIL LAURENT PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNING DIREC~R.
Paul Krauss: At a recent m~=eting you approved a preliminary plat extension for
Laurent, Peterson and Jeurissen. ~hey had qualified for 2 1/2 acre zoning and
they were supposed to cc~ in with a plan before TH 212 or within 3 months after
the official mapping of TH 212. I've had sc~ discussions with Mr. Laurent and
the situation is that his property is going to be so chopped up by the new TH
212 that it really is impossible for him to develop it and he's pulling out of
that coalition of three. I indicated I would bring this before you so we would
get so~.~ record of this in the Minutes so that at scale point ~ahen he r~_cds to go
through an acquisition process with FmDot for his property, that there is
official record of the fact that you had approved a concept for 2 1/2 acre lots.
Even though he's not going to be going for that, the value of his land should be
based on what he could have done before the highway cam~ through. I g~ss the
only reason again for bringing this before you tonight is so that it was in the
Minutes and we acknowledge that sit~mtion, that he is withdrawing.
Mayor ChvLiel: Okay. One thing Paul that I see here in the first paragraph as
opposed to the second paragraph. I see a little bit of contradictory
disc,msions going in here. Here you indicate that they will not be pursuing
develo~m~.nt of their property. Tnat they're withdrawing their preliminary plat
application. The last paragraph says as far as staff knows, Peterson's and
Jeurissen's are still pursuing their preliminary plat application.
Paul Krauss: Yes. The other t~ parties are.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. (keat.
Councilm~n Workm~n moved, Co~u~cilw~n Dimler seconded to adjourn the m~eting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15
a.m..
S~m~,itted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
82