Loading...
1991 07 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashuorth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al-Jarl, Scott HarK, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda amended to include the following under Council Presentations: Mayor Chmlel uanted to dlscuss senior volunteers; Councilwoman Dlmler wanted an update on the Chanhassen Personnel Policy; Councilman Mason wanted to discuss the seclectlon for the Surface Water Management Program; and Councilman Workman uanted to discuss a city wide tree removal program, the Rotary tree plantings, and the downtoun trafflc study. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Accept Land Donation from Nancy Raddohl, Carver Beach Estates. c. Resolution $91-62: Amendment to Conditional Use Permlt to Allow Expansion of a Bed and Breakfast Establishment, 1161 8luff Creek Drive, Anne Karels. d. Flnal Plat Approval, Kurvers Point Second Addition. e. Approval of Accounts. f. City Council Minutes dated June 24, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 19, 1991 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 5 FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT LONE CEDAR LANE FEASIBILITY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PRO3ECT 90-9. Public Present: Name Address Scott & Laurie Gauer Joseph & Marion Mitlyng 3820 Lone Cedar Lane 3800 Arboretum Blvd. City Coul~ci]. Heetin~ _ July 8, .1.991 [lave Hempel: i~r~ i'i.'t.yoi', members of the Council. The City Council accepted the feasibility study fo~- construction of the 'r'igl~t turn lane on westbound TH 5 and frontage road improvements by Lone Cedar Lane on ,'iune 2~th. The project is a 42~ special, ass~-.,ssment p~'o.iect and as such a public hearing is required. The project is proposed to be financed with MnDot through a cooperative agreement program, loca.1. State (~id monies and special assessments to benefitting properties. Approximately 87% of this project is proposed to be funded through ,.~ c,operative...wlth HnOot. The main pot[ion shared between the 6ity of Ch:~r, hasser, and benefitting property owners. The total estimated construction cost of this project is $90,400.00. The feasibility report initially had recommended assessing two parcels equally on a per uni~ basis. Houever, since the preparatio~ o¢ the fea.sib.(lity report, an agreement has been reached betueen the 'two benefitting property owners with regards to splitting the assessments. 'Fl~e split has been amended to be 25/75% split wi[h 25% being assessed to Lot 4, ulrich .i.s the Gauer residence and...taking up 75% oF the special assessments. The project is feasib].e from an engineering s~andpoint and can be constructed and completed this year. However, time is essential. The critical ~actor here, r~ince we are dealing with MnOot, the plans and specifications have to go through HnDot for approval and a cooperative agreement also prepared and approved prior to the project proceed£ng~ So with that it is recommended that [he City Council authorize preparation oF plans and specifications for the frontage road improvemen~ along I'H .s and Lone Cedar. In addition, also recommend the methodology for spreading the special assessments be modified to reflect the agreement arrived by the two residents, Mr. Gauer and Mr. Mitlyn9. Hayor chmiel; Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this item at this particular r. iroe? A'.~ I mentioned, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to address this specific project. Councilman ltason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearlng uas closed. Mayor Chmiel.' Being that neither of the two property owners are here, ~ssuming that they've reached consensus of opinion, oh I guess Joe is here. And everyone's il~ agreement with what has been proposed? Councilman Wing: I would move approval. Councilwoman gimlet: Second~ Resident: Does tills mean closing off Lone Cedar exit to TH 5? gave HempeJ.: No it does not. The Lone Cedar access will remain open. Mayor Chmiel-' Right. This is to provide a service road adjacent to TH 5 to Mitlyng's property. And uif. h ,~n agreement between two of the property owners who are goil~g to absorb that cost for putting in the service road. At one time I received a cal.1, indicating there were 40 other property owners who were concerned with this and what the position was going to be. At uhat cost to them. There's no cost ~the~' than the two property owners. We have a motion on the floor with a second. ~ny further discussion? City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Resolution ~91-63: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the frontage road improvements along ~ith a right turn lane for aestbound traffic on Trunk Highaay 5 at Lone Cedar Lane and that the methodology for spreading the special assessments be modified to reflect the agreement arrived at between Mr. Gauer and Hr. HitZyng. AZ[ voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITORS PRESENTATION: None. PUBLIC HEARING: HINNEWASHTA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT Pubiic Present: Name Address Betty Carlson Peter Hoe Deborah & Kay Lockhart Charles & Ada Anding Charles Anding Greg Datillo Ed Oathour L.C. & Susan Proshek Chris Orakos Michael Tim... Mike & Susan Morgan Terry & Lisa Rixe Harry A. Drahos Mitch Regal Peter Sickeler Evelyn Atkins Blake Horton Nancy Nelson Robert & Patricia 3osephs Greg Bohrer Lara Genz Don & Barb Bittermann Louis Guthmueller Ivan & Mildred Underdahl W. Court MacFaFlane Terry M. Forbord Jim Way Gordon Freeburg James & Deborah Hofer Arlene Herndon Peggy Markham Kevin Cuddihy George Peters Harvey Sobel Uern Isham 30 Ann Hallgren 3ames & Ruth 8oylan 4020 Leslee Curve 7141 Minnewashta Parkway 3618 Red Cedar Point Drive 3631 South Cedar Drive 6601Minnewashta Parkway 7201 Juniper Avenue 3940 Hawthorne Circle 3613 Red Cedar Point 3900 Linden Circle 3733 Hickory Road 3734 Hickory Road 7456 Minneuashta Parkuay 3911 Linden Circle 891 20th S.E., Hinneapolis 204 Ash Street, Chaska 9580 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie 3711 South Cedar Drive 3891 Linden Circle 6701 Minnewashta Parkway 3706 Hickory Road 7096 Red Cedar Cove 7085 Red Cedar Cove 7095 Red Cedar Cove 7502 West 77th Street 3800 Leslee Curve Lundgren Bros. Construction 6641 Minnewashta Parkway 3891 Lone Cedar Lane 7098 Red Cedar Cove 3750 Red Cedar Point Drive 6520 Kirkwood Circle 3900 Stratford Ridge 4010 Leslee Curve 7024 Red Cedar Cove 4030 Leslee Curve 6860 Minnewashta Parkway 6760 Minnewashta Parkway City Council Meeting --July 8, 1991 Name Address Cave & I_ori Free I. owell& Janet Carlson Rich Comer Edwin & Leittia Seim Jean [.arson Pet er Benjamin I.ee Andersorl Zoe Bros Sttkey Sobel Jim & Andrea Ben~myhoff Carol Ridd].e Suellyn Fritz Steven Erickson Ed !.ucas Vince& 8ea Oecker Joan Skallman Ric & Mariana Al~ding A1 & Carla Smith Linda Johnson Marsha Keuseman .]eanet te Boley Bas11 & Helen Bast lan 3erry Johnson 3inl Connor Gene & Carol. Oahlin B. Fuller Tom Allenburg Ken & Ruth Smith Bob Schneider Ken Burr Ann Osborne 3921 Maple Shores Drive 4141 Kings Road 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive 3616 Red Cedar Point Drive 3609 Red Cedar Point Brlve 7231 Mlnnewashta Parkway 6651 Minnewashta Parkway 6631 Minnewashta Parkway 7024 Red Cedar Cove 3931 Leslee Curve 4000 Leslee Curve 18464 Maple Leaf Drlve 3850 Leslee Curve 3941 Leslee Curve 3861 Leslee Curve 6590 3oshua Circle 3715 South Cedar Drive 3714 Hickory Road 3629 Red Cedar Point 3622 Red Cedar Point Drive 7414 Minnewashta Parkway 3719 South Cedar Drlve 3940 ~lendale Drive 3901 Red Cedar Polnt Drive 3930 ~lendale Drive 7075 Red Cedar Cove 6621 Minnewashta Parkway 3837 Red Cedar Point 7501 West 77th Street 4830 Westgate Road, Mlnnetonka 3815 Red Cedar Point Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'll open this public hearing at this particular time. I'd like staff [o address this and those who also u111 asslst. 8i11, are you golng to do the formal presentation? Bil~ Engelhardt'- I'll make the presentation. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, fine. With that if you'll start with that. Bill Engelhardt: Your honor, members of the Council, audience. My name is Bill Enge].hardt. We're the consulting engineers that prepared the feasibility study for the Minnewasl~ta Parkway. This feasibility study started some months ago. We've held two neighborhood meetings and I think most of you people have been in attendance. I recognize quite a few faces. We had some good discussions. There vas some good polnts that were brought out. We went back and modlfled the Feasibility study based on some of the discussions that we had to the point that we could modify it by working ulth MnDot. That's Minnesota Department of Transportation. Because oF the amount of funding that the State will be putting into thls project, we have to follow thelr standards. Thelr deslgn crlterla in order to reconstruct this roadway. They were somewhat flexible on their City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 standards due to the terrain that we have out there. The environmental issues with the trees that were removed or would be removed and what we're able to do is bring down the roadway width from what was originally proposed down to pretty close to a typical residential street in the city of Chanhassen. Some of the issues that were addressed in the modified or revised feasibility study after these neighborhood meetings are addressed in the feasibility report and in the executive summary. There's about 9 items, ll items and I'll just read through those a little bit and ue can discuss those or go on from there. Major considerations that resulted from the homeowners meetings. Number one, the roadway was reduced from a 36 foot width to a 32 foot width. If I may, I brought along a slide to give an example of how this. The existing right-of- way for Minnewashta Parkway is a GG foot right-of-way. The existing road section is a 28 foot bituminous section with no curb or gutter. Very slight shoulders in some areas and in some areas the lawn is abutted right up to existing blacktop. In this type of section the drainage is carried in those gutter lines or in those grass areas down to low points and then it just runs helter skelter all through the area. So part of the project that's being considered tonight is a storm sewer along with the road improvement. With the storm sewer we're able to correct a number of different problems that some of the areas have out there and drainage through their yards. Getting back to the road section though, the proposal is to go with a 32 foot roadway from back of curb to back of curb. What that means is that they'll be adding about 6 inches of additional blacktop to the edge of the road...and the gutterline is 18 inches. So about about a foot and a half to Z feet from the existing road edge as it'd be expanded out to each side. In some cases again because this is a State Aid Road, they do have to meet the State Aid standards. We will be trying to flatten out and decrease the sharpness of the curves, improve sight distances on the roadway, both horizontally and vertically. Those are standards that we are required to make. The significance of this is that it substantially reduces the amount of work that has to be done on this road in the yard areas but still within the right-of-way. It also maintains somewhat the character of the road, although it will have some urban section which means curb and gutter versus the non-urban section or the rural section. With the curb and gutter it's much easier to control and provide more control in the drainage area. The second issue was the walkway alignment and originally the walkway, this map is a little hard. It's more than a little hard. It's hard to see but the solid green line is the parkway and the trail section is the heavy dark line on both sides. Originally we had proposed that we would be on the west side of the road from Maple Drive north. The crossing would be along the east side of the roadway down to TH 5. Through the public meetings the discussion centered around trying to place the roadway all on one side. A lot of the residents felt that they did not want a crossover. At the last meeting on the feasibility study we did indicate that we'd be trying to maintain that walkway on the east side all the way along. The result of that is that through this area there's very steep grades going from the roadway down to the lake. A retaining wall would have to be built in order to accommodate the walkway. Since the last meeting I've met with a resident. One resident out there that specifically requested that I meet with him to address the walkway and point out the number of trees that would be taken. I think it was a very good meeting. What we arrived at by walking from up in the State Highway 7 area down to King's Point Road that probably a good compromise on the walkway, because some people wanted it on one side and some people wanted it on the other side. It's kind of a confusing issue but a good compromise on all parts was that we bring it from State Highway ? along the west City CoLtnci]. I'leoLing -- July 8, 1991. side as or¢.g~n~il].y ,o].~lnne(t. Carry that down to Kings Point Road on the west side. Hake; our crossing at KJ. Rgs Point Ro,'.td and [.hen c~rry it on the east side. That accomplishes a number of things. Zt accomplislles saving some of the tree work. Removal of t. rees aJ. on9 ~.he lgzke side. It provides for a very good crossing area. Good sight distance both north and south. It also lend8 the opportunity thst on this particular section of the roadway it's &bout equal d.istance from TH 5 and TH Z a~md if we construct the crossirmg at that point, Kings Point Road ~t some point in time could very wet1 carry some of the interior traffic and we'd place a stop sign on Minnewashta Parkway so that would control the tr&ffic going through from TH Z to TH 5. Keep in mind that stop signs are not used for speeding or to control speed. We do have to meet the MnOot warrants in order to install that stop sign but simply the warrant of a crossing in all likelihood will allo~ us a stop sign and that ~ill help in the conc~rn that the neigh[)orhood had of being a strBight shot through. It helps. It probably doesn't completely 'take the issue a~ay but it does help. The issue of the type of ~alk~ay ca~,e up at the l~st meeting whether it should be bituminous or concrete. The original proposal ~as for a concrete sidewalk. That ~as based on our conclusion that ~ith a concrete sidewalk was more durable surface. Reduced the maintenance costs of the City in the long run and ~e felt ~.hat the price for bituminous and concrete was very comparable. We were asked to go back and evaluate the cost between the two types of trail systems. We've done that. The estimate for the concrete trail is $146,000.00 and the estimate For the bituminous trail is $136,000.00 so the bituminous is a little bit less. Keep in mind though that ~ith bituminous we do have to sealcoat it and ~e do hav~ some ongoing maintenance. 41though on concrete if ~e have any cracks ~e'll have to repair (hose too. Bituminous seems to be very appropriate material. It ].ends itself to the character of the trall system probably better than the concrete does. It's not necessarily a defined residential area. It's more of a trail, natural and specifically a parkway. Keeping with the nature of the area. So I think in the modifications of the trail, if ~e stick to the ~est side up to Kings Point Road. Again ~e have excellent sight distance both north and south at that point al~d then shift it over. We'll be able to save quite a few trees and reduce the number of trees that we'd be taking. We're still planning on, eve~ though we'd be taking some trees, we still plan on keeping the level of tree planting up to ~here we originally proposed and the proposal ~as to plant iBF ne~ trees. The third item ~as additional storm drainage problems identified a~d those came out through the neighborhood meetings. There was one up in the Linde~ Circle are~. Leslee Curve. The, I'll call it Hinnemashta Highlands. Haple .Shore Drive area. 4nd all through the parkway alingment we have low points that are uncontrolled and ~e'd be able to control those lo~ points and direct the runoff to specific pending areas. That's an issue, pending areas and the environmental control ~nd the storm ~ater runoff mas addressed in the original report. It probably ~ill be addressed all through the design phase. We have to ~ork ~ith Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources. Our original proposal mas to take the storm ~ater in this particular are~. Let me start from the north at the high point at about Stratford right in this area the storm se~er. From verything north from that high point we go to the metland area right behind the fire station which then has an outlet to the north. From the high point going south we bring that down to the Lake St. Joe area. gt about this location you can see, if you ~atch the monitor, right at this location by Red Cedar Cove townhouses is a connection b~[ween St. Joe ~tnd Minnewasilta. We ~ould be dumping storm ~ater at that point and then from about oh, right at ?Zth Street there's a high point that goes to City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 the north. We'd be collecting and taking that again to St. Joe. The very southerly portion of the parkway would drain into the wetland through just the southern catch basln. The lssue that needs to be addressed is the Lake St. Joe drainage. What will the DNR allow. How do they want it constructed and is it better to go dlrectly to Lake Mlnnewashta or to Lake St. Joe? Lake Minnewashta is classified as a recreational lake whlch means it's about a medium type lake according to the DNR standards. Lake St. Joe has a higher quality or hlgher degree of environmental issues and concerns according to the ONR. The ONR would prefer us to go directly to Lake Mlnnewashta if a pondtng area could be constructed prior to Lake Minnewashta at the discharge points. Specifically we're really only talklng about thls area, thls part of the dralnage area rlght in here of the roadway. The balance again is going to other wetlands and the volume has not been increased that much because one beneflt we dld see by reducing the width of the roadway is we reduce the amount of runoff that we would see with a 3& foot road. We're still going to have a sllght increase but not as much. Getting back to the DNR. Their comments are is they want to be lnvolved in the deslgn. Both the DNR and the watershed w111 not glve you a specific answers at this time how they want it done but as you design the project we'll be working very closely wlth their Flsh and Wlldllfe experts and the water quality people to determine which method and which alternative is the most appropriate use. If for example we cannot get a ponding area on the east slde of Minnewashta Parkway to take the storm sewer into Lake Minnewashta, then they would prefer us to construct a ponding area on the west side utilizing the existing wetland areas or portion. You know, not all of them, just a portion of them. Provlde some ponding before it goes to Lake St. Joe and then from St. Joe it goes into Minnewashta. But those options, they won't look at until we specifically sit down and design the system wlth both the DNR and the Watershed. Both agencies have a permitting process that we have to follow. The design would be sent to them. It's revlewed by thelr engineers and revlewed by thelr boards prior to lssuance of the permits. We still feel that probably the best optlon at this tlme ls to utlllze the Lake St. Joe area. Construct some type of ponding and holding area before it discharges into St. Joe and then letting that water flow lnto Lake Mlnewashta. But it may be according to the DNR that that ls not the option and we'll have to search for a site. I think it will be very difficult to find a slte for pondlng on thls site. That's the biggest problem. The fourth item that was addressed was the assessment rate. Originally the assessment rate was based on $2,340.00 per unit. Per household. Per single family unit. The assessment area is based again on an area basis where the residential properties, both raw land and developed land, utilizing Mlnnewashta Parkway as a major egress and ingress points from TH 7 and TH 5 would be assessed on a unlt basls. The basls for the $2,340.00 was the State Ald Road project that was constructed about 2 years ago on Bluff Creek Drive. We took thelr assessment rate and updated it for construction cost lndex. We updated it for inflation for the increase in construction costs. I thlnk their assessment was around $2,200.00 and we arrlved at $2,340.00. In analyzing the project again after the neighborhood meetings, again very good input from the neighborhoods. The concern was that the Mlnnewashta Parkway area has much smaller lots than the Bluff Creek Drive area. That's very true so what we did ls we looked at what they could develop thelr lots into and the way thelr houses were situated even though they have a large lot, they still could only get maybe one more unlt at the most on thelr particular lot. So the unit cost was reduced from the $2,340.00 down to $1,250.00. It's $1,250.00 is the proposed assessment. That assessment would be spread, or proposed to be spread over 8 City Cour~cil ~teetiI~g ~ July 8, 1991 years and the il',terest rate ill all likelihood would be around 8~ depending on what the bond was sold aL. So tl~is trallslates into about an annual payment in the first year of about $250.00 and in the eighth year, sixth, seventh, eighth year of about $165.00. So the assessment goes down. The interest is not compounded. Arid as the principal is reduced, the payment is reduced over those 8 years. When it comes to ,'~ssessment we needed to consider raw land. There's a substantial number of acres where it's developed at this time and we needed to, we felt iL very appropriate that that raw land area also share in the cost of upgrading Ninnewashta Parkway. At some point in time it will be developed. fact in the area north of Kings Road, we have sketches of just proposed developments. They have not been brought to the City but proposed developments of how many units could be constructed in those areas. We utilized that and showed the dashed lines for potential units in that area. For other areas where we have raw land, we originally looked at 3 u~its per acre but the comments were that a substantial portion of the raw land area had wetlands. There were increased requirements of setbacks and lot sizes that the ONR and the City had placed eli these particular pieces of property. And in order to follow the guidelines a more appropriate assessme~t per raw land area would be 1.8 units. That 1.8 unit is developed by taking out any wetland area that would be on a parcel of land. Subtracti~g that out and the base raw land area and then subtracting out another 15~ of the remaining ra~ land area for road~ays that would have to be built if it's developed and the result was that we could get about 1.8 units. 