1989 07 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1989
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 Chniel, CounciLman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori
Sietsema and J~m Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as amended by Councilwoman Dimler to add a Council
Presentation regarding the SuperAmerica site on TH 7 and TH 41. All voted in
favor ar~ the motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize
drawing.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda itams pursuant to the City Mananger's
reconxnendations:
a. t~eliminary Plat to Replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Park One Third Addition
into One Lot (Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition), located on West 77th
Street, Fortier and Associates.
c. Conditional Use Permit for location of a temporary office, shop and yard,
8301 Audubon Road, Edgework Builders.
d. Final Plat Approval, Great Plains Golf Estates, Don Halla.
g. Authorize Advertising for Bids for Sidewalks in Saddlebrook
Subdivision, Project 87-15A.
h. Resolution #89-79: Approve Resolution in Support of Appointing Ed Kranz to
the Regional Transit Board.
k. Planning Con~nission Minutes dated June 21, 1989
Park and Recreation Con~nission Minutes dated June 27, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
i(K) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATSD JUNE 26, 1989.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated June 26, 1989 as amended on page 30 to change the
statement asking for a roll call of the vote made by Roger Knutson to Councilman
Boyt. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried.
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
John Havlik: My name is John Havlik. I live at 513 Chart View. Just for
location sake, it's the white house right across fra~ the Post Office and behind
the new Town Square. The reason why I'm up here is I've been talking with Jo
Ann frc~n the Village and also Jim Winkles from the development project and I
have a problem with the screening behind my house and the Town Square. Way back
before they started building the building, when Barb Dacy was here yet, they had
meetings with Jim Winkles ~no was the developer of the property and the
residents behind. They showed proposed site plans and I do have a copy of that
he~e which I can show you but it's also in file. In that p.~oposed site plan
they showed in the rear of the building a 4 foot retaining wall and then on top
of that they had low shubery on the con~nercial site on the side and then a 4
foot fence and then large everg~.~een 'trees facing the residential prope~_~ty behind
that. This was proposed, went over by the residents and it looked okay. We
were definitely concerned because we' re the house on the end and all the traffic
f~om the gas station that they have was going to be there and that looked real
good. Inbetween time, from the time tl~ey actually I guess built the building,
that first building was 20 feet further closer to main street. %hey moved the
building back 2g feet but that wasn't going to change the screening in behind.
After it's all done now, the~:e is not a 4 foot beton with the trees. They're
actually is from the middle of the building going to the east, which would be on
another prope~ty line, going east to my place, there is a natural break in the
ground so they put a retaining wall there and then shurbs down. But starting on
my property going west, the ground leveled off and they did nothing there. It's
just level with my property. They put in 4 evergreen trees, which recently have
died and I complained about this last fall to Jim Winkles and had them out to
the site and showed him. Number one, cars parked to get gas and it lights up
the whole backyard which is a real nuisance, ktm~er two, you get an awful lot
of smell from there. You get ~.'aw gas, both from when they're pumping gas and
when a tanke~ comes in there to unload because the tanke~ fill pipes a~e right
behind on the property on the_ alley behind there, and also you get a very
pungent sulfer smell from cars, from the traffic going in and out there. So I
asked them to put a fence behind thence and put the earth berm like they
originally showed in the site plan. In talking with him, they said they weren't
going to do that. That the City okayed what they had there and he has proposed
to replace_ the trees and put in 2 extra ones and maybe put a little fence on the
western edge tlnere so when the cars come in the lights don't shine but in my
mind that is not what was proposed. It is not what it ended up. I feel that my
property has been damaged from that, both from the smell of the gas, from the
lights, frcm the noise and everything there and I really am asking the City just
where the City stands on this because like I say, the proposed site which you
can see here which I can show you, clearly shows what it should be like and it
does not end up that way.
Councilman Boyt: I remember that when we approved that development. !%em~mber
that Jay?
Mayor Chmiel: This is facing to the west.
John Havlik: Actually this is the north which would be the back of my house and
this is the south which ~ould be the c~-~nercial building here. There's a copy
of that in the file also. So number one, I guess I would like to know why it
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
217
was approved without it pertaining to what the site plan was shown because it
was never reviewed with me that anything was ever changed. Number two, I think
there is really, you can really boil it down to four issues that I have. Number
one is the air pollution that has been caused since the con~ercial property has
been brought in there. Number two, you do read some articles where they have
said there is some carcinogens in gas fumes so you could have potentially a
health hazard if the backyard is filled up with these fumes and sulfer smells
all the time. Number three, I have a noise pollution which you hear lots of
noise driving in and out of there. Number four, I have a light pollution which
I feel are all detrimental to my property. So I would like to, well I guess
here you may want to see this. These are just some of the pictures that I took
out of the backyard showing to the property there arr~ you can .see where it's
really absolutely wide open and that's when the evergreen trees they put in were
alive. That was taken last fall. There's just no screening there at all
besides my wood pile.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the grade difference there John? Are you lower than that?
John Havlik: No.
Mayor Chmiel: A~:e you up a little higher?
John Havlik: Just a little bit. It comes from the back and it does come up
maybe a couple feet from where the property line is and from the house but it's
basically level from there.
Councilman Boyt: Jo Ann, how much does the HRA have to do with this? The site
plan and M~;. Havlik's ability to get redress here?
Don Ashworth: The HRA is aware of the development but as far as any type of
conditions that would typically occur at a Planning Commission level were left
there. So in other words, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority made no
requirements regarding screening or fencing.
Councilman Boyt: So those are the City's requirements?
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Councilman Boyt: We pretty much, by just sort of standard, require that light
not spill off onto surrounding properties. It seems to me like what's happening
is certainly, I know it's not what Jay and I intended when we voted on this
thing because the heavy screening was in there. So what's the next step?
DOn Ashworth: I would suggest that the developer be given an opportunity to
make a wT;itten response to the City Council so we get his perspective. Also, a
staff report on the item so that when some of these changes occurred, we have a
better idea of what they were and why they occurred. I'm not familiar with this
issue. I'm familiar with the dead bushes. I've seen those but the changes in
the plan and were we aware of those.
Councilman Boyt: We were. In terms of we were aware of the setback from the
building because that was a parking issue and we had to create additional
parking spaces so the building got moved back but I don't ever remember anything
about the screening being changed.
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
Don Ashworth: I don't either but I think we should.'][
Jo Ann Olsen: We're researching all this stuff as to when those got changed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we proceed in that manner and review?
Jo Ann Olsen: RJ. ght.
Mayor Ckmiel: What should be in compliance should be...
Councilman Johnson: Is there room for a be~m between your property and their
property?
John Havlik: That's part of the problem. I did meet with Dave from the Village
here and we did look at that. In the plan here, they do show 9 feet from the
property line to the edge of the curb. They do show 9 feet here which there is.
We measured it off and there is 9 feet here but in order to do that he did make
some consideration that usually when you have an earth berm, for every foot high
you need 3 feet out. He said if you look at that, actually you would need 12
feet to do ~/nat they have proposed on the plan so he said we'd really run into a
probl~n there and I said, well that's what should have been analyzed before. If
they just made a plan l_ike this, they should have known that and that should
have been taken into consideration.
Councilman Johnson: At this point they could put 3 foot?
John Havlik: Yes. They could do something, yes. I feel what, I talked to Jim
Winkles and in fact I'm meeting with him tomorrow night on the site to look at
it and go over it again and he's proposing to put in 2 more evergreen trees.
There were 4 there, he's going to put in 6 but I told him that is not ~nat I
want. I want a definite fence there to block the light off and to get rid of
the smell. I feel that if a fence is there, if the gas fu~nes do come, it will
give it some type of a barrier to start rolling or something and go somewhere
else instead of just drift right into the back yard. He is very adamant against
putting a fence in there. He just said there's no way that they want to put a
fence there. Then I came back with the issue that the site plan showed t_hat it
should be in there and he just said, well, he says that's not the way it ended
up so I said I don't accept that at all. I guess I can't and I've been working
with him in good faith since last fall. During the winter and we were going to
get it done right away this spring, the very first thing and we met with his
landscaper people and here now it's almost the middle of July and nothing has
been done so I guess I feel I'm at an Jmpass there and I need a little bit of
help to get it moving along.
Councilman Johnson: If you can smell his operation as far as, not as far as the
cars comJ. ng in but the refueling of vehicles, then he's probably in violation of
the Pollution Control Agency's odor ordinances.
John Hav!ik: Definitely. That's the next thing that I'm really serious about
is the smell. There has to be something.
Councilman Boyt: And the danger if you can smell it.
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's probably primarily since their vent tubes are in the
back of the building facing your house. When they fill that's where the vapors
from the fill come out.
Councilman Boyt: Let's bring this back.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the direction I'd like to see right now is probably to
let staff review what's there. If it's needed that they're not in compliance
with what was proposed, then I think yes, staff should then invite the developer
back to the Council and invite John'back at that same t~me and we can discuss
it. One other thing too John with the fence. The fence would have to be a
fairly decent height only because of the fact that whether they have their
headlights on bright or dim, that carries up anyway.
John Havlik: I guess I should add one thing. At the time we were talking about
a fence, when we had the original site proposal before they built a building, at
that time Jim was against putting a fence up at that time but Barb Dacy at that
t~_me said that it was a city ordinance ~Jqat said t_here had to be a 6 foot fence
dividing con~uercial and residential properties so she said there was no issue
about the fence at all. Even if we didn't want it, it would have to go in and
then it wasn't in so I guess that needs some analyzation there.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL CARLSON.
Public Present:
Name
Mr. and Mrs. Lowell Carlson
Doris Br ickley
Jo Ann Olsen: This item has been before the Council several times and it has
been an issue for several years. The applicant, his contractor's yard was in
use prior to the zoning ordinance and then in 1985 he did receive a conditional
use per, nit for the contractor's yard. Several of the conditions of approval for
the conditional use pen~uit have not been met and staff has been working with the
applicant to get those conditions resolved. MDst of the time it will be tabled
by the Planning Commission or moved uk~ to the Council and then it will be tabled
until staff can work with the applicant to get those issues resolved and nothing
ever happens. So we are finally, we're bringing it once again, in front of the
Council again with the two options to either revoke the conditional use permit
or to allow the applicant one final extension. It's a hard recommendation
because we always like to work with the applicant and give than another chance
because there's usually reasons why they can't meet the requirements but this
tLme we're pushing more for the Council to revoke the permit and then to follow
up with the City Attorney to at least have the applicant reduce the contractor's
yard to what it was originally prior to the ordinance and continue to work with
them. Hopefully to clean up the site. So we've allowed those two options for
the City Council. Again, we are recommending that the conditional use permit be
revoked and the applicant is here.
City Council Meeting - July lg~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, as I read this, going back in 1973 is really when this
all transpired arr~ started and frc~ there it went to 1984, 1985. Quite a few
different things in 1985 as well as in 1986. Finally in January of 1988,
February of 1988, April of 1988 and so on. I guess as I see this, it appears as
though that some of these discussions were with Mr. Carlson. I was out there
Sunday and had sonde discussion with h]_m as well and did drive it and look and
see what was there. I can understand some of his concerns. What we're saying
basically, you applied for this conditional use. What he was applying for a
conditional use was a pole barn, is that correct?
Jo Ann Olsen: Tim conditional use was going to make him a confonming use.
Before he got that, he was a non-confo~.ming use. ~andfathered use. Part of
the conditions of the conditional use petmit was that he did have to store the
items on site and that led to him proposing for that large pole barn. 1!ne size
of it made it go back in front of the Planning Commission because that was
considered actually an expansion of the conditional use that was approved, which
got in to the whole cycle again. A pole barn would have been meeting the intent
of the conditional use as far as storing some of the items inside.
Mayor Ch~iel: I would like to call upon M~:. Carlson, or whoever will represent
~vm-. Carlson, to inform as to some of the things that you talked to me about
yesterday an~ we'll proceed from there. An~ then if there is anyone else in the
audience that would like to address this, we'll also have those people address
that at that time.
Lowell Carlson: Well I guess it starts out with 1973 probably. Of all the
years, maybe my neighbors and whoever is around or friends of there probably
don't understand the circumstances of, I guess I'm in the construction business.
There's no doubt about that from whatever is around but they have no idea how
many times probably I laid under a truck at 2g below zero or out in the rain to
keep the thing going and whatever but I've managed and whatever. But anyway
we'll go on to something else. I guess I'm kind of asking that when I picked up
this building, this metal building that I'm asking for to be put up and inside
storage so you paint a vehicle or you put on new tires, it isn't weather checked
and beat to whatever. Pretty soon it looks like a piece of trash sitting out in
the sun for years and it's 20 some years, you know it keeps changing... But I
guess I would like just once in my life to have something inside of a building
and sheltered and covered or whatever. I guess maybe my neighbors would feel a
lot better about the whole situation also and I wouldn't bl&~e them. But I'm in
kind of a fix. I mean I've been to this Council meeting several times and I've
tried to get this thing done and whatever and some other thing has come up. It's
either too little, too big, not far enough back, not far enough ahead and a berm
in front of it after I get a new building up and they wanted me to cover it up.
I said I'll give you a colored building. What ever color you like but want a
berm to put in front of it so it covers up the building now so I can't get in
the building if I did put it up so. But a lot of deals has c~me up over the
whole thing and I'd just like to have it done and build it and like I said, it
isn't no junk building. I had Barbara and it was somebody else, I can't
remember, went over there before I put the building down to put it up at my
place and at that time it was okayed. Everything was okayed but right now it's
starting to lay there and rust and whatever have you and I kind of hate to see
that. The steel building ain't the cheapest thing and the amount of time and
materials and hours I've got in just tearing it down and it is a nice building
but it still, at the same place. And t3~ey say well there's stuff laying around.
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Well what can you do with it? The building's there. All your perlings,
everything is there. You can't mow around it. I work at it the best probably
you know. I've probably been a little lax this year trying to mow around it and
weeds but otherwise I figured I've kept it down pretty decent around there and
so on and so forth. I guess I haven't got much place to go. I mean I'm kind of
asking you people that I'd like to have a building once in my life. When it
comes winter time it's all in and I ain't snowed on and everything is you know.
I guess that's about all I've got to say about it. There's other buildings that
are right around me that nobody says anything about. I mean it isn't an area
where there ain't no other big buildings. Big sheds or anything else. When the
leaves are off, I can see three to the north and I can always see the one down
to the northeast and it don't bother me. I mean I'm not, I was a farm kid I
guess. I grew up on the farm and maybe things don't bother me like it does
other people but I'd also really like to have a building that I could put it in
and go on down the line. That's all I know is excavating and I guess I'm too
old to try and change my life right now to change into sc~nething else. But
thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Carlson, you want the building. The City wants you to
get the building so you can get the junk off the outside and into your building
since you want to save all that stuff.
Lowell Carlson: Easy with the junk. No, I was just kidding you. I said easy
with the junk. I make my living with it.
·
Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I guess we've asked you to bring in a site plan to
show how the building is going to meet the ordinances and how it's going to sit
on the building and we're not seeing it.
Lowell Carlson: Okay, sc~ewhere along here I have brought a site plan in. I
have brought the plans of the building in. I have brought a site plan in
showing the buildings that will not be on this property no longer once the
building is put up. We have spent, and then we had copies for the whole thing I
think in 1988 or whenever they referred to that and someplace along the line
there should be a full copy. And I hear you. We didn't bring it in this time
but sc~eplace here there's copies should be copies for every one of you council
people to look at and right now I thought, well to make more copies and if you
have any idea what it's costed me to get the plans, have th~n drawn and hey I
try to do my best to satisfy whatever you d~and and need is.
Councilman Johnson: As I r~member the last time, the site plan had some
problems with it. All we needed, and we were fairly specific what they were.
Lowell Carlson: Okay, but didn't that site plan show every building that would
be discarded and where the building sat and there would be no other existing
buildings at that particular point besides?
Jo Ann Olsen: It showed some of the things that we wanted but it was really
lacking in a lot of the other it~ns that were necessary. That's where we tabled
action until you could provide that site plan and Barbara wrote you a letter
specifically listing what was necessary for that site plan and we never received
it. Then I did the same and that's what we're saying. We never see that
revised site plan and we need to see that before we can take action.
Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
Lowell Carlson: ...the site plan or what you want on it because the building we
drew three times and shortened it and lengthened it and whatever. Not
lengthened it but shortened the roof because it was off too high, too Iow and
I' 11 be glad to do whatever you would like if I can sit down with s~nebody that
can give me whatever they want for a site plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in that letter. It's all listed right out.
Lowell Carlson: Just so I don't draw up 3 or 4 of them and none of them are no
good but I'll give you whatever you want. As far as the site plan, whatever I
can for you. But I'm sorry about this one that I didn't get that this time if
that's what you made you looking at was the total site of that thing.
Mayor Chmiel: The particular building that you're proposing putting up was 14g
by 80?
Lowell Carlson: Yes. And that's a metal building. It's no longer a pole
building.
Mayor ChmJ.el: I guess what I see here is some of the concerns of some of the
neighbors with the maintenance and upkeep of your particular facility and you
and I also discussed that yesterday. The building as you're saying would
contain exactly what? How many trucks would it hold as opposed to the total
trucks that you have out there?
Lowell Carlson: There will be cats that are now home that were not there.
There are two cats and a tracthoe. The tracthoe isn't home but that building
would take care of what I have as far as machinery and whatever of trucks and
that so you can get in and out. It isn't just the space that you have to park
them in. It's the idea of getting them out wJ. thout moving it all around and
moving this one other there and moving that one other there. Some of the guys
go by the hourly rate and you know, by the time they get it out of the shed, I'm
just saying, that's why I'd like to have it so it is, you can get it out easier
or back it out so it isn't just jammed in there.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Carlson, in the 2 or 3 times I remember you coming in
here, you sure appear to be a sincere guy.
Lowell Carlson: Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: A nice person. An easy guy to talk to. If I was one of your
neighbors, I'd be going crazy. They've been at this for 5 years and longer to
get you to clean it up. The City Council was very specific, while I was sitting
on this body a year ago and clean it up and come back to us. We're a year
later, have you cleaned any of it up?
Lowell Carlson: Yes I have but you clean it up but you take this piece and put
it over there. Then maybe next year if they want it cleaned, you take this
piece and put it over here. There's planking, there's 2 x 6's, 2 x 12's, stuff
that's going to go in this building. Word of honor. Do you want it way down
back in the back 40? To get it cleaned up, if it's laying there, weeds grow up
between it or whatever. It isn't the easiest thing to clean up something when
you ain't got no place to go with it.
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: We've had complaints right along. We've got letters in the
pack here in the last couple of months from people who have said, when is the
City going to do something about this? A year ago, and I'm led to believe by
the staff report that you wouldn't be here tonight if we hadn't brought this up
to the City Council as a whole. Mr. Carlson I think we need action and if we
need to give M~. Carlson some time, if that seems reasonable, I would be open to
giving him 30 days and then I think we'd deny it. If he hasn't got that cleaned
up in 30 days, I think we should, I would make a motion that Mr_. Carlson's
conditional use permit be denied effective August 10, 1989.
Mrs. Carlson: Sir, could I ask a question? I'm Mrs. Carlson.
Councilman Boyt: So far there's no second to that motion yet so it may be dead.
That would be my intent.
Mr-s. Carlson: Okay, where would you like us to take it?
Councilman Boyt: Well I think you've got old cars out there filled ~p with, if
I remen%ber a year ago correctly, with plumbing parts and other parts of your
business.
Mrs. Carlson: Exactly which is going to go into the building when we get the
building put and get the racks in there so we can put th~n in there. My house
doesn't hold that stuff. I'm sorry.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that and I wouldn't let it in my house either.
Another thing I would suggest to you is at least from my perspective, given the
neighbors that overlook you, a 27 foot high building is out of line and that's
what you're proposing. A building that's 80 x 120 feet is just completely out
of touch with what's happening in your neighborhood so I don't think your
solution is going to work myself and as it was initially proposed, it was only
10 feet off your lot line. That's not going to work either even though that may
be in the City Code, that's way too close to your neighbors so I'm sharing with
you my concerns but as far as where you're going to put it, I think you can do a
lot to clean that place up, just like we said a year ago. Show us that that's
your intent and respond to the Planning Conxnission and to the City Council's
concerns about the building ar~ come back. We're looking at a year later and
we' re in exactly the same spot. So that ' s my concern.
Mrs. Carlson: Okay, we have been talking and stuff with them now and we've had
the plans here and everything. I mean Barb had a full set of the plans okay and
now they wanted more drawn up when Jo Ann called me but I don't know what more
you want drawn up. What other plans you want.
Lowell Carlson: And on the lot line too, the lot line was set 25 feet away from
the property, inside 30 feet from the edge of the road. That was at one time...
established as the location. That's where that building actually ended up. I
don't know if you want it 25 feet from the property line, 35 foot setback. My
property runs way out to the road but that's...
Ym-s. Carlson: We would like the building so we can get rid of all this stuff in
there too. That's what we want. That's what we've been after for a long time.
Lowell Carlson: Since 1973...
City Council Mee~ing - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well it seems like your intentions to move ahead with this are
pretty straight forward. I would think 30 days would be plenty of time.
Mrs. Carlson: So what do you want us to do in 30 days time now?
CounciLman Boyt: I want you to get it all cleaned up.
~vu:s. Carlson: And what do you mean by that? You want everything out of there?
What do you mean cleaned up?
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, wasn't there a problem with the original site plan?
I'm trying to fir~ that and I can't.
Jo Ann Olsen: We need a revised site plan and that's what we've been, the site
plan that...
M~fs. Carlson: ...we've done that.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in the letter that Barb sent you last year and then I quoted
the_ same thing myself to you ar~ you did say you received it. We need the areas
of existing storage. Complete inventory of the items that are currently stored
outside. A proposal for which of these items will be located within the
building. Shifting of the proposed building to the west away from the easterly
lot line. Submission of an elevation plan of the proposed building and
identification of where the property slopes to the south.
Councilman Johnson: Is this what Barb had?
Jo Amn Olsen: Right and then I also sent it.
Councilman Boyt: What's this area zoned Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: RSF.
Councilman Boyt: Residential single family. Residential single family means
that we can be looking at 15,000 square foot lots here.
~k's. Carlson: We were grandfathered in there when this was a township.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that but you also understand that non-conforming
uses are not expanded and your's has expanded substantially over the years.
Lowell Carlson: Let's say...expansion. What difference would it be between,
you take a business. A business will expand. Hopefully it will because
otherwise you've got...that won't expand. If it stays on an even keel. This
year you make a thousand and next year you make a thousand and last year you
make a thousand. It stays on an even keel. That's what they call not
expansion. What are you telling me?
Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you added equipment is expansion. In a non-
confo~lning use where the City is saying that we understand you're there ant you
get to stay there but you need to understand that the zoning change and if
you're going to expand, you need to move. That's a non-confokming use approach.
10
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Lowell Carlson: Right but see now, this...another new law comes in and says now
you can. The roof can be so high off the ground or the building, the next year
they change it again.
Mrs. Carlson: Everytime everything keeps changing.
Lowell Carlson: That's what happened with the township. You started with the
township and everything kept squeezing us and whatever and new laws come in and
new laws and this one fell through. There is no ever lasting end to this. I'm
getting older. I've got less fight in me...but somewhere in my life I'd like to
accomplish whatever...I'm sure you would like to accomplish without somebody
trying to own you right down and just putting the squeeze. Everybody else can
build a horse barn and have horses or do anything they want probably without no
swsat... You mentioned one little piece of machinery, bang, nothing.
Councilman Boyt: Well Mr.. Carlson, it's not true that they can put those things
in without a permit.
Mrs. Carlson: We're not saying that. We're not saying that.
Councilman Boyt: You're in a residential single family area.
Lowell Carlson: So are they.
Mrs. Carlson: So are they with all their horses and all that.
Lowell Carlson: I look down there ar~ see a 60 x 150 building sitting right
there. It don't bother me none.
Mrs. Carlson: It started out for horses and now it stores boats.
Lowell Carlson: Chanhassen lets it go. They let hLm build it. They let that
guy build 3 of them. When the leaves are off the trees, there's 3 over there.
I'm not a complainer, I mean...it's their business what they do but if they're
unhappy with what I do, yes. Then I will... If the come up here year after
year or month after month or whatever it takes, then you kind of get the s~me
thing and nothing ever gets...
Councilman Johnson: I think we feel the same way. We're in the same place we
were in April of last year. We need what you were asked for April 15th of last
year. The letter to you and your attorney.
Lowell Carlson: He couldn't make it tonight.
Councilman Johnson: Then May 31st, we asked for the same list of 6 things. The
City's growing out arour~ you. Progress.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson, could you bring yourself up to, Bill had mentioned
within the 30 day period by straightening the site, your basic site up. I'd
like to get further clarification so you understand just exactly what Jo Ann has
said. I'd like to see Jo Ann work very closely with you so that you understand
exactly where the City is coming from. I think if you can come up with that
compliance and we're still where we are right now, I'm not sure whether that
particular pole barn that you're requesting can be constructed within that
11
? ~7~
City Council Mmeting - July 10, 1989
specific area because of the zoning aspects. _Now, the other thing that we're
talking about is, also that be.%tning or doing scrnething of that effect to
alleviate some of, as some of the other people put it, the unsightliness of it
anti to you it's your business and I understand that. So what I'd like to really
see done is that we work with you and if you think you can complete this within
a 3g day period, I'd like to see that done and have that for reconsideration and
come back to the Council.
Councilman Johnson: Don, are you basically saying you want items 1 through 6 on
the May 31st letter?
Mayor Cb_miel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: You want those items completed in 30 days?
Mrs. Carlson: Could I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Mrs. Carlson: What did you mean about, what did you say about the building?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to clarify the building to be constructed within
'that particular area?
Jo Ann Olsen: Currently the accessory structure ordinance is going through a
revision. Hopefully that will be on the next Council agenda which would limit
the size of your building to 1,000 square feet. It would also limit the
location of that building. Currently the restrictions, I'd have to go back and
look at the size of your lot and the location. You might be permitted a larger
building than that. I don't know that it would permit as large as you're
proposing.
Mayor Chmiel: As opposed to your 12,0gg is what she's really saying.
Jo Ann Olsen: And because this has been postponed, there has been this other
item going on, not directly related to your item but it just has been and it's
close to being approved and most likely will be in place by the time you do come
back through. I can discuss that with you and we can work with that. I know
there are some other neighbors who have been raising their hands also but if I
may just interject, if you're talking 30 days, what would have to happen is that
they would have to provide that revised site plan and that would go back in
front of the Planning Con~nission. Today was the deadline for the next agenda so
they obviously can't do that and in 2 weeks is the next deadline so it would
probably be best just to set that date.
Mayor Chmiel: So you' re saying 45 days?
Jo Ann Olsen: Before it would get to you. That would give them 2 weeks to
provide me with that revised site plan which is enough time I feel. If they do
not provide it in that tL~e, then we would bring it back to the Council.
Councilwoman Dimler:. I have a question to~ Mr. C~,rlson Could you in good
faith to show the neighbors and the City that you re willing to start cleaning
12
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
up, is there anything there that~ is not necessary that you might sort out and do
away with?
Lowell Carlson: Yes there is. I'm not saying that. There's stuff that can be
picked up or whatever. It's sc~e stuff that I would do that no problem.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I think it would be a good idea to start doing that
and then the neighbors could see that you are operating in good faith and so
could the City so if we could put that in there that that would be done within
that same t~e frame to sort out and start getting rid of some of the things
that you no longer need.
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I mean we run sometimes 12 to 14 hours a day but we'll
do sc~ething about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this specific item?
Doris Brickley: My name is Doris Brickley and I own several pieces of property
on Kings Road. I'm not a resident out there but I don't think the fault is
entirely M~. Carlson's. This is about the fifth meeting that I've attended and
maybe the Council members keep changing but you go over the same thing over and
over and if it keeps being tabled enough, he'll get through the winter and then
we'll start again next spring. ~nat's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose a motion along the lines of my earlier
motion. I would propose that the City revoke Mr.. Carlson's conditional use
permit if he has not provided an acceptable proposal by September 1, 1989. I
think that what that accomplishes, if there's a second to it, is it puts an end
to it. It's either approved or it's revoked and we've got a deadline. A
deadline for the Council. A deadline for Mr. Carlson and a deadline that his
neighbors can count on.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that for discussion. In the year since the
last tJ~ne we discussed this, there was a lot of opportunity for them to complete
his site plan. There was a letter telling him what he had to do to his site
plan. He didn't do that. During that time we're changing the ordinance again
because of large accessory buildings going onto residential single family areas
such as this but more directly closer into town and so the Planning Con~nission's
held public hearings and pretty well been decided that the larger accessory
structure on a residental single family lot will be 1,000 square feet. If that
gets passed next week, his pole barn for getting rid of his vehicles now becomes
1,000 square feet maximum size in a week or 2 weeks from now rather than 12,000.
He's not going to put much in 1,000 square feet to speak of. Will he need a
variance then? Then we've got to talk hardship. Hardship is he never got
around to it. If we pass this motion, is this saying that we're going to allow
a 12,000 square foot building after we change the ordinance in 2 weeks? He's
13
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
had ample opportunity to come in. It's no secret that this ordinance is being
changed. It's been published in tl~e paper. I think we're really at a real hard
spot now, a lot more with the forthcoming ordinance change and that area is
growing. That area is prime for development next. It's within the MUSA line.
CounciLman Boyt: I'd like to suggest a comparison case. 7he Taco Shop at the
other end of town. A different zone but a non-confokming use. They came in and
they wanted to expand. They wanted to do what Mr. Carlson said every reasonable
business tries to do and we denied it. We're also putting TH 101 through the
property but there were two issues really. One of them was the expansion of a
non-conforming use. If this wasn't zoned residential single family, there might
be a lot easier way to resolve this but the City has zoned this so that it's
possible to have a 15,000 square foot lot up there. Now Jmagine a 15,000 square
foot lot next to a 10,000 square feet building.
Mayor Chniel: Roger, I'd like an opinion from you. Mr. Carlson moved onto this
site. He moved in there if I'm not mistaken it was 1965, is that correct?
Lowell Carlson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: And moving in in 1965 he had acquired a total of 6 acres. And
anyway, how does grandfathering affect that?
Roger Knutson: As you know what grandfathering basically says is, if you have
an existing use, you can't change the ordinances and thereby force that person
to go out of business. He has the right to stay in business. Otherwise you'd
be taking his business or you'd be taking his property if you didn't let him
continue. So under the Constitution he has the right to stay in business
basically, sometimes it's a little bit tricky but at the s~me size an~ same
intensity level as he existed at the time you made him non-conforming. But you
have no grandfather rights and I have not seen the property. You have no
grandfather rights to create a nuisance. You have no grandfather rights to have
junk laying all over the place, if that's what it is so if you were to revoke
the permit, we could look at it from two aspects. One, is he illegally expanded
then that non-confonming use. We could make him go back to where he was at the
point where the ordinance was or is he creating a nuisance out there by junk or
whatever and if he is, we can either go in and ask for an injunction to get rid
of that or we can prosecute him criminally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to ask Roger too. I see a letter here on
Sept~oer 18, 1985 at which time it was stated that unless this contact is made
within the next few days and unless you properly complete the review process,
the City will commence legal p~oceedings against you. Was there anything ever
done at that time?
Roger Knutson: No~ I guess Jo Aumn says the staff has been, the planning
Commission and Council has been working with ~. Carlson to try to get voluntary
compliance and apparently there was some movement, I don't remember the timing,
but apparently there was some movement shortly after this and so we decided to
keep working with him.
14
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
229
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, do you know what the setback requirements of the
R-lA district was?
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe it was 50 frontyard, 10 on the side. I think it was 10
on one side, it had like alternates on the side. 10 and 50 on one side or 10
and 5.
Mayor Chmiel: It was less restrictive than what it is now?
Jo Ann O1 sen: Oh yes.
CounciLman Johnson: Never mind. One of the conditions of the permit is all
unlicensed vehicles had to be r~m~oved by December 1, 1985.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson and I had discussions on that also. Some of his
trucks he doesn't use but when it does become a time for use, he does then
license them as he needs them rather than paying all those dollars at that
specific t~e.
Councilman Boyt: I think the City has an ordinance that forbids unlicensed
vehicles to be stored on property.
Mayor Chmiel: It does.
Councilman Workman: I guess Mr. Mayor, my con~nents. When I came in from
reading this packet and I didn't get a chance to meet personally with Lowell or
his wife, I guess the deck was stacked against him when I came in. The packet
this evening certainly isn't leaning in their favor as far as promises made.
Bill and Lowell made the same kind of pact last year that Ursula and him
basically just made as far as a good faith move and here we are again. I do
like the idea of always giving another chance and that looks like where we're
headed an~ to see where we all fit because there's some confusion so I think
we're ready for a vote.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we clarify the point that Jay brought up though about
an acceptable proposal if the accessory structure thing is changed? What do we
do then?
Councilman Johnson: He's going to bring in a site plan September 1st under a
new ordinance yet, where are we?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd hate to have him come in for a variance and that won't
be approved because he can't prove the hardship.
Councilman Johnson: Because they had ample opportunity since 1985 to build that
structure.
Roger Knutson: I don't know if this is what you want. Of course it would be
possible to write your new ordinance or pass it in such a form that it would
ex~npt pending matters such as this if that's what you wanted to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: Any other alternatives?
15
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Roger Knutson: I think the variance route has been discussed but it's pretty
hard to get. I think if you want him to have a 12,000 square foot building, I'm
not suggesting you do but if you do.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but I mean somewhat more than 1,0gg for his needs.
Roger Knutson: Anti you can write the ordinance that's coming to you in any form
you like. You could say pending applications or pending matters, they can go up
to.
Councilwoman Dimler: ~ exempted.
Roger Knutson: C~ exempted or they can go up to 9, 8, 5, whatever you think is
appropr late.
Councilworaan Dimler: What is the status of that ordinance right now Jo Ann, do
you know?
Jo Ann Olsen: It will be on the next agenda.
Councilman Boyt: Has it been changed since the last time?
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we reword it?
Jo Ann Olsen: The setback part, that's what Jay had brought up. That's what
we' ye been adding.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we add that wording in there now that Roger
suggested?
Jo Ann Olsen: You can always go more restrictive. Do we have to hold another
public hearing?
Mayor C~nmiel: A3:e you talking exempting of pending matters?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Roger Knutson: I think you could do it Jo Ann because your hearing notice isn't
so specific. Just adding a section on how you're going to relate this new
ordinance to pending matters.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that can still be added? That's not a problem. Okay.
Would you look into doing that then?
Roger Knutson: If you'd like, sure.
Councilman Johnson: This new ordinance gives us opportunities as far as when we
start talking this site plan to say okay if RSF has 1,000 and we're going to
give you s~nethJ, ng way over 1,000, that thing better be way away from existing
neighbors. I'd like to see this building not up against King Road. Not up
against the neighbor's property at the minimum setback but when we' re getting
something this big, we need to move that thing back behind the houses and back
down the side of the hill where this is not a big eyesore. As I remember, the
property slopes downwards to the back. We can build it there. It causes them
16
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
to have a driveway instead of just having 10 foot of driveway but it does not
fit in RSF. That's why we're having a 1,000 square foot structure. We need to
somehow, if we're going to allow this to come into here, to move it from the
proposed site. It gets real complicated here.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's unfair to ask him to clean it up and then not
give him a building that's reasonably sized to be able to clean that up.
Councilman Boyt: About unfairness. I think we've been unfair to ~he neighbors.
This is a non-conforming use. We have to be very careful when we let somebody
put up a 12,000 square foot building in a non-conforming use. ~nis land is
going to be developed. It's residential single family. 15,000 square feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject something here Bill. I was out there I viewed
it. There are 3 existing barns on the Filly Farm. There's also another one on
David Headla's that's probably the same size which is in eye view from where
you' re at right now. Those are the other things that have to be taken into
consideration too.
Councilman Johnson: They came in under the old ordinance also and they were put
up when they were legal to be put up. They're not non-conforming, or are they
non-conforming now that they've...
Jo Ann Olsen: They will be.
Councilman Johnson: They will be non-conforming in 2 weeks.
Councilwoman Dimler: Haven't we already stated that Jo Ann would work real
closely with the applicant? Are you planning to work real closely to help them
understand what the ordinance says?
Jo Ann Olsen: I ' 11 try.
Councilman Johnson: Does this Council feel that we should move it to a
different location if they build it?
Mayor Chmiel: I hate to be in a position to tell someone where to put their
particular building on their property. I don't think we ever want to get in
that position.
Councilman Johnson: This will be a variance over our ordinance, I think that
there's some necessity to doing that. Especially if I'm the next door neighbor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we trust staff then to come up with a reasonable
size for the building that Council could approve? I don't know. I haven't seen
the site.
Councilman Boyt: As I recall this from a year ago, you were talking about
putting 25 vehicles in the building and your assorted equipment and inventory.
What we have, I think Council is a situation that's at lagerheads with itself.
We've got to make a decision about is Mr. Carlson going to be able to run an
expanded business in his location or not. I don't think it's appropriate
myself. Maybe we should come to grips with that issue and just deny the permit
because I don't know what he's going to do with what we don't let him put in the
17
City Council Meeting - July 1~, 1989
building. If we restrict it to a 5,g0g square foot building, does that mean
that 7,000 square foot worth of vehicles and equipment is going to sit outside?
This is just a dilemma that doesn't lend itself to solution. Part of it I think
I agree with the wc~en who said the City is partially at fault here. We've let
this drag out forever.
Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the problem, you're right. When I went out there
I took a quick inventory. They do have 10 large trucks, 4 pick-up vans, 1
backhoe, 4 flatbeds, 1 tow truck, 3 trailers and a couple other items that are
on the property. So as I count these up, there's approximately 23 items right
now and then Mr. Carlson I think indicated there are a couple items that are
already on the job site so there's a total of 25 vehicles. I'm not sure what
the intent was when that was first put in. That information I didn't find.
Jo Ann Olsen: There has been an expansion of business and that was when this
all got going again in 1987 was when bring it back to the Planning Con~nission
was to approve the expansion. Approve another conditional use permit for the
expansion of the business. If you do provide that extension, what they would be
doing is providing the site plan as required. They would be going back in front
of the Planning Con~nission again for approval of a new conditional use permit
essentially so you would be approving of the expansion.
Councilwc~an Dimler: I have another question for Roger. I read somewhere and I
wrote it down and I don't know where I read it, I can't find it but I read
somewhere that if we deny the conditional use permit tonight, that he can still
operate as a non-confo~ning use and then could be prosecuted if he does not
clean up using our nuisance ordinance. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: You're quoting fr~n my letter in the packet. Yes. I wrote that
letter several years ago.
Councilwoman DJ.ruler: That's true? He can still operate so we're not taking his
business away if we vote to not give him the condition use permit?
Roger Knutson: He already has the permit. The item tonight is revoking the
existing perlnit. If you revoke the existing permit, he still has his
grandfather rights as an existing use that predated the ordinance but he has to
go back to the size of t~me use that existed when the ordinance was passed.
Councilwoman Dimler: How do you document that?
Roger Knutson: With difficulty.
Councilman Johnson: The only inventory we have is in 1985. The ordinance was
like 1972 so reasonably we could go back to the 1985 level of activity which is
about 5 trucks.
Roger Knutson: What you would do if you revoke this, he couldn't for example
put up that building. That 12,090 square foot building.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could he put up any building?
Roger Knutson: Commercial building, no.
18
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Would he have to go back to the same number of vehicles he
owned in 19857
Mayor Chmiel: And how many were there?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we do have a list that the applicant provided when he first
applied fo~: the conditional use permit. I would just assume we would use that
list which is, like Jay said, 5 vehicles. Very small. It's right before the
pictures in the report, or right after the pictures.
Mayor C~nmiel: Let me ask another question Roger. If we were to approve this,
can we put a restriction that it only is with that existing owner for the period
of time that he r~mains operational as that business?
Roger Knutson: No. Conditional uses run with the property.
Councilman Johnson: What about non-conforming use?
Roger Knutson: It runs with the property.
Councilman Boyt: If Mr. Carlson leaves that property, the way it's zoned, it
will be residential within the year so I don't think we have to be too
concerned. Well that might not be true if it has a 12,000 square foot building
on it but without that kind of structure, the property's too valuable.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If not, we do have a motion on the
floor.
Councilman Workman: Mr-. Mayor, are our options then, to kind of reiterate, our
option is to basically give him a basic extension to come in with a site plan
and get it cleaned up and if it doesn't, it's done?
Councilwoman Dimler: By September 1st.
Councilman Johnson: Site plan in for Planning ~ission.
Jo Ann Olsen: You would not see it then until at the end of September.
~yor Chmiel: Right. It would go the Planning ~ission with the ordinance
change unfortunately.
Councilman Workman: But the ordinance is our accessory structure ordinance is
probably going to be changing in the meantime and we're going to have another
dilen~na.
Councilman Johnson: A lot of history to say it's grandfathered.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I asked for the ordinance to state they're
exempting any pending, yes. That would take care of that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, I'd have to look at the area of the property but they
might be permitted then under the old ordinance to have a large building. It
would be hard for me to say' no, you can only have 2,000 if tD~y would really be
pe~itted to have 10,000.
19
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
CounciLman Boyt: I'm going to withdraw my motion. I think we're just delaying
the inevitable here and that if we revoke this conditional use per, nit he can
still operate his business and he merely has to do it within the City ordinances
that are provided. The building issue we can deal with when we look at the
accessory building ordinance next session. So if you guys want the motion of
putting this off until September, someone else will need to make it.
Councilman Johnson: I' 11 withdraw my second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on the floor then?
CounciLman Boyt: I would move that we deny the conditional use permit for a
contractor's yard at 4141 Kings Road.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Roger Knutson: You're revoking.
Councilman Boyt: Revoking.
Councilman Workman: So that leaves him what options?
Councilwoman Dimler: He can still operate as a non-confot~ning use and has to go
back to the level of activity of 1985.
Councilman Boyt: He can come in and reapply for a conditional use pe~.~nit if he
wants to but at this point we're saying enough is enough. It's time to draw a
close to this conditional use permit.
Mayor Chniel: I guess as I really look at it, from what Tom even had mentioned,
everyone else has had their day to review this in the past number of years.
Talking about giving someone back that second chance, I guess I'd sort of lean
towards that only because of the fact that if he can't comply with it, then
depending upon what he can't have as a building to house the numbers of
vehicles, whether it be 5 or whatever, that's something that I think staff
should work with the Carlson's and come up with a conclusion. If it can't be
complied with, then we will have to go to revoking of the conditional use
permit.
Councilman Workman: So you're for the original motion perhaps?
Mayor Chmiel: More so I think.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I think what we've done though is we've put staff
in an ]~possible dileirma. We haven't told them what size building we'll
approve. We've sent Mr. Carlson the message clean up but we don't promise you
anything at the end of that rainbow. I think it's much cleaner...
Mayor Cbmiel: Yes, I think that part can be resolved between staff and Mr'.
Carlson prior to that time.
CounciLman Boyt: Can or can't?
20
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Could be. ~ney may decide not to do what they are proposing to.
do and it would revoke back to the 1985 issue.
Councilman Boyt: But how is staff going to know what size building we'll
approve? ~9~. Carlson could always reapply for a conditional use permit, a new
one.
Mayor Chmiel: At least I'm interjecting my thoughts. We now have a motion on
the floor to deny and revoke. Is there any further discussion on that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I hate to see that but I agree with giving second chances.
I wonder if we haven't given second, thirds, fourths and fifths here.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe not from us though.
Councilwoman Dimler: I wish I had some guarantee that this time something would
happen. I know that's not possible. I just wanted to add that in there that
I do believe that there has been plenty of tLme and cooperation on the part of
the City to get something done.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny and revoke the
conditional use permit for a contractor's yard at 4141 Kings Road for Lowell
Carlson. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel ~who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Lowell Carlson: Basically where am I or where are you going from here on that
particular deal?
Mayor Chmiel: That I think would be something that you probably have to work
that out with staff to come up with a conclusion as to what can be on site and
what can't be on site.
Lowell Carlson: So what you're not saying is you're revoking the permit?
Mayor Chmiel: No, you can still r~main in business as you had been at the 1985
level as to what was contained on site at that specific time and the balance of
the site then has to be cleaned.
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I didn't just quite hear it all.
M~yor Ckmiel: And if you have a specific question, don't hesitate to call Jo
Ann. In fact I'd suggest Jo Ann that you have some additional discussions
with M3~. Carlson.
PUBLIC HEARING:
OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TRUNK HIGh'WAY 101 FROM ROSEMOUNT ENTRANCE TO PROPOSED TRUNK
HIGH~AY 212.
A. PUBLIC HEARING.
B. ADOPTION.
21
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Gary Warren: Yk'. Mayor, this is s_n item that is familiar to the Council as well
as to the residents since we've had several meetings. Most recently last
Thursday night we had another public information meeting here to deal with the
corridor. As you recall, the Council has approved the alternate selection for
the rerouting of TH 101 and staff has subsequently provided that to MnDot so
they could incorporate that into the TH 212 official mapping which we should be
receiving the revised map shortly on that. Fred Hoisington is here thJ. s
evening. Fred has been the_ focal point from the City standpoint on putting
together the land use and the corridor alignments and is available to field any
questions or make any presentation you'd like further. The action as you stated
is to officially adopt the map. The alternative has been selected and now this
is to officially adopt the map for the corridor which ranges from 200 to 250
feet in width and is shown on the maps. As a part of that adoption, we're
looking to have, it's necessary to have legal descriptions prepared of this
corridor so we can record J.t against the County records. So with that brief
introduction, I'll turn it back to you.
Mayor Chmiet: Fred, would you just like to go through that just for the people
who possibly have not been here previously and an update on a brief basis
please?
Fred Hoisington: Yes your honor. There really are several segments to tine
study that we've been charged with doing, one of which J.s the alignment of TH
101. Another is the land use and what you see here or what punches out on this
map of course is the land use that's proposed and we're not asking you to make
any decisions at this point on land use because it's going to be fed into the
c~nprehensive planning process rather than have that dealt with independently of
that process. Essentially what we're suggesting is that there be 20g feet of
right-of-way from the south Rosemount entrance. This is where Rosemount is
presently construction. This is existing Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. is
going to be under construction within a very short period of time just south of
TH 5 and just in~nediately to the east of where Rosemount is under construction.
WI]at we're suggesting is that from that point south to 86th Street where it will
tie into the future TH 101, that there be 200 foot of right-of-way mapped with a
small bubble of 250 foot of right-of-way for sloped purposes that falls about
halfway between the area or the parameters within which we're working. Now the
purpose of official mapping is only to protect the right-of-way in the event'
that there might be someone who would wish to build within that right-of-way.
So it kind of puts some responsibilities on the City not only to map it but in
the event someone makes a request for a building there, the City could be faced
with having to acquire that right-of-way and then you will be given, should that
occur, a period of 6 months within which to make the decision either to buy or
to issue a building permit. Actually the board's only appeals, according to
law, is to issue that building permit. Very strange process but that's the way
it works. So really all you' re doing is setting it aside and requests then
should honor that. The alignment should be shown in the respective development
plans that would come along with the corridor and we have talked with all the
key land owners there and all of them have some concerns about the width. Have
some concerns about the remnant that occurs between the present TH 101 and the
new TH 101 and I would guess most of the comments Gary we received in the course
of the public infot~nation meetings relate to that because we are talking about
the single family housing as a land use concept for that area. But that's it.
Simply to set that land aside so it can be protected and not be encumbered by
buildings in the future so we can be assured that TH 101 is going to be there 10
22
City Council M~eting - July 10, 1989
years down the road when it's ready to be built in conjunction with TH 212.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Where it's 250 foot wide, is that over in the woods?
Ga~'y Warren: Near the creek area.
Fred Hoisington: It's just to the north of, the creek runs comes through here
ar~ it just happens that there's a fill slope there that spreads out a long ways
and we want to embrace all of that fill slope within the right-of-way. It
requires Jay 250 feet to do that.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a treed area?
Fred Hoisington: That particular area does have some trees, yes. It is
slightly above tl]ough the area where we're showing open space ~faich is very
heavily wooded but yes there are trees there.
Mayor Chmiel: Which area specifically is heavily wooded?
Councilman Johnson: The green. OS.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address
this?
Marge Shorba: I'm Marge Shorba. My husband George and I own two lots directly
past the creek on TH 101. What we are concerned with is the length of the
right-of-way and had talked to Fred at one of the open meetings regarding a dirt
barrier past our property as if that would be put up or would not. He stressed
that it would in our area but since last Thursday, my husband is a designer. He
has drawn up the length of the lot and the length of the right-of-way that is
there and no way is there room for a barrier that would do any good because
there's not enough right-of-way to do it. I talked to Fred again tonight and he
does say that is a tight area in there and so there is some concern as to
whether there was room or not. So I just wanted to let you know that we are
opposed to it without a barrier and was wondering if there were any suggestions
or what would happen with it.
Fred Hoisington: What happens, their property which does not of course have a
house on it right now, is positioned right here and it is probably the most
difficult piece because if we push the alignment further to the east, we push it
into the wetland and further we push it into this hill that we're also trying to
preserve as part of the open space which is very heavily wooded. It's kind of
an island out there that we'd like to see preserved rather than destroyed. What
we will do is ask the official, official mapping, when the legal descriptions
are prepared, is how can we give th~m some additional room to try to get some
be~ing in there but there are some trade-offs. It's a very difficult and very
tight area and there are some environmental things that also need to be
considered. Now what George, and George is not only a designer but he works for
MnDot so he knows about these kinds of things, the map he was looking at, 150
feet of right-of-way with 75 feet on a side, we're proposing 200 now so we can
more of a be~m in that George was able to see that point with the right-of-way
that is proposed to be taken. But we will look at that as those legal
23
City Council Meeting July 10, 1989
descriptions are being worked out and see if we can't do something~
Unfortunately if we try to push too much, we may end up with some super
elevation here which we're not real fond of for maintaining the right curvature
but nonetheless we'll take a look and see if there's something we can do.
A1 Klingelhutz: I guess it's right to map out a highway and I was glad Fred
said that. It didn't pertain to the zoning tonight because I do have some
concerns and I know Mr. Bart has quite a little concern on some of the zoning
that's being proposed and I'm sure there will be hearings in the future on that.
I guess my biggest concern and I did talk to Fred about this at the last
meeting, is you've got a 200 foot right-of-way from the end of Market Street
where Lake Drive East comes to down to TH 212 ard then you've only got 150 foot
right-of-way from Lake Drive East up to TH 5 which is going to have the most
traffic.
Councilman Johnson: Same width of roadway though isn't it?
Fred Hoisington: Same width.
Gary Warren: The topography is a little more forgiving on the north side.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not, I'll make a motion that we close the public
hearing.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: The only thing I want to say is, the map they show have the
zoning and the side streets are totally examples of what might possibly occur
and has nothing to do with our decision here tonight. We're only talking where
TH 101 is going to be. I can't emphasize that point enough. People will come
back and say, gee you zoned this. No we didn't zone anything tonight. All we
did was say where the right-of-way is going to be.
Councilman Workman: I'm trying to get maybe a clarification on Al's concern. Is
that a concern of ours or is that something that could be avoided Fred? I'm
assuming that Al's eluding to the fact that maybe more right-of-way has been
taken on the south side?
Fred Hoisington: It is. The area on the north side of Lake Drive up to TH 5
does have some additional land that's being used temporarily in slope easements
so it is effectively the right-of-way is wider than 150 feet there but once the
project is done, the slope easement or the part they'll be working in will be
relinquished back to the owners of the property which means that the resulting
right-of-way will be slightly lesser in width than this down here. Now the
problem down here is the road is going like this. What that requires or the
cuts ar~ fills that require more right-of-way than the_ area up here to where
it's relatively flatter though it's not flat anyplace there. So a legitimate
concern, what we've indicated is that the possibility exists when it's ready to
be acquired. The full right-of-way is ready to be acquired at some time in the
future and that could be 10 years down the road. Maybe when the actual design
is done, ~he width could be less than 200 feet and maybe we could work the slope
easements and things like that as we get on the north side. At least for the
24
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
time being we want that 200 foot corridor because it needs to embrace those cul
and fill slopes so a legitimate concern and it's not, the road will be the same
width. Same median, everything so the capacity of the roadway is not effected
at all by the width of the right-of-way. We just need more to build the road
there.
CounciLman Johnson: We're not saying we're going to buy 200 feet in the future.
We're saying that we want to map 200 feet so we have the option to buy that in
the future.
Councilman Workman: Well I'm going to move approval of the official mapping.
Councilwcman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt the Official
Mapping of Trunk Highway 101 from the Rosemount Entrance to Proposed Trunk
Highway 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER EXTENDED WORK HOURS FOR ROStI~OUNT SITE CONSTRUCTION.
Gary Warren: June 12th the City Council tabled Opus' request to work extended
work hours and wanted the neighbors surrounding the Lake Susan area that could
be impacted by the extended work hours to be notified of the request so that'
Council could heam- their objections, if any, to the extended work hours. As
noted in the attachments to the staff report, handbills were delivered to the
properties on Great Plains Blvd, West Lake Court, Lake Susan Hills Drive and
Chan Hills Drive North and the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ, notified
them of the request. Basically Rosemount, Opus who is constructing for
Rosemount has requested the extended work hours for a 10 day period basically to
work a limited amount of equipment during the second shift to make up for lost
time during the experience because of the wet construction period this spring.
I guess again we believe that it's a legitimate request. Rosemount and Opus
have indicated that if complaints are received from the activity, it's hard to
exactly say what equipment will be working those hours but if complaints are
received, they would agree to stop their actions if permitted to proceed at this
point in time. I don't know if anybody from Opus is here this evening. Ted
Jirik is here this evening with Opus if you have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: I just have a couple questions. As I was reading your letter and
the letter that was sent out by Opus, in there it indicates that they were going
to do it from July llth to July 30th and in your cover letter indicates that
there's going to be a 10 day period that they would be working on that. Which
is correct? 10 or 19 days?
Gary Warren: 10 working days is what I had been told originally.
Mayor Chmiel: So the letter that was sent from Opus, the second paragraph,
second line.
Gary Warren: It was my understanding with talking with Steve Grasso of Opus
that they're basically looking for a 2 week period to make up for lost time.
25
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
Maybe Mr. Jirik can qualify exactly. What is the period of time that you're
exactly, how many days do you need?
Ted Jirik: We're really looking for 1~ working days. If we ask for 2 weeks and
it rains for 2 weeks it doesn't do us any good so we're really looking for 1~
working days and hopefully we can accomplish that in a couple weeks time.
Certainly if there's a lot of complaints received because of noise or whatever,
we'll have to address them or quit or satisfy them one way or another.
Mayor Ckmiel: Have we had any response from any of these people who had the
hand flyers delivered to them?
Gary Warren: I've not had any calls?
Councilman Boyt: I have a question Mr. Mayor. Al, did you get one of these
flyers?
A1 Ktingelhutz: Yes, I got one of these flyers but there are quite a few people
right here from the area and I don't know if they want to speak on it. Probably
it affects me as much or more than most of the people on the lake. I know Lake
Susan West, those people that live close to the shore will be closer to it.
Councilman Boyt: I'd really like to hear from some folks that are concerned
about this.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody who'd like to address thJ. s? Are you basically in
agreement with with the proposals are indicating that Opus plans, because of
some of the problems they have had they're running behind 2 weeks, lg working
days in time schedule. What they're asking is that they work from 5:g0 a.m. to
2:0g a.m. from July llth through July 3gth.
Councilman Boyt: Actually Mr. Mayor they're asking to work all the hours except
from 2:gg to 5:gg in the morning.
Mayor Chniel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me, that's ~nat you said. I apologize.
Mayor Chmiel: And weather permits. Their concerns too is that they hopefully
are not going to be making noise enough to bother the residents but we had some
concerns, the Council had concerns about it and that's why we sort of tabled it
the last time but if no one here has any objections to that proposal, my
suggestion is that if you do hea3~ noise, you get back to the City and infonln
them as to what the noise is and maybe it can be addressed. Maybe we'll shut
them down. Maybe they can do something about it to alleviate the given
problems. Any other discussion from anyone?
Councilman Boyt: I would propose a motion that's slightly different than that.
That given no objections from the neighbors, we approve Rosemount site
construction request for extended work hours. However, if there is a complaint,
we withdraw that approval.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move we close the public hearing first.
26
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
24!
Mayor Chmiel: This isn't a public hearing~
Councilman Workman: I ' 11 second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the extended work
hours for the Rosemount Site Construction but if there are any complaints from
the neighbors, the approval is withdrawn. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unan]~nously.
SUNNY SLOPE BEACHLOT, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to just address this even before we get into too
much discussion right off hand. I understand that there's going to be a pre-
trial on this on July 14th. Is that right Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: And very possibly that this could go to the courts and be tried
further and finaled within possibly 60 days. Maybe 90 at the very most.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: So therefore I would almost think that, at least my position is
that we put it back to the court system and that detemmination come back from
there. Is there any other discussion from Council?
Councilman Johnson: I would move we table.
Counc i lman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Or we deny the reconsideration.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think we should table until the case be tried with the
pre-trial taking place on July 14th of this week.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on the
request for reconsideration for Sunny Slope Beachlot until after the pre-trial
scheduled for July 14, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: If there's anyone here to address that specific issue, it should
be back within probably a 60 day period or 90 at the very most.
CONFIRM SIDEWALK LOCATION FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 1ST ADDITION, PHASES I AND
II; CONSIDER CITY WIDE SIDEWA~ POLICY.
Gary Warren: This is Lake Susan Hills West from the earlier PUD documents. The
issue at hand is to confirm the location of the sidewalk in the subdivision. I
think I can work off of this drawing for the best part. A portion on the east
side is platted as Phase I of Lake Susan Hills West and the element on the west
27
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
side is Phase II. As a part of that, as shown on this map, the dotted line is
the trail that is supposed to be constructed as a portion or as a part of the
project. We've had difficulty in all honesty, not only with this subdivision
but with others here in trying to get our city policies I guess up to speed to
deal with these trail issues because they've kind of come here in a flurry. As
a result, the sidewalk has turned out to be one of the last things that's being
installed in these subdivisions or trail, whichever you want to call it. As a
result we run into conflicts with existing utilities that have been constructed
in the right-of-way areas. Hydrants. Street lights. Gate valves. A number of
items that are all trying to fit into the boulevard area and at this point in
time in our urban section, we get a 50 foot right-of-way versus a 60 foot in the
rural areas. It's a lot when you try to pack in a 5 foot wide sidewalk or
larger into these boulevard areas. We're just running into some real problems
with trying to get the sidewalk in especially since it has turned out to this
point in time to be the last facility that's going in. Staff took a detailed
look at tie subdivision to see what kind of obstructions were we really dealing
with and earlier on in the stage of construction we were looking at trying to
put it in the area of least resistence as far as the_ utility locations were
concerned. These are the actual plats and subsequently to that, to actually put
in the trail. I'm sorry, as a part of that we went out and said well, let's
physically identify the obstructions and where best could we get the trail in
here. We were able to measure all the hydrants and other obstructions in the
field and we've come up with the fact that we are able to have the sidewalk
constructed as originally planned in the original documents on the north side of
the road in both cases. The sidewalk on the east side of Lake Susan right above
CR 17 basically would have to abut the right-of-way line and on the west side it
would be basically 1 foot off of the right-of-way line. This section maybe
would be a better representation here. This being the property line, this being
the curb line, here's a typical showing a hydrant and other utlities that happen
to go in here. We like to normally have some separation from the property line
so there's no dispute that our sidewalk is not on private property. As I said
on the east side, in order to clear obstructions that exist...but we are
basically able to get the sidewalk in on the north side as originally planned as
in those earlier PUD documents. This makes sense also because as it relates to
the open space area, eventual park space in the subdivision here, the walk is on
the north side and there are access trails that would c~ne off of that walkway.
I know there's been a lot of confusion about this. There's driveways that are
constructed along about 8 of these lots here.
Bob Kopp: 14. There's 14 driveways on the west side.
Gary Warren: There are 8 that are actually paved at this point though right?
At least my count from a week ago and things change rapidly in these
subdivisions.
Bob Kopp: Now there's 14 now...
Gary Warren: So they're continuing to pave driveways as you can understand.
Nonetheless, I guess the sidewalk can go in without necessarily having to tear
up those driveways. Saddlebrook is another case in point where we just approved
it this evening as you recall, the sidewalk that will be going through there and
there are existing driveways that we will be manipulating around. So the
reco~wmendation from staff's standpoint is to stay consistent with the original
PUD plan. Put the sidewalk on the north side of the alignment but then also we
28
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
243
wanted to take this opportunity I guess to get the Council's direction. We
really are handicapped in not having this sidewalk policy firmly established and
also having to deal with the right-of-way section that just does not allow all
these utilities to go in one area very conveniently. The goal, at least the
direction from my standpoint has been any sidewalks here and in the future
should be included as a part of the construction plans and be built at the time
the utilities are built. Now there is a consequence there in that the builders
have to take precautions to protect that sidewalk to get to their lots. I
believe that those precautions can be taken. The other consequence is to come
in the back side like we have here and face the probl~ns where property owners
say they didn't know that a sidewalk was planned for this area and the
difficulty of getting the other utilities to be aware that there is a sidewalk
planned here so I believe that we can deal with the builders a little bit more
effectively on hindsight than having us be the last person in line to get our
utility in. Bob Kopp is here from Lake Susan Hills West. I don't know if Bob
wants to speak on the matter or not. Basically that's our findings. If you
have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Councilman Workman: Gary, is this the sidewalk where we had the problem where
it moved to the south side?
Gary Warren: That was looked at. Initially it was going to be a 6 foot
sidewalk and this is...
Councilman Workman: The gentleman came in under Visitor Presentation?
Gary Warren: Right, this is in response to that.
Councilman Workman: So now it's back to where it was originally?
Ga~y Warren: Right it's back to the north side where it was planned originally
and we've agreed, I should have pointed that out, that the standard that I see
really shaping up in residential areas, the sidewalk splits every 5 feet. 5
foot concrete in residential areas. We go to 6 or 8 foot bituminous when we're
in rural trails connecting to parkways, things like that where you're not in
somebody's front yard. But here, by shrinking down to a 5 foot width, we can
get by the majority, if not all of the obstructions out there and stay on the
side that was originally planned.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I did the original PUD on it and I believe
if you look at our original PUD contract with the City it did call for 5 foot
wide sidewalks. I guess I would have appreciated being notified that this was
under discussion as a part of moving or changing locations or going from a 5 to
a 6 foot since we have a contract that says it's going to be 5 and we have a
contract that says this is where it's going to be located.
Mayor Chmiel: It is a 5 foot wide width.
Don Patton: I know but I heard someone said it was going to be 6 feet and we
agreed 2 years ago that it was going to be 5 feet and I think that I have the
courtesy that at least that's under consideration, if it is going to be changed.
Gary Warren: We've notified the developer of the activity all along.
29
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
Don Patton: I think you have to contact us as the PUD...too'
Gary Warren: There was a letter that went to you in care of Argus. There's
been some confusion between the PUD owner and the developer. The development
contract is with Argus ~nich is Mr. Kopp.
Don Patton: The PUD is for Lake Susan Hills West.
Bob Kopp: My n~e is Bob Kopp and I work for Augus Development. I'm the
project consultant on the project and from what Gary said, we don't disagree at
all. As long as we don't have to tear up the driveways, that's fine with us.
Put it in the way you want to do it. The only thing I do kind of wonder too
when you get to where you go to continue this, I think what you're saying is,
when you get on a new project you're going to have a continuous sidewalk going
through the driveways. The drive's would be on each side of it right? Are you
going to have cement from the end of the sidewalks down to the curb then? Are
you going to have cement aprons or are you going to blacktop on both sides, or
ain't you got that far yet?
Gary Warren: That's part of our policy... I think that it would really, from
my perspective, it would be great to have concrete aprons but I think that
expense has got to be looked at as far as the developments are concerned. You
get into individual property owner preference, would you want to have a concrete
apron and then have bituminous driveway so you're forcing a resident to build
almost a concrete driveway where maybe he would have wanted bituminous so off
the top of my head I'd say I want to stay away from even the driveway aprons and
allow that up to the discretion of the individual residents but it's something
we need to address as a part of our policy.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, are you saying that where there is no house now we're
going to build a solid concrete right on across there and then when they come in
they can put asphalt up to it and asphalt on the other side?
Gary Warren: Or concrete on both sides of it, whatever. The other benefit of
that is that you get a trail system in right away and it's completly contiguo%ns.
Councilman Johnson: Would they have the option of removing the sidewalk at that
point and putting asphalt all the way up a continuous driveway as long as it met
the grade?
Gary Warren: Would you want to do that?
Counci ]man Boyt: No.
Gary Warren: I think if you've got a concrete piece anyplace if you're a
resident, you'd probably like to keep the concrete. I wouldn't look forward to
having to pull out anything and letting them redo it. I think that's just
taking steps backwards.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who wants to discuss the issue?
Councilman Workman: I guess Mr. Mayor, I did see that we were going to maybe
consider city wide sidewalk policy. I don't know that we have enough time.
That's ~n issue that I know we've discussed with the Park and Rec Commission
30
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
before and it's quite touchy. In one situation where we might like a sidewalk,
maybe we wouldn't and it's kind of a develot~nent by development thing, at least
that ' s the idea that I ' ve gotten from the mayor.
Councilman Johnson: I think what Gary wants considered is not whether we're
going to have one or not have one but whether we put it in at the beginning or
later on. Is that the consideration you're talking about?
Gary Warren: What I thought would be helpful, if Council had any input for
staff at this time concerning the policy. At least what I would like to go away
with is that we will look further into preparing a policy for a future agenda
here and we would entertain any con~nents and suggestions between here and that
point from the Council on any issues that you've got that you want us to address
as a part of that. We tried to off the top of our head put in the staff report
some items that we've had to deal with. Obviously there's some cost items such
as who maintains them and who plows them and we have a variety of different
classes of sidewalks, the way I look at it, in the City here. Downtown
con~nercial areas, we typically plow. When you get into residential areas, do
you or don't you? There's some things there that need some good hard thought.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you're saying is not so much where they'd be
located or if they're to be located but what policy should they be forthwith?
Gary Warren: It's when they go in. ~nat size? ~aat type? Who maintains? On
and on.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a motion that deals with the City
Engineer and Manager's con~nents on this issue which was the difficulty of the
narrow right-of-way. As you'll note in our packet, it talked about the historic
right-of-way width was 66 feet. I think given the need to put...and
increasingly the desire to put those in underground such as phone systems and
electrical wiring and so on, that I would move that we extend the right-of-way
to 66 feet.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a zoning ordinance change?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: A platting ordinance change? Subdivision ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Subdivision change, yes.
Councilman Boyt: Not on your development.
Don Patton: That wasn't the point I was going to make. Most of the utilities
in addition to the right-of-way that you've got, you normally have a 10 foot
easement inside the property so that gives you a 70 foot right-of-way and
telephone and electric goes in the 10 foot easement. They don't go in the
public right-of-way anyway.
Gary Warren: Telephone, electric and cable are all right behind the curb.
Your darn right they are.
Don Patton: That's anothe~ option that you can put them in the boulevard.
31
..... dry Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Gary Warren: Historically they're in the right-of-way and that's where
I believe they belong. The easement around the property, the 5 foot easement if
you will, that we take as a border, I guess we don't typically rely on that
preservation or for any installation of any utilities. Utility companies prefer
to work in the right-of-ways.
Councilman Johnson: C~ry, if they designed it all correctly and included the
sidewalk in the design when they put in the utilities a~ they knew where the
sidewalk was going to be_, and you put the fire hydrants on the other side of the
street or whatever, doesn't that seem, it seems poor planning to not, in the
construction plans have the sidewalk on the construction plans and then
everybody else designs around it. Then we design a sidewalk into a project.
That'd be like designing a car then later on trying to figure out ~nat kind of
windows we're going to put in it or something. Where we're going to put the
doors.
Gary Warren: One of the problems is, you've got the gas and electric and other
utilities who, they're not a party to our construction plans. They are going at
their own submitting for permits but basically unless they've taken the
initiative to get our construction plans, that's not always the case.
Councilman Johnson: We can require them to get our construction plans.
Gary Warren: We certainly can but I think, when our street section expands as
it does in areas, Lake Susan Hills Drive is an example where we're going to a
wider width or Saddlebrook Curve up here, to address the transportation issues,
50 foot right-of-way just pinches us tremendously. Also just to ad~instratively
we've got a 6g foot right-of-way is a standard in the rural section. I think
there is a value in having some consistencies especially as the MUSA lines do
someday move, roadways that are platted now in the rural areas are going to have
60 foot right-of-ways. Maybe come back in to reconstruct with curb and gutter
and put in sidewalk. That's going to help us in that regard but when we're in
the urban area, we're kind of shorting ourselves.
Councilman Johnson: This seems like, we're reacting real quickly here. We
never advertised that we're looking to change the standard design of the city.
We're kind of beyond the scope of what was advertised for our decision makinq
here. Consider city wide sidewalk policy and we're talking about expanding ~he
street by 16 feet, the street right-of-way. I think we need to public notice
and get into this process in a step wise manner. Planning Co'~mission consider
it and bring it back to us versus us just saying, sounds good, let's do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think that motion had a second.
Councihman Johnson: Not yet. Dies for a poor lack of a second.
Mayor Chmiel: No second? I think that's a good idea Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move approval of the sidewalk locations in Lake
Susan Hills West, Phase I and II. Refer street width issues to the Planning
Con~qJ. ssion and request staff to look at wT~iting up a city wide sidewalk policy
through Planning Coranission that addresses the issue that staff is concerned
with. Hold the proper public hearings and everything on that also.
32
City Council M~eting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I think if you're going to talk about sidewalks and trails,
you better include the Park and Rec people.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Park and Rec and Planning.
Councilman Boyt: It could be both but it certainly needs to be.
Councilman Johnson: Some of the issues such as maintenance and that kind of
stuff, I'm not sure who looks at that. The issue of future sidewalks should be
on all of our development plans. That has to be considered or we go ahead and
do that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: If I could just interject something. Sidewalks that are going
in, I guess one of the questions I have is, are these sidewalks really needed?
My understanding was that you were only going to put those kinds of sidewalks
an~ trails basically on primary streets or on secondary streets. This is not a
primary street I guess is really what I'm saying. It is a secondary street and
have we had the residents' thoughts on those sidewalks as well?
Councilman Johnson: It's hard to do before you build the subdivision.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of them are already inquiring, possibly the lots when it's
being considered or even thinking.
Councilman Johnson: Well these were considered well before there was even a
developer.
Councilman Boyt: This is actually the way it should be done so people can
position themselves in the development where they'd like to be. Coming into a
Near Mountain and saying now we want to put sidewalks in is foolhearty.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I agree.
Councilman Boyt: This is the time to do it is before people buy that lot and
that's exactly what we did in this case.
Councilman Johnson: And the purpose of these sidewalks were basically to get
you from the main street, through the neighborhood, to the park areas or back to
the main street in some cases. This particular subdivision has several park
areas throughout it that the kids and whatever will be going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making a motion, I have someone who would like to
address this.
Wendy Pickerick: My n~ne is Pickarick. I live at 1361 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
I have 3 children and my husband and I bought this land on this street when we
were the fifth person to buy and when we bought they said there was no sidewalks
proposed at all so we thought, fine. We will pick either side of road then and
we would have picked the side of the road with the sidewalk. We would have
definitely picked it because we have 3 children and I am doing daycare. Okay,
then fine. So we move in. Then we hear it's on the other side of the road and
we were a bit upset that there was going to be one on the other side of the
road. Then we're waiting for our driveway to be put in and everybody on the
33
~ ~y Council Meeting - July 10' 1989
other side of the road is getting their driveway and they skip our driveway and
keep going on the other side of the road and um say, why aren't we getting a
driveway? And they said, well because you're getting a sidewalk. We said,
great. We're excited. We're going to get a sidewalk. Fine. We'll wait for our
driveway. That was 6 weeks ago at least I think and so now we're getting it on
the other side of the street. We're sitting there thinking, what's the deal.
Anyway, I'm really upset as you can hear my voice shaking. So now it's approved
for the north side or what?
CounciLnan Johnson: It's back to where it was originally planned where you were
told there wasn't one planned. Somebody goofed. We have another set of
neighbors that came in here 2 weeks, 4 weeks ago who bought their house because
of the sidewalk and where it was and then it moved on them to the other side of
the street and he c~e in and said, hey this sidewalk has, I think it's frost
heave. I'm not sure.
Wendy Pickerick: My husband is very mad. He's not here right now because he's
h~me with our 3 children. We bought all the sprinkling supplies to put in
underground sprinklers. Then they said we're getting a sidewalk so we've waited
to put in our underground sprinkler stuff. We've waited on our driveway. We
just think that we've gotten a very unfair deal here and I don't know what you
can do. If you can put them on both sides of the road but no, people would
probably get mad about that.
Councilman Johnson: Yes there are people on the other side of the road who
bought there because there wasn't a sidewalk there and then the sidewalk got
moved to their side of the road and they were upset 2 weeks or 4 weeks ago.
Wendy Pickerick: I'd just like to ask. Why was it moved back and forth to
begin with? I just was wondering. What's the deal? Is it because of the
escrow money with all of the driveways or what?
Gary Warren: Wendy and I have talked here I think a couple weeks ago about the
whole scenario and it's been as frustrating to me I think as to the rest of the
staff here who have dealt with it ~nd it really relates to the fact that I think
tl~e sidewalks to this point in tJzne t~ave existed through the development process
and the PUD process as sort of an after thought or secondary thought and they
haven't been included in the construction plans and sited that well. The
policy, whether it's a 6 foot or a 5 foot, we've bounced around and whether it's
concrete versus bituminous. It's been a real difficult growing process for
establishing a policy here in the city and I know that initially when we were
looking to try to apply the original standard which was a 6 foot sidewalk to
that area, the north side was not possible to get it J.n without having to move
hydrants and street lights and a lot of those other problems so we started to
look at the south side and I can only guess that as a part of that thinking that
was going on, that we obviously had Mr. Kopp and the developer up in the air
also as to what side it was going to go on so that's why things got put on hold.
What can we say. I guess we apologize for the inconvenience. Nobody likes it.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just interject something? I got a note here saying that
there's a blue Skylark, license number DVM 165 has it's lights on in the parking
lot.
34
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Wendy Pickerick: It's my car. As you saw, I brought my two young children here
and I was tired of having th~ here because they were being quiet. They were
being very good but then I brought them home and I ran back in here and I
practically missed the first part of the thing and somebody did tell me my
lights were on but I said too bad, I got to come in here.
Councilman Workman: Mr.. Mayor, if I could interject just a little bit. I think
we want to approve the sidewalk location if in fact we need to do that again.
Before the meeting tonight the City Council met with Park and Rec and I think it
was a cordial and perhaps productive meeting. I think what we need to do is
again get together because there are these bigger issues. I hear in the
con~nunitywhere do you w-ant a co~nunity center. It's not.do you want one, it's
where do you want it. I think A needs to come before B. Do you want a
community center then let's decide where we want one. Do we want or not want a
sidewalk policy. I think that's something again that we could discuss with Park
and Rec or Planning C~ission and I guess we can move on on this thing.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, let me just restate it then. I move we approve the
original location of the sidewalk as approved with the PUD and the 5 foot width
which I do remember being approved as PUD.
Councilman Boyt: There's no ne~d to vote on any of this. In fact it'd take a
four-fifths vote to change it so I think this is more an informational thing
than anything else.
Mayor Chmiel: I think some action should be taken on it just to.
Councilman Boyt: What action is there to take?
Don Patton: It's in the PUD. It's already there.
Councilman Johnson: There's been useless votes taken before. Just because it
has no effect on anything, we're just saying we finally agree and we want to put
a stake in this thing before it jumps across the street again.
Councilman Workman: I'll second Jay.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the original
location of the sidewalk as approved with the Lake Susan Hills West PUD and the
5 foot width. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now what do we do about the policy? Meet with Park and
Rec again? Have staff look at it?
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff should look at it and come up with something and
get back to Council.
35
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
LAKE LUCY BOAT ACCESS, CONSIDER OPTIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: One day this past week we sat down and had a lot of discussions
regarding the Lake Lucy boat access. Maybe we'll just let Lori address that
real quickly.
Lori Sietsema: Following City Council direction, a meeting was held last
Thursday with the different officials representing the different agencies that
have to do with the chain of lakes clean-up project, specifically we had people
from the DNR there, PCA, City Council, State Representatives and a Senator. The
discussion included the criteria that was necessary to achieve an adequate or
approved access given the DNR and EPA and PCA standards. Basically the access
has to be an equal access for everyone. There are specific hours of operation
and there are specific n~ber of car-trailer spaces needed being 1 per 20 acres.
Given that criteria, three different alternatives were considered. A lift over
access between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy where a person would launch a boat at Lake
_Ann, go across the lake and have a mechanical lift that would lift over to Lake
Lucy. The DNR was pretty adamant that they did not consider that an equal
access and they were also concerned with the dredging and the water levels that
would have to change or may have to change. Tt~e second alternative that was
discussed was the outlot that's in the Lake Lucy Highlands development. The
landowner who owns that property has ccxne up with an asking price of $15,600.00
per acre. They would like to keep 2 of the dry acres, which there is only about
2 dry acres, and sell the remaining to the City for that price. Although they
did say that they would consider the entire piece. On a follow-up conversation
with them, they indicated that they've gotten a n~ber of different appraisals
ranging from $13,000 to $15,600 per acre so they may be willing to negotiate
down to $13,000.00. There was also concern with that option with the
disturbance of the wetlands that would be necessary and the &~ount of dredging
of 250 to 500 feet out to get into an adequate depth to the open water. Given
t/%e amount of money that it would cost to acquire, if we had to pay the price
that the owners are asking, a LAWCON grant would be needed and if condemnation
is required, we would have to find out from LAWCON whether or not we can expend
any money before final approval is given. I've not been able to contact the
correct people that can give us that information. The third option that was
discussed was the Greenwood Shores Park. The DNR is pushing for this site.
They feel that it's the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to go. If we chose that
site, they were considering to approve a scaled down version that would require
only 4 car-trailer spaces. Staff has major concerns with this site given the
conflicts, not knowing what the conflicts that may arise between the existing
uses and the access and would recommend that we get a plan to see how the whole
thing would fit together before proceeding with that option. Given the
questions that still have to be answered before one of these sites can be
selected, it's staff's rec~'~nendation to table this item to the 24th and to
contact the Watershed District to let them know of our activity on the project
and that we do need an extension of their deadline of July 15th.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I have a letter which I just received today fran the
Watershed District Attorney Mm'. Haik in reference to a letter that I had wT:itten
to Mr. Conrad Fiskness, manager of the Riley-t~rgatory-Bluff Creek. Maybe it
will just take me a couple of minutes here to go through it. It's not very
long. It's addressed to M3~. Mark Tomzcak, Division of Water Quality, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency regarding Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District chain of lakes basic water manage~nent project. As required by the
36
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
Substate Agreement Section 4(a) of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District's project plan to the agency for review and approval by the agency.
Consistent with the EPA Cooperative Agreement number and at that time the agency
was formed that one of the public access sites, Lake Lucy, had not been supplied
by the City of Chanhassen. The agency was also informed that local citizens
were objecting to the work plan and were requesting changes. The manager's of
the district encourage and welcome that public review but believe such input
should be addressed to and evaluated by the agency. They previously requested·
that the agency retain budgeted funds to continue the project despite the fact
the public access to all lakes within the Lake Riley chain of lakes syst~ had
not been met as of March 31, 1989. Public access to Lake Lucy has been the
source of Chanhassen discussion and has not been resolved. I enclose a copy of
the letter dated June 21, 1989 from the City of Chanhassen dealing with the
public access issue. The Council also requests public meeting to discuss the
work plan to insure a full open discussion of all issues and to guarantee an
objective evaluation, public informational meetings on the work plan should be
conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Agency in consultation
with the united States Envirormqental Protection Agency propose a project and is
charged with making determination as to the adequacy of the w~rk plan. Given
the fact that public access issues will not be resolved by the City of
Chanhassen for several months and assuming that funding remains available, the
district requests that the procedure for agency review and approval of the
project, work plan include holding a series of public meetings with area
residents to secure their input as to the adequacy of the work plan. 'Watershed
District assumes that review and approval by the agency includes the authority
to modify or direct changes in the project work plan. Watershed District is not
in the position to represent the public access condition can be complied with
until the later part of the year of 1989. The City of Chanhassen is seeking a
grant from the State and assuming that the grant request is approved later this
fall or early winter, the access may not be required until 1990. The manager's
would appreciate a written response as to whether funding for the project
r~ains and if so, the future course of action the agency intends to follow,
provide the meetings and hearings on the plan. Please inform the undersigned of
any additional sukmittals or requests that are required of the district.
Reserve the project funding while the public access and work plan review and
approval process proceeds. Ray Haik, Attorney for the Riley-Purgatory Watershed
District. So at least we know where we're at.
Councilman Boyt: May I ask a question Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: It would appear in listening to that that funding is still a
definite possibility. Is that your understanding?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would certainly pass on congratulations to you and the
citizens who have been involved in seeing that happen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll give a copy of the letter for the next packet too. I
guess that's where we're at. I don't think there's any further discussion that
has to be on it right now. Let's proceed with what we have going in looking at
the LAWCON grants.
37¸
City Council Meeting - July 1~, 1989
Lori Sietsema: Staff will then continue to get answers to those questions and
come back to you then on the 24th.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this?
Mark Sanda: My name is Mark Sanda and I live at 1685 Stellar Court. I'm acting
as the secretary for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. We wanted to just
put on record on a letter of our official policy on this whole issue so I'll
just read you this brief letter. It's addressed to you CouncJ. 1 members and we
wish to state that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association supports the goal of
improving the water quality of the Riley chain of lakes. However, we cannot
support a work plan that is both experimental and does not contain planned
benefits for the headwaters of the chain, Lake Lucy. We require that an
exchange for our support for public access to Lake Lucy, the Watershed District
create a work plan that incorporates proven methods to provide significant
improvement to the quality of Lake Lucy. So we are basically saying that we
really wish to give some input into the work plan to insure that we are going to
be gainJ, ng something for giving up access or giving public access to the lake.
Any of you that have read the work plan are probably aware that there is
minimal, if any, benefit to Lake Lucy as far as it goes and we just wanted to
state what our policy was on thj. s so thank you.
Mayor Ckmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address it? If not, staff will
pursue the items as discussed and hopefully come up with some conclusions. When
can p~ have some specific dates on that Lori?
Lori SJ. etsema: I'll put this back on the 24th agenda.
REVIEW GREENWOOD SHORES PARKING ISSUE.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, if I can just staff off here.
~4ayor Ckmiel: Go ahead Jay.
Councilman Johnson: There seems to be a question as to ~ny it was referred to
the public safety director rather than the City fhngineer 2 years ago or a year
ago. At that point we thought traffic signs was under the jurisdiction of
public safety. It was later on in the year that we learned that traffic signs
were unde.~ the jurisdiction of the City Engineer, other~wise it would have been
referred to the City Engineer and not the public safety director at that time.
That's my recollection of why we went to the public safety dirctor. It was
during a later issue that we, what was it, oh I think it was the Near Mountain
when it all got straighten out as to who's on first with traffic signs. We
worked real hard. Went through a lot of grief a year ago, as you're well aware,
of trying to improve public access to Greenwood Shores City Park by trying to
put 3 parking spots and a handicap parking spot in there. It came up to a
compromise of removing the unnecessary no parking signs and not putting any
parking at the city park. Instead of having to walk 3 or 4 blocks, it'd just be
the distance to the nearest area that's no longer zoned no parking. That's the
way it was. I voted against it at that time because I thought there should be
parking at all public parks so everybody in the city of Chanhassen has equal
access to public parks. That's my position. That's what I thought the motion
was about last time.
38
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
253
Mayor Chmiel: Each of the specific areas I think are a little different than
some of the areas too and I think that's a lot of consideration that was taken
into view by the previous council which approved all the parking signs in and
adjacent to where they're located now within Greenwood Shores. There's a lot of
factors that were considered for that. Basically because the streets are really
narrow within that particular area. It was done because of safety reasons. It
was done because of a problem with the existing residents within that area of
which I live in and being woke up at all given hours, in the middle of the
night. Cars parking. Doors slanxning. Beer bottles clinking the streets.
Picking garbage up all your lawns. A lot of given problems that have been
alleviated because of the elimination of not allowing the parking on the street.
The existing Lake Ann portion where cars are parked to go to the beach is
basically almost the same distance that people have to walk from where the
parking areas are allowed within the Greenwood Shores area. We've had given
problems even with cars parking there. I had an initial break-in of my own
home, trying to gain entry through our deck door and because of the inabilities
of people to be there, it alleviates a lot of given problems. The park in
itself is not just a park for Greenwood Shores because that's not the case. All
the people within the city can utilize that park and they do. People from
Chaparral are there on a constant basis. You can go down there and count
anywhere from 30 to 40 kids that are located there. Safety aspect for the kids
is they are within that area. They are very unaware because I can sit from my
deck and tell you every move that's done down there with kids. They just don't
look with parking and those kids come across there and spewing inbetween those
cars. There can be problems. I'm not about to see those problems take place so
basically what I'm really boiling down to is saying that my suggestion is that
we leave it as it is and we do have some residents from Greenwood Shores here
who will address that issue if we would like them to. Is there any other
discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to hear from the residents.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say as far as the party issue which was, from
my review of the issue, one of the main issues of putting that parking up there.
That occurred when we didn't have 24 hours sheriff patrol. We had a lot less
sheriff patrol. We didn't have a public safety department as we do. We didn't
have park patrols and in the last couple years, I don't know of any reports,
police reports in that area.
Mayor Chmiel: I can tell you a couple right now. In fact three of them. Beer
parties. Arrests were made.
Councilman Johnson: Arrests were made?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
Councilman Johnson: Well good. It shows the enforcement is working. It shows
the no parking signs haven't done anything.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. It has done it. They're at least no slanm~ing them all
the way up and down. The kids are getting a little more maneuverable as far as
parking. They're not parking in Greenwood Shores. They're parking outside of
Greenwood Shores and they're walking in. There has been several different
recent beer parties that they have been called on. There has also been cars
39
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
that have been parking in the no parking zones and tickets have been issued.
There's a lot of things, I think that by involving and making more of a traveled
area through that whole area where it's really used is just absolutely
ridiculous. I feel that very strongly as I know what has taken place. You don't
live there. You don't know what it is. What you're taking a position of it
should be_. It should be parking all over. There is parking. The accessibility
is there but they have to walk just the same distance as they do from Lake Ann
Park.
Maddie Hickey: I'm Maddie Hickey and we live at 6990 Utica Lane. I agree with
you Mayor Chmiel from where you are and also these people where they are. The
Klicks, on the curve there. It's very, very dangerous for the children to be
whipping around. However, where we live there's no parking signs and I feel bad
for the people, actually just even in Greenwood Shores that have children up
further on the hill and have to park so far away. We_ would like the no parking
signs removed from our yard because we let people park there anyway. They come
up and ask us and we just say, go on the other side because if there is a lake
there, and it is public, people need to have access but I don't agree with
around the cun-ve either because it's very dangerous but down further. Even the
two houses up from us that evidentally like the no parking signs, but I don't
think it's fair to have to walk a mile either with a troop of little kids.
Whether it be Chaparral or Greenwood Shores.
Mayor C~hmiel: With the age that we have right now Maddie, with people who feel
that they have to have their exercises... A lot of the mothers that do come
with their children pulling their wagons or pushing the carriages, I've even
stopped and talked to them and said, do you find this much of a problem of what
you're really doing and tl~e_y say no. We enjoy the walk. We're getting out for
that specific reason.
Maddie Hickey: Well that could be too but ! think people should have access to
it but I'm not for the beer parties at night. I'm talking about families
walking down to use the beach for picnics and swin~ning.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Jeff Farmakes: My name is Jeff Fazmakes. I live at 7100 Utica Lane. I guess
I'm a little confused. I thought the discussion here today was going to be in
regards to the parking signs, not the issue of parking either in Greenwood
Shores or somehow changing the park. We've been up here several t~nes
discussing that and I think one of the pertinent things that you have to be
r~embered is that you spent several hours here today discussing planning issues
with new developments. Street signs. Sidewalks. Public safety concerns and
you have to ramember that when that was designed and that park was put in, that
was part of rural Carver County and it didn't have the benefit of Public Safety
Con%missioners. It didn't have the benefit of Councilmen and the design is
what the design is. It's been there for 30 years and when you're saying that
all applications are the same is to make the assumption that all parks were
developed the same and it just simple is not the case. I hope and I agree with
you, I think that there is a discrepancy between actual use and philosophy and I
think that that's where the problems arise over and over again. There were 30
to 40 people down there both days, Saturday and Sunday and I guess, I don't see
anything different than what happens at Lake Ann. They come in. They drop off
at the drop off point. They drop off their coolers and their kids and so on
40
City Council M~eting - July 10, 1989
which if you walk both Lake Ann or Lake Lucy, Lake Lucy is actually shorter down
to the beach. They turn around and they park their car up the block and it's
not a mile. It's a block away. It's not 4 blocks away. It's 2 houses. It's
not 4 blocks and I think the issue here is again, one of facts and philosophy.
I hope that it's resolved sometime because we've been coming up here year after
year after year. I will say this, that living there is much more liveable. The
park is in better shape. A~ybody that goes to the park I think can testify that
the park is in better physical condition now, in the last 2 years since it's
been open by the way they were able to park down in the park. A lot less broken
glass and if you bring kids there, those are concerns. I hope that it remains
as it is. Thanks.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 6095 Stellar Court. I've been listening, I can
really empathize with the people in Greenwood Shores. We frequent that beach
and that area on dropping ourselves off and my wife finds a place to park and
walks down. I understand the safety considerations are of utmost importance and
I would also like to note that I think that in the future that considerations
for parks and where they're placed should, and safety considerations have to be
considered in the design stages and planned in the beginning. That future parks
have these things in mind. As development progresses, you get increase in
population. It puts pressure on the natural resources and they're eventually
going to come. I would like to note that I'd like to get, on the other side of
the lake if it ever comes to having an access, a public space utilized on the
west side of the lake with the same kind of safety considerations about beer
parties and curfews at night for controlling those types of things and safety
considerations are given there as well. It is also on a curve. It's a high
speed curve and we'd just like equal consideration. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Any further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: You know there is. I'd like to put something up on the screen
here. A visual. Before I get to that, Mrs. Hickey, I'm sure pleased that you
made your statement. We have found something we agree on. I want to refer you
back to the November 13, 1986 memo from Jim Castleberry because he talked about
an issue that I think is still relevant today and Mr. Farmakes, we are just
talking about the no parking signs. As much as I might like to have parking in
the park itself, I think that issue is dead for now. What I did Sunday is I
went over and I walked through the neighborhood right here. Didn't cover a
great many houses in there, about 20 and I asked them a couple of questions. I
asked them, do you know that that's a public park. Well, maybe like a lot of
other issues or information the City tries to get to people, about half the
people said no, they didn't know that was a city park. They didn't even know it
was a park. Then I asked them, and I suspect that I'm probably not very good at
being neutral on this issue but I asked them, attempting to be neutral, given
that these areas are no parking and though this is just 3 houses, it turns out
that with 2 1/2 acre lots, this is 500 feet. That did they think that this was
appropriate? Out of the 20, I had 4 that said they thought that was just fine.
That they actually enjoyed walking in. I had another 4 that said, they didn't
know anything about the park and they didn't want to conxnent. I had 12 that
said that it seemed to be completely out of sync with a public park. A public
park with no parking within 500 feet. Now if we look back for a motivating
cause here, we've heard from the neighbors and they've talked about safety and I
don't think anybody is proposing to take the no parking signs out of this turn.
I can see it. The City Engineer has pointed out that this is an area that
41
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
probably requires them but when ~e get up in here, why would they put no parking
signs up here? Well, Jim Castleberry said in his memo, to prohibit people from
parking in that area during the sum~ner months when large numbers of people want
to access the park and lake area. This past weekend you talk about a lot of
people being in that park. I think all our parks had a great deal of pressure,
particular parks that were on water. This is a park in which the City up until
now has assisted the neighbors in keeping people away from the park. Maybe s~me
people are willing to walk that distance, 4 out of the 20 said they enjoyed
that. My point is it's just not compatible with the public nature of that park.
If you take this stretch through here, safety isn't a concern for why those
parking signs are up there. Those parking signs are up there I believe for the
same reason that Jim Castleberry mentioned. We want to keep people out. The
City staff used an example. Holly Lane. There's a lift station on Christmas
Lake there. There's no parking within 800 feet. The purpose, to keep people
out of that part of Christmas Lake. I can see that. That's not a public park.
This is a public park and we need to make it as accessible as possible, if for
no other reason, it's just another example of where we've got a park that
handicap people can't use. Let's see, the road width. We've heard about narrow
roads in this area. The road width here is 23 to 24 feet. If you go over to
Ca~er Beach where we have parking, you find the road width, there's no parking
on the road there as it would happen. The road width is 16 feet. 2 car widths
wide. It's certainly understandable why there wouldn't be parking on the road.
I went to the person who lives directly across from the Carver Beach Park where
we put parking the same night we first considered putting parking in Greenwood
Shores. We held this one off because of public concern about it. We passed
that one so I went to h~za and asked how's it going. He said, you know I think
there really should be parking in public parks. I don't think there should be
any parking on the road. I don't disagree with him, especially with a 16 foot
road. I'm probably not going to carry the day but I still think it's a real
tragedy when we've got a park and it's not safety reasons that's keeping those
no parking signs up. Most of them. It's the desire to keep people away from
that park. I just don't think that's the right thing to do.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't fully agree with you Bill.
Tom Hickey: Mr. Mayor, can I just make a comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Tom Hickey: I'm Tom Hickey. I live at 699g Utica Lane. I agree with you.
I guess if I didn't live right on the lake and could walk down there, I think it
would be an irritant for me to have to walk that distance where the no parking
zones are but the park itself was originally owned by the people in Greenwood
Shores. We deeded that property to the City only for the purpose of police
protection because prior to when the association, they were having a lot of
problems with people drinking down there and so forth and we had no control so
we thought if were to deed it to the City, then the~y could have some sort of
control over that p~-operty area. So it was never really designed as a park for
the City. It was land that was given to the City and the City kind of developed
it. So I guess my feeling is that, the fact that it was never designed as a
park. The parking is not adequate even if you were to open up the parking area
down there because you could probably only get 4 or 5 cars. Secondly, that
street is not wide enough. I mean I drive down there everyday and if you were
to park a car on the street, then only one car could pass at a time so I think
42
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
257
what you're creating is a real public safety problem there with the roadway so
I think to try to change the parking from what it is right now would be a real
mistake. But the mistake originally was that it wasn't designed as a park. It
was land that was given to the City and then the City tried to make best use of
it. So I would reco~mend that it remains as it is. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to respond. You have parking on all the streets
except within 500 feet of the park. All the streets in your development
including the other relatively sharp turns in the development. We're talking
about a 21 foot wide road over by Carver Beach that has no no parking signs on
it. Free to park on it. I grant you that if a car is parked on this, as in any
other residential street in Chanhassen, cars going by it are going to have to
take caution. There's really no reason to go through this in great detail. I
don't particular want to be beat up about it but...
Tom Hickey: I think it's alright to park in there if you design a wide enough
street but if you do park in the street, one car, then it becomes single lane
and then you've got a real problem there. I agree with the mayor with all these
kids running back and forth...and when there isn't a lot of activity, when I
come down there, that is a very dangerous curve coming around there. You almost
have to come to a complete stop.
Councilman Boyt: We're not talking about the curve and I think if you ask the
City Engineer, from a strict safety standpoint, that road could support parking.
He'd tell you that it could. I don't mean to put words in his mouth but that's
my understanding.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of you Bill. I'm reading here the
background information and I see that in July of 1988, Mayor Hamilton moved and
Councilman Geving seconded a motion that included in it that they review the no
parking signs, the public safety director was to do this, and to determine if
any of them could be removed and if they could, that they should be removed. I
see that you and Councilman Johnson voted against it at that time. Does that
mean now you're doing a reversal?
Councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. It means consider the alternative. The Park
and Rec Con~nission and the park architect that reviewed it recor~mended that 4
parking spaces, one of which was handicap, go in that park. This was an
alternative to that. I didn't think this was a good alternative but given now
the alternative is leave the parking signs in or take them out, I think some of
them should come out. Both of those are my desire to get parking as close to
that park as is reasonable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also I noticed that you're using neighborhood park and
public park interchangeably and to me there is a difference.
Councilman Boyt: Well who owns the property?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think when we're talking...
Mayor Chmiel: The City doesn't have a deed on it.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes we do.
43
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking neighborhood park~
Mayor Chmiel: No way.
CounciLman Boyt: Are you saying the City doesn't own that property Mayor
Chmiel?
Mayor C~miel: I'm saying that the City doesn not have a deed on that property.
Councilman Boyt: Talk to i~e about ownership.
~ayor C%miel: Don?
Don Ashworth: The question had come up as to the deed, I said that I have not
seen it. There was a question a couple of years ago as to the ownership and we
were going to research the issue at that point in time. I guess I never really
heard a response. I don't know if Roger was brought in at that point in time.
Lori, can you recall that discussion?
Lori Siets~ma: I remember the discussion. I don't remember the outcome. I'd
have to research the file to see. It seems to me that the ownership was
recorded at that time but I'd have to check my files.
Mayor Chmiel: There was a letter indicating as such. In that letter it also
indicated that it be always as a walk-in park. I think that you'd find that in
the fi le.
Councilman Johnson: Even with these signs down, it's still a walk in park.
There's no parking at that park. What you're saying has nothing to do with the
issue tonight.
Mayor Chmiet: No, I'm just saying what was in that particular letter is all I'm
saying.
Councilman Johnson: As I said last July, I don't think parking is appropriate
on the hill coming down leading to the park because it's too dangerous or along
that curve but on the street above it where it's got those good sight lines and
on the bottom street further on down, it doesn't seem natural. It doesn't seem
like that is where and that's what we've asked the public safety director,
probably should have asked the City Engineer at that t~me, to review and remove
the signs. If it had gotten done last year but that wasn't...
Councilwoman Dimler: If you would have voted for it last year.
Councilman Johnson: No, what I voted for last year was to put parking spots in
the park itself and leave the no parking signs up. That's what I voted for.
This is a poor second but it's the only second we've got.
Councilman Workman: A long second. I like Jeff's con~nents on philosophy and
that's what a lot of this is and Bill has a very strong philosophy on what he
thinks. Ursuta's point about a public park versus a neighborhood park, we have
a very aggresive Park and Rec Commission who's actively trying to set into each
neighborhood parks which I don't think any of the Council members disagree with
but when it comes, which is fine. We want to make sure that people can walk to
44
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
259
a park. Not everybody can have a beach. Where my philosophy takes a left at
that situation is do we then have to make it so that everybody can go to every
park and interchange and match. In this situation mal/De it's not appropriate.
Bill interviewed some of my neighbors. If my neighbors or I wanted to get in my
car and drive to Greenwood Shores, we'd also have the option of exactly 2 miles
away we have Excelsior Bay, 1 mile from large Lake Ann Park. We have the hidden
Carver regional park not too far away. There are many options and I certainly
don't mean to deny any citizen a right to enjoy an amenity but this se~ms to
bode something different, of a different situation. Again, we have sidewalks,
we have conmunity centers and we need to add neighborhood parks anti their
definition perhaps. I believe in allowing, if a neighborhood park is going to
go in, we've had some of these occur, let the neighborhoods decide what they
want in their park because quite frankly they're going to be the ones to use it.
So there's the rub for the people who live right next door to it and they aren't
happy with perhaps what's going on at their park and people from South
Minneapolis are driving in to their park or whoever. My neighbors. So I can
understand the irritation. I would like to know more about the intricacies of a
park without a deed and who owns it and what was the intentions and look at it
from that way. Again, it's a philosophy question and I would be in favor of
leaving things as they sit.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying that you think that it's right that the
neighbors around a park decide that we want no parking signs around this park?
Are we going to start doing that to other neighborhood parks, that are
classified as neighborhood parks?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think they were put in before that Jay. That determination
on how to alleviate the given problems that were existing in that area.
Councilman Boyt: This is the only park in Chanhassen that doesn't have parking.
Councilman Johnson: You're talking on the street?
Councilman Workman: If we're going to use that logic, then the trails come off
Lake Lucy Road. It's the only road that has those kinds of trails. We can go
up and down the line with that kind of logic. It's like a variance situation. I
like to look at each variance and this is a different situation. I wouldn't
want to make everypark identical but if, I know there's a problem with late
night noise down there. If you've got all that parking over at Lake Ann Park, I
don't think we're depriving anybody of anything.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. If it was the only access to the lake, then I'd
probably wouldn't argue the point.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move to reaffirm that we requested public safety
director, which should have been city engineer, to review the situation to
remove parking signs not needed for traffic safety. Giving staff ~nat they've
asked for is a definition of what was meant by the last motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to reaffi~ the Council's
position to request that the City Engineer review the situation to remove no
parking signs not needed for traffic safety at the Greenwood Shores Park.
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor; Councilman Workman,
45
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition to the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Workman: I' 11 make a motion that we leave the situation and perhaps
we can look at it again next July. I made the suggestion that we review this
kind of situations with Park and Rec as a part of another get together meeting.
The definition of a neighborhood park is maybe is eluding me in how we want to
best handle that and let the neighbors decide what's best for their park. So I
would make the motion to leave Greenwood Shores on street parking issue as it
is.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: What is as it is? As it is is that the signs will be
removed?
Councilman Workman: No.
Councilman Johnson: That's what it is. You have to rescind this motion. You
have to put signs up. This is as is. Staff has direction to take signs down
that are not required. That's as is.
Councilwoman Dimler: As is, as they physically are.
CounciLman Workman: Then let me restate my motion, if Ursula will withdraw.
Councilwoman Dimler: I withdrew.
Councilman Workman: I will make the motion to leave the parking signs in
Greenwood Shores, near the Greenwood Shores Park period.
Counc i lwoman Dimter: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to leave the no parking
signs in place in Greenwood Shores near the Greenwood Shores Park. All voted in
favor except Councih~an Boyt and Counci~nan Johnson who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: Procedure allows, I'll note reason for my opposition and
that J.s that it's another, all publically owned parks should have equal public
access. We came close to assuring that a year ago and now we took one step
backwards.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment that I think we_ all agree that
neighborhood parks are valuable and they should be responsive to the needs of
the neighbors around them. I agree with that. I just think they should be
accessible. Call it philosophical difference if you will.
Councilwoman Dimle~-: And I'd like to have staff look into the deed situation.
46
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: Gary just gave me a copy of the County Records. They do show the
City as the owner of that parcel which would lead me to believe that we can get
a copy then of the deed from the County.
Councilman Boyt: So we own it?
Don Ashworth: They do have us as the recorded owner.
Councilman Johnson: Plus if we've done all the maintenance ar~ everything for a
number of years, isn't there some kind of a...
Mayor Ckmiel: 7 years.
Roger Knutson: 6 years on streets I think if what you're talking about.
Councilman Johnson: The park.
Roger Knutson: The park is like regular land, it would be 15 years for adverse
possession. But if you have a deed.
BtlACHLOT ORDINANCE, CONSIDER REQUIRING PERMITS FOR RAFTS.
Don Ashworth: This arises as a result of sending back a number of issues to
the Park and Recreation ~ission in having those looked at as a part of year
end activities. The City Attorney and myself met on several occasions trying to
go through the various issues that had been presented by both commission m~mbers
as well as residents. We really came down to a position that existing
ordinance, although there are certain areas that it would be nice to modify ~]em
from a clarity standpoint, really we have the enforc~nent ability under existing
ordinance. Again, there are some glitches. For example, if you are riparian
owner and have the right to moor your boat in front of your property,
hypothetically you could give up that priviledge and moor that boat in front of
someone elses property. It's just never happened in 20 years although it would
be nice to clear that type of language up, I do not think that it's worth the
problems that we faced and the misunderstanding that had occurred in some of the
public hearings as to what it was the City was attempting to do. The only
Section of the ordinance that we felt would definitely need to be or should be
strongly considered for change is the section dealing with rafts. Right now
there is no permit process that is required for the installation of a raft. You
have to meet the section of the Code dealing with the specific design criteria
but there is no requirement that the application, whether it be public or
private, come before the City Council. That the City Council looks at the
location. The placement in the lake. How many other rafts exist in that lake,
etc.. We feel that this is a mistake in the existing ordinance. That that type
of issue should be clarified. We're recon~nending placing on first reading an
ordinance which would, I can't remember the wordage here, this office would
recon~nend that the City Council place on first reading an ordinance amendment
that would delete the words "or swimming raft". That deals with the Section of
the ordinance that doesn't look like Karen put a copy of that ordinance in.
Councilman Boyt: 6-4, it's in there.
47
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: By doing that, it makes anyone wlno is looking for a raft, it
requires them to cczne back again in front of the City Council. The best
parallel staff can use is in that same section it is required that people do
come in if they are considering putting in a ski slalom course art] something
like that can be_ a very, it's an issue that's of concern to the residents simple
to have the right to put in a slalom course without ever bringing that back to
the City Council I think would be a real mistake. We had an application on
Lotus. The Council determined that was not a good place for a slalom course.
We had another request on Lake Minnewashta. 5he Council determined that that
was a reasonable location and again staff sees that as a parallel in that rafts
should be simJ. larly treated.
Councilman Boyt: I'd make a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just a minute. Can we ask some questions? Don, does that
mean that existing rafts are grandfathered in or do they need to come in and
yearly apply for a permit?
Don Ashworth: They would need to come in for a permit on a yearly basis, right
Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Ckmiel: But they would have to conform with the requirements is what
we' re saying as to what the raft should be?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. It's one that has to be flexible.
Mayor Chmiel: If there's one that's existing and it's not in compliance with
our requirements, it cannot be located.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Even now it can't. It's not supposed to be there but we
have no permit procedure so we have no way of knowing it there's without going
out and counting it so by having a permit procedure, it would actually be in
violation of 2 things if the raft is out there without a pe~it and not properly
constructed.
Don Ashworth: By going through the permit, we can insure that somebody has
thought about insurance for the raft. Someone is responsible for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it because of litigation reasons?
Don Ashworth: That's another factor. At issue is really the Carver Beach raft
but in looking at t/nat ordinance, we basically have no control over anyone
putting a raft on any lake. Hypothetically you could build a raft and put it
out in Lake Minnewashta or wherever you might want to take and put one and you
may want to put it right in the middle of the lake, the most dangerous spot
there is.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's no restriction where a raft can go?
48
City Council ~4~eting - July 10~ 1989
Don Ashworth: Right now the ordinance explicitedly excludes rafts. I think
that there is one, there's some sections though that must be at least in 7 feet
of water and it must, there's others.
Roger Knutson: There's some criteria about nameplates and heights above the
water and stuff like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're already controlling them to some extent?
Don Ashworth: You're controlling th~ regarding the technical construction.
We're not controlling them in regards to who owns it. So in other words,
hypothetically it could be out there as we have one raft right now, that no one
really is claiming ownership of it or at least ownership kind of skips around.
Some days it's one person. If sc~eone were hurt on that raft, it becomes a real
question as to who w~uld be responsible. Since the City knows that that raft
exists, I think we have some liability in there in that we're not doing anything
to make sure that it's reasonably safe or insured.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying then that if you issue a permit you're
taking on the liability then?
Don Ashworth: No, but you would take it, and as a part of that, if this was a
private application, insure that that party did have insurance that would cover
that type of liability.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that so specified in the ordinance?
Don Ashworth: That is one of the things you can look to, yes. It gives the
Council a great deal of flexibility in what you can look at.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have there been any serious accidents that's prompting
this?
Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of. Again, I think there are some questions
as to whether or not the raft at Carver Beach should be public or private but
I don't see where that's a germain issue. The main issue is to force someone
into going through a permit process and to show that that is a safe raft and
that someone in fact is responsible for it. Whether it's public or private.
Through the passage of this ordinance, staff would anticipate meeting with the
owners of Carver Beach and requiring that a permit be applied for. At this
point in tJ~e, we would push for public because that is the belief that we
believe that the City Council had w~nted the thing as of a year ago but if they
are adamant and they can show insurance and they can show this and that, we may
verywell bring back the application as a private one.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you can't arbitrarily deny if they meet all the
requir~nents?
Don Ashworth: In a case such as this, I don't know if the riparian issue is
going to come about with this raft or not. In other words, they do not have
ownership on the lake. They might be making the application to have a raft on a
lake where they are not a riparian owner. Rather than getting into second
guessing those type of things, I think the basic issue is there is no procedure
in place to require anyone to get a permit or to apply for a permit.
49
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Johnson: So theoretically I can apply for a permit to put a raft in
outside of your house if you lived on a lake and I could put it as long as I was
within 100 feet of the shore? I could put my raft in your lake?
Councilman Boyt: I think we can take care of that. There's a very simple
adjustment to our existing ordinance. Two adjustments actually, that would
bring this in our control. One of them is as staff has indicated to strike
swimming raft from Section 6-4 of our ordinances and I would so move.
CounciLman Johnson: Also it needs to come out of the definition of water
obstacles where it's excluded as a water obstacle in Section 6.1 direction above
there.
CounciLman Boyt: That's a good point. So also in 6-1, strike swimming raft.
It's on page 329.
Councih~an Johnson: I'll second that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, does this need a public hearing?
Don Ashworth: It requires two hearings. We would propose prior to the second
reading on this that we would, at least in this case notify the Carver Beach
area because as I see it, they're the only ones that are really affected.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't take two hearings, it takes two readings. Two
readings. This is the first reading.
Don Ashworth: It would be published twice.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but it does need a public hearing?
Don Ashwor th: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: No?
Mayor C~niel: Is this a first reading or is this just an info.~natJ, onal?
Don Ashworth: This would be proposed as a first reading. If the Council would
just as soon have tonight's as a discussion with the idea the first reading
would occur on the 24th and second reading on August 1st.
Mayor Chmiel: I took this just as an infomnational because consider requiring
as it indicates here, permits for rafts.
Jim Chaffee: I should point out here that at present our City Ordinance is not
in confonmance with the County Ordinance. The_ County Ordinance does require
permits for rafts. That's according to the water patrol and they have asked
that we do confo.tTn with their ordinance and water permits.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. I don't see that as a real biggee. Any
problem.
50
City Council M~eting - July 10, 1989
Don Ashworth: The item was published. The Council could put it on first
reading or you could table action to the 24th.
Councilman Boyt: I would encourage us to act on this in terms of a first
reading. Otherwise, we just put it on two more agendas instead of one more
agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd be inclined to agree with that.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose another change. I guess we haven't voted on
this one. I think we need to vote on this as a first reading don't we?
Don Ashwor th: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So if there a second to that motion?
Councilman Johnson: I second that.
Councilman Workman: To 6-4?
Councilman Boyt: 6-1 and 6-4.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Yes I seconded that. The last part, the last paragraph of
6-1 is definition of water obstacle. It says does not include any dock or
swin~ning raft or water craft. We want to eliminate or swin~ning raft so it says
water obstacle does not include any dock or water craft. So in effect we' re
defining a swin~ning raft as a water obstacle.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the first reading
of amending the Beachlot Ordinance to strike "swin~ning raft" from Section 6-1
and 6-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose a second motion. Section 628 which is on Page
333, I'd like to add or I would move that we add item (c) under 628.
Mayor Chmiel: What page is that Bill?
Councilman Boyt: That's 333.
Councilman Johnson: Or 6-45 on the top.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, 6-45 on the top, 333 on the bottom. It talks about
swimming rafts again there and we need something that would indicate that rafts
must be located. That's where we've got within 100 feet of the high water mark
is there. The height of the raft off the water and the size of the raft. We
need to add, I believe, an item that says that rafts need to be located directly
in front of property owned by the permit holder.
Councilman Johnson: That can be just a continuation of item (a) right after 100
feet.
51
Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Either way.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, can that be done?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that.
Councilman Workman: What does in front of mean?
Councilman Boyt: Well, directly in front of would mean perpendicular to the
shoreline I suppose, if that's reasonable.
Mayo~ Chmiel: And adjacent to property lines.
Councilman Boyt: Sure, that's good. The reason I am proposing this, and I
don't know that this has happened but I live in fear that somebody comes in and
says I want to put my dock 50 feet out from Lori's lake lot. We have under our
ordinance no v~y of preventing that.
Councilman Johnson: Or 50 foot out from our boat access. Right at the end of
the boat access. They can put it there.
Councilman Boyt: So what we're saying here, and this also implies, and it's the
first reading of this so we may get some public discussion to help modify it but
it implies that the dock in Carver Beach would be publically owned, which
I personally think is a smart move. I think the dock should be there but we
should own it. We should maintain it. But anyway, this protects lake
hcraeowners.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend Section 6-45 to
include a phrase that would include wording to the effect that rafts need to be
located directly in front of property owned by the permit holder. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
REVIE~W SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY.
Lori Sietsema: Park and Recreation Con~nission at a recent meeting reviewed a
land study for the parkland in the southern part of Chanhassen that was prepared
by Mark Koegler. Mark is here to go over the plan if you'd like him to.
Mark Koegler: I'll be fairly brief and then entertain questions that you might
have. In August of 1988 the Park and Recreation Co~nission c&~e up with a set
of objectives that the City was looking for in a southern park site. It's those
objectives that we really have used to review and to judge each of the candidate
properties, the four sites that are identified on that map that's on the
overhead now. Site A, south of Lyman is about 4~ acres in size. The Site B is
the Bandimere piece which depending on which survey you use is between 33 and 35
acres. Site C is about two-thirds of ~nat's known as the Sever Peterson
property. It's 80 acres in size. The o~a]er has indicated that the 40 acre
piece that kind of doglegs back to the east if you will is one that he would
52
City Council M~=eting - July 10, 1989
267
probably not wish to sell. A~d Site D is a 109 acre parcel currently owned I
believe by Bluff Creek Investment. The study sought to look at the criteria
that were established and to see how those fit and additionally then to apply
any other rationale that seemed to be appropriate. The overall intent of
establishing the southern park was obviously to serve southern Chanhassen.
Depending upon how you define that, obviously it has sc~e impact on the location
of the park. At the present time, depending on who you ask, I suppose southern
Chanhassen is south of TH 5, maybe it's south of Lyman. Undoubtedly, I think in
a lot of opinions in the future when TH 212 is built, that will be a substantial
physical barrier across the City and south of Chanhassen will probably be south
of TH 212 so that was a criteria that we looked at fairly heavily in coming up
with a recommendation of a site that was to be one that was labeled as
preferred. The other factor that came into play was that it was the desire to
have a park that was centrally located and I think that makes sense from a lot
of points of view. That exhibit indicates the City of Chaska, in fact at their
City Council this evening approved the development of Pioneer Park which is a 25
acre piece of property. It will be an active play field type park for Chaska.
It will be heavily used for baseball, softball and Babe Ruth type baseball.
I think it's justified to look at that site in relation to southern Chanhassen
so there's not too much of an overlap of services by having two facilities that
are similar in nature being compressed right next to one another and that's what
Site D would tend to do. As a result of those kinds of factors that were looked
at, Site B which is the Bandimere piece, is the one that is reco~xnended for
acquisition for the southern park. The study does recognize that the Band£mere
piece probably does not meet the objective of supplying natural area. I think
there are other good ways, potentially to do that. You' 11 note on the exhibit
that TH 212 has a very serious J~pact on Parcel D. When you couple that with
the topography of Parcel D that literally is almost cliff like in some areas,
there are going to be substantial portions of that property in the future that
are going to be undevelopable, many of which may end up being odd sized because
of placement of frontage roads and so forth to serve TH 212 construction. It
was the opinion of the study and the Park and Recreation Con~nission that the
City will probably have opportunities to pick up natural areas down in that area
in the future should that be desired and that can exist as a separate component.
Site B can be expanded to the north, as I think you're aware. Potentially in
the future there's another 80 acres or so of land of cultivated property to the
north which could be identified on the Comprehensive Plan and could be acquired
for additional expansion should it be needed. So the recommendation of the
study is to proceed with the acquisition of Parcel B. The key to Parcel B is
the William's Pipeline which bisects the property approximately at that
location. I would certainly like to be able to stand here tonight and tell you
that we know exactly how that will impact the property but that's not the case.
We have made several inquiries of William's and they're relunctant to give too
much specific information until a formal plan is submitted to their engineering
department and ultimately is reviewed by their engineering offices in Tulsa.
What they will do and is presently being coordinated with the boundary survey
that the seller is providing, they will come out and stake the alignment and
give us depth info~nation at that time. We don't even know for sure how deep
the pipe is. We've had some preliminary discussions as to how much fill can be
placed on that. We have a reasonable degree of confidence right now that the
site can be developed but that really cannot be finally determined until some
indication comes from the Pipeline company. So the next step certainly would be
if the Council agrees with the Park Commission that this is the property, to
proceed as hastily as possible to derive the pipeline issue and to proceed with
53
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
the acquisition and development of the park. So with that Mr. Mayor, I'd
entertain any questions that you or the Council might have.
Mayor Chmiel: As you said, the additional compaction or the regrading that we
would do, is going to be the determining factor of whether or not it would
provide any additional stress on the existing pipeline.
Mark Koegler: The key in the pipeline, at least from William's perspective, is
an issue of public safety. They don't want the pipe down 3g feet for example
simply because of the tinTe_ it takes to excavate it. It really has nothing to do
necessarily with the excavation l]_mits. They've indicated to us preliminarily
that they'll allow maybe 4 to 6 feet of cover over the pipe. We think that's
probably workable across that site by establishing various facilities at
different elevations which adds interest to the property anyway. But again, we
don't know that definitively until at least we know how deep the pipe is right
now relative to the ground line. It maybe a foot down, it may be 4 feet down.
That doesn't present a problem. We've done some real thumbnail type layouts and
the ball diamonds, soccer fields, things of that nature, can be accon~nodated
over the pipeline without any problem. I have been involved in projects in the
past in the met~o area where parking lots have gone over the easement also. Not
over the pipeline itself but over portions of the easement. It's a restriction.
Gary Warren: Mark and I haven't had a chance to talk but on TH lgl, you know
we've been piecemealing where we can trying to recognize that, and we'll see it
in our Eastern Carver County Transportation Study that we've got going right now
with Howard Needles that TH lgl is going to continue to surface as an ~nportant
arterial that's probably going to have to be improved as we can as we go along
here. The Halla plat for example, we've tried to reserve an easement there so
we can take a kink out of that area. I would see the same possibility here with
TH lgl if at such time in the future, and this could be a ways down the road, we
wanted to make a more gradual curve because that is a very difficult kink in TH
101, is that going to have a significant impact on that site to the point that
we would be losing a lot of facilities?
Mark Koegler: Gary's lead in was perfect. We haven't had a chance to talk
about this yet. Depending on the geometry of that curve, it could have a
substantial impact. Just in looking at it in a graphic sense, it doesn't appear
as though that cut would affect it that significantly because we've got steep
slopes in that area anyway and that's where the tree cover now exists on the
site so you'd be losing most of the tree cover probably by cutting the road in a
little further to the east. The active facilities and the parking are not
located in~nediately adjacent to that site so I think the site certainly would
still be developable with the s&me level of facilities we're talking about now.
There's be a little less open space around everything.
Councilman Boyt: I think your chances of taking that curve out are nil. If the
City buys it and makes it a park, you aren't going to get state approval to take
part of it, as I understand that.
Lori Sietsema: Only if you use LAWCON money.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, okay. So maybe but I doubt the City is going to give you
approval to plow through the City park. The second thing is, if the City
doesn't buy it, it's going to buy residentially and the City is certainly not
54
City Council M~eting - July 10~ 1989
prepared to buy that piece of property so I think that curve is something we're
goJ. ng to have to live with. That's just my opinion.
Councilman Johnson: A lot of dirt to move to move that curve. It just happens
to be the biggest cut there. When you're talking moving that curve, you're not
really, you're talking moving it over, what 40-50 feet?
Gary Warren: The line of sight is the toughest part about the curve because of
that bluff and that's a short knob compared to the dirt that we moved on
Rosamount's site or any of these others. When it comes right down to it, it
could be done.
Mark Koegler: That is something though that w~ would have to look at as a part
of the impact of the William's Pipeline to make sure we're not left with a piece
that's really undersized.
Councilman Boyt: So the next step is, if we approve this, you work with
Willi~n's Pipeline to see how that works out?
Mark Koegler: That, to be candid with you, is already occurring because we have
a seller who's doing a boundary survey and we've been trying to pour~ to the
seller that we need to know when you're doing your boundary so we can have
William's Brothers out there. They can stake it and your surveyor can pick it
up at the same time because that's the economical way for the City to approach
it and I think the applicant and the developer in this case is willing to do
that. It's just a matter of coordinating that. William's only needs a couple
days lead time in order to stake and determine depth.
CounciLman Johnson: I'll move approval of the recommendation that we continue
acquisition of Band£~ere Park and we designate Site D in our Comprehensive Plan
as future parkland.
Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me, for clarification, did you say Site B?
Councilman Johnson: D. B is the Bandimere site.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, I think given the meeting we had with Park and Rec
earlier this evening, we asked th~ to look at sites to put on the Comprehensive
Plan and we should leave that open so they can tell us which site should be.
Why request th~ now to say D has got to be one of them?
CounciLman Johnson: I thought they kind of agreed with that earlier during that
meeting.
Lori Sietsema: They did make the motion at their meeting to include Parcel D as
potential parkland in the future. I would suggest that we take that to
Planning... I think that typically when you make an &mendment to the Lane Use
Plan, they should review it so we don't step on anybody's toes.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to modify my motion that we as the Council
recon~nend to the Planning Commission that they do what the Park and Rec
Con~nission as requested as far as the Comprehensive Plan side of this. The
BandY,ere is outside of their jurisdiction. We're saying we're going to go with
Bandimere and modify, instead of saying put it on, tell the Planning Commission
55
City Council Yeeting - July lq, 1989
to consider u ~'
p talng it on the Comprehensive Plan which is like the boss telling
you consider coming in here at 8:gg in the morning and working.
CounciLman Workman: I guess one last thing since we're on discussion a little
bit. It's nice of you to lay it out Mark with the comparison of alternatives
and Bandimere really does kind of come up short in a lot of areas doesn't it?
Is this really where we want to spend the load here? Is this pretty much, and
it looks to me to be a favorable park, this is pretty much it for right now?
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission felt that it was and they
realize the deficiencies, where the deficiencies are in more acreage and for the
natural area and that's why they've addressed Site D as potential because that's
not an immediate need as is the active which is going to be inxnediate.
Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking more along the lines of more acreage at
this time and I know you guys have discussed going north if possible.
Lori Sietsema: Right. That's also a consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the considered factors too is that this is what we
can basically afford right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Lori, you're not thinking about the beachlot prospect?
Lori Siets~na: What beachlot?
Councilman Workman: Well that was my concern and I will amend my second to fit
with Jay's amended motion.
CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the Park and
Recreation Commission proceed with the acquisition of the BandJ~nere property and
to recomend to the Planning Commission that the City amend the Land Use Plan to
identify Site D as potential future park/open space. All voted in favor and the
motion cart ied.
DESIGNATION OF CITY ATTORNEY.
Mayor Chmiel: Last Friday we did an interview of several attorneys and Tom, do
you want to address some of this?
Councilman Workman: Sure. Wasn't it Saturday?
Mayor Chmiel: Saturday.
CounciLman Workman: Saturday in the wee hours of the morning we dragged some of
these expensive attorneys into the coccoon here in City Hall and it was a nice
opportunity. I think it was a real refreshing idea I think, whosever idea it
was. Maybe Mr. Mayor's idea to kind of take a look, step back and take a look
at our attorney situation not so much based on the qualifications of our
attorney maybe but rather fees and fee structure, etc. and I think we did
accc~-nplish that. As I've mentioned in the past, I've been very happy with Roger
and I think most of the Council has that same opinion. What I do have on my
56
City Council M~eting - July 10, 1989
271
mind is possibly if, and we did discuss this on Saturday morning, if perhaps %~,
two very little points I guess. One, I'm concerned about a lot of the little
fees that do add up. On a rather selflish note, I'm concerned about maybe my
financial attachment to the attorney and I would perhaps see, if it's at all
possible, to perhaps make it a little easier for City Council m~mbers and the
mayor to perhaps contact our City Attorney without incurring debt or perhaps
fees. I know I do not call Roger very often although I do feel I do have a
little bit of a thrift mind and so Roger's got the clock going over there and
then trying to talk too fast and we don't get anything accomplished. I'm a
little concerned about where, and we should again look at this in more detail,
where someone who's developing property perhaps in the City, can basically give
our City Attorney a call and basically I think we are charged for that. I'm
seeing specific names pop up quite often in the billing and I guess it's
sc~ething that I want to look at if in fact maybe that can be billed back to the
person who has the problem. I haven't called in 6 months on the Council our
City Attorney as some people have in one day. I don't know what a lot of the
discussion is. Maybe they're setting up tee times. Again, I'd ~m~phasize that
I have been fairly pleased with Roger Knutson and I would to approve Roger
Knutson and his law firm, Grannis, Grannis, Farrell and Knutson for another
year.
Mayor Chmiel: I will second that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the two concerns that Tom mentioned had also been
my concern. I personally hesitate to call Roger whenever I have a question
because of the charges that will be incurred. I believe I've called you once,
maybe twice but I often have a question and I think, oh boy, I could talk to
Roger about this and then I hesitate to call because I feel that maybe all of us
have the same question and if we all called you it would be charged to each one
each call. So I would also ask that the Council members have access without
being charged. Also then the second point that the developers would not be able
to have their calls be charged to the City. I think that's only prudent. I
know there might be some instances when it's relevant to city business as well
but I think to use the judgment there whether the developer is calling you on
his own behalf and charging the city or if it's really questions about how it
relates to the city.
Roger Knutson: Could I just co~nent briefly?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Roger Knutson: The first point, that's fine and I would guess, I'm not sure
about this but I would guess on all of you, I haven't gotten 6 or 7 phone calls
this year. Maybe not that many. I haven't counted them and that's no burden to
me. As far as the other part, I think the City tried to do that at one time,
charging back consultant fees and I think we had an aclminstrative problem but
some cities do it and I have absolutely no problem not talking to them. Frankly
there are some people who call me and I don't need to talk to them. I don't
know why they call sometimes after I hang up on them. They want reassurance or
a pat on the back.
Don Ashworth: I did talk to Roger today on this issue and at least some of the
names that we had discussed on Saturday that are continuously violating the
issue as far as private individuals talking to Roger. Roger has assured me that
57
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
those names will not appear nor will work be done in the future in their behalf.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I guess I'd like to make another comment too
and that's relating to our meeting on Saturday. I was very impressed with the
high caliber of all the applicants and I particularly found interesting the
prospect of the possibility of an in-house attorney. However, after thinking
about it all weekend, I decided that that idea needs further development and is
not applicable to us at this time but I think it's something that we may want to
look at in the_ future.
~Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's pretty much my sentiments there too because some
of the things that we_ also discussed on Saturday, not Friday but Saturday, and I
guess I feel I'll call a question unless there's additional discussion.
Councilman Boyt: If I might. I think that whether we're charged or not, the
practice that I've followed in the last 2 1/2 years is to call Don Ashworth and
relay my question to Roger and then if necess~y Roger calls me but I can't ever
r~nember calling Roger.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sometimes you get into a discussion and more questions
come up and then Don may not know the intent as Roger questions and it's better
if we talk personally.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to designate the law firm of
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell and Knutson as the City Attorney. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
REVIEW DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
Don Ashworth: l~nis item was placed onto the agenda and I'm not sure if it was
last meeting or the meeting before someone asked that the item be on...if I'm
wrong but I assume that it was kind of a question of where do we stand with the
position classification plan and the goal setting process. What I've tried to
do in this memorandum is to identify a time frame under which we can finish that
process. During the work session we had on this item, there had been concern as
to some of the comparables that were used and the decision was made with Karen
Olsen here that we would arrange a t~me whereby 'the Council members who were
concerned in that area could meet over a labor relations associates and ask
their questions. Go through the whole volumes of detail that Karen Olsen used
in developing, not only the comparables but the descriptions thc~nself and then
again how those descriptions relate back to comparable. I also used this as a
time to suggest some special meetings because we will be looking to the
interview process associated with the financial advisor, city auditor and city
planner. What I've t3~ied to do is just pick off Mondays in setting those dates.
Finally, in regards to the original question which was the goals and objectives
I've reincluded the goals and objectives that we previously looked at but did
not have the chance to discuss at our last work session. I can either put those
on again as a part of another work session or I can ask that the Council go
through those and where they have concerns, we used a similar process to this
with Lori regarding, I can't remember what the issue was but everyone prioritize
what they saw.
58
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
273
Councilman Boyt: That was Jo Ann~
Don Ashworth: Jo Ann, and it dealt with, I can't remember the issue. We could
use the similar type of fashion with this. If you wanted to make notes in
regards to each of the different goals and objectives from each of the different
departments. Turn those over to me. Coordinate them back with the Mayor. Have
them a part of a future session. Whatever you would like.
Councilman Boyt: If I might, since I proposed part of this, all of it's a good
idea but only a small part of it was my motion 2 wee_ks ago. My thought in what
I'd like to see happen, I'm perfectly comfortable with going through these and
either discussion or prioritizing and giving it to you and discussing later but
my objective was that the City itself needs goals along the lines of what Jay
suggested 6-7 months ago and I'd like to see us get that done. I don't know how
we can go through and do a decent job of analyzing the goals of the employees of
the city when we don't have goals for the city.
Councilman Johnson: That was actually the goals of the City Council. What is
it that this body of 5 people would like to achieve during the 2 years for the
future of the city. Quite general, broad brush. I think I probably still have
those. I've got a couple of examples.
Don Ashworth: Did I include yours?
Councilman Boyt: You have notes on the speaker but I'm not sure if Jay's...
Don Ashworth: Gary Warren's is shorter and it's because I know there was one
completed right around the first of the year but in getting ready for that work
session and I think it was 11:00 at night when I called you and we tried to
recreate it because I could find it for inclusion in the packet. I think it's
reasonably close, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do probably is just review. I glanced at
these. I didn't go fully through them because I felt that this was going to be_
discussed probably a little more than what it is.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that along with all the other work sessions
that we seem to be scheduling, that sometime in Sept~_~mber we have a work session
on goals for the City Council which I would think would certainly parallel with
goals for the city. In the meantime, maybe we can go through these and put some
priority weights and use them as starters for our own goals.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be not too bad of an idea.
Councilman Boyt: Have you got any particular time?
Councilman Workman: This is just for goals? To %fnat degree are we talking
about here? Meeting at City Hall?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Where we're going. What our direction is. I think what I
really did on this and I added something here, probably for us even though we
maybe in office for 2 years or 3 years or 4 years or whatever, but I think to
establish some kind of a plan, a 10 year plan for the Council as well. To
establish something to look forward to, something that we should really give
59
City Council MeetJ. ng- July 10, 1989
some consideration about.
Don Ashworth: Would you like staff to prepare a potential work document in that
area just so you've got some ideas?
Mayor Chmiel: That would be fine. I think there are some here but I think I'd
like to see some more because the more you see, the better off you are. Then
eventually take that and consolidate it and come up with a plan.
Don Ashworth: In some of the. previous years what we've done is, Council
literally would ask that the mayor work with the manager in preparing a drafted
document, that type of thing and then that way, as we're doing it, there's a
little more feedback in what we present back to the Council then has staff and
council.
Councilman Boyt: You've also got Jay's document of 6 or 7 months ago.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then you're open to new input from other council members?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. You bet.
Don Ashworth: This ~uld just be a draft.
Councilman Boyt: If this has been done before, where is it? It hasn't been
done in the last 2 years.
Don Ashwort_h: I'm not aware that the Council has previously established goals.
Councilman Johnson: I think Don's talking in generalities of something like
this in the past, he and mayor had put it together.
Don Ashworth: I'm talking about other types of issues.
Councilman Johnson: You've also 9or here specific dates recommended for pay
classification and compensation. I'm out of town all three of those dates.
CounciLnan Boyt: The only date I'm in town is the 27th of July as far as
meeting with Karen and I'd really like to do that.
Don Ashworth: If I recall, To~n and Ursula were comfortable with ~nat Karen was
preparing but as I saw it, at least from that work session, it was Bill who was
the primary one concerned in that area. The mayor was not present so I'm not
sure if you would like to attend there or not.
Councilman Boyt: Unbelieveable is a close word to describe.
Councilman Workman: We met on a Saturday morning right?
Don Ashworth: Wasn't this an evening?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, this was an evening.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have Minutes of that meeting? I don't temper
being there?
60
City Council Meeting - July 10~ 1989
275
Don Ashworth: You were on vacation~
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, I was gone for 2 weeks.
Don Ashworth: I think it was an off Monday meeting.
Councilman Workman: So let me pick up where we left off. Now what kind of
meetings have we got laid out? We're looking at September for goals?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. To finally sit down to determine what goals we should have
and what kind of a plan we should implement for the City. Whether the next
Council or whoever comes in, they can look at it, discard it but at least give
proper direction as to where we're going.
Don Ashworth: Probably our first budget session is going to be_ a shorter one
because basically we simply do not have any infoLmation from the State at all.
We don't know if we have, if we're frozen at how much we can expend. 3%. We
don't know if it's households. There's so many questions, I don't know how
cities are going to certify their budgets for 1990. It's a real question.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we can do though is we can determine some
priorities. We've got, everybody wants more. More staff. More resources so we
can wrestle with that issue.
DOn Ashworth: But I'm saying that may fit in with the goal process so we might
be able to handle that in terms of our off Mondays in August in doing goal
setting as well as budget.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe we should start the goal setting in August and then
do budget after the goal setting. That kind of makes some sense to me. If
we've charted the general course, part of doing that is funding that course.
Mayor Chmiel: Budgeting always come up first before you do anything else
anyway. You don't budget for it, you can't do what you're talking about. I
think September is probably a better t~me.
DOn Ashworth: Than August?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well no, the budgeting I think is August. That's always
August. Just about all budgets, at least it is mine.
Councilman Johnson: City Planner, July 29th. I'm still out of town. I get
back the 30th.
Councilman Boyt: We're going to hold a meeting on the 31st too.
Don Ashworth: Why did I put the 31st?
Councilman Johnson: The 31st is an off Monday.
Don Ashworth: And the 29th is a Saturday, yes. And the reason there is you're
going to have people coming in from out of town and that's the best time to do
it. Saturday morning.
61
City Council Meeting - July lg, 1989
Councilman Johnson: If I'm the only one not there, then that's the way it will
have to be. I don't want to hold up the City Planner at all.
Mayor Chmiel: You' re right.
Councilman Johnson: But I'm at a class in Pasadena or Altoona or something,
California that day and there's no way I can get out of it.
Councilman Boyt: Can we accept all three of those dates along with the 26th of
July to review with Karen?
_Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let' s move along.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
TH 5 PROGRESS REPORT, CITY ENGINEER.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it'd be a good idea to just sort of update a little bit the
meeting that we held today with Commissioner Levine.
Gary Warren: Yes, Mm'. Mayor, that was sort of the reason I wanted to have it on
the agenda here. I took rapid notes and I know you and T~m were at the meeting
so please feel free to correct me or fill in. This small scale is also in your
packet but it was handed out today by Bill Crawford, District 5 Engineer and it
deals specifically with TH 5. The purpose of the meeting with Commissioner
Levine today obviously was to see where things stand on the funding for the
project and the progress of construction. As everybody knows, we're under
construction right now in Phase 2 of the TH 5 expansion plan. With the US Open
July 10, 1991, the Con~issions are being questioned as far as just how far
will TH 5 be and I think everybody is in agreement that the letting dates for
the element 3 of the project here is June of 1990 and March for...and that gets
out to CR 17. That is reasonably consistent with the latest but it has... The
fourth segment that takes TH 5 from CR 17 out to TH 41, which was indicated to
us was District 5's top priority construction project that they sukmitted to the
central office of MnDot for consideration, they're right now coming up with the
1994-95 construction prograraming. It does not look like it's going to be
funded. Everybody is surprised at that and it's come up at the last minute but
Commissioner Levine he said that it hasn't been finalized yet. It will probably
be finalized this month but he said it's certainly going in that direction,
meaning not funded in this 2 year program. So that's a surprise and a
disappointment for us obviously and the coalition. He pointed to, in his
opinion he made some comments about the lack of support from the area
legislators as far as funding. As part of the motor vehicle excise tax and
transportation bill funding issues and you could kind of read between the lines
as you will that that may or may not be the reason why our element 4 didn't get
included in this progran~ning but there was definitely some discussion about that
from his office perspective. Just to run through my notes real quickly, they
agreed to assing Mike Speilman as project manager. He's been interfacing here
in the last 2 weeks with us on our technical advisory con~nittee that meets every
2 weeks to keep pace with the design. The design of element 3 here is about 60%
complete and the title work is in MnDot's hands and they will be talking with
the DataServ people on the partials that are up for taking here very shortly but
62
City Council M~eting - July 10~ 1989
277
that is the critical time line on the project is the property acquisitions.
Basically Bill Crawford and the tone of the meeting as far as the emphasize for
the US Open, I think MnDot is basically orienting themselves that it's going to
be a traffic management issue. They're conceeding this will not be 4 lanes
onto TH 41 obviously in time for the Open so there's got to be a traffic
management plan that moves people and not vehicles. He's talking about busing.
He's talking about car pooling. Van pooling and all sorts of creative ways of
getting the people there and not so much the vehicles so that is going to be the
challenge the US Open Transportation Advisory Committee of which Jim Chaffee and
I are m~bers. We've met once and there will be an upcoming meeting August 24th
where a report that was just prepared by Barton-Ascl%mann will be reviewed to see
what their proposing as far as how they're going to get the vehicles in and out.
It also will address park and ride type issues. I think there will be a lot of
proposals that will address that type of a scenario or dedicated bus lane but
basically the highway is not going to be there, 4 lanes out to TH 41 no matter
what happens between now and the US Open so there has to be some alternate
transportation theories looked at as a part of this report. MnDot has a new
person on staff who is in charge of transportation advisory issues. Dick Steer
and he is responsible, he's part of their new traffic management division and
will be interfacing on this issue and he's also involved with the planning for
the Olympic Festival so MnDot is realizing that there's s~e function needs here
that construction can't address that really this advisory committee is going to
be sort of an important role... Roger Gustafson made a brief presentation on it
but I also shared, and I think we need to keep in mind here is the importance,
the US Open is very important and the visibility that goes along with this and
if something goes wrong, it gets broadcast worldwide and we can't afford to have
those kind of problems. But the US Open is going to be done. It's a one week
event and it's going to be done and then we're going to be still sitting here
wanting to see TH 5 completed up to TH 41 and we're still going to have our
issues that even if TH 5 is con%~leted in all 4 lanes and the TH 169 by-pass and
the extension of other major improv~m~ents that are planned for this from Carver
County are done, we still are going to have a very significant transportation
problem on TH 5 until TH 212 is built. We can't lose sight of the fact that TH
212 needs to ride along with the same enthusia~ that TH 5 has for this US Open.
MnDot has programmed the first element of TH 212 from Eden Prairie up to CR 4.
It doesn't show on this map but this first segment, they've committed 9 million
dollars in, I think it was the '94-'95 program for that out of the 33 million
dollars that's needed so there's a real funding shortfall that needs to be
addressed and the Southwest Coalition which I think has been very strong and
very effective to this point and a real good working relationship between MnDot
and the Coalition, needs to really be geared up to continue on it's way to
pursue the TH 212 corridor. I guess as a part of that, Tom was introduced to
Con~nissioner Levine today as, the title I didn't get exactly right Tom.
Mayor Chmiel: Coordinator.
Gary Warren: Coordinator, liason for the coalition basically.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, congratulations Tom.
Councilman Workman: I'm retaining my business nonetheless and they're in
complete agreement with that.
63
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
Gary Warren: So I think that's a positive point to keep the ball rolling but I
really thing that we need to work with our legislators out here to see that that
emphasize keeps carrying through so we get the last leg of TH 5 completed and
that we get the funding in place for TH 212. It was quite a turn out. They
were standing in the aisles so to speak with Co~nissioner Levine and his
conference room and the mayors from our neighboring con~nunites also. So fill in
the blanks ?~-n or Don, if I've missed something.
Councilman Workm~a: If I could. Thanks for bringing up the fact that I'm, it's
basically I'm a coordinator for the coalition. They are a privately held and
incorporated group and my first question was would I have a conflict of interest
or anything else like that and I wanted to bring out at the Council at this
point. I did discuss it with Roger to find out if there would be a problem.
Roger thought it was a beck of an opportunity. I'm going to enjoy working with
this group of people. I find the issue of TH 5 and the TH 212 project to be
certainly topics that we are pretty much in agreement on as far as they are
c~ning through. TH 212 was talked about before I was born and I ~m old so I did
research the idea of ~{nether or not this would be a conflict of interest and to
grease the skids a little bit. If there is a problem in voting on any of this,
I will choose to abstain and hopefully we'll know if and when that comes. I
know that the Southwest Transportation Coalition is possibly looking for funding
from city governments. That again might be some sort of a problem and we' 11
look further into that when I call Roger about my will tomorrow. So with that,
if you have any questions or concerns about it.
M~yor Chmiel: I think it's great. As I said, congratulations.
Councilman Johnson: To date the coalition has worked real well with the cities
and the City of Chanhassen has supported the coalition financially and with
staff time and with council mem~e.~s~ ~ going to the various meetings and whatever.
It is going to be a very good opportunity for you in that position to hear some
interesting politics.
Councilman Workman: More than here?
Councilman Johnson: Different level.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to mention too the fact that Gary Peterson, the
Mayor from Eden Prairie gave a presentation as well as Bob Roepke from Chaska
and I also did too and what we stressed the points of being is that we're
getting new industries in our communities. The growth is here. We're getting
more people. We're going to add more problems to the highways so consequently
that was stressed also to the Commissioner. He appreciated those inputs that we
had given as well. But he may not have gotten everything that we wanted but I
think he knows exactly where we're coming fr~n and I too feel that the Southwest
Corridor Transportation Coalition is really a good working group and very active
and very aggresive which is even better. So with that we'll go to 13(b).
VERBATIM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
Jim Chaffee: Councilman Boyt asked that this be presented to the Council. I
have stated in my memo that I believe that I have the funding to continue
providing verbatim Minutes and that's about it.
64
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
279
Councilman 'W°~kman: {' Are there ~P ~'di~en~r~i. oh th~i Publ'~e;~e,~Y ~eJ.l~_i o~'l~ ~.,i :}11 iii::;-
where are we at?
Jim Chaffee: We haven't disC{]s~ 'it~"~{h ~'~whii~::
the middle with one, 3 to 3 with one non-c~ittal:vote~a~s%nce_then~we really .:~:~:::~
haven't discuss~ it. I guess the feeling
Councilman Johnson: What's interesting is we were having..~ ,.at~ ~, :this:,~ ~: Southwest~- :. :~ ..: . ·
Metro discussion of the various city, the three city council~ and who does
verbatim minutes and I forget whethel.~-it~ .wa_s Eden :Pr~ir}e o,r,-~aska:but~one of
th~m don't do verbatim minutes` a~'~:~q~e~'j6~{::t~ta%iY:a~s~ ~-~H~t ~y~ W~uld
do verbatim minutes ,of a council m.ee~ing .... .~He. says ~well~.yeu ~on:!,t.~ really want
everything that :y~U'said wr_it~e~ ~01w~"~ ~-h..I~,~id, wieliilth~.ip~"~ 0~::i/~ were-~
aghast that they were willing to:~depend'' dp6h-~omeb0dY ei~S~in~erpretation of
what went on without being able to go right back to the horse's mouth.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had one more particular item, council presentation.
Ursual, regarding SuperAmerica.
Councilman Boyt: I think we probably need to vote on 13(b).
Mayor Chmiel: Do we really?
Councilman Boyt: Well we're spending money, we should vote on it.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, but it's. withinbUdget. :} ,: ..~ _ ~
Councilman Boyt: We're still spending money.
Councilman Workman: My position'S ~' let the PUblic safe~y 3eCide and I
don't know that the money is that out of whack but I know there's some
dissention there as far as wanting it and if you want to create that burden for
some of those m~nbers. . ~
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Council action is required then.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Cqluiel seconded to approve the funding for the
verbatim Minutes of the PUblic Safety ~ission. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dimler who oppsoed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to comment that even though I voted yes, I think
it's really up to them. It's a staff function. If it's within their budget,
Council has no business sticking their nose in it.
COUNCIL PRESENTATION:
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to just real briefly, I talked to Gary and after
6:00 today, that's why I was late to the other meeting, but I wanted to bring up
65
City Council Meeting - July 10, 1989
again that we are getting, I am getting calls and I know city hall is getting
calls again about the abuse on that property so I just wanted to say, I set up a
meeting, or wanted to set up a meeting to go out there with Lori and invite
anyone else that's available to ccrae along.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to go along too. I've had a few calls.
Councilman Bo!t: %{hat's happening?
Councilwoman Dimler: People are dumping there.
Councilman Johnson: Dumping?
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, you explain what's happening.
Gary Warren: Bitu~ninous is appearing on the site in various quantities. I
believe it's from TH 5 project that's going on. Dave Hemphill has been out to
take a look at it and he's talked with a few of the neighbors and we're just
tracking it down now to see where it's coming from because v~ were out there
last week on the site with Roger Zahn of HSZ and going through all this erosion
stuff and all that and nothing was going on but all of a sudden it appeared.
Councilman Johnson: Was that on the MnDot property just recently?
Gary Warren: Today. Just today.
Councilman Johnson: ?{nDot's got some property out there don't they?
Gary Warren: I haven't been out to see exactly where it is but from what I've
been told, MnDot doesn't have that much property. But it's something that we're
looking into right now. I told Ursula because my schedule this week is really
bad but Dave H~mphill from my staff, certainly if we can't work out a time where
I can be there, certainly can get out there with you. It might be the most
expeditious route.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
66