1.8 units per acre would be about 24,200 square feet in that particular area. The DNR requirements for shoreland, for lot size is 20,000 square feet. So I think we're very close to being in the ballpark in what those raw land areas could be assessed. Keeping in mind that they are ra~ land areas and that they may be developed anyway, a particular developer may want larger units or may not be able to get as many units. I think me have to be sensitive to that fact and there would have to be adjustments made if they could not get that many units on their land. However, if they could get more units on their land, they come in with proposals that show that 2 units per acre or even up to the 3 units per acre, they should be appropriately assessed for those units and that ~ould go into the debt service fund of this particular project. There's three parcels that have a classification of green acre. Green acre, the green acre classification does not allow us to collect a~sessments on those parcels until they're developed. The City can levy those assessments and the assessment ~ou].d be deferred to such time as when the parcels are developed. They would incur interest on the amount that they would be assessed and again at such time as they would be developed, the assessment would be levied and they'd be paying their fair share just as every other parcel. The advantage is that they would not be levied at this time unless the property owner 8o desired that they be levied. One of the other complicated portions of this project was part of the roadway along TH 5 for about 1,300 feet is in the city of Victoria. This dark gr~e;i lille on the map indicates the corporate limits. The 1,300 feet runs up to about Hawthorne Circle. We've met ~ith the Victoria City Council. The City Council passed a resolution that the City was to work ~ith Victoria to undertake a land swap which would allo~ the City of Chanhassen to annex Hinnewashta Parkwa~ and seven parcels to the east. The parcels to the west at this time would be allowed to stay in Victoria until such time as they may desire to annex. That's their perogative. The seventh item that we needed to address was how to finance the project and we originally started out with a 2.2 million dollar p~'oject. That's a total cost and the total cost has been reduced, not by a large amouT~t but it has been 'reduced $2.1 million. And of that, we're City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 proposing 532 assessment units which will generate roughly $665,000.00 worth of financing for the project. State Aid funds would pay $944,000.00 worth of funds and the City would use general obligation bonds for roughly $477,000.00 to pay for portions of the storm sewer and walkway that in past projects they have participated in a like manner. That would be keeping with past policy on various projects like this particular one. The balance of the project cost is about $26,000.00. That's for some uatermain construction and that $26,000.00 would come from City trunk funds. Trunk water funds because it is a reconstruction of existing uatermain that would allow for future expansion. Again the project, because of the reduced width of the roadway has significantly reduced the number of trees that would be taken along the parkway. There are particular areas along the lake side that it's very difficult without specific cross sections to tell whether the trees would 9o or not go. Our general opinion is they probably could be saved. They're the type of trees that they may be able to even handle small retaining walls and we may be able to shift the roadway just enough in some of those areas and it isn't going to take much. It's like a foot or two to save the trees. $o again a significant number of trees that ue thought would originally have to be removed we would keep those in place but still maintain the amount of tree planting that we originally proposed. Second to the last item that I'd like to address is comments during the neighborhood meetlngs just about placlng an overlay on the roadway and what the cost of that overlay would be and would that not be satisfactory as a replacement for the Minnewashta Parkway system without completely redoing lt. The estimated cost for the overlay and leveling course is $120,000.00. That'd be for a 3 lnch overlay. The baslc problem with an overlay ls that when you raise that surface up you can put gravel in the shoulders to match the lawn areas but you have a very difficult tlme matching those lawn areas and you create more drainage problems by doing that than, you're going to solve some of your road problems but you're going to create many drainage problems behind the curb. I think the most significant factor on not proposing an overlay on this particular roadway ls the subsolls in thls area. We dld some borlngs in it and subsoils are very marginal. So in order to reconstruct the roadway we'll have to excavate some of those subsolls and replace that wlth gradual materlal and build the section up to meet design standards. But the overlay and the bad solls and subsoils, you're going to see a continual problem just as you see today in some of those areas where they continually break off. You can't just keep putting an overlay on a roadway. It just doesn't work. Basically what you'd be doing, I guess in my opinion is wastlng the $120,000.00. It's not an appropriate fix for thls particular type of roadway. Again summarizing, just to conclude here, to summarize a little bit on the financing options of it. The State Aid Funds would be $944,088.00. That would utllize the monles that the City receives yearly from the State. It'd be a 2 to 3 year process and what the Clty does ls designate certaln roadways that will quallfy for State Ald roads. In this particular case it's connecting two State Highways. They could connect County Road to County Road or County Road to State Highway. In thls case it's classified as State Aid because it does connect the two highways. Therefore it qualifies for the funding. Many roads in Chanhassen would not quallfy for thls funding. The City receives or has in their State Aid fund roughly $450,000.00 which means that we'll use this year's, next year's and probably a portlon of the third year's fundlng for this particular roadway in order to make the financing. At that point you would schedule your financing for the other State Aid roads that would have to be upgraded in other parts of town. So you want to use your State Aid road money to upgrade your State Aid roads and you set up a $ C~y Council Heeting -- July 8, 199~L year' schedule where these roadways would get improved on a $ year schedule. Special assessments again would be at $1,250.00 per unit. We're suggesting that the special assessments would generate $665,000.00. General Obligation Bonds of ¢447 , 000 . 00 would be utilized ,'~s on past projects to pay for 50~ of the storm sewer. The other' 50~ would be paid by State Aid to pay for portions of the walkway. Trunk waterm,'~in funds of roughly $26,000.00 would make up the balance of the project. So wlth that your honor I'd be happy to answer any questions or t~ke testimony or comments from the public and we'll try to address any questions they may have. Hayor Chmiel: I'd like to set just a couple parameters. I know I sat in on mosL of these meetings and those that I didn't sit, we have had a chance to review the Hinutes of that meeting. So what I would like to ask is that there nut be repetition. If there's any individual representing a number of people to speak for them and I'd like them to also address that. One clarifying thing I'd like to do. I'm happy that you're all here this evening, is to address a letter that was sent gui to all the residents within the area by an unknown person indicating what this Council doc;s. Ramrodding things through. That's the first thing I'd like to address. This Council has worked for the people of the City of Ch,'~nhassen. This Council h~s not ramrodded one item [hrough as long as we've been in office in this city. There was some untruths within that particular letter and hopefully clarification has been done this evening by the presentation that Bill Engelhardt has done. So with that I would like to open the meeting for the public hearing and I'd like to have whoever'd like to start. Please come forward and I'd like to try to limit this because there's a lot of people I know that would like to talk and I'd like to limit this to a minimum of at least 5 minutes or less. Yes ma'am. Oh, one other thing I might add. I've received approximately about 14 letters regardir, g this project and each of those letters too are contained in our packets. Arlene Herndon: I'm ~rlene Herndon. I reside at 3750 Red Cedar Point Drive. I'd like to just read this letter I've written if I may. Please public s~.rvants. This letter is to voice my concern and opposition to the proposed upgrading and improvements of Hinnewashta Parkway on the western shoreline of I. ake Hinnewashta between State Highways 5 and 7. ~ith the right to assess being based on a benefit to the property being assessed, it is clear to me as an individual with years of real estate experience that the properties would not benefit from such a proposal with increased value but would undeniably lose value. The quiet lifestyle ue currently enjoy would not be just interrupted but rather pre-empted. I, as a parent of 3 young children would be greatly concerned for the safety of my children. Property taxes have just gone up a tremendous amount for those of us living in the affected area of Chanhassen. The cost for living .tn the area must be weighed and analyzed according to the benefits thereof. Following this enormous tax hike, a special assessment is being considered in addition to it which will increase cost even more and cause a decrease in value. ~ny elementary study of real estate values as it pertains ~o comparable homes. One on a quiet residential street and one on a busy thoroughfare clearly demonstrates the effect of heavy traffic. ~arketability is lessen as well as property values itself. Those who live right on Hinnewashta Parkway are going to suffer the loss of peace and quiet as well as significant dollars in real estate value. ~re the now higher taxes going to be lowered to reflect that decrease and are those homeowners going to be given credit for loss of property values which will compensate them accordingly? Not with such a lO City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 proposal. The exact opposite is going to be the end result. As public servants of our community I call upon your integrity as individuals elected to your positions to serve our community. Turning your backs on those who are so directly affected will constitute nothing less than a disservice. Does anyone have a hidden agenda? What is our overall purpose in our community? To make it the best place we can live or to close our eyes to very real individual rights and needs for the purposes of advancement. The price tag is being handed to those very individuals who will suffer the very real consequences to lifestyle, pocketbooks and peace of mind. I hereby am requesting that the affects of such a proposal on property values and homes on Minnewashta Parkway be done so that the real truth will be known. Your position on this issue will clearly demonstrate your level of commitment to your community. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to address it? Jim Boylan: Mr. Mayor and the City Council. My name is Jim Boylan and I live at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. I don't really have a letter tonight but I'd kind of like to go through your cover letter on this memorandum if I may and address some of the things that are mentioned on here. I guess I don't really speak for a group but I may in some respects of people and neighbors that I've talked to before. But I'm concerned as a property owner on this project. It is hoped that the two previously held neighborhood meetings and corresponding follow-up investigations have answered many of the questions and concerns of the area residents. The following are some of the key project revisions directly resulting from the discussions of the neighborhood meetings. Okay? This lends me to believe that these are thlngs that have been dealt with and I don't think they have been. At least not to my satisfaction and I'm sure not to some of the other people that are here. For example, MnOot approval of reducing the proposing roadway wldth from 36 to 32 feet. Well, what does this really mean? Is this really doing the job that we want to do here? Part of the new proposal for the jogglng path has created a situation now where instead of going along my lakeshore on the east side, on the lake side, and causing the construction of maybe a 12-14 foot retaining wall and a jogging path. Cutting down my trees and making my view of the lake a jogging path with an iron ralllng of some kind to keep people from falling off lnto my lakeshore and sulng me. Now ls going over to the other side of the road and taking the last 6 trees out of my front yard. About 4 years ago as all of us had suffered through the dutch elm situation, ! removed 16 trees from my wooded lot. This is one of the reasons I bought that lot. It turned my front yard lnto a baseball dlamond and the only thing that was left was 6 old maple trees. Now these maple trees I can show you on a surveyor's plot that was done on my land when Mlnnewashta Parkway was known as Glencoe Road. At that time the right-of-way, those trees were not on the right-of-way. They were in the property of whlch I now own. Since that time the right-of-way has expanded to encompass these trees. Now these are trees that my wlfe grew up on that property and climbed in as a child. These trees are almost 100 years old and yet we're going to mow those trees down and put in a jogging path in front of the house. Well, maybe some of you think that mlght be alright. I don't particularly. I have a neighbor that lives next door to me who's even golng to be worse off because he has a house that's rlght up withln probably 6 or 8 feet of the jogging path and is going to have a problem. The second 1rem. The locatlon of the walkway and trw11 system has been modlfled to meet the needs of the residents. Who? Not me. I don't know about the rest of you. I don't feel that's a modification that meets my needs. In fact it's even 11 City Council Mew. ting -- O~ly 8, 1991 worst. It devaluates my property. I'm paying over $3,000.00 in taxes on that piece oF land, which by the way I've bee~ in front of the City Council before and heard you people say to me that the lake belongs to the City. Yeah, I'd like to believe that except that when tile tax assessor comes along, he doesn't quite believe the same way that you people do so I pay a 11ttle more because I've got land on the lake. I fee]. that it's my right and prlviledge to husband that and to volce my oplnlon about this. I thlnk the presentation of the recently completed Eastern Carver County Transportation Study related to the predicted future trafflc demands ls bogus. It's absolutely bogus. I was in the traffic control business for a number of years and I've sat down and figured this out. The trafflc that was proposed at those meetlngs ls really only an indication of probably lO~ of the people that live there. If you figure that the people that we are talklng about paylng for thls project each having two cars and multiplying that out, you'll find that the traffic proposal, that only covers like less than 10~ of that as far as drlvlng. Where are these other 95~ coming From to drive down Ninnewashta Parkway? Why do we need this klnd of a road based on those flgures? I thlnk the reduction of land assessment ls necessary in a lot of [hess cases. Yes, there are some people who have moved ln. Plcked up a property and are looklng to develop lt. They ought to pay for that. If they want to sell lots and make money, then they ought to pay for the assessments that go along wlth puttlng in storm sewers, dralnage systems and the rest of that ~t~st like I did when I moved in here. There was no storm or drain sewer or anything. We had a well in the front yard and a septic tank. Then they came along and sald well you have to hook up and we have to comply. We have and we paid for that. Somebody else coming 1nrc the neighborhood, I know it costs a 1. et more nowadays but I'm sorry, developers should have to pay that cost and pass it onto their people and not expect the people in the neighborhood to have to pay agaln for something they've already paid for once. I think also the reduction of the assessment ls not really, I've never felt comforable wlth this because when we started out about the State matching funds my wife contacted the Governor's offlce about the State matching fund situation and found out that that was being phased out by the State government. And that there were no plans or had there been any proposals sent to them about thls project and they were very interested in flnding out more about it. Now I hear tonight that there's some proposal where you take regular State budgeting money that you've got over' the next 3 years and use this to help fund this project. What else are you going to do in thls clty then? You've got no projects for the nnxt 3 years except this one to fund? I can't see where that's really going to be a good deal. I guess in summation I have to say that I'm a little bit distraught about the fact that I've looked through this number 3. Chanhassen cover letter and all of the attached letters. I see a lot of he's here. I see a lot of people that have come here saying we don't want this. Why are you doing thls to us? Why are you maklng us pay for it and who are the yes people that are saying so? I haven't seen them. Thank you. L. eittia Seim: My name is Leittla Seim and I'm a resident of 3616 Red Cedar Point Drive. We own the property for the last 33 years. Now we live in California and we know what means to urbanize. It's terrible. I am very disappointed that a proposal, of tile kind I have listened to tonight is even considered. It seems to me that the good englneer that present it has given reason and have found reason for doing something. In other words, at first he wanted large. Then he want to reduce. Then he says that wlll help the dralnage but now it will not help the drainage. Then we'll have to send the water to 12 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Hinnewashta again. Then to Little Joe again. Seems to me just making water. I want to register my strong opposition to enlarge even one inch of that parkway, It's large enough. I am also concerned that somebody wants a jogging path. Well I have been not jogging. I cannot jog any longer but I walk a lot and I have counted in one hour and a half 22 cars. 22 cars is not traffic. It's just very little traffic so I don't know why we need to enlarge anything. So I simply want to say don't do it. Harvey Sobel: Mr. Mayor? Councilwoman? Councilmen? I'd like to know first if you all are fully famillar with our Minnewashta Parkway? I live on Red Cedar Cove. Harvey Sobel. Are you all personally familiar? Each of you have walked a plece of it? Understand it is a country road. By no means could it be converted into a 41 type of hlghway. My second short questlon is, ls there a way that the Council, that you Mr. Mayor, can poll the 530 taxpayers? What if 75~ of us for example voted for the tlme belng let's gamble $150,000.00 on an overlay? What would the results be of such a po117 Thank you. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Peter Benjamin: My name is Peter Benjamin and I'm a new resident on Minnewashta Parkway. I live at 7231Minnewashta and I just had a question about the Eastern Carver County Trafflc survey that was done in 1990. In October and it recommends that Minnewashta be 4 lanes and I just want to have some response about that proposal. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we can have, Gary? Gary Warren: If I understood the question is why the Eastern Carver County study report showed Mlnnewashta Parkway to be 4 lanes. Actually the report, as I recall it, showed it to be a collector roadway system whlch can be 4 or 2 lanes depending on the width of the roadway. That is based on the computer modeling that was done with the best input of the MnDot Transportation model that was used on the TH 212 corridor and input as far as the Crosstown projections are for feedlng lnto TH 7 and also on TH 5. It's with that in mlnd that discussion here, I remember from some of the earlier hearings that the 7,o00 average dally traffic count was in question and such. Actually the road section would stay the same whether you're talking 1,000 or 7,000 based on the State standards. There's a lot of room for I guess changes in traffic lmpacts so you could cut the traffic projections in half and you would still be looking to build the same road sectlon out there under the State standards. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does that answer your question? Bill Engelhardt: I'll give it a try. The way I understand the question is, your concern is that it's going to a 4 lane? Peter Benjamin: Yes. Bill Engelhardt: Okay. When they do thelr traffic modeling and they put together the numbers that tell you or the guesstimate of how many vehicles they would anticipate would travel on that roadway in the future, in 2010. In the year 2010, that model says it will carry so many vehicles. I think it was like 9,500 vehicles per day. I personally felt that when we looked at those numbers 13 City Council M.'.~'tillg - July 8, 1991 that that particular model probably was accelerated a llttle bit. I don't think .it's golng to g~¢t that high. So what we dld is we went back to MnOot and we said, what road sectlon could we, or what road width could we put in there to meet your design standards amid still re,;eive the funding? They said a 36 foot roadway. That would meet thelr trafflc projections. It was classified as a, 1'11 say a high density collector. That's the maximum width it was ever proposed. It was never proposed for 4 lanes. It never would be 4 lanes because it doesn't carry that volume of traffic. After the neighborhood meetings I asked and it was very apparent that the 36 foot uldth was very objectionable. And from tonight tile 32 is even objectionable. Keep in mind that rlght now you have a 28 foot roadway. So what we're doing expanding to 32, to the back of the c~.~rb, is adding 2 feet on both sides of the roCzd which means we're utilizing those shoulders. We went back to MnDot and we sald, if you look at your design standards, the traffic projections for a modified section would fall in what's called a low densJ, ty collector and we could reduce that street wldth down to 32. They agreed with that and when this gentleman asked is that approved by HnOot, that is approved by ~inDot. They have glven us thelr blesslng on that to go down ~o 32 foot wide. Back of curb to back of curb. Which results in about a 29 foot drlving surface where today you have about a 28 foot drlving surface. So you're talklng about 6 inches of driving surface on each side plus the curb and gutter. The questlon was through all of the hearings, the meetlngs was that you're going to £ncrease tile speed. Tile speed is going to increase. You're going to construct an unsafe road and that's not true. Studles have shown that with curb and gutter on a roadway that the speeds are reduced, Now you can belleve that if you want. Those are the facts. That's what the study shows and it's been shown ali. tl~rough the ~;ountry that if you have a wide open road wlth no centre].. Wlth no curb and gutter, that you will see hlgher speeds. By installing your curb and gutters, you will see lower' speeds. That's a proven fact. So the next thing to do on the roadway for both the pedestrians that utilize that road and for the cars that utillze that road and the way you do that ls through smoothing out the curves. Taklng out the horizontal vertlcal curves, correct sight distances. Stlll staying within MnOot guideline standards and still keeplng wlthln [he character of the parkway as best you can ,and you can do it. It can be done, Peter Benjamin: I was concerned that down the road that this would be 4 lanes. 8ill Engelhardt: No. It isn't going to happen. Ed Oat hour: My name is F.d Oat hour. I live at 3940 Hawthorne Clrcle. Because we have an engineer speaking ~O)light I'd like to say that I'm a registered architect and I worked for Target for nlost of the last 4 years and I've done ~7 ~.imes more asphalt work in that time working for Target than this road amounts to. I've walked the road for 5 years maybe 200-300 tlmes. I drlve it at minimum twice a day. There are some areas on there that have some foundation problems. They're not very many. They're far apart. One of the thlngs that Bill just got done saying was that the addition of a curb and gutter on the side of the road ls golng to slow people down. I don't know. Okay, if thls le true in other parts of the world, when you take that road that you have to travel 30 mph on whether it's the speed 11mlt or not because you can't go any fa~ter than that and make it into a smooth, rolllng thing with no trees on either side, I think you're going to see the trafflc speed go up to 40-45 mph. ! have serlous doubts about the safety of our children and that goes on. But the reason that 14 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 I came here today was not to talk necessarily about those things. Obviously I'm opposed to this road and the reasons that I oppose it, first of all is the cost is too high. Or maybe safety is the first reason but let's go into cost first because that's what has been discussed by Bill Quite often. We have a road to the east of us. We have a road to the west of us. TH 41 and Rolling Acres. Both of those are fine roads. They go between TH 5 and TH 7. The road that we have here goes through a neighborhood. It's a different kind of a road. It's a different kind of a feeling in that particular area than these other two roads are whlch by the way qulte a blt faster roads. Zn case you have been out there, there's just as many joggers and bikers and kids on this road as there are cars. You can't drlve it in the mornlng or at night without seelng at least 2 or 3 joggers or walkers or kids on bikes. My suggestion is that even though I'll get booed out for thls, I do believe that we do need to put a parkway walkway system in there. We have no park in the area. The kids need it. The adults need it but we don't need the road to be upgraded the way we're talking about. Yes, we need to have the catch basins. They have to be raised in some cases. There are great potholes but where in Minnesota aren't there potholes. But we need to keep the road at 30 mph and I believe the way to do that is not to turn it into a speedway. I know that there's nobody in this room that really belleves Mr. Englehardt's contention that this road is going to stay 30 mph. The signs will say 30 mph and it will be a blg revenue producer for the city but I'm afrald we might lose a kid or two out there or an adult becausg I've seen 15 or 20 times a gentleman walking down that road wlth a long white cane with a red tlp on the end of it. I know that a situation exists that needs to be corrected and I belleve that that's the situation. The next ltem ls the traffic study was talked about at the meeting that Mr. Wing attended. The public meeting Mr. Wing attended. I belleve that somebody said that the average residence in there was going to generate 10 trips a day but the traffic study didn't bear that out. As a matter of fact it was about 3 trlps a day. So what we're deallng with here is figures that are taken completely out of context by an engineer who I have a great deal of falth in but I know that he's just using numbers that have no basis in fact. At least in our area. The reason that they don't is because these numbers were generated during the time when gasollne was 17 cents a gallon and people didn't live 20 miles from the grocery store. We don't do business 11ke that. When we go to the grocery store we spend tlme at the grocery store, the supermarket, the Target and everyplace else we go to. Then we take the whole thing in one trip lnstead of dolng it 11ke people who live in the clty do in 10 trips. Last item I guess is, that's why I oppose construction. Thank you very much. Lamar Proshek: My name is Lamar Proshek. I live on Red Cedar Point Drive and I have some concerns that have been voiced by many others before me tonight. My main concerns are that we are going to be addressed with a lot of new trafflc in the area and we can avoid that. The other concern is that we're gotng to be addressed by a lot of additional taxes, money that we don't need. Now ! appreciate the fact that you say that you're going to float some bonds and going to increase the taxes and you're going to limit those taxes to 8 years. Then you're going to get State help. State Aid. Where does that money come from? From the State? Is anybody here in doubt? Now I appreciate the fact that you have put a lot of time and thought and effort on this project and I feel that this road whlch we're talklng about has been there for many, many decades. It has served the local area very well and I personally don't think that we should look that it should serve other people in this State or thls city more than it 15 Council Heeling - July 8, 199I serves us. Now I wrote you a letter and I would like to just read it because I think this kind of outlinr~.s my thoughts. I would heathy like to register my pronounced opposition to the proposal to improve Minnewashta Parkway from TH ? to TH 5 at a cost of 3 million dollars. Now I appreciate the fact that it's been $2.1 million and...and I would suggest that by the time it's built, it probably could be much higher. In fact I would register my disapproval to improve this road at all except for maintenance only of irregular surfaces such as potholes. Curb, water, sewer and gutter and improved surfaces costing 3 million dollars is a matter for' city living, not country living. I live on Red Cedar Point and before me my father had a cabin on Red Cedar' Point since 1935. We'd like to maintain for as long as possible the feeling of country living. We feel that if you straighten out, widen and smooth off Minnewashta Parkway, you will vastly increase the amount of speed of traffic on this road and bring the city [o the country. In addition to this I realize that $3 million is quite a bit of money and all people who live in this area would be assessed a portion of this money. I would like to bring to yoLtr attention that our taxes have just been raised 30~. The additional taxes which we would be required to pay I consider unconscionable. Please leave our community adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway countrified and not citified. Thank you. Dave Headla: Ny name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I guess Z'm one of the yes mar,. This may be the first one but I ask you do not look at the idea of what we were iii 1970 but look ahead to the year 2000 and where we're going to be. Now the reason I support what you're doing and B~ll and :[ certainly aren't in agreeme~]t on all the issues but I think the concept I've got to support. Safety is the ultimate point. ~nd one of the things was, about a week ago we had a rai~,. I went down my driveway and looked across the road and here was a kid, 9 year old boy sitting in the gutter playing in the rain. The water was coming down. He was having a good time. Now that's a narrow section and cars haul through there. That kid could have been picked off so easy. I think if we put in that road and I have a hard time accepting 32 feet but if we argue about that we're going to be wringing our hands and never get anything resolved. So it's kind of can hang you with a new rope and we go 32 feet. I think we've got to have that safety and where Bill has looked at it again, now I'd like to compliment the Hayer on the letter. 14e responded to me. He gave me some facts. That $24,000.00 that we donated to the trail fund, in my own mind I thought it ~as about 4 times that much. ~nd then Bill was very helpful and the staff in giving me numbers so ~ appreciate their cooperation. Now we walked down the trail and trees are going to come out from either side so that didn't make a point. But he was willing to listen that out of 265 units on the north side of Kings Road, only about lO are on the east side of the road. He llstened to that and then he looked at the trees and what it meant and he said well maybe; that does make sense to do that so Z think he is putting forth a real effort to do the rlght thlng to satlsfy a lot of people. So many homes on that side, picking up a scl~ool bus or anything, T think it's by f~r the safest thing to do. As far as the road speed, I've got two comments. I talked to somebody on Birch Bluff Road and I asked them does the speeed, did the speed increase, decrease or stay the same after they put in the 9 ton road. They said that's not a fair question. I go out there at 40 mph, I'm holding up traffic. So we may have that problem. So okay, we've got a problem. I t hlnk the lssue is how do we work that problem. Now as you come off of TH 5 or TH ?, if you come off of TH 7 onto TH 5, you see a speed limlt 30 but you also see two slgns. Oth~;r signs on that post. What Z really would like to do is have you work the 16 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 issue. Put up one sign and say speed limit reduced, 30 mph. Do the same thing at the other end but then inbetween, at Kings Road or someplace put two more. 30 mph signs. Now all the way inbetween, you come out Red Cedar Point Road and you come out of Stratford Ridge, you don't see anything so I think we need more warnlng on that. And as far as the traffic count, I was really in disagreement with 8ill on that but I started in front of my place looking at Stratford Ridge. Oh there was trafflc comlng out of there all the tlme and that's not agalnst him. That's the way it is. Then I look at when our place goes and our neighbor's place goes and I look at, I assume the same home count will have the same traffic. There's going to be a lot of traffic on that road. So here again I hate to do it but rather than wringing our hands I think we've got to support that. Okay now the two issues that I'm really concerned about, outside of safety is one ls determination of the number of unlts. I don't think there's a consistent rule across the overall path. And 8111 and I talked about lt. What I would really 11ke to see you do ls if I plot my land, then I get assessed for every single unit that goes in there. My neighbors have to do that. They get assessed at that tlme. Llkewlse neighbors to the north. If they squeak in another lot, and that can be done in some places, they ought to get hit with the same assessment. ! really would like to see you address that lssue. Whoever plots it, whatever goes in, that's when they get assessed. Now if I get hit and the estlmate right now ls for 17 unlts, let me address the 17 unlts flrst. In front of my place it isn't realistic to bui'ld another home. In the back of my place I've got many oak trees, many old maple trees and determination of that number of units wasn't taken into consideration. When a building, a builder's looked at our place and he's klnd of given an estimate of what he's done. They never talk about trashing your home. They say hey, that's too valuable. We can't trash that. They also want to save all those trees. Supposedly he wants to save trees. Well, we're not going to save trees and come up with 17 units. It lsn't bare pralrle land where lt's rows and columns. My nelghbor has a ravine behind her place. That's just unbuildable but she gets hit for that spot there so I'd like to see your decision making based on the number of unlts that get plotted. Now the last point is that right now I'm assessed one unit and I have no problem at all wlth that assessment. You know remember safety. One kid gets picked off, then you think about your ,1,250.00 bucks and I think we need lt. There's that much traffic. If I get hlt for one lot now or one assessment, I would like to see this one assessment and not have to pay interest on the other 16. Now what happens if I had to pay lnterest on that 16, although nobody in my place is using it. Just our family's there. You're costing me over *200.00 a month and I just don't think that's rlght that I would have to pay ,200.00 a month when nobody's using it and hopefully they won't be using it for quite a while in the future. That's all I have to say. You've got a tough, very tough decision to make. Good luck. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Terry Forbord: Your honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord wlth Lundgren Brothers. 935 East Wayzata Blvd.. Prior to any informal or formal public hearings ue have gone on record opposing this project for a number of reasons. Since that tlme the formulas for assessments have been changed. Lundgren Bros. controls approximately 50-55 acres of land contiguous to Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of that property ls in the city of Victoria. The reason that we have opposed this project primarily is number one, there's no beneflt to us as far as lt's marketability as a neighborhood community. People 17 City Council Meeting - .luly 8, L99~ will want to live there whether that road is the way that it is now or if you do something different, wif. h it. Secondly is because we've had little difficulty making the assessment formula, the proposed assessment formulas work within the city's own zoning ordinance. The piece of property that we have right at this present time could not be platted at more than 1.4839 dwelllng units per acre because of this city's shoreland overlay districts, zoning code and because of the constraints the DNR, etc.. ~nd from a legal standpoint, I would challenge whether ue could be assessed something for what the ordinance would prohibit us from doing. ~nd there was discussion by Mr. Engelhardt that some adjustments may be needed in certain areas. In that area north of, excuse me, west of Minnewashta Parkway there are a number of pieces of property that ~ don't think would meet that test. Z don't know how you would put together an adjustment but at some point in time that's something we would need to investigate. The last item that Z would tike to mention is that we have not been contacted by either Victoria or the City of Chanhassen regarding any land swap on property that we control and if there is discussion regarding that, we would like to be a party to that and would welcome lt. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Why don't you come on up. Tom Allenburg: Mr. Mayor, Councll people. My name ls Tom Allenburg. I 1lye at 6~21 Minnewasht~ Parkway and some of the presentations were quite good and quite formal and people had prepared. I really haven't. I would chastlse one thlng ~hat occurred tonlght. I think Mr. Bill Engelhardt is it? ~ think his verbal presentation was excellent. I t hlnk hls audio vlsuals were extremely poor and I don't think that anybody here has any idea really what he was talking about. Maybe you're not aware that thls cannot be seen on the screen and I don't thlnk it's fair to us who have some legitimate concerns as to what's going on here. I am a jogger. I've lived on that parkway now for ~ years and a couple things that I enjoy are early in the morning I can jog from my place, 1.2 miles down to TH 5 and back and often not see another car. I do not quite understand why we want to upgrade this from a rural road to an urban road to make it a collector road so that I can now maybe jog along a pathway next to additional cars that are coming from other areas. I thought one other issue that he raised concerned me, or maybe he didn't raise. The one gentleman who was going to lose his 6 trees in hls front yard. One thing that ~ really enjoy in walking the parkway ls that Lhere are these nlce trees that overhang the road both on Mlnnewashta lakeshore side ~nd on his slde of the road there. It was brought out that the road's golng to be expanded ~ lnches on each slde. ~ee in front of my house the road is 25 feet so it's going to be considerably more than that. Plus I think we have to, and my understanding at the last meetlng is that there's an additional 11 feet with the walkway. Is that not right? So there's a boulevard and then the walkway? Bill Engelhardt: Right. Tom A11enburg: So lt's not a 32 foot swath. So when I jog down thls road lt's not that ~ went from a 28 foot to a 32 foot. Z am now going on a what, 44 foot? Bill Engelhardt: No. That's not correct. You still have a roadway of 32 feet plus the additional 6 feet of walkway on the outside of the curb. Tom A11enburg: Plus a boulevard though? 18 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt: About a 3 foot boulevard, yeah. Tom Allenburg: Well now wait a minute now. You told us last time 5 foot so I've got 32 feet, I've 5 feet and I've got 6 feet. 8ill Engelhardt: That's right. Tom Allenburg: So I've got 11 feet outside of my 33 feet so that's 44 feet. Now if ue want real safety you know we could make it 66 feet or something. I really thlnk that 11vlng on the parkway, gee whiz the reason we bought there it that it was rural and it was not a ma3or thoroughfare and yeah, I think the road needs to be improved. I don't understand why it has to be wider and I don't understand taking this giant swath out of the entire neighborhood. In summary I guess I'm really opposed to this plan. I really think there should be additional information that could be gathered and maybe additional plans that would be presented to the people. I was at the last meeting and it was my understanding that a survey was going to be sent to the residents asking them varlous questions. I don't think anythlng like that showed up. The only thlng that showed up ls this meeting notice saying that this was going to take place tonight. So I guess I would really 11ke to see you reconsider thls and at this point not approve the proposal as presented to you. Thank you. Rich Comer: I'm Rich Comer and I live at 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive. We've been there for about 40 years. My wife was born on the place and her family got it from the orlginal lndlans from the Civll War and they've been there ever since. There are a few 11ttle points here. Mr. Allenburg said that it was 28 feet wide in front of bls house? Mayor Chmiel: There are two different variations on that road. Some 28 feet and some at 25. Rich Comer: True. When you take a measuring stick and you go from the middle of the road to the edge you get 26 feet most of the way and on occasion you get to 27 so if he goes to 35 or 32, we'll have the 6 feet that Bare Headla wants as a walkway rlght next to the road. And with this sufficient speed limit, you won't have to worry about 11ttle kld playing in the rain if he's in that walkway. If he's not in the walkway heaven help him because there's no way we're going to protect hlm. I'm the one who sort of developed the idea of having an overlay. I think it's a grand idea and you hear things about Goodyear has developed a mat that goes on top of the roadway and you just put the asphalt on top and it lasts for a million years. Where are we with that? What happened to that? I'd 11ke to ask you Bi11. Bill Engelhardt: It's good advertising. From what we've seen, the mats or the fabrlcs that they've used work the best underneath the base or underneath the rock material to separate the fines from getting up in the base. To just put the fabrlc as you see in the Phllllps 66 commercial, they're laylng down the fabric and they're putting a bituminous overlay on the top. It works very good in the south where they don't have any freeze/thaw cycles. Rich Comer: We happened to see it being done on TH 7 for the last 18 years. They went from St. Louls Park all the way out. 19 City Council lteeting -. 3uly 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt: They just put an overlay on that though. Rich Comer: Exactly. find it's holding up beautifully. Bill Engelhardt: And they mill it off and then they put their overlay on and the reason they mill it is to keep it at the same elevation... Rich Comer: And the relative cost of doing that scoring and putting on the overlay is way out of slght on the $3 million right? Bill Engelhardt: No. Rich Comer: It's within reach? Bill Engelhardt: The problem is that the subsoils in that particular area. Rich Comer: Whoops. Whoops. We have a stable road base. Bill Engelhardt: No. Rich Comer: It's been there for over 100 years and you flnd a place in there where it's 14 inches of bituminous that makes it irregular? Wouldn't it be justifiable to go down that road and where it ls not standard, replace lt. Leave the rest of it alone because we all know if you lift it up and start over, you're golng to have a crown that's golng to drop 14 lnches over the next 15 years. An inch a year. That's the way it goes. So you're going to have an unstable road base if you put the 3 m1111on dollars ln. If you put an overlay on, you'll have a stable base with the exception of where you have the drainage problems. And I 11ks thls letter from Don Ashuorth where it says he doesn't like the idea of an overlay because bituminous overlay would not improve intersections, slght 11nes and storm drainage problems currently belng experienced. I think the ideal for a storm drainage is wherever that drop of rain hlts, it gets to an absorbing soll as qulckly as it posslbly can. That ls crown the road so it gets to the gutter and is off in 13 feet and forget about the storm. Now you say DOT requires lt. We could finance thls thing without DOT if we simply have an overlay and eliminate the storm sewer and the gutters. We've got dltches. That plcture you had up there was ridiculous. A roadway in the gutter? We've got ditches all the way along that road. It's going to drain off just as soon as it leaves that hard surface and I thlnk that ue should eliminate the gutters and the storm sewers. As far as this package, you've got $600,000.00. $6&5,000.00 from us. $994,000.00 from the State. Let's let the State, forget about that. We'll try to carry it ourselves. How dld we get in thls mess huh? You know what happened? We dldn't do the maintenance on a regular scheduled basis. We didn't put down the sand and the tar that's occasionally put on. It used to be before the Vlllage took over. In fact just before they put in the sewer, they had a sealcoat put on and then proceed to tear it up. But if we had had a maintenance schedule all thls perlod that would be absorbed, there wouldn't be this problem. I thlnk that the thing should be corrected on a maintenance basls wlthout havlng any additional assessment. Thanks for your trouble. Court MacFarlane: Hr. Hayor, my name is Court HacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve and I have just three points that I wanted to raise. The current 2O City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 drainage off of the road is basically by sheet drainage and rather than going into specific areas. I know there's one area off of Leslee Curve that dralns down across the road but that was upgraded just I thlnk last year and they improved the whole drainage through that area down into Minnewashta. But basically the rest of it lsa sheet drainage-system that just goes off the road at a point that the rain hits and it's off the crown and most of it goes toward the lake side. Now you have a very mature slope along there and when I was involved with the environmental committee that wrote the wetland ordinance for the City of Chanhassen in 1984 we looked 1nrc the various types of wetlands in Chanhassen. One of the things that came out at that time is along the Minnesota Rlver there ls what they call an environmental slope easement along there because it's a steep slope. It's a very mature growth area with a lot of old growth trees. If you go along Minnewashta Parkway you're going to see those old growth trees on the lake side. Most of them are oaks and oaks are notorious for when thelr roots are disturbed or compacted that they die withln a year or two. I know some of those trees have got to be 200 years old. All you have to do is look at them from the slze. They created that slope easement along the Minnesota River to preserve that slope so no building could be done and no excavation could be done 1nrc lt. I think something like that is certainly warranted along there too because of the age. The other thing is that I live in the pleasant Acres Association and we basically have a clrcular drlve and in the middle of our development there and I don't know how many homes altogether there are. There's got to be 50 to 70 plus another 30 that are coming in from the new development that's in there. The lots have already been platted. I think there's only been two homes built in there at thls polnt but I don't know who's going to be using this trail. I don't think people from our area are going to be uslng lt. I know lt's used. Not from our area. People in our area walk around Leslee Curve. They walk around in there. Some go down to the lake. Certainly. We have a lake lot down there. It's a crosslng point but very few, if any walk the entire parkway. I think the whole project is unwarranted and I thlnk that something could be done just with upgrading the road. I don't know that we need the trail at a11. I'm opposed to it and I'm opposed to completely new road surface. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else7 Arnie Head: Mayor. Councilmen. My name ls Arnle Head. I 1lye at 3860 Lone Cedar Circle and Court who was up here just before me, we were on the access to Lake Mlnnewashta. I chalred that committee and I thlnk we probably provlded more safety on Mlnnewashta Parkway with the decisions that we worked out with the DNR when we eliminated the parklng of boats and trailers on Minnewashta Parkway about 5 years ago. There are ways to protect safety without building this new road. I thlnk there's another item that the Director of the Arboretum has been in negotiations with your people to determine what they can do to protect the environment of the Arboretum. I thlnk that might be taken 1nrc consideration. There's a third thing that I've noticed in the Minnetonka, St. Louls Park, other cltles on the west slde. There's always access to the city on east/west highways. Every city seems to want north/south egress. Well in Chanhassen we have TH 101, CR 17, CR 117 and TH 41 and we also have Rolllng Acres Road. That's five north/south so we don't need Minnewashta Parkway to carry more trafflc. My wife would shoot me I guess but I got a letter Frlday that I'm being requested to go to the Soviet Union to explain democracy to the collective farms in Istonia. Maybe we can use democracy here and have a vote as 21 City Council Meeting -- July 8, 1991 to how many property owners out of the 532 approve this enhancement of Minnewashta Parkway. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Resident: I just have a question. How many of you have really been on Minnewashta Parkway to look at all the homes that are golng to be affected by this? Mayor Chmlel: I've been there many times. Councilman Workman: All my life. Mayor Chmiel: No question. Yes sir. Kevin Cuddihy: Kevin Cuddihy, 3900 Stratford Ridge. I guess the people that drlve a lot. I don't know. Zt's my neighbors belleve me. Just a couple of quick questions before Z comment. Bi11, MnOot, correct me Lf I'm wrong, has approved a 119ht going in on TH ? and Minneuashta Parkway? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Kevln Cuddlhy: And what year wlll that be golng in? Bill Engelhardt: I think 1995 is scheduled for TH 7 and 1994 is scheduled for Tit 5. Kevin Cuddihy: Yeah, I think that was talked about at our previous meetings. At that polnt I see it being very unrealistic that if nothing's been done wlth Hinnewashta Parkway that something wlll be done at that polnt. At that polnt is it possibZe that HnDot may have more to say than it does currently? Bill Engelhardt: It's possible, yeah. Kevin Cuddihy: So I would think that we look at that only in the sense that if there ls an inevitability about thls, that we look at it now. I moved here from Minnetonka. Before that moved out from closer into the city. I continue to move out so Z certainly can understand country versus urban. Unfortunately, if you look at the plans being involved right now for the City of Victoria, you can see that that's becomlng extremely suburbanized rlght now ltself. Something even further west than where we're at. I appreciate the fact that everyone would 11ke to keep it more countrified. I guess I would 11ke to add that there seems to be some concern certainly, my co,cern that Minneuashta is a parkway. We'd 11ke to keep it a parkway. That we're deallng ulth the 32 foot curb to curb road on a 66 foot right--of-way which would leave us somewhere in the neighborhood, if my math ls correct, uhlch probably lsn't, about 34 feet to work with in developing a jogging path or ualklng path. Nhate~er you'd like to call it. And the particular area that would remaln grass between the road and the walkway could at any point be up to ~8 feet apart from the road. That's only 18 feet to avoid any major trees along the parkway, particularly on the furthest west part of the road. I thlnk that way at some point your walkway may be a m&nimum of 5 feet away. Could it not also be as much as 12 to 16 feet away and leaveing trees inbetueen? 22 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt: Right. With the type of walkway we're proposing, we can go around large trees. As I mentioned earlier, in case~ where we mlght have to bulld a small retaining wall, that can be done to save the tree. Depending on the type of tree. You have a lot of flexibility on where to put that walkway and how it can work. Kevin Cuddihy: I guess finally if, and I personally belleve in inevitability because I've seen it in the State of Minnesota in my 35 years here. I also belleve that Governor Carlson in hls many flne ways probably wlll not be glvlng us as much State Aid $ years from now as he is today and I can guarandamtee you lt's golng to cost you more 5 years from now than it is today and it may not be your choice. So I may not be popular but I think it's something to think about. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address us? This is your opportunity. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, 4141 Kings Road. On these walking paths, for instance the curb and gutter, are they going to sweep that? Get a sweeper to sweep that or Bobcat to clean up the walklng path instead of making it one level and when they plow the road they plow the one time and it's all done? What's the status on that particular case? I mean have they got to buy extra equipment to maintain this thing or whatever's going to happen with this? If it's one level, they plow her and sweep her or whatever and flx the road and whatever to make it a little wider. Whatever form but the maintenance cost on that thing is golng to look somebody in the eye pretty soon. Thank you. Oh, one other thlng was on per acre lots, what did he say 1.8 now assessed for this road? Does Chanhassen have a 2 acre mlnlmal buildlng lot deal rlght now do they? You've got to be at least 2 acres per home. Or is it now down to 1.87 Mayor Chmiel: Depending upon specific areas. Paul, maybe you can address that. Paul Krauss: That entire area is guided for single family development and while lt's not all zoned RSF I don't belleve at thls ttme, it all could be and it all could be developed in 15,000 square foot lots. Lowell Carlson: Okay. So it still is a 2 acre per unit? So it's 1.8 now? Bill Engelhardt: 3 per acre. Paul Krauss: It's actually more than that if you figure it on a gross basis. I mean if you just take an acre you can almost get 3 lots out of it technically. When you figure out what you're really going to get out of it when you subtract roads and wetlands and whatever else, effectively you come out with a number that's a lot closer to the 1.8 that's belng used. Lowell Carlson: Say you ain't got no wet area and you ain't got no sewer and water and you aln't got whatever. You've just got bare land. What are you saying at that particular point what anybody's going to be assessed on this property? Llke for the 6 acres or whatever. What do you say the assessments are going to be on that particular unit? As a stngle family? Is this a single family one shot deal or what do say on that now? 23 City Council lteeti~g -. July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt: What we're saying is that if you have 6 acres of developable property where you'd be served with municipal sanitary sewer and water, that you would be assessed 1.8 units per acre which would give you roughly two 24,000 square foot lots per' acre. The zoning standard for that particular area is at 15,000 square feet so you're basically getting a break. We're saying that you can only develop 20,000 square foot lots when in reality you can probably get 15,000 or up to 3 units per acre. That's why ue originally started at the 3 unir. s or 3 lots. Three single family lots per acre and then after we looked at it, realising the amount of wetlands that we have up there, subtracting out for roads that you have to build to serve the property, it's closer to about 2.8. Lowell Carlson: Well how many times is this thing really going to be changed by tile [ime I get done? I was at the last meeting and I recall talking to you that it was, and you saying that it was going to be strictly a single dwelling, per person regardless of acreage. 6m I right? Bill Engelhardt: I don't think I ever made that statement. I said that if you have a dwelling on let's say 6 acres, you would be assessed the single family unit plus the number of units you could get on the balance of that lot. On the balance of that land. Lowell Carlson: Well I must have got hard hearing on the tail end because I didn't hear plus. The plus is what's kind of getting me a little...and I'm sure the pluses are getting a few other ones. But thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 4nyone else? Harvey Sobel: Mr. Mayor, it's been commented by various of us that perhaps you of' the City ~ttorney can tell us within tile City Charter, is there a possibility [hat we can, we 532 unit holders, can we vote to influence the decision of the 6ouncil? Councilwoman Dimler: It'd be a referendum. Mayor Chmiel: No, not really. Councilman Mason: You can at election time. Mayor Chmiel: During election you'd have your' opportunity to oust those who are in office at that particular time by voting for the other person. That would probably be. Harvey Sobel: Could you just conduct a survey though rather than an official election? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well, I suppose we could put a survey but we have right now, if I remember' correctly of tile total numbers that I had seen on the back end of here, it was 302, 307 total people. Harvey Sobel: So it's 530 some units but it may not be that many people? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. I went over each of these names just to. 24 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Harvey Sobel: Are all of these units being affected equally regardless of proximity to Minnewzshta Parkway? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Harvey Sobel: Some people who live on the far end of Leslee Curve right before TH ? which probably use TH ? than Minneuashta Parkway, they still have to pay the same? Mayor Chmiel: Bill, is that what you've taken into consideration on that? Bill Engelhardt: We discussed whether ue should assess the people close to TH 7 the full unlt and the conclusion that we came up with ls that they wlll use Minnewashta Parkway just as readily as anybody else in the neighborhood. The possibility exlsts, and I'll say it as a possibility, that access at I think it's Leslee mlght be closed and the reason the possibility exists is because lt's MnOot' pollcy when they improve thelr corridors, their highway corridors, the major corridors like TH 7, that they try to close as many of those accesses as possible. Now I'm not saylng that it will be closed. I'm saylng that lt's their policy to try and close them. And if that's the case, then again Minnewashta Parkway would be thelr only lngress and egress. I don't know when that would happen. It would probably be way in the future. We felt that the assessing everyone equally up in that area was the correct way to do it. Was the most fair and equitable way for all parttes and that's the way we proposed lt. I thlnk one thlng you have to keep in mind ls that the assessments that you're seeing we probably won't get around to assessing it until 1992, payable in 1993. So we're talking about 2 to 3 years down the road. The project schedule, if the project were to go ahead tonight, we would not see a bidding on the project untll late fall. You might see a minor amount of construction late fall with completion of the project in 1992 and it may even go into 1993..I doubt lt. I thlnk we'd be able to get it done in 1992. Assessment then in 1993. Payable in 1993. So your first payment on that $1,200.00 would not be due untll 1993. The schedule for the lights on TH 7 and TN 5 ls 1994-1995 so what we're doing is getting ready to accommodate some of the traffic that may be uslng that road based on the 11ghts. Resident: I guess I was also thinking of Lone Cedar Circle and West 7?th Street where I think the bulk of thls project would...dlrectly out onto TH 5 and occasionally out to Minneuashta Parkway. Bill Engelhardt: Agaln we felt that because of the amount of the assessment belng at $1,250.00. Nobody likes to be assessed. I've been in this business long enough to know that and been through enough of these projects that nobody likes assessments but if you can make them fair and equitable so that all partles are being treated equally, that's about the best job you can do. Resident: How about the utility lines. Will they be buried along with this? Bill Engelhardt: That question came up. A resident along the parkway asked about the utility lines. Usually in cases like this we encourage NSP to bury their power 11nes. We certainly would be in touch with them. In most cases when they see a major improvement like thls they will undertake the policy to go ahead and bury those lines. The difficulty that you run up agalnst ls if you're 25 City Council Heeling - July 8, 1,991 being served off of these power lines by overhead power, then your home itself has to be converted on the outside to underground and that can run from $400.00 to $300.00. Usually what happens is after that gets explained to the property owner, they really don't want the power lines buried. But NSP may choose on this particular roadway, thls lsa very good opportunity for them to take care of their utilities. We will have to have poles moved and they may elect to bury the power 11nes. We would be worklng wlth them and it would be part of the deslgll phase of the project. Resident: That all applies to the gas and the phone and water too? Bill Engelhardt: Well the phone would be buried along with NSP. That's usually the general practice. Gas I'm assuming ls burled at this polnt. I hope so anyhow. Sewer and water I guess they're underground at this point too. Resident: When you straighten out your curb, you may be bumplng lnto gas 11nes. 8ill Engelhardt: That's ali. part of the project cost and generally, in all cases those utlllty companies are requlred to move because they're in the rLght--of-way by permit. We basically demand that they relocate their 11nes to accommodate the roadway at thelr expense. Jo~n, Hallgren: I'm here again. Jo~nn Hallgren, 6860 Hinnewashta Parkway. I know I've bombarded you wlth letters. I've sat here for almost 2 hours. I really haven't heard a lot of approval of the project but listening to Mr. Engelhardt, lt's going through. That's the way it seems to me and I don't know, do we have any voice at all. All of us here. Mayor Chmlel: Well, that's what we're trylng to determine this evening. Where are we going to go from where we're at right now. Jo~nn Hallgren: I didn't understand the purpose of this meetlng. Was it for you to decide if we will go ahead with this project or just to accept Mr. Engelhardt's study? Mayor Chmiel: Well, if we were to accept his study, then we would proceed then with the project. JoAnn Hallgren: I did read the study. I feel that it's not valid. It's inconsistent with itself in a number of areas and that's what I did say in my letter for the Councll to revlew it carefully. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Ed Hasek: My name is Ed Hasek. I live at 6570 Kirkwood Circle. I'll be living there for about 22 more days and then I'm moving to Shorewood. There's a couple of reasons for that. I'm golng to start with a questlon and then I'll continue. What is the assessment area for this project? Bill Engelhardt: What is the assessment area? Ed Hasek: Yes. City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 8ill Engelhardt: Right behind you. Ed Hasek: It's just the area in blue? Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Ed Hasek: Does that mean that there won't be anybody else besides those people who's going to use this trw11? Is that the presumption that's being made? 8ill Engelhardt: No. Ed Hasek: I didn't think so. I moved here in 1982 and was at that time able to job. I'm no longer able to do that but I used Mlnnewashta Parkway a lot. And the thlng that scared me about Mlnnewashta Parkway is I used to push my daughter and my son down the road with me and my wife has had a friend killed on Minnewashta Parkway when she was in hlgh school. She's 11red in this area all of her life. Her father was Roy Beherle of Roy's Live Bait and a lot of her high school friends used to use Minnewashta Parkway as a raceway to and from Leech's and the beer parties and so forth that used to happen out there. That's since gone and the trafflc st111 has a tendency to drlve much too qulckly down that road. The only thing that seems to deter traffic from speeding past Linden Clrcle which ls about a block and a half off of TH 7 ls if occasionally there's a cop parked up at the fire barn. It's very easy to try and sneak between cars, take that corner and continue driving 50 mph until you get to a point where you have to make a decision. If you'll look at some of the yards down there you'll see that there are some people who haven't been able to make that decision quite quickly enough. So I guess I've got a concern for those who are going to remain about the traffic. Moved here in 1982. Saw a concern. Got involved. I was appointed to the Park and Trail commission in 19877 In 1987 just before Todd started I think, in an effort to do something about this. Within one year we adopted a new trail plan that laid out for the city a citywide trail system and it talked about the main corridors that should be addressed by the city for city use. Not for Minnewashta Parkway use. Not for TH 101. Not for TH 5 but for the whole city. And the anticipation was that the brunt of that construction and that system would be paid for by the City. Over the course of the next year or so we tried a couple of referendums which failed. One narrowly. The last one a little more narrowly than the first I believe if I recollect correctly. People felt all along that we were voting against the trail system when in fact the trail system was in place. It's part of the comprehensive plan and as long as I've lived here, I've lived here without the services of any kind of a park system whatsoever. We have no trail. We have no local park. We're told Cathcart Park is our park. That's bull. You can't get there. Part of what your comprehensive plan says is parks are supposed to be accessible to the people. No one can tell me that anybody that lives south of TH 5 can get to either the Arboretum or Freeman Field, Cathcart Park, Minnewashta Park, any of those parks safely. It can't be done. There ls just no way to accommodate those people. This was all along anticipated to be part of a plan that would connect the Arboretum to perhaps Cathcart if a signal went in. That would help a lot. £ventually, hopefully to some of the other parks that are south of the road around Minnewashta Parkway. Part of the whole clty system. What I don't understand ls why 500 some units are being assessed for something that's really in place as a part of a clty wide system 11ke Lake Ann. It just seems unrealistic. We've pald park dedication fees. The newer homes since the trail 27 City Council Meeti~]g - July 8, 1991 dedication fee went in have paid that. We have seen nothing. All of our money has gone into either parks that existed in other parts of the city or into newer areas of town. It just seems to me like it's about time that those of you who live in the center part of town begin to serve those of us who happen to live on the other side of the lake. Thank you. Resident: ...the sense of what people are for in this group. I have an idea that, well you told us that we can't vote on it. That's why we hired or elected you folks to vote for us on items like this. I don't want to put you on the well whatever for tonight by asking how you lean. You know how we feel but I would like when you do make up your minds, send us a letter how you voted on this item please. Hayor Chmiel: I'm sure you're going to see how we vote, if we vote on this particular item. Resident: We'd like to know. Mayor- Chmiel: I'd just as soon take someone who's not had an opportunity. Would you 11ke to come forward. Greg Datillo: Hi, I'm Greg Datillo of 7201 Juniper Avenue. I've got a question for Bill. 8i11, will the children be more safe with the proposed plan than they are now on that road? Bill Engelhardt: I have to say yes. Yes. Definitely. Anytime you provide pedestrian ualkways, take the pedestrians off the roadway, the answer is yes. Greg Datillo: We're missing a very important group of individuals at thls meeting. You know what group I'm talking about? Councilwoman Oimler: Kids. Greg Datillo: Yeah that's right. I've got 3 kids and I don't let them go on Minnewashta Parkway. You ask why? Because I love them. You've got to be lnsane to thlnk that that road ls safe for klds. Or your grandklds. I mean thls ls why I got this thing started in 1986 with all my neighbors. I went around and got a petltion and come to the Clty Councll and say hey guys, tell us what it's going to cost us to make it safe for' the people on that roadway. I've asked the chlldren already. Not only mlne but other klds because I'm one of those fathers that plays with the kids in the neighborhood. I tell them that we've got a good chance of getting you off that road and they don't believe it. They ask well when is it going to happen because they can't go to another neighborhood because of that road. There's no way of getting from Red Cedar Point Road down to another subdivision without getting on Suicide Road. There's no way and you're not golng to let 11ttle kids, I mean 11ttle belng under 12 okay because it only takes two kids, two boys, two girls riding their bikes side by side and what's golng to happen. There's golng to be a car that's going to hit one of them. We just heard one a few years ago that got killed but here, that ls what I believe the whole lssue has been lsa baslc safety lssue. I understand we've got the joggers here that jog early in the morning at &:O0 when there's no cars out there. But look at the klds. They're not up at 6:00. My kids aren't up at 6:00. They're out at 9:00, 10:00 you know. They're out at 28 City Council Heeting - July 8, 1991 5:00 when everybody's coming home and that's the problem is to get the kids off the road. Not the adults. Fine, if the adults want to get killed, that's the£r problem but the klds, that's where the problem is. So the kids, I tell them hopefully it's going to happen soon but we have a few people who are worried about some trees, and I understand. I love trees but I love the kids more than some trees. I hate to say that but that's the way I feel. We have some people that just don't want change because well that's the way it used to be. Well, we could still be throwing rocks at dinosaurs if we kept that. Right, or some people. And some people don't want to pay anythlng even though for every dollar we're paying, the City's giving us back $3.00. How many times have we heard in our neighborhoods, the City's not doing nothing for us. All we do ls pay all these high taxes. They're not giving us anything in return. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Open your eyes. It's 30~ ls what we have to pay and that's a 70~ discount. I buy things at a 70~ discount if I don't even need it. Okay? Mayor Chmiel: If we could give him the same attention that everyone else gave you please. Greg Datillo: I have two lots that I have to pay on so with most of you I've got to pay double and I know there's some that have more but what I tell the chlldren ls that your moms and dads or grammas and grampas have to realize, lt's golng to change. The road's going to be upgraded and the question is, why don't we enjoy it now and let the klds enjoy it now than 5 years from now when lt's going to cost a lot more money because the City here, now Dave who's also been worklng with the City. Everyone who's been working with the City here, ls klnd of going more towards saying well let's do this because they're doing everything they can to 11sten to what we're saying and everything we've asked for they have given to us. 36 down to 32 foot and the assessment down to half. I just want to thank the Mayor and the Counc11 and Bl11, I can't say anything wrong in how they treated me or they haven't done anything against us. Believe me guys, they're on our slde. They're not worklng against us and here, I'm sorry, but I want the kids off that road. Thank you. Laurie Gauer: I'm Laurie Gauer. I live at 3220 Lone Cedar and I agree with the prevlous gentleman. I have two young children and I've tried pushing strollers down the parkway and I just won't do it anymore. I know that there are plans for a playground or park north of Lake St. Joe in the future and people are golng to have to get from those neighborhoods down there somehow. Even if they don't use the parkway now, their kids are going to have to use it so I don't know about the road but I'm definitely in favor of the trail. Kevin Cuddihy: I just wanted to add that at the community meetings that we had, there was a possibility that because that park has not yet been built that we could get some support from the park people for possibly reducing this $1,250.00. Z don't know, dld you go back and talk to them? When I talked to him he said he didn't know what he could give us but he mlght be able to give us some cash for just the walklng path part of the construction. Bill Engelhardt: I think what they found is that there was a $24,000.00 park dedication out of that area which would basically be used to construct the park. What we did is we went back and we were proposing that $477,000.00 worth of the project be general obligation bonds whlch wlll go towards the cost of the trail. So that's what we're proposing. That's how we brought it down. City Council Meeting -- July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502 West ?7th Street. I guess the question I had was there ever any consideration given just to providing a walking trail without upgrading the highway itself to the extent that you've been talking about? Mayor Chmiel: Basically not to my knowledge. This was combined project with the road as well as ulth the trail. Anyone else? Resident: Would you elaborate on that question sir? Why not allow us to consider just the walkway? Mayor Chmiel: Because we're looking at the State Aid addition to this which would offset some of those costs and that's what we had looked at at that particular tlme. Anyone else? If not, can I have a motlon to close the publlc hearing? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to probably just start out tonight a little bit on this. I'm feeling a little less comfortable Ln seeing some of the opposition that's here. Although I'm not seelng totally 307 people here thls evenlng. Z think what I'd really like to do is to table this at this particular time to review the entlrety of the Mlnutes and also to look and see some of the thlngs that were discussed that can be addressed and to come up with a final conclusion. There might be a few loose ends and I'd just as soon tlghten it up to see exactly where this is going to go and what the bottom dollar is going to be. Wlth that I would 11ke to make, I'd 11ke to table thls at thls particular tlme but I will open this for additional comments from the Council. And I'll start with Michael. Councilman Mason: Well thank you Mr. Mayor. Councilman Workman: Would you like a second for discussion? Mayor Chmiel: Well we're still in discussion. I had the table on the floor. We don't have to have a motion. Mike. Councilman Mason: First of all, I live in Carver Beach which has had it's own problems and I know Minnewashta has problems. I was standing up there expressing displeasure 2 years ago when some lots were opened up that when I bought where I bought was told that oh, they could never be built on. That it would never happen. Well, lo and behold they were bullt on. So please I've been on both sides here. I want to comment, I've heard integrity a couple of tlmes and I'm really disturbed by that. Only that I hope people don't think I lack integrity if I happen to disagree with you. I couldn't help but get the feellng by some of the comments that if I chose to dlsagree ulth the members of that particular community of Ch~nhassen, I therefore no longer had integrity. If there are some people that feel that way, I guess I feel klnd of sorry for them. I don't think integrity is an issue of agreeing or disagreeing. I guess I see integrity as an honest oplnlon based on all the information that we have 3O City Council Meeting - July 8, lS~I received. Now I understand that there are 500 some units, 370 people involved. I received about a dozen letters on this. Not all in disagreement but certainly the vast majority. There have not been 372 people here tonight. Certainly the people that are here, the majority of them are in disagreement with the project but lt's by no means unanimous. I've heard speed mentioned, I've heard safety mentioned. I have driven on Minnewashta Parkway prior to all this bruhaha. I've driven on it even more slnce. I have gone 30 mph on it and I have had people giving me the one finger salute behind me because of lt. I've had people blinklng 11ghts at me. I've had people 5 feet off the tail of my car so I'm not convinced that fixing up the road w111 increase the speed. I think the increase ls already there and I thlnk if anythlng else we need to work more on enforcement of that issue. In terms of safety, putting a white line on the side of the road and telllng the klds you stay on that slde and the cars w111 stay on the other side is at best specious. I do a lot of bike riding and it's been too close too many tlmes and I thlnk I'm falrly responsible. A g year old walklng along the side of a road is potentially a very dangerous thing. I heard mentioned earller we need to address the needs of the community. I agree wlth that. I agree with that 100~. We certainly need to look at the needs of the residents of the Mlnnewashta area. We're also, all of us are in charge here of running the city in the best way we think we can and unfortunately sometimes there are major disagreements and we have publlc hearlngs to hopefully work those things out. I guess I'd like, well that's pretty much all I had to say on that. In terms of tabling Mr. Mayor, I guess I'd like to, before we reach a decision on that I hope we have some more discussion on that. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Tom? Councilman Workman: I guess to piggyback a little bit what Mike was saying. couple of things that struck me very early, the idea of some sort of hidden agenda by the Counc11. And then the gentleman who spoke very early pleaded, why are we doing this to you. I don't quite understand that statement. This is a difficult decislon for everybody. These lssues are about as difficult for thls Council as a now built church in this town and when the cards are stacked agalnst you and you've got a tough decision to make, lt's not pleasant and a lot of the comments that were made are kind of tough to swallow when I could be home watching the Simpsons or something. I don't understand how we associate country 11vlng with a cruddy road. It's a cruddy road and it was eloquently summed up by the gentleman over here who sald you're gettlng 70~ off. I could not and will not support an overlay and a trail. It's a waste of money. I've been on thls Council long enough to see enough hlghway construction and hlghway coalitions and transit boards and everything else to know that that is a waste of money and lt's a band-aid and it mon't work. Mr. Hasek explained that we have neglected that side of the lake. I think Richard Wing's election is testimonial that they want some representation out there. Since Z've been on the Council people have been asking me those same questions. When are you going to get a park? When are you golng to get a trail out here? When are you going to spend some money out here? This roadway has been on the top of the State Aid list. Because of State Aid and because of those monles, ever slnce, since before I've been on the Council, it couldn't come quick enough for the 6 dozen people that Z've talked to that have wanted this. And now here it ls and I really thlnk that a lot of the people who really want it probably stayed home. But if we say, and 11vlng in the mlddle of town, and Z don't use the road regularly. I do get out there. If we say to this roadway okay, let's take the 31 City Council Meeting - July B, i991 State Aid and move it somewhere else. What kind of a precedence do we set? What's the next, Dave Hempel, maybe you know, What's the second road on the list? Ga'r'y Warren: Lyman Blvd. Bill Engelhardt: Lyman Blvd. Councilman Workman: Lyman Blvd. If that's the second worst road. Resident: What road is that? We couldn't hear the number. Councilman Workman: 18. Lyman Blvd.. Gary Warren: Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. to the east city limits. Councilman Workman: If that's second worst road, we will not need State Aid fundlng for 5 years because that road ls in good shape. But I go back to the question, what does it matter to this Council whether get that road fixed or not? I don't prefer to assess people. It's the worse declslon you can make or ever have to make as a city councilmember so I guess I don't appreciate being accused of some sort of act of vengence against a large group of people because it's fun or it's something I prefer to do because I don't. We do have to look at the entlre clty and if declde to do thls or we don't decide to do this, what are tile repercussions and for that reason I think it's a good idea that we table it some more and talk about it some more until we all feel comfortable. Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I of course live out in the area and I came on this Council wtth good faith and I think open and honest and sincere in my intent to serve and to listen to the publlc. I respect the locals rlght to determine what direction it's going to go and what we're going to do ill their neighborhood and not to have something rammed down thelr throat but as I've sat here tonlght I've felt like I'm suddenly not one of you. I felt like I'm suddenly not a neighbor and a resldent of the community. I've felt 11ke I've been lectured and one comment that particularly offended me was somebody to tell me that Pleasant Acres doesn't use Minnewashta Parkway. I just so wholeheartedly dlsagree wlth that because I live in Minnewashta Heights and we use it a lot and if our nelghborhood's comlng over there to use lt, I just don't agree wlth you. Issues of speed are opinion and not fact. Issue of traffic increase. They're opinions and not fact and I'm not denylng that it may happen but I thlnk we deal wlth those at the time. I think it's a good proposal. On the other hand, I wouldn't sit here and p~sh this on you if a majorlty clearly doesn't want lt. What does concern me tonight, the reason this hearing was originated. Council didn't originate the hearlng. It was originated from neighbors who got together and said we're concerned about our children. Mr. Headla expressed his concern and Greg Oat111o and certainly myself. And others. And this was 2 and 4 years ago. Safety was the issue. Safety was the reason that tile Council asked for the feasibility study in the flrst place. I'm concerned that thls evenlng the lssue of safety has not been discussed in depth. The co-use of the road by recreational and trafflc use hasn't been discussed and I guess I support the Mayor's proposal and his request that we table this. I'd further like to 32 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 request that we continue the public hearing to specifically discuss safety related issues and options to resolve those same issues. I'd also like to address the question that's been brought up by several to discuss the trail specific request. I think it deserves to be addressed. I think if the area is supportive of a trail or feels there's a need for a trail and specifically a trail only, I'm not opposed to that. I think it's unfair that we don't address that one specifically so I support your request to table this but I also request that you discuss as part of the tabling process specifically the safety related issues on this road. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: I wasn't in favor of closing the public hearing but I didn't have any say so we have to call another public hearing obviously. Isn't that the correct procedure? Mayor Chmiel: We can still have people supply input if we so choose. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I'd like to ask Oave Hempel here on the second page of the report. One of my concerns is safety and I agree with the comments that have been made about the walkways and the chlldren but I also have a concern on that intersection as it goes onto TH 5. If you're turning towards the east, lt's a low intersection. It's a very, very difficult turn to make, especially in times of heavy traffic to get in between the cars. And I see on that page 2 of the report, in the thlrd paragraph, the very last statement refers to MnOot's roadway schedule for November of 1994 and February of 1995. It talks about reconstruction. Now does that mean that they're golng to reconstruct those intersections on TH 7 and TH 5 regardless of what we do with thls project? Bill Engelhardt: Maybe I should. On the TH 5 intersection we will be doing most of the work to bring that intersection up to grade under this project to correct a lot of the slght dlstance problems. To correct the grade. To correct alignment. When MnOot comes in and puts in their signals, they'll finish it off. On the TH 7 slde, there the original proposal was to construct the roadway in such a manner to build it to MnOot's future proposal with a cooperative agreement and cost sharlng between the State and the City of Chanhassen. Because it's a State Ald road, they will not do a cooperative cost sharing agreement and the funds for State Aid could only be used to start the realignment process and again get it to a point where MnOot could then take it over and expend thelr own money. Not City money to fully improve the intersection. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so TH 5, that intersection will not be done unless we implement the project. Is that what you're saying? Bill Engelhardt: No. They're going to do their project no matter what. Councilwoman Oimler: They will elevate that? Bill Engelhardt: Yeah. 33 City Council Heeting - July 8, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay, I guess I have a lot of thoughts on this project and I think a lot of the points that have been raised both by the neighbors and by the engineers are valid and I think some of them are invalid. I think the neighborhood has done it's homework and I really compliment the engineer for having taken into consideration all of the neighborhood's concern. I think they did an excellent job. I think the point that many of you have received a huge increase in property valuations which will translate into higher taxes, property taxes unless ue cut our budget and services which we are not likely to do. So I think at that point a special assessment may impose some unfair financial burdens at this time for some families. I also have to say that I was a little bit offended by some of the statements or the assumptions that I've already made up my mind because I haven't. I do liste, to the neighborhood's concerns. I always have and have taken that heavily into consideration. I received a letter from the Bower family and I think in their letter they eloquently expressed a statement that I believe to be true and I quote. It says I feel it would be a grave and certainly inaccurate assumption on anyone's part that silence means agreement and I think that is true. He of course was against the upgrade and he wants to keep the peaceful serene pulse of the area and he indicates that there are many others who believe as he does and I believe that's true seeing all of you here tonight. Also I've heard from many who are walkers and joggers and they do not favor the trail. I guess I was a little surprised about that. They feel that everything is okay the way it is and also against the bituminous overlay because of the fact, as Councilman Workman said, that it's a waste of money. I believe that's true. Giver, those facts, and I have to say I appreciate Mr. Headla's and Greg and Laurie's courage to get up here and speak in favor of the project when there was obviously so many against it, but I still do feel that there is probably a majority. Not a majority but there's a silent sector out there that has not yet been heard and for that reason going along with the tabling, but I would propose that ue would continue the public hearing or open another one, whichever is the proper procedure at this time and that inbetween this hearing and that particular one in the future, that we as a staff and Council would survey the silent sector that has not been heard and we can do this through a written survey and maybe even some door to door canvasing because I understand some people will not a,swer a survey. I for one would like to get an accurate assessment of where this neighborhood stands. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. The only thing that I would like to just quickly address is, I thlnk everyone has sald pretty much what I would have said. The City Counc11 takes particular jobs as we do. We have to really determine what the needs of the people are and we're not going to say this road is needed but I'm saylng in other types of servlces that we have to provlde for you wlthln the city. Whether it be shopping or whatever. But I look at the aspect of safety and safety is the number one project with me. Z've drlven that road dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Limes. At different tiloes of the day. Different times of the evening. On weekends. Z've looked at that road and I thlnk Z can tell you every crack and cranny that's on that particular road. I've watched people walk wlth mothers, fathers, children, grandparents. All in bunches of 6 or ? people. Taking up parts of that road. To me I have a concern with that. There is a safety problem there. For those people because it lsa more traveled road. Zt isn't going through some of the other residential areas where you don't get the quite amour of trafflc. You may get it golng lnto it but when you spur off on ~he other roads you're not using it. Out here it ls used constantly. You get 34 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 up in the morning and it's probably very true. You start jogging. It probably, or there are not as many cars as there normally would be. Try it at maybe 4:00 in the afternoon when the klds are st111 out. Up from their naps playing. Or early morning when they're out, probably about 9:00-10:00. There's still a lot of traffic coming in and out just because of the people working there. Golng to and from work. Going to and from the stores. Or wherever they're going. So safety really lsa glven problem. To save one 11re is worth something in itself. Hopefully that's never going to happen within the area but there's always that potential. Potentials are thlngs that always make me sit back and really think about it. I would like to table this for 2 weeks and also for us to review the Mlnutes of thls meeting.. Didst what everyone has said and pull together as I said before. The total dollars. What we're talking about and the different concerns that have been brought up thls evenlng. And each of those items addressed. And then I would like to see this back on the 22nd of this month and we will have it brlght and early on the agenda so we can at least address those specifics. And if at that time there are some questions that some people have, I will open the floor for that at that particular time. Oon Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Don Ashworth: We could have it back on the 22nd. We would be ina positlon to respond to some of the questions. We would also have the Minutes available for distribution to the Counc11 on the July 19th whlch is our normal packet day but between now and the 19th, to be able to do a survey and get it back, we would not be able to do lt. So if you wanted to follow through with the survey aspect, the first time we could consider this ~ould be August [3th. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: As a resident of that community I use that road a lot and Rome wasn't built in a day. The present Minnewashta Parkway is not impassable. I don't belleve there's an emergency existing. The concern that the locals have a right to control their destiny and their decision for that roadway and I would have moved that we reject this proposal if it hadn't been for the safety lssues which I don't feel have been addressed. For that reason I would like to support Ursula's request that we formally do this survey. If there is a sllent majority, perhaps there isn't, and I think that that would be worthwhile postponing the meetlng until the end of August accordingly. I don't thlnk this is a critical issue but I think those are questions that need answering so I would move that we table. Also lnstruct staff to survey the community. The 300 when we were just looking at the 300 units or 300 residents? Mayor Chmlel: 307. Councilman Wlng: And delay the public hearing until such date as that's completed. Mayor Chmiel: Until August the 12th, rather than the 13th. 35 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilman Mason: I'm going to be out of town. Hayor Chmiel: You're going to be lucky. Councilman Mason: Well no. No. Councilwom~n 01ruler: Could we have some £nput as to the questions that would be on the survey? Mayor Chmlel: Well Z think that would be something that we would have to develop and make sure that it's not one sided as to the survey because you can always develop a survey to make it do what you want it to do but we'll make sure that doesn't happen. Councilman Mason: I have some concerns about this survey thing and getting it done in a month. Who's going to put the questions up? Hou's the survey, I mean if thls survey ls golng to have any valldlty at all, lt's not just somebody sitting down and writing 5 or 6 questions. Do you want the parkway or not. Why or why not. And I thlnk are we opening up a can of worms here? I mean if we clearly have I think certainly a representation of the community here tontght and I'm not sure that golng door to door is golng to give us any different indication of what's been represented here tonight. And I just wonder if we're not doing the old uavlng swords at windmills here by dolng a survey. Mayor Chmiel: I'll bring it back up for discussion. Councilman Mason: I guess I'd just like to reiterate. We had a number of people here expressing some very legitimate concerns and to drag this out another 5 weeks, another month, another 6 weeks, I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. I'll say more later I'm sure. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, do we have a safety issue, a matter of life and death on this roadway? And as such I would like to somehow be able to identify them and if that exlsts, how do we resolve that safety lssue? Councilman Mason: I'd like to, if there are people walking on a 25 foot road in groups of 6 or ?, ue have a safety lssue. There is no question in my mlnd that there's a safety issue there. Councilman Wing: But how do you resolve the safety issue? You may not necessitate a 32 foot State MnOot mandated roadway. Councilman Mason: It may not. You know I think we're coming, this is surely but slowly s£fting down to two or three different issues here. There's the trail. We can do that separately. If we want the State Aid money, we can't do it separately. Am I correct in assuming that? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Mason: So if we just put the trail in now, 5 years from now as some gentleman said previously, MnOot comes in and says, 32 foot? Baloney. We're putting in a 36 foot roadway and you can't do a doggone thing about it. Now I 36 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 think there's something to be said for that. If we do wait 5 more years, it will be more expensive and perhaps ue won't have the say that we have now. Mayor Chmiel: Well on an average you're looking at a 5 year period at 10~ per year. So it would raise that project 50~ more than what it exists now. Councilman Mason: And with the possibility of not having any State Aid money at that point. Is that an assumption that could be made or not? Bill Engelhardt: You would have some I'm sure. What the amount would be is difficult to say. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm not, I think I know what the result of a survey is. I don't think we need to spend good money after bad. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I agree with that. Councilwoman Oimler: ...go door to door. I guess you know, in comment if we're not going to go ahead with the survey, my bottom line here today ls that I say those that pay have the say and these people have spoken so I would have to vote agalnst it. So if that's the feeling. Councilman Mason: So the safety issue is a moot point then? Mayor Chmiel: Safety is an issue, there's no question... Councilwoman Oimler: Yes, I've expressed my concerns over that but they're the people that are golng to pay. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Councilman Mason: They're the people, who's going to pay when a kid gets killed? I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dimler: That's sensationalizing. We had the same thing with Frontier Trail. Councilman Mason: You're right. I apologize. Mayor Chmiel: Everybody goes through an assessment. When I moved into my home they put in curb, gutter, sewer, water. My assessment I wish was $1,250.00. My assessment at that time was $10,000.00 and thank God this is the last year I'm paylng for it but, those are some of the things that we have to look at unfortunately. And assessments are assessments are assessments. No one ltkes them. No one wants it. I don't want it. I don't even want to impose it on you nor does the rest of the Council but we have to Look at some of these issues. I st111 suggest that we proceed with the July 22nd meeting as I said to revlew. what's here and address the issues that have been discussed this evening and come up with a conclusion. Either yes or no. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I think that we've done an adequate job in answering each of thelr questions here today. City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. Councilwoman Oimler: Is there anyone here that feels there's still something, besides the safety issue, that's still. Mayor Chmiel: There's still some issues that were brought up in regard to some of [he. Councilman Mason: The assessment issue. And you're right, I sensationalized. Sorry. Councilman Wing: There hasn't been an accident on the parkway for the 25 years that I've lived there, Personal injury accident. Mayor Chmiel: But there was mention one was. Yes sir. Resident: When you mentioned July 22nd, are you speaking a hearing type again or just the Council? Mayor Chmiel: We'll have discussion back at Council. Answer any questions and after that if we so choose, and I w111 choose, to open the floor to get additional comments. Not the same comments we discussed thls evenlng but any additional comments that could be added to it. Resident: Speaking of safety, I'd just like to offer accommodation and I don't know if...but I think within tile past year or so as a result of some discussion, there was a street 11ght put out at the intersection of Lone Cedar Clrcle and TH 5 and that was the greatest improvement towards safety that I could imagine because that was really a dangerous corner. That street 11ght has really been great. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess being that there's a 11ttle blt of thought here, I would like to table this and I would like to get a motion on that. Councilman Workman: I'd move if it hasn't presently been moved. Mayo;' Chmiel: For the 22nd? Councilman Workman: Yeah unless the neighborhood feels a survey of some sort. They're very difficult to scientifically put together and unless we hire a professional to do so, I don't think it would be very falr. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Councilwoman Dimler: I think going door to door, talking to people. They're honest with you. Councilman Workman: I do not have the time to go to 300 doors. Not this week. Sunday I'm free. But no, don't get that idea. Mayor Chmiet: Everyone knows that our phone numbers are in the phone book and I might suggest that if you so choose, you want to talk to your neighbors. Tell them to give us a call. 38 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, one morning on Cheyenne me and Dave Hempel and some of the city crew went out and met about 7:00 a.m.. Oave came early and there's a dralnage problem there so we klnd of all went out there and slapped the bugs and we looked at it. It ~as kind of nice and we talked to the neighbors and looked at the problem. The problem got taken care of. Maybe we should all go out and have donuts out there at about 8:00 or something: Mayor Chmiel: I'd be willing to do it. Councilwoman Oimler: That's what I'm talking about. Just get out there and talk to them. Councilman Workman: I don't want to knock on people's doors and get bit my dogs. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to table action on the Hinnewashta Parkway Project 90-15 until 3uly 22, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: We'll see you on the 22nd. Thank you for coming. AWARD OF aIDS: CITY CENTER PARK I~PROV£MENT PRO3ECT NO. RA-J31, Todd Hoffman: As noted, on June 24, 1991 the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids on the Clty Center Park Improvement Project. As the Council's aware, this project entails the improvement and revitalization of the two existing play areas at the school and City Center Park and the four existing tennis courts. As authorized, advertisments for bids were placed and the resulting three bids were opened last Tuesday morning. As shown, in the bid tabulation the bids ranged from a htgh of $86,167.00 to a low of $62,465.00. The estlmate for the completion of the work was $54,467.00. This difference of $7,997.00 can be accommodated in the project's budget and it ls felt that the low bld ls acceptable. Alternate ~3 ls also desireable to facilitate replacement of the bent tennis poles on two of the courts. The contractor is available to begin work early next week if the go ahead is given. The cumulation of much effort has brought the City to this positlon of belng able to move forward wlth construction on this project. Representing the work groups which contributed towards this project, I'm pleased to recommend the City Councll award the City Center Park Improvement Project No. RA-131 base bid and alternate bid number 3 to F£nley Brothers Enterprises in the amount of $62,465.00 and $1,000.00 respectively. If there are any questions, either myself or Scott Hari from Van Ooren-Hazard-Stalltngs wtll be available to answer those. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I've got a lot of questions. First question I have, should we reject the bids and send out again for a better dollar figure? City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Scott Hari: Right now the low bldder ls probably one of the most responsible c:ontractors working in the area and has demonstrated that the completion on a portlon of the Lake Susan facilities over here and other projects that thls contractor has done for the Clty. The work is so mixed up as far as being abnormal in the type of work and the completion schedule and combining thls with volunteer labor. The City doing some work and the City furnishing some materials and the contractor installing lt. I guess in accepting responsibility to the $8,000.00 difference between the low bid and the engineer's estimate. It's very difficult to estimate well how a contractor would see this project comlng forth and also with the amount of work that has been backlogged by a number of contractors due to the wet weather, how they would view a very stringent completion date because we need to get the whole thing completed by the tlme school opens. And be substantially complete ulth most of the heavy equipment running around on the site so there were a number of factors that were hard to peg on thls thlng. But I would truly advise awardlng thls to this contractor at this time. Mayor Chmlel: Is there any way we can shave that $8,000.00? Well it's rounded. The other thing I had in question, can we utilize our public works people to offset some of the $8,000.00? Todd Hoffman: We currently have done that in taking a look at the original estimates. Shaving those back. Pulllng out some of the palntlng of the 11nes. A number of items. Installing the north playground. The handicapped accessible play structure wlll not be installed by a contractor. That wlll be installed by the City. The border wood on the north playground is being purchased with the CBDG money as ls currently in the process of being installed by the £agle Scout. There have been a number of items that have been reduced, cut back. The orlglnal lntent on the west or south slde was to purchase a substantial plece of play equipment. That has been reduced back to $10,000.00 on the west side. That could be cut out of the project but then agaln it was the orlglnal lntent of the original project was to buy that equipment. Unfortunately some of the slte preparation and improvements necessary at the 3 separate locations have chewed up the bulk of the money available. So we've taken a look at it. We've reduced it down and I'm brlnglng to you tonlght a very restricted and responsible project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions7 Councilman Mason: Why is it when these things happen, and I'm not questioning the bld or what Flnley Brothers came up wlth or whatever but it always seems the bids come in high. Councilwoman Dlmler: Yes they do. Councilman Mason: And that's really frustrating. I'm hearing what you're saylng Scott and I basically agree with you but God that's frustrating. Here we are supposed to be watching all the money and these things keep happening. I wlsh there was, I just want to wave the maglc wand over all of thls and all of these problems wouldn't come up. Mayor Chmiel: Or brlng $10,000.00. 4O City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilman Mason: Yeah. Todd Hoffman: Agaln, the $8,000.00 can be accommodated within the budgeted amounts from all the line items for this project. Instead of having $18,000.00 or $19,000.00 worth of play equipment on the west side, we now have $10,000.00 because of that bid difference. Mayor Chmiel: Oh okay. We have cut back the $8,000.00. Todd Hoffman: But it still is a very competitive bid. We're very happy with the work that Finley has done down at Lake Susan and would enjoy having them back doing work for the City. Counclluoman Dimler: What was the time line for this project? Todd Hoffman: Substantial completion of the project by August 30th with the handicapped accessible playground on the north lagging behtnd a couple of weeks because of the complications which were pointed out in the report. Councilwoman Dlmler: Okay, so you want thls done before school? Mayor Chmlel: Before school starts. Councilwoman Dlmler: There's no sense in delaylng lt. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If hearing none, can I have a motlon? Councilman Mason: I'll make the motion to award the bid to Finley Brothers for City Center Park Improvement Project No. RA-[31. Mayor Chmlel: In the amount of. Councilman Mason: $62,465.00 and $1,000.00. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution ¢91-64: Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid and Alternate No. 3 to Finley Brothers Enterprises in the amount of $62,645.00 and $1,000.00 respectively for the City Center Park Improvement Project No. RA-131. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT UTILITIES IN LAKE SUSAN H~LL$ WEST FIFTH 'AODITION, PRO3ECT 90-16_, Councilwoman Otmler: I so move. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dave. Councilman Mason: You moment of glory and it's gone. Councilman Workman: It's a rather mundane item. City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I guess I want to just throw something in. I don't have any problems with Joe Miller but I do with some of his contractors. I don't want the City to be liable for anything if they're not done properly within that particular area. We've had some problems with some homes because I've received calls and I've gone out and I've looked. Some of those still have not been corrected. Dave Hempel: That's the whole purpose of taking this before the City Councll is we've recently experienced some requests from developers. The mlnute they get thelr plat flled to pull bulldlng permlts and they won't even have cleared any trees yet. We'd like to put a policy in effect in our development contract which clearly states the time for lssuance of bulldlng permlts. Lately we've just had kind of a policy in-house here which has worked very well and efficiently for us in the past. For keeping track of these projects where they are at. This typically would have been under a consent item. However, they were lagglng behlnd and in an effort to expedlte the issuance of bulldlng permits out, they requested we put it on the City Council at thls time. I personally did do inspection out there thls afternoon of the utlllty 11nee and the sanitary sewer and watermain lines were acceptable. All the tests had been performed and passed. However, some of the storm sewer improvements do require some touch up and will be addressed in a letter to the contract to be addressed within the next 30 days. Mayor Chmlel: On those mylars and blue line copies, are those signed by a PE? Dave Hempel: Professional engineer? Yes they are. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you want to add another condition of approval then? Dave Hempel: I think the conditions stated in here, that we add a condition that the developer correct any punch 11st 1rems ls what they're generally called within the next 30 days would be appropriate. Mayor Chmlel: That would be item number 4. Okay, any other discussion? hearing none, we have a motion on the floor with a second. If Councilwoman Dimler: With incorporating the fourth condition then? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. To include. Dave Hempel: Any outstanding punch list items. Mayor Chmiel: Item number 4, someone will clarify that it is for Lake Susan Hills West Fifth Addition Project 90-16 be approved contingent upon the following 4 conditions. I won't read those but the additional condition added. Resolution ~l-GS: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the final acceptance of utilities in the Lake Susan Hills West 5th Addition, Project No. 90-16 be approved contingent upon the following: 1. Completion of all outstanding items resulting from staff's inspection during the week of July 1, 1991. 42 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 2. The developer and/or contractor shall supply the City with a two-year maintenance bond guaranteeing the workmanship and materials for two years beyond the date of acceptance. 3. The developer shall supply the City with one set of mylar as-built plans along wlth two sets of bluellne coples. 4. The developer correct any punch list items .ithin the next 30 days. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AHENDHENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERH~T TO.INSTALL A PORTABLE CHEHICAL TOILET DURING THE SUNHER SEASON ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT B,_H:I:NNEWASHTA CREEK 2ND ADDITION. HINNEWASHTA CREEK HOHEOWNERS ASSOCiATiON. Paul Krauss: I'll try to be brief on this one. There's a lot of history on this one. We've been looking at this request for almost exactly a year now. It originally came in as a variance because the ordinance prohibited the installation of chemical toilets. After a lot of consideration, the ordinance was amended to allow them glven some certain standards that had to be met. An application uas made and pursued. The Planning Commission reviewed this and belleved that in conjunction with the staff recommendation that this request ls consistent uith the new ordinance. The request basically conforms to the use requirements established by the ordinance. Zt wlll be screened. It's behind a large tree. There uill be screening attached to it. The setback standard from the lake is met and other standards are complied with as well. The Plannlng Commission did recommend approval of this request. They did however add a condition concerning a pontoon boat at a dock that apparently ls there not in keeping with the CUP approval. They added a condition that approval of the tollet be conditioned upon the removal of the boat. We heard thls evenlng that that has not yet been done. The boat's still there but that is the Planning Commission recommendation and we're carrylng that forward. So again the proposal is for approval with the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Are these two separate issues though Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, they're tied to a single CUP. You can legitimately ask that they bring the rest of the CUP up to standards. They're intenstifying the use so you're on very good grounds to address that issue. These issues are typically hard for us to document. We're not out there every day. We don't know when a boat shows up or doesn't show up unless, you know we're going to be doing these on an annual basls but lt's tough for us to track down. When somebody makes a request for you to do something, you have a very good opportunity to bring it up to standards. So in my view it's not appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Is that legal counsel? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Anyone wanting to address the issue first? Is there anyone who wishes to address that issue? Joan Skallman: I'd llke to. 43 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to come up to the microphone please and state your name and your address please. Joan Skallman: My name is Joan Skallman, 6590 Joshua Circle. I am currently serving as co-chair for the Presidency of Minneuashta Creek Homeowners Association. We have a conflict with the owner of the boat mainly because they sold their property in 1978. Their lakeshore property to purchase this one and had an agreement with the developer, at that time Remarco along with Bob Ritter to buoy their boat in the water. They said they uent to City Council in 1978 and Clty Council told them that no one owns the lake. They can buoy their boat wherever they want to in the lake as Iong as they have access to it. They $oid their property, their lakeshore property as well as their other property to purchase this one specificaIly because of that. They feei that they are grandfathered in because of the City ordinance that went into effect after they were there. Even though it doesn't document that they have rights, they feel that they are grandfathered in. The Association has tried to basically just present what the problem is to the owners. However, they do feel that they have rights and they don't feeI that they should be imposed upon to remove their boat from the water. It is a Iarge pontoon so basicaliy it would be very difficuit for them to put it in and out of the water whenever they desired to use it. The Association's kind of at a standstill. We would really appreciate it if you keep it as a separate issue and have the City deal with the owners of the boat separately from the association. There's not really much that we can do for the association but to deny us the permit to have the portable chemical toilet would be hurting all oF the other 39 families. Actually 37 families that voted for it. Mayor Chmiel: Do you know who's boats those are? Joan Skallman: Yes. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Just a comment on it. There's an exlsting pontoon boat with a lift and existlng boat that's just moored. Mr. Kenny Lurid is intending to buy that lot next door and both of those boats are clearly on hls property. If you look out from his front, both boats are sitting out in front of his house and he's asked that they be removed from in front of hls house. He just wanted me to pass that onto the Council. He has concern that those boats are slttlng on what you would call his lakefront property at thls tlme. And if we were to enforce our dock setback ordinance or perhaps we will have to reword it to say that any dock, portlon of dock or attachment thereln can't be ulthln 10 feet of the extended center line, it's going to solve a lot of these problems I think but rlght now there are two boats, and I apologized to Mrs. Skallman at the Plannlng commission for kind of putting her on the spot with this issue. I klnd of spoke impulsively that evenlng on thls lssue wlthout her really knoulng what was occuring but there are presently two boats moored that do not, that are, Mayor Chmlel: Moored on someone else's property. Councilman Wing: Well, they're moored on someone else's property but more important they're not allowed by the conditional use permlt and I just felt one way to get some attention to this issue was to hold up action on this request that they have for the chemlcal roller but I believe, as you suggested, they 44 City Council Heeting - July 8, 1991 really are two separate issues and I don't want to see Mrs. Skallman penalized for this other probiem. I think they've done a good job on th£s ordinance and request on their beachlot. Councilman Mason: ...commission's trying to do with that and I think that that pontoon boat should be removed but I don't think it needs to be removed on the back of this issue. I agree with Dick. Hayor Chmiel: Paul, do we have another way to address this with those two owners? Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor ue do. If it's in violation of the original CUP, that's an enforceable agreement and we can approach that completely separate from this. We'd be happy to do it either way. Hayor Chmiel: Let me get some free counseling. Councilman Mason: Free? Mayor Chmiel: I mean he's here. It's costing us. Roger Knutson: Yes. You can go after them for an ordinance violation... Apparently they make a claim that they're not in violation. That'd have'to be ironed out. Hayor Chmlel: Yes sir. Would you llke to come up. Please state your name and your address please. Brian Windschitl: Hy name is Brian Windschitl. I happen to be one of those boat owners. I've lived out there for Il years and we've approached the Council many times for rules for beachlots. Back in 1978 when I moved in there, lg79, they had nothing. They were trying to make up rules for it. They wouldn't let us do anythlng for 2 to 3 years while they were maklng these rules and they came up and they had no docking of boats and stuff like that and mooring was not in there and there's 2 out of 40 people that have had our boats out there. We happened to be the first two people that moved in there and there hasn't been a problem. The lady next door who just lately passed away hasn't had a problem with it. Mr. Lund is trying to buy the property right now and the way I-look at it, there lsn't a problem rlght now. I don't thtnk it should be holdlng up the portable toilet by any means and I think we need to, I don't think we need to be tagged or anythlng 11ke that. I thlnk it could be talked about and as far as mooring, I know that it came up with the ordinance like in 1983 or 1984. Both of the other guy in question, we've been out there since 1~7~ so I don't know how that works. I mean there's lot of boats and lots of associations out there that have been grandfathered so kind of that's the way everybody feels right now that we've been there for 11 years and right now they come up with another rule and that changes it so we're going to get tagged for lt. I mean we can accommodate Hr. Lund. I mean right now we have been, the lady that has been 11vlng there was qulte elderly and dldn't use the lake at all and there hasn't been a problem and no one's living there right now so I still don't see a problem until Mr. Lurid bullds or whatever. Then that lssue could be worked with real easily. 45 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Hr. I_und is a riparian owner of that property presently. And if those boats are on his are,'l, then he has the right to ask that those be removed. My suggestion would be to have discussions with staff to determine what you might have to do. And I agree. I don't think we should hold this up because of the need of the portable toilet facility on this site. I think we'll address that as a separate issue and I would like to have a motion to that. Councilman Wing: I will move approval of Conditional Use Permit $91-5, allow portable chemical toilet on Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association, items 1 thru 4 exluding number 5. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that staff be instructed to follow up on the conditional use permit violation by the next meeting and report to the Council with a decision. Brian Windschitl: I have just one question on the setbacks. The 10 foot setbacks. I know they did set rules after I was out there that you have to have a 10 foot setback on the your dock 11ne. The way your property goes. How does it go with mooring boats? I mean they didn't have the rules when we were there. Who does own the lake I guess is my question? Mayor Chmiel: Roger, can you address that? Roger Knutson: It's public waters but we regulate that. We have regulations on mooring. I believe we do. We discussed it in length with some other property and some new regulations were passed but... Brian Windschitl: The reason that it's in my mind is because that was our, see we were a11, when that development started we were all klnd of deceived. Llke by the developer told us yeah, you go and I just i-an thls through here. You go to the Clty and get a dock down there. You can do all these thlngs. Well, you know that wasn't true so we kind of, as a matter of fact the other person and I were both in the same shape. We wanted to have a boat on the lake and stuff like that and so when they made all the rules, mooring was the way they didn't cover it and we've been there 11ke I say 11 years. I don't know where the grandfather clause comes in on when your boat's just floatlng in the water and where it mlght be floating. Yeah, sometimes when the wlnd's out of the south it might go on Mr. Lund's property but when it's out of the east it's on our property. You know I mean lt's just got a little 11ne that it can move around. So I say it's an issue I need to, I'd like to get clarified on that. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul will come up with that for you and provide you with that information. Brian Windschitl: Okay, I mean just the rumors were that Terry, he has his on a lift out there and like they're in violation and they're going to get tagged and all thls and I don't thlnk we need to take it to that polnt. I thlnk it can be talked about. It's something we've been doing for 11 years. It hasn't bothered City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 anybody and now evidentally it's a problem and I think it can be worked out. Real easily. Mayor Chmiel: You can line up that discussion with staff. Brian Windschitl: Okay. Councilman ming moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit ~91-5 to allow a portable chemical toilet on Hinne#ashta Creek Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot (Outlot B) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical tollet. 2. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Hemorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot durlng the rest of the year. 3. The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent wlth previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. 4. The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the application/plans received by the City on May 20, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CHES HAR FARH, APPROXIHAT~Ly ONE-HALF HILE NORTH OF TH 5 OFF OF TH 41, CRA[G S~AGGERT. Paul Krauss: Oh you do want a report on this? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: I was at the Planning Commission so. Paul Krauss: Keep in mind I'm the second string on this one. Jo Ann's still on vacation. This ls an incredibly complex request for a relatively simple actlon and lt's got a real confusing hlstory which makes matters worse. This was approved originally in lg85 and it was a pre-existing situation and the PUD was used for a use that I've never heard of before and it was basically to legitimize a non-conforming situation so they could sell off individual lots. It was a real abnormality. The sewer wasn't anywhere close and it's only as of 5 or 6 weeks ago that the MUSA line was anywhere visible from thls property but there was always an exlsting multi-family dwelling out there and there are a number of homes when the PUD was done. It was modlfied in 1989 slightly. Basically what it did is we had a series of single family homes including the quasi-elderly, pseudo historical home that's slnce been removed. It was in very bad shape and it's been cleared by the applicant in preparation of building a new home. But what it bolls down to ls the current proposal with all the requests, he's basically had to apply for virtually every permit we have in this application, ls to lncrease the slze of the PUD and decrease the number of unlts. $o we view it as a big step in the right direction. It's bringing it lnto compliance with what's supposed to be out there. The guide plan ls to take 47 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 it from medium density, which you can see is a little blip on the map up there and the zoning district is an abberation and come down to single family residential which ls really what lt's supposed to be. The multi-family duelllng which has been a real difficult one and there's some code compliance tssues and I know there's been some questions about the on slte sewer for that and some other things over tile years. That's going to be converted to either a duplex or single family and all the other lots are golng to be developed as single famlly residences and reasonably attractive ones. There is a request for a CUP for beachlot. That ls golng to be used by several of the homes in here. There's a wetland alteration permlt uhlch ls for our normal boardwalk structure which we use to protect the wetland to get out to the dock on the beachlot. Basically as odd as this request ls, it does conform to our standards and we do believe it's in the best lnterest of the clty and the neighborhood for thls to happen. We did bring this before [he Planning commission. There were several ad3olning residents who had questions answered and came away supportive of the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed at length. There are several members of the Plannlng Commission who remembered the other two tlmes thls came up and were very familiar with it and cleaned up a lot of the recommendations in a way that Z certainly couldn't have done not havlng the hlstory and they recommended approval and ue are continuing to recommend approval. I should note however that I pilfered through Jo Ann's mallbox today and we dld get a letter somewhat late but it's from Camp Tanadoona where they expressed some concern over development and protection of wetlands. We dld not have an opportunity to speak to them but I firmly believe that this is no thl'eat to the natural environment over there. In fact it's probably the reverse ls true. To the extent that we had a problem property there close to the Girl's Camp, we're now removing that and lt's going to be single family homes on very large lots and very nlcely developed. ~s far as the surface water management plan goes or the DNR, our boardwalks are developed according to DNR standards and we work hand and hand with them and we specifically do that to avoid impacting the wetland. I don't know if they're here tonight. I don't belleve so but short of that, I dldn't have a chance to address this directly but I'm firmly convinced that the issues raised in thls letter are not relevant to thls request and be happy to speak to Miss Johnson after. Mayor Chmiel: It's sort of far removed isn't it from one point to the other? Paul Krauss: It's not that far from, well it's far from where the active parts of the camp are. They of course are notifled because they're an immediate, ad3oining resident but I really don't believe there's any direct impact. One other thlng too before I forget. There's a condition that we mentioned to the Planning Commission that they agreed with but got deleted by accident. It has to do wlth a north/south trall connection through there as part of that overall comprehensive trail system we have heard so much about a short time ago. One of the tra11 corridors runs from basically the TH 5 area up to Mlnnewashta Reglonal Park ultlma[ely. As properties develop and we can obtain the trail and there was a request for an easement coming through there and lt's I belleve in your packet. On the overhead when thls came up when we mentioned it the flrst tlme, the locatlon of the trall was shown rlght through here. We have some flexibility on where it's exactly located and can work with the applicant on the flnal location. We know where it has to go but we have some flexibility in that corrldor to locate it so I would request that you add another condition to the 48 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 PUD amendment that a 20 foot wide north/south trail easement be provided in the location acceptable to the City. With that we are recommending approval. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Is there any discussion? Does the applicant have anything to say? Craig Swaggert: I'm Craig Swaggert. I live at 2800 Stone Arch Road, Woodland, Minnesota. In addressing the wetland alterations, I have contacted the DNR. I do have to get a permlt through them. [ also have to get a permit through Minnehaha Watershed Oistrict and I'm still waiting from the Corps of £ngineers whether [ need a permit from them so Z feel that we're pretty well oovered as far as wetland protection. A couple of the recommendations that I have a question on. On the PUD agreement, it's my understanding that the City Attorney would draft that. Is that correct? Paul Krauss: We draft that in house in conjunction with the City Attorney to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. We have a broiler plate form we use. Craig Suaggert: Alright and that's a relatively fast process or something that I have to look at first? Mayor Chmiel: Within the next 10 minutes. Paul Krauss: We will draft one up as soon as possible. Craig Swaggert: And then item 3 in the recommendations. I fully intend to get back in here quite quickly for the final plat and by State Law I need to give 60 day notlce to the residents. I would 11ke to request that I have certified letters requesting vacation as a condition rather than the actual vacatton of the properties. Of the 6 units. Paul Krauss: .Which condition are you addressing now? Craig Swaggert: Condition 3. Mayor Chmiel: Of? Craig Swaggert: Of this sixplex. Paul Krauss: Oh, must be vacated prior to final plat approval. And your proposal was to certlfy letters? Craig Swaggert: Right. Requesting vacation. And along with that, it's my understanding that I don't have to, that I can still have two unlts occupled but not six units. Paul Krauss: I think that I would be comfortable with that unless the City Attorney has some objection if we had a date certain involved as to when ue would achieve at least the duplex or two unlts. If you would come up with a date Craig for us to review. You know if we're talking 60 days hence, we'll wrlte that into the. 49 City Council Heeting - July 8, 1991 Craig Swaggert: Well, it'd be 60 days from June 1st because I'd have to give them notice on the first of the month. And in fact we have two units vacated already. Paul Krauss: Okay. We could go wlth August 1st or August 15th or whatever we worked out. As long as we had a date certain in the contract, I'm more comfortable wlth that. Cralg Swaggert: Than the certified letters? Okay. And then number 5, the driveway easements. My attorney would draft that? Is that correct? Paul Krauss: Elther your attorney would draft it ina form acceptable to our attorney or our attorney would draft it and you'd be billed for the time. Craig Swaggert: I thlnk if I've got to pay for it I'd just as soon have my attorney do it. Mayor Chmlel: Our's ls reasonable. Councilman Mason: Cheap. And he's good too. Craig Suaggert: Maybe he could do it during the Counc11 meeting. Paul Krauss: There is a problem though. I mean we have standard formatting for that so if your attorney would check wlth Roger. Craig ouagger : Absolutely And then on number 12, tile tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant for clty approval. Is that in conjunction with the issuance of the building permit or the replattlng? Paul Krauss: With the bulldlng permlt. We should clarlfy that. craig Swaggert: Okay, and then on 13 the trail easement. Is that going to be part of the plat? The flnal plat or an easement? Roger Knutson: Trall easements are not recorded on the plat. Craig Swaggert: They are not? Okay. Roger Knutson: It's a separate document. Craig Suaggert: Thank you. Do you have any questions for me? Mayor Chmiel: No. I sat at the Planning Commission meeting so I guess. Councilman Wlng: Hr. Mayor, in order of tlme. One thlng I didn't understand. I have two questions. One on the dock and one on the driveway. Paul, I didn't understand why when there's somewhat of a formal entryway to Ches Nar Farms now, an existing road, why wasn't there some way to preserve tile exlsting road and driveway. Why do we have to put in a second driveway? Second access on TH 417 Paul Krauss: They're quite a distance apart and the existing curb cut wasn't all that great anyway. There was some consultation ulth MnDot as to whether 5O City council Meeting - July 8, 1991 they felt this was an appropriate solution and they did. and it is a shared driveway and we became comfortable with it at that time. We initially had some concerns with that as well. Councilman Wing: Okay. Perhaps my greatest concern is on the dock. Not the fact that the dock's going in but maybe the location of the dock. What I wanted to clarify, is the dock going west into the lake or do you intend to put the ' dock into that little lagoon cut back area? Craig Swaggert: It will go into the little lagoon cutback area. Councilman Wing: ['m not sure if the ONR would accept that. I don't know if they were notified. The little lagoon I'm very familiar with and it's really not even navigable in the fall of the year if the lake level. There's kind of a reef and some rocks that go across the front of it and then it kind of deepens slightly into the shoreline. It seems to be somewhat of a spawning ground. A little setback reef area and I think it's environmentally not acceptable for a dock. That's my opinion and if I had been home I would have asked the Council to come and look at that physically because I think it's a very significant issue. I wouldn't be opposed to the boardwalk cutting through the wetlands and then going straight west into the main lake portion itself. 5o I guess I'm opposed to the dock's location going into the lagoon. I think that's a real issue and I think it should be looked at prior to approval. But also if you haven't looked at that closely, it may not be to your benefit to put it there. Craig Swaggert: I was out there this week to look at that issue. I've been out there in the winter and the spring and it's kind of difficult to get to so ~ brought my boat out there and went into that little lagoon. There is a reef there. The deepest part in that reef is about 3 1/2 feet. Councilman Wing: In high water. Craig Swaggert: At today's level which is, it's about a foot below the high water mark. For the 100 year high water mark. Councilman Wing: In the fall of the season, because I sunfish out there, you can't get a pontoom boat across there without tilting the motor up because there's enough rocks and so you're basically, if we have a low summer or our average 18 inch drop on Mlnnewashta. Thls ls the 20 year average. My dock has never changed it's position tn 25 years. Where you're putting the dock is not golng to be, you're not golng to be able to get boats in and out without dredging or digging out a little channel. That's my opinion but more important, I really think prlor to approval that needs to be looked at specifically. I would favor the dock in any way going straight into the lake. Not into that little lagoon. Z thlnk that's to your benefit but more importantly I think it's a real important environmental question that we should look at. Mayor Chmiel: I think staff could probably look at that and come up with some conclusion on that if that's a real concern. Councilman Wing: I think the proposal you have is excellent. It's an addition to the area and I support it but I would ask consideration of the Council to table thls prior to staff looklng at that dock placeaent. 51 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Paul Krauss: You've got this coming back for PUD agreement authorization. We could do it prior to that. Councilman Wing: That's fine. That will give time, that would be adequate then for you to review that? If that's okay with you. Craig Suaggert: Yes. Definitely. Councilman Wing: In a personal note to you, having lived on the lake 25 years, that literally is high and dry on that outer reef area in the fall season. Many years. I don't know if the dock would be useable part of the year. Just a comment, Craig Suaggert: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to accept all 4 and if you look on page 8, the first one and then carry it through wlth the balance of each of the numbers. Okay. Want me to do lt? city council approves PUD Amendment ~91-1 shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with a varlance to the lot width requirement for Lot 1, Block i and the following conditions of item i thru 13. councilwoman Oimler: 14. Paul Krauss: With a 14th condition. Mayor Chmiel: With item number 14 added. Okay, City Council also approves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment ~91-1 changing the Land Use Designation from Residential Medium Denslty to Residential Low Denslty subject to the conditions of the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permlt. Ztem number 3. The City Councll approves Conditional Use Permlt ~91-4 for a recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following conditions. Items number i through 4. Also, Clty Councll approves Wetland Alteration Permit $91-1 for construction of a permanent boardwalk through a Class A wetland as shown on the plans dated May 28, 1991 wlth the following conditions of items 1 through 6. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayo;- Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Did my concern get covered in this or would I have to ask an additional item under Conditional Use permit for a beachlot regarding the dock pendlng staff revlew? Paul Krauss: I assume we've been directed to do that. We'll brlng it back. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve PUD Amendment as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with a variance to the lot width requirement for Lot 1, Block 1 and the following conditions: 1. The PUD agreement will be drafted and recorded against the property. The PUO agreement will contain all conditions of approval for the PUD. 52 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 2. A revised preliminary plat must be submitted redesignatlng Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot B. 3. The residence on Lot 4, Block 1 shall either be a duplex or single family unit. The six apartment units must be vacated prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot for the proposed access servicing Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 and Outlot A and a. 5. A driveway easement shall be provided across Lot 2 (Outlot B), Lot 1 and Outlot A and recorded against such properties. The driveway must be constructed so as to accommodate emergency vehicles and must be maintained in good passable condition. G. The applicant shall be required to install a culvert sized by a professional engineer, and approved by City Engineers prior to construction to accommodate anticipated flows through the existlng dltch on Lot 1, Block 1. 7. No more than 4 dwelling units will be permitted as part of the PUD; one on Lot 1, one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 4 unless the existlng buildlng is converted to a duplex. 8. Demolition permits are required for all demolition; demolition of all the buildings to be razed shall be completed within 6 months of final plat approval. 9. A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed on-site sewage treatment sites and proposed house pads and elevations. 10. If a new residence is constructed on Lot 4, Block 2 it must meet all required setbacks. All other existing buildings on Lot 4 must be razed. 11. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of Conditional Use Permit ~91-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit ~1-1. 12. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted by the applicant for city approval for Lot 1, Block 1. 13. A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted by the applicant and shall reflect revised southerly lot line of Lot 3, the trail easement across Lot 1, Block i in accordance wlth Park and Recreatio Commission recommendations and elimination of the driveway onto Outlot A. A barrier shall be erected over the drlveway at the lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to keep vehicles from driving or parking on Outlot A. 14. A 20 foot trail easement running north/south shall be provided in a location acceptable to the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 53 City Council Neeting - July 8, 1991 Resolution ~91-GG: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment #91-1 changing the Land Use Oesignation from Residential Medium Density to Residential [.ow Density subject to the conditions of the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #91-4 for a recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. The recreational beachlot will be permitted only one dock with overnight storage of up to 3 watercraft. 2. Launching of boats from the recreational beachlot is prohibited. 3. The conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot is only for the proposed dock improvements. Any additional improvements to the recreational beachlot shall require another conditional use permit and wetland alteration permit. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD amendment ~91-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit ~91-1 for construction of a permanent boardwalk through a Class A wetland as shown on the plans dated May 28, 1991 with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no filling or dredging/grading permitted within the wetlands. 2. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Department of Natural Resources for the permanent boardwalk. The proposed trail shall be constructed at least 10 feet away from the wetland located in the southwest corner on Outlot A. 4, The wetland shall be permitted to return to its natural state after installation of the boardwalk. 5. No other alteration to the wetlands are permitted without receiving another wetland alteration permlt. Further, all approved alterations shall be undertaken at a tlme and in a manner so as to minimize disruption to the wetland. 6. The applicant shall meet any and all conditions of the PUD Amendment ~91-1 and Conditional Use Permit All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 54 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to address the senior volunteers that we're still looking for in regard to the assistance in City Hall with pulling packets together as well as any typing or working computers as we have. We're willing to provide a short seminar teaching how to utilize the facilities that we have and also working with some of the city staff to pull together the packets for City Council meetings as well as the other commission meetings. In addition to that I'm still looking for C$O's from the senior citizens to patrol basically the parks and they will have a short training with that as well indicating how to use the radios as well as their rights as to what they can do. Basically just a call for any help that they need by radio. So I'd really like to see the seniors participate in this and to give me a call if you have any questions. I'm listed in the phone book. I'd be more than happy to address those specific questions. Ursula? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor before you go on. We have discussed this item numerous times and it is obviously a pet project of yours and I support it. I think it's an excellent idea. Have you had any support or have you had any response? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we've gotten a response. Todd Gerhardt: It was brought up at the last senior commission meeting. I don't know exactly what the comments were but there were some comments made. Some were in favor and some were not. Mayor Chmiel: Not knowing really what their responsibilities would be nor do they know how to operate computers and so on. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I was at the last senior meeting and they were interested in the proposal. As a senior commission though they're not equipped to go out and kind of flnd volunteers. I thlnk if that's going to be proceeded with that's going to be done possibly through the newspaper or City newsletter or something 11ke that. Mayor Chmiel: We're very fortunate to have a newspaper here this evenlng, will that individual please raise their hand? Councilman Wing: No response. Mayor Chmiel: If we could get some publicity going so we can really.try to accomplish this because I think really that they would probably enjoy thls once they got going with it. And it does give them another outlook on life and another thlng to do. Councilman Wing: I'd turn it over to Todd. Todd Hoffman. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula? Counciluoman Dimler: Several months ago Mike and I served on a personnel policy board that made a decision regarding a certain employee situation and at that time we expressed a desire to update the personnel policy to cover all of the 55 City Council Meeting -- July 8, 1991 employees and I haven't heard any more about it and I'd like to know where we are with that and if we can get back at it before we forget about it. Don Ashworth: Misinterpretted your deslre. When that document was drafted it incorrectly provided leave For employees on maternity leave. More than had been provided in the prevlous policy. The task force or group basically stated well, this is the way it was approved and this is what we want so staff just left it at that. So in other words, the more lenlent pollcy continues to be in effect. councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And we want to apply it to all the employees then. I mean it does now apply to all the employees? Don Ashuorth: Roger, you may wish to address this. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you understand that ue wanted to leave it that way? Councilman Mason: I did. Councilwoman Dimler: So nothing needs to be done? Don Ashworth: Nothing needs to be done. Unless a majority of the Council's members were aware of those decisions, I thlnk there's two Councilmembers who, the Mayor and another Council member who were not directly involved but I think I talked to both of them. Maybe not. If you want it placed on a future agenda so that everyone. Councilwoman Dimler: No, not necessarily. I just want to make sure that when Council approved that we were not aware that it was a change and so I just want to make sure everyone knows where we're at with that rlght now. Don Ashworth: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike. Surface water. Councilman Mason: Mark Lobermeier from SEH called me and was concerned about the process for the Surface Water Quallty program. And he asked me what I could do and I said well, 1'11 bring it up at Council presentation. He would like to come before Counc11 and express some of hls concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Can I address that? I had discussions with him also this evening just before I came here and I expressed the posltlon of my office to hlm saylng I did,'t think it was needed. We chose the person that we chose. That I saw no reason for him to make that presentation. Councilman Mason: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If you have any letters from Minneuashta Parkway we'll keep them a11. Tom? Councilman Workman: Tree removal. I contacted Don Ashuorth. I was contacted by three individuals about where do I take my tree limbs, etc.. I talked to Jo Ann about it and I thlnk the county's gettlng fundlng from the State and I don't know. Minnewashta's open and Hinnewashta's closed and on and on and on. We 5~ City Council Meeting - 3uly 8, 1991 need to, and Don has said that after a storm occasionally, a couple times a year the City will go around and collect them. I would propose that the Council look at maybe getting some sort of a program going. I don't know that ~e need to go out to people's homes personally. It is difficult for people who don't own a truck or something but Don talked about maybe the Bandimere Farm is a place. We have a chipper that does amazing things and maybe a staff member could go out an hour once a week or something to take care of it. Use the mulch and people could come and get the mulch if they wanted but I got three calls on this and what are we going to do and I thought, well we can do it for these couple people but it should be on a city wide basis if anybody wants to do it. Mayor Chmiel: ! think in that, I also had discussions with Don on this. The same thing as which you're saying and I think really if we somehow get the information out to the people saying those who in a storm. Not those who cut down their trees and say I've got limbs and branches and so on. Councilman Workman: But see that's a problem too. Mayor Chmiel: But during a storm it should be our responsibility to go out and pick these things up. Councilman Workman: But see the calls that I got were from your neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well we can't. Councilman Workman: But that was a storm but it was just your neighborhood. See that doesn't really constitute a city wide alert. The problem is that we don't have a place for this stuff year round. Chaska has a pile and everybody in the county had a pile I think except Chanhassen and Victoria and the County was trying to help us out with that and it's unreliable so we need a place for people to take this on a regular basis. Not just if they think there was a storm and then we have to have 3erry $chlenk pull the chipper out to their house or something. Which I don't think we should necessarily get into. If we could have them drop it off down at the shed and they could chip it as needed, I don't know. It's just something I would like us to think about a city wide policy because it is a problem. We promote trees every Council meeting and we're not thinking about what happens when they fall down. Mayor Chmiel: I think I agree with you on that. That we should have some kind of a process. Councilman Workman: Okay on the traffic study. We had our little meeting. It was not a good day to have a meeting. 3uly 2nd and everybody was in the holiday mood but ! did have three strong individuals from the community come. Don Andrus, Bernie Hanson and 3erry Roepke, the CPA. What we figured out was we could have sat there all night and argued the little details of this thing and it's a very, very difficult thing. Turn lanes. Take them out. Take the median out and it was almost comlcal but we flgured that we should get together at least a couple more times so have another meeting or two in the next month so we'll try to get that together. Ithtnk it was still very good. The Rotary trees. The Rotary trees. The continuous saga of the Rotary trees. The Rotary went out and planted a berm on Kerber Blvd. under the auspices of Clty staff and 57 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 the City has mowed them all down. The berm is private property and we mowed the hill. Apparently. Don Ashuorth: You think. The first time I heard about this was at 7:00 this evening when Tom informed me. Councilman Workman: I saw it this past weekend and just about became nauseous. Councilwoman Oimler: The trees are gone? Councilman Workman: They're mowed down. Granted there were heavy weeds but this gets back into the whole thing about the program that we wanted to get going for sprlng and everything else whlch we could never quite get off. I'm going to try and get a meeting with Tim Erhart, myself and Don Ashworth to talk some more about this. I thought I had sufficient staff notlfled that we planted that hill and something didn't quite match up. I don't know how we're going to redo that hill or what's golng to happen there but it brlngs back a polnt. Ursula I know this is one of your points is we're mowing things that are not our property and I wonder how much. Maybe we need to take an inventory of how much of this city time is being spent on property that's not our own. So we have some very aggressive lawn mowing golng on and you took 500 Rotary trees. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to try 7100 Tecumseh Lane? Councilman Workman: So I don't know how but I'm going to meet with Don Ashworth and we're going to talk about it. I'll get together with Tim and Oon and we'll talk some more about it. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION: Mayor Chmiel: Before we go too much further, I want to tell staff and all our busy workers that I really like our administrative section. They used every part of the paper and they used the forward parts and back parts and I'd 11ke to see us continue to do that. DISCUSSION REGARDING NOISE ORDINANCE, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Scott Hart: This memo came about as a result of some conversations the Mayor and I have had about the increasing number of nolse complaints primarily comlng from construction. We have no noise ordinance. It's not had the support of the Council in the past and to use development contracts ls just not the panacea that some think it may be because in fact it really doesn't apply directly to the construction of homes or remodeling. The Mayor and I have been a 11ttle bit frustrated as has the Sheriff's office when they've responded to noise complaints and I'm merely looklng to flnd out whether there's lnterest in looking at noise ordinances again. The numbers are increasing and as I said in the memo, so is the aggressiveness of the people making the complaints. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I've received several calls, One I had to go out and talk to the builder on Sunday. Discussed it with him and he did shut it down and T thanked him for it but he could have been a hard nose and proceeded with it. Somehow I think within those development contracts it should be just Monday thru Saturday, Sundays zip. The other thing that I have thought about too of 58 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 course and we've discussed this before is the decibels. To adopt an ordinance according to the band and having a decibel reading in order to determine hoe much noise we can put up with. I don't know. I just sort of thing that as we're growing, I hate putting more and more restrictions on but I think there are still a few inconsiderate people that will do these things. Legally and technically we have no way of stopping them. The police will go out there and they don't have an ordinance per se. So I guess what I was looking at was that maybe we should relook at it again. Take a look at some of the existing ordinances that are out there and see if any of these can fit without causing too much of an inconvenience to the residents of the city. But don't breathe so hard Tom. Councilman Workman: We argued this very carefully and it was all brought up by a dog. The dog was barking, barking, barking. A racoon would drive by, the cops would come out there and no dog's barking. Over and over and over this would happen and it will happen over and over and over and the reason I was thinking about this, Scott brought it up and the reason I was thinking about it was I drove through Chaska quite a bit and you come across the river there. They've got this sign, Chaska and then it says, noise with one of these things you know. But we looked in the code book back then and we have a nuisance ordinance. That covers animals and it covers all sorts of stuff. I don't understand. We do have something and maybe it needs to be shored up but we do have an ordinance against barking dogs. We have one I assume for parties or whatever. And that's where we got into trouble with the snowmobilers and everything else. What do you mean we can't drive in the city and then I think we were telling people they couldn't mow their lawns from noon to. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's part of the concern but ! think there can be a specific amount of time period that they can have those. It doesn't take you 3 days to mow your lawn. Aithough we've had a few residents that we've had problems with. But I think we have to relook at it to see how it can compliment what we have existing. Councilman Workman: Certainly. Councilman Hason: I agree. Councilman Wing: I agree. I think the history of Chanhassen has been live and let live up through and including the present Public Safety Director. The attitude on kind of letting things work their course if they will but this ordinance if we were to have it would give him the option to say we have to draw the line here. After this passive time period that he chooses to use so I support you Don and I would definitely like to recommend that Scott pursue this and get back to us. Mayor Chmiel: I especially don't prefer those 2:00 in the morning calls that I get. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have a final clarification. You're telling me that the development contract does not cover the construction workers? Is that right? The development contract only covers putting in the road and the sewer and that type of thing but not the actual construction of the homes? 59 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Scott Hart: Roger, do you want to comment? Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, so you're having a problem with the people that are constructing the homes and worklng at all odd hours and then saylng we're not cowered by tile development contract? Scott Harr: Yeah. And it's not just construction. That's the one that's bothering us the most. And Tom's rlght ill that the nuisance ordinance covers some. Barklng dogs, I don't know why that was a problem because that's clearly. Councilman Workman: Lake Lucy Road, remember? Scott Harr: I think the system we have right now we could deal with that but when the nulsance ordinance then goes on to talk about any other louder and reasonable nolses as set forth, I thlnk that that's unenforceable because we've had the opportunity to clarify hours, etc. and the Sheriff's office has had frustrations with complaints where they just slmply haven't been able to act. I'm thinking about loud cars belng worked on at odd hours. Councilwoman Dimer: I have one instance. Somebody called me and said that they are constantly bothered by the bug zappers that their neighbor has. Has two of them and they leave them on all the tlme and those thlngs do not sound pleasant and she's in her backyard and she cannot enjoy her backyard because of it so maybe there's a reason to enforce hours on that type of thlng. Because I do think people ought to be able to enjoy their backyards and enjoy their property. Mayor Chmiel: I hate mosquitoes with a passion. Councilman Mason: Get a bat house. Hayor Chmiel: I have that too. Councilwoman Oimler: You don't keep yours on all night do you? Mayor Chmiel: Oh no. We shut it off because it keeps me awake. Okay, so we will further this and if you will pull together some additional things. Compliment what our exlstlng ordinance is and we'll go from there. Your next item. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COHHISSION VACANCY,.~UBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Scott Harr: Public Safety Commission vacancy. I would like some direction from Counc11 on how to f111 Steve Morse's resignation. That's effective as we speak. We have the Chairman of the Public Safety Commission has suggested that Council conslder golng back to our interviews for the January, 1991 position. I sent that information to you in the memo but if you'd 11ke to re-advertise, we can do that. Mayor Chmiel: I think being consistent with what we've done before, and I understand the recommendation for what they have here. I don't know what everyone else's feeling ls but I'll express mlne. I think we should re-advertise for it all over again and see who's interested in it and then go from there. 60 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilman Mason: That's been past practice? Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. And I think in fairness too to other members to be able to apply. Councilman Mason: And encourage those people to re-apply certainly. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Hason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11=30 p.B.. Submitted by Don Ash~orth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim