1989 02 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 1989
Mayor Chm~.el called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Wor~nan and
Councilman Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Counc~.lwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Lori Sietsema, Todd
Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Dave Grannis, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to discuss front yard fencing and the Public Safety Department under
Council Presentations; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss manholes under
Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
G. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES.
Councilman Boyt: On the special meeting dates, I have a problem with the March
20th date. I'm out of town. I think that's an important meeting. Don
mentioned wanting to have some materials out 4 or 5 days Jn advance. I'd like
to see us, if that meeting is to take quite a bit of time, move it into maybe
April 3rd or the 17th. Or March, we've got a meeting scheduled for the 13th but
anytime that week is fine with me. I know there's a lot of meetings scheduled.
Mayor Chm~.el: How does it look for everybody else on April 3rd?
Councilman Johnson: I'd rather get it done sooner rather than later personally.
I'm, at this point, fairly free.
Mayor Chmiel: Out of the 3rd or the 17th, which of those two dates is
preferable for everyone being here? Let's shoot for the 3rd. Now is that
for...
Councilman Boyt: That' s for G (1).
Mayor Chmiel: G(1) for the goals and posit~on classification plan. With that
amendment to April 3, 1989.
Councilman Boyt: Right. On the May 16th meet~.ng, I'm glad to see us doing
this. I'm going to be out of town but I don't mind, I can submit my c~gnents in
writ~.ng to the group if that's...
Mayor Chmiel: That's acceptable.
City Counc] 1 Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: So I would move appr_oval of Item G w. tn the amendment to ].tem
G(t), changing that date fren March 2gth to April 3rd.
CounciLman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Item G, Set
Special Meeting Dates as follows:
1. 1989 Goals and Position ClassJ. fication Plan on April 3, 1989
2. Joint Meeting wi. th Park and Recreation Con~nission March 13, 1989 at 6:3g
3. Board of Review and Equalization on May 16, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendatJ, ons:
a. Resolution #89-25: Accept Feasibility Study for North Side Parking Lot.
b. Accept Proposal for Prelf.minary Al J.gnment Study of TH lgl from TH 5 to
TH 212 (new TH 212).
e. Resolution ~89-26: Establish No Parking Zones on Park Road
(Un]ted Mailing).
f. Resolution #89-27: Approve 1989 Park Dedication Fee Schedule.
h. Resolution #89-28: Approval of Resolution Proclaiming "Volunteer
RecognJ. tion Week".
J.o Approval to Purchase Hot Water, HJ.gh Pressure Washer.
k. RevJ_sed Final Plat Approval, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition,
Lundgren Brothers.
1. Accounts Payable
m. City Council Mi. nutes dated February 13, 1989
Planning Con~nJ. ssion Minutes dated February 15, 1989
Park and Recreation Co_~nissJon Minutes dated February 14, 1989
n. Approval of Land Surveyor's Certificate of Cor_rection, Kurvers Point.
Ail voted J.n favor and the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER, BETTY BRAGG.
Betty Bragg: I have somethJ, ng that I think you have in your package which is
the report for the past year. The South Shore Senior Center is comprised of
quite a few villages ].n this area and just as you have to pay attentJ, on
to MJ. nnetonka and Chaska schools, we ask that you continue to give your support.
C~.ty Counc~.l Meeting - February 27, 1989
We've been very, very pleased. We want to thank you for your support in the
past and for the present and we hope for the future. That is the reason why I'm
making this report available to you. I don't think I need to review it but we
did serve an awful lot of people from the Chanhassen area. I'm one of them.
Retirement should offer enough variety and fulfillment to keep life interesting
and challenging I feel. This report I think gives you an idea of what we're
trying to do. Make life interesting and challenging and take care of some of
the health services, educational programs, volunteers. See that people who
don't have good nutrition in their homes have a center to come to. I could give
you lots of little insights into that but I think you're probably aware of some
of them. I just want to say, we thank you for your help in the past and we hope
for it in the future. Thank you. Someday you'll be retired too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Councilman Johnson: The South Shore Senior Center does serve a lot of
Chanhassen residents. I've been to several of their functions and I'm
constantly amazed at how many of the people there in Excelsior at the South
Shore Center are Chanhassen residents. When we get our grant money next year, I
hope we'll continue to provide some of that towards the South Shore.
Councilman Boyt: Do you remember how much we gave them this last year? Wasn't
it around $12,000.007
Don Ashworth: No I don't. The funding actually goes directly from Hennepin
County to the South Shore. I thought that it was around $10,000.00 and that did
not include the $7,800.00 that was set aside for a senior study and that's
currently underway.
Betty Bragg: You might find that ~t's cheaper to go in with the other
co~nunities than to try and to serve just one interest group here.
Councilman Johnson: Our study is not to say that we need a senior center. It's
to find out what our seniors need. It may result in that, I don't know but we
have to define our needs.
Mayor Chmiel: I may be getting there quicker than most people realize but I
certainly appreciate the fact that you have come and made your presentation to
us. No actaeon is going to be required at this particular time on ~_tem 2 so I'd
like to move ahead to the public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TO COMBINE A PORTION OF LOT 28, MURRAY HILL ADDITION
TO OUTLOT A, EIGHT ACRE WOODS ADDITION TO FORM LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, EIGHT ACRE
WOODS SECOND ADDITION, 6270 MURRAY HILL ROAD, GRANT JOHNSON.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Steve Hanson: This is a request for final plat approval and it's covered under
subparagraph B of the Subdivision Ordinance whereby the City Council may approve
a meets and bounds subdivis~.on of a platted lot into two lots when both those
lots would meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as had
access onto the public street. In your packet before you you have a copy of the
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
subdivision plat, the actual survey showing that lot splint of the lot and it
also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform
w~.th the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the
final plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition.
Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray H~.ll Road. I believe the
packet that you've 9or is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who
were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved,
it was somewhat obvious at the t~me or we had kind of implied that this was our
intent eventually asd the t~.me has just come now that we can put this together
so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have.
Mayor ChmJ. et: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it
looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know ~f anyone else on the Council
has any questions.
Counc~.lman Wor~nan: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds?
Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far
as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer
to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal
plat that you would see.
Councilman Work, nan: Why wouldn't thf. s need a formal plat?
Steve Hanson: There's a provisJ_on in the Statute as well as J.n the City Code
that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivJ, sion rather than going
through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for
them.
CounciLman Workm~n: I guess then give me one reason ~ny they have to have a
plat versus meets and bounds. ~nat makes the difference?
Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're
splittin9 just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go
through the full blown subdivf, sion process.
Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying J~f one line is involved to split
it, then you can do J.t th~.s way? Okay.
CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seeonded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carrY, ed. The public hearing was closed~
Council_man Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat
for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition (#89-1 SubdJ.vf_sion) as shown on the plat
stamped "Received February 6, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carrY, ed.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Steve Hanson: This item ~ras presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier
tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional
Ci. ty Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to
take no action.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE
FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART
CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC..
Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the
Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the
Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it
not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether
they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make
that decision.
SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of
approximately 5%. Each of the license holders were given notice of this
meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have
asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recon~nending that
the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded Jn some cases as
shown in your report dated February 8th.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the
audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that
we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non-intoxicating
license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale
non-intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at
$250.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the
requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion.
Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the
intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both
restaurant and non-restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as
about 5% higher than in 1988.
Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don?
Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a
comparison of fees with some of our other con~nunities. I was looking for that
information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available.
Resolution #89-29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON
FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH
212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE.
Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements
~
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
and none of those improvements have been done on the property. Therefore, ~t
comes back to the Planning C~mission and City Council for them, if they want to
request an extension and they have requested an extension. The Counc.].l has the
authority to extend the permit for an add_itional period of time after getting a
reco~x~nendat~.on from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed
this at their regular meet~ng and their determination at that point in time was
that based on testimony taken at that meeting as well as the review of the
permit and plans that the appli.cant has for future use of the property, that it
was not appropriate to extend the conditional use permit for Admiral Waste at
this point i.n ti.me. Part of that was pending some of the other things they're
looking at doing and adding to the property. Their feeling was rather than
extend an existing permit knowing that they're going to have to come back and
~end that, it would be better for th~n to just come in with a totally new
permit for a conditional use. Also, you should be aware that the planning
Co~mission felt that the permit that was granted previously should possibly not
have been approved. They had recon~nended approval previously but their concern
was, in goir~ back and looking at the Codes, as far as defining what a
contractor's yard is, they didn't feel that the proposed use fit within that
definition. The definition for the contractor's yard specifically really
mentions construction type activities rather than the waste handling facilities.
So the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council not extend the
condit~.onal use permit %87-18 and further, one other item that the Council needs
to deal with that does not come up before the Planning Commission. When the
conditional use permit was issued previously, it was also ~.ssued a wetland
alteration permit for the property as part of that conditional use. That also
has a year time l~mit on it similar to the condit~.onal use permit and we would
add that that also not be extended. Really the two should go hand in hand.
That would conclude my r~wnarks.
_Nancy Lee: I thi.nk one thi.ng that we didn't make real clear with the Planning
CorrmissJ. on is we made it sound like there was going to be a lot of drastic
changes. One of 'the reasons we didn't go on with the project as planned was
because in the trash hauling industry there are some major changes coming about
in recycling and we felt it best to hold off until we found out what these
changes were which depend on what the City's decisions are. At this point not
all cities have made their own decisions as to what they're going to be doing
with the recycling. As far as our building and everything, it may go up exactly
as planned. We realize any major changes or anything would obviously have to
come back to Council. I guess that's what we were waiting for but we didn't
want to lose the permits so that if there were no changes, we could go ahead and
put the building up. That's all I had to say.
Councilman Boyt: You'll notice there are 28 conditions passed with this thing
making it a major undertaking but as I recall the discussion of a little over a
year ago, one of the critical i. ssues was generating additional traffic in one of
the worse traffic areas in the city. The point was that these basically pick up
trucks, as I recall, kind of a heavy duty pick up truck would be leaving early
in the morning. Would basically stay out all day and would come back in at the
end of the day. That was the reason that I voted for i.t at the time was because
it wasn't generating much traffic. To look at it as a recycling center, it
could very well generate a good bit more traffic. As I read the discussion,
we're talking about having a potential drop off center for people to bring
recycleables in. I don't w-ant that kind of traffic on that stretch of road.
I've been very relunctant to see us continue to encourage contractor's yards in
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Chanhassen. I think that we need to find a home, it's sort of a, I think a
responsibility for a community to have someplace for people who haul trash to do
their business. I don't know what the good place for that is or would be in
Chanhassen. I think that's worth some good study. What I do know is that we
shouldn't be encouraging uses that generate very much traffic at all at this
particular location. As far as extending it, I guess I'm real interest~<t in
what other folks have to say up here. I agree with the Planning Commission's
position that this doesn't fit the description of a contractor's yard but I
don't know that that stopped the Council in the past from approving contractor's
yards or items as contractor's yards. It's sort of been a catch all in a way
and my concern would be, why encourage them to conduct a use that I don't want
to see expanded? My inclination would be to say this is an opportunity to turn
this down and avoid an even more difficult decision down the road and when we've
got a considerable investment meeting those 28 conditions and I personally
wouldn't want to see it expanded.
Councilman Johnson: I'm pretty well where Bill is on this one. I believe, if
my memory serves me right, I voted for it last time. In retrospect and looking
at the definition of the ordinance a little closer than I did last time, they're
right. This doesn't really meet the definition of a contractor's yard. Leaving
in the morning and coming back in the evening is different than doing any
recycling work there. Recycling business is probably going to create more
traffic, especially a drop off center. I think this fits more into an
industrial site versus the site it's on. That's my only comments.
Councilman Workman: What can we do as the City Council and City then if we're
going to deny this, perhaps help them to do business in our City? Is the
Planning Commission going to look at that?
Councilman Johnson: Can the HRA do anything? Is this something that is needed
in our City and as part of our Housing and Redevelopment, should we be looking?
We've been promoting a grocery store. We've been promoting housing. Is there a
way we can promote a recycling center?
Mayor Chmiel: I think recycling is something that's going to become a
necessity. Every city is going to J_t. I agree too that in reviewing the
definition of a contractor's yard, it just doesn't fit in that specific, as it
spells it out within the City Code. At the same time, Don, can you offer any
suggestions? Is there any areas within the City that could facilitate this type
of facility? What have we done in the past?
Don Ashworth: We have attempted to bring businesses into the Business Park and
one of the thJ. ngs generally with contractor's yards is as they grow, they find
that they can do better business, really provide better services if they're able
to move again into a business park setting. I think Merit Heating was one that
was really looking to contractor's yard position and we were able to get them
into the business park. Contractor's yards typically have been a growing area,
you might say, for some businesses and I really don't know in this particular
instance, if they would be to a point where they could consider a location in a
more typical setting.
Councilman Johnson: I think something I probably would mention that probably
clouded our decision a year ago was at that time we had another similar business
in a contractor's yard that had been previously approved and in the interim
Council Meeti. ng- February 27, 1989
they've moved out so this was going to be our second contractor's yard that had
a garbage hauling bus]_ness in it. R & W San].tation down in Merle Volk's
property and they subsequently have moved out so this would be the only one.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest Tom, to answer your question, that the best
thing to do with this J.s to refer it to the Planning Con~nission with the
directive to identify locations in the c~.ty that would be appropriate to th~.s
type of business. I would think that would be of some prior~.ty.
Councilman Worbnan: I guess ].n looking through the packet, let me get maybe
s~ne answers from Nancy. Would you possibly be c~ning back to the Council and
Planning Commission once you have figured out what exactly is going to be
happening w_~th this piece of property in regards to recycl].ng? Would you be
coming back possibly for another attempt?
Nancy Lee: You mean ].f there was not an extension granted?
Counc i lman Workman: Right.
Nancy Lee: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I guess in looking through this and I realize you guys did
pass it and it was a traffic problem, I have probably driven through that area
longer than anybody in the roc~-n being from this area pretty much all my life
down in Chaska and that is the way, so for at least 28 years, that is the way
-that area has been dorm there and I referred to it last time as ugly town. It's
not pretty down there but I suspect that in another 28 years we'll still have an
SA. We'll still have cold storage. We'll st].ll have a car lot and we'll st].ll
have everything else down there and for us to think that perhaps this is going
to be made into agricultural and used for a wheat field or something, that
doesn't make sense. Again, i'm not ignoring the safety problems in the area or
· the aesthetics of the neighbors to the north. I guess I'm not c~ite sure what
has changed in a year other than cities are now cl&moring to do recycling.
received some calls this week in regards to the fact that the fact they don't
think we're moving ahead fast enough on recycling. We have some business people
who would like to get, one man's trash in another man's gold mine I guess and so
they want to do busJ. ness in that regard. They're moving ahead. They've waited
because the nature of the business is changing and now they're being told they
can't do business so what do we tell the folks that have property down there?
That they're go]~ng to have to plant clover on that or nothing. When I fully
expect that the businesses that are down there, I don't know if the Travel I is
going to open up again or not but those businesses are goring to remain there
any-way.
CounciLman Johnson: I don't disagree with where you're coming from. Th],s is
still business fringe and contractor's yards are approved in business fringe.
The question comes here is two fold. I think we made a mistake a year ago by
calling this a contractor's yard. I think part of the reasoning, you always
give a reason for a mistake, you probably show you a mistake is a mistake, was
that we already had approved, or the previous Council had already approved a
contractor's yard at that point. It is a bad ~ntersection right there below the
br idge.
Councilman Workman: Is that cold storage a contractor's yard?
City Counci'l Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: No, but they're also permitted in a business fringe-
Business fringe allows quite a few different things. One of which is
contractor's yards. Cold storage is one. In fact we've got two cold storage
areas in there. I think we allow gasoline stations without car w-ashes. The
hotel is a non-conforming use. I believe the restaurant is a non-conforming
use. I've got the rules right here.
Councilman Boyt: I think one of the things that's changed in the year Tom is
that there was something about this situation that didn't make it feasible for a
year. One of the things is that in the conditions, the 28 conditions, there are
some like a holding tank will be installed which are going to represent a fair
amount of expense. From my particular standpoint, turning this down doesn't
hinge upon the definition of a contractor's yard because I hope we're in the
process of redefining that. My particular one hinges upon, I know ttkat I don't
want the increased traffic that I would project from making it a recyling
center. If I'm going to vote against that, why should I encourage people to put
an investment in here to do something that's going to lead to that? So from my
standpoint, this was a tough decision a year ago. I disagreed with a couple
people on the Planning Con~nission because I thought the traffic would be light
and we needed this somewhere in town. I think the better way to deal with it is
find out where's the right location for this sort of thing. I kind of doubt
it's the business park but who knows. Let's find the right location. Let's
zone those sorts of locations so this can go in it and do it right. Why put it
in an area, I don't think anybody's going to go down there and turn that into
farmland. Obviously not but we're telling these people you've got to r~move the
existing structures. You've got to build catch basins. You've got to put in
holding tanks. It's going to make it look better if they do this. That's one
thing they have going for them. I just don't think it's a place ~nere we want
to encourage additional traffic.
Mayor Chmiel: I feel basically you're right in what you're saying Bill. I
think that once the dollar investment is there, they're going to be there for a
long time. I still have the feeling that this basically still is not, this kind
of business is not a contractor's yard business. I'd like to see us do a study
to see if there is somehow that we can accommodate something. Everyone produces
the solid waste that they put out in their cans. Once a week they pick it up,
not realizing where it goes or even care where it goes. I know that they're
providing a kind of service to the con~unity that's needed so I see where maybe
we should review this to see what the possibilities are for where this could be
accommodate within the city, if it can, and pursue it fr~ that aspect. For
the existing site, as I see it, I feel that this site is not the best~ for the
traffic aspect as well as still not fitting into that contractor's yard
definition.
Councilman Workman: Can we then reject this and then perhaps I can propose that
we, as the City perhaps work with Aclmiral Waste, perhaps other trash haulers to
look into the subject of where and how we can do this and then perhaps even
waiting for Admiral Waste to come back perhaps with another proposal on the same
piece of property which might be more appealing taking into account traffic,
etc.. I think they've kind of taken that in. I know it was discussed a year
ago. It didn't sound like there was going to be that much traffic. I think you
agreed Jay but perhaps leaving the door open for th~ to possibly use the
property for which they intended but to find the solutions within the city to do
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
that. Recycling and trash, these kinds of businesses aren't the most appealing
businesses in the world but we can't keep telling Eden Prairie or Savage or
whoever to keep tak~.ng them either. So if we could get a nice looking, well
cared for facility within the city for these people to do business, I think it
would be worth a lot to work with that.
Councilman Johnson: I don't totally agree that they're an eye sore, you didn't
say eye sore but that they're not appealing. I've worked in several recycling
facilities and from the outs~de you'd think they're any other industry. Reuter
over in Eden Prairie, you look at it, it's a beautiful building there.
Everything's done inside and they process where here we're just talk~.hg
basically a truck shop for them. I think what we did was based on the low
traffic volumes, we approved it last time. I th.].nk what needs to be done is if
we decide that this area is a good area ho have basJ.cally a trucking business,
which is what garbage hauling is is a trucking business. Their freight happens
to be cc~ning from each of our households. If this is an appropriate place for a
trucking business, we should ~mend the BF distr,.ct to allow trucking businesses
but we have to look at that. If I was going to place, I don't think I can call
them a contractor's yard. We c~e close to another trucking business go~_ng in
as a contractor's yard. Unfortunately, he does a lot of, the other person does
a lot of trucking but he is a contractor. He does build things. I think that
it does fit into our industrial park if you do it right. You probably don't
want to be, there may be a section of our park where you can generate truck
traffic that wouldn't be a problem. We're not talking about vehicles here
dripping garbage and running around because they don't do that. 2g years ago or
4g years ago, yes but modern sanitat.]on vehicles are such that they're really
not a problam but I still am going to move, and I'll make this a motion here
SO...
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making your motion Jay, I'd like to find out if there's
anyone else in the audience that would like to address this particular issue.
John Foster: My name is John Foster, City of Golden Valley representing the
Joseph Kristoff property which is located on the northwest corner of TH lg! and
TH 169/212. I don't think that it should be approved in the standpoint, our
value of our property would decrease. Not only that but the traffic is at a
high level on our corner and the trucks would have to go down TH 1~1 to receive
that ~.ntersection. By doing that, it would cause more problems then [~resently
are there. Through the notes and so forth, we have talked about the tractors,
the wintertime with the buses coming down the hills, etc.. The way that
I understand the plan is set forth is that the entrance would be put onto TH
101. By doing that, causing more problems along TH lgl and the hill area
relative to going onto TH 169/212 area but I would ask you to, ah this t~.me,
take a closer look at it. I'm not in opposition of them coming back at a later
time with a different proposal of how they would do the work to the City Council
here so that you can take a close look at it as long as Planning too.
Patrick Blood: I'm Patrick Blood. I guess the biggest problem of the whole
thing is the traffic and we respect everybody's say in the matter but I'd like
to leave one thing in the back of your minds, being the City of Chanhassen.
don't foresee the ]_mpact of traffic being that great. In your eyes you might.
That's fine but we reme~nber other roads, highways that you do have in Chanhassen
that during certain hours are already backed up to the limit. We've got a short
access to TH 212/169. Ail our facilities, or most of them, are Reuter's,
10
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Anchor, MX Tire which are directly across the river and down which puts us in
Chanhassen only for pick up day at a minimt~n. We're out of this city
completely. The only problem we face, and we don't feel it's our problsm, and
that's TH 101. That is a State Highway. That is a State problem. A stop sign
at that intersection would help greatly. If you look at the problems you have
on TH 5 during rush hour and compare it what you've got down there, I don't
foresee any problem. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address the issue?
Councilman Workman: I guess one other point then. I highly suspect that if
these trucks, these garbage trucks are hanging around the shop, they ain't
making much money. They're out doing what they're supposed to be doing and
they're not hauling a whole lot of it back other than when the recycling perhaps
gets going.
Councilman Boyt: They're not talking about a garbage truck as we might envision
a big garbage truck. They're talking about a pick-up.
Patrick Blood: A majority of our trucks are like the 450 Ford with...but we do
have two big garbage trucks and possibly three.
Councilman Workman: Would those big ones make it under that bridge?
Patrick Blood: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I think there was a condition in here that you had to go south
on TH 101 isn't there?
Nancy Lee: Somebody mentioned it but they said they couldn't force us to do it
legally but normally that's the way we would be going. We would be going south.
One other quick comnent. As far as the recycling goes, if you're looking at a
lot of traffic coming in and out, we would like it optional. We would like to
make an open facility so the people of Chanhassen can come in and utilize it.
However, if the City doesn't want us to, we'll just simply use it ourselves for
recycling which is just our vehicles. We just felt that...
John Foster: Don't get me wrong. I'm also, I'm in favor of small businesses
and the way they grow. I'm just looking for the safety aspect of the community
itself. Just so long as everybody is aware.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe the thing to do here is if Mr. Blood and Ms. Lee want to
pursue a stop light there, we're not really talking about a stop sign, there's
already a stop sign there, but this is just a difficult corner. I don't know
that we've got a good answer to this corner and I guess I'm saying, I wasn't
happy with my vote last year and I'm not happy with my vote this year but it's
going to be different.
Councilman Johnson: I think the main traffic problem is not at the stop sign
it's during negotiating of the curves as you come around to their driveway.
There is sight dj. stance there. I don't know how, I just drove that s~veral
times this weekend and took a close look at it again and I think it would be
manageable. We do have in the conditions 12 vehicles is the maximum amount of
vehicles they can have at that site. I don't remember if that was 12 of their
11
Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
vehicles or if that was the employee's vehicles plus their vehicles. I'd have
to look back in the notes on that one. I thought it was 12 hauling trucks but
anyway, I'm still going to move to deny on the basis that it does not meet the
definition of a contractor's yard. I'll deny extension of either the permit and
also I'd like to add in there to have staff review what we would call this type
of business. As one, just a strick hauler where they're just doing the vehicles
and two, as a hauler plus a recycling center and see where it will fit within
the City of Chanhassen zoning districts or what areas within our zoning
districts we think this type of operation would be appropriate.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it.
Counci/aan Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny extension for
Conditional Use Permit #87-18 for a contractor's yard for Actmiral Waste
~Management, Inc. on the basis that it does not meet the definition of a
contractor's yard. Also, direct staff to review this type of business and where
it would fit within the City of Chanhassen's zoning districts. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 48~ WEST 78TH STREET,
CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING - PPIASE I, ARVID ELNESS ARCHITECTS, INC..
Steve Hanson: This is, in s~me respects, continuation of an item that you've
reviewed previously in January for the Chanhassen Professional Building. In the
January meeting which you approved the site plan for the building itself. The
plans before you tonight are for the parking area around that. This particular
area was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting and they
rec~n~nended approval of the site plan for the parking area. At that time, they
approved that with 3 conditions. The first of those being that the area be
platted. Secondly, the submittal of the final facia, signage and exterior
building lighting for the Planning Con~nission approval prior to issuance of
building permits. Then a third condition w~n].ch was added at the Planning
Con~nission meeting that the traffic engineering review the sidewalk location and
each portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibility of realigning
the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps. Bear with me for a minute
and I'll get that graph to show you the area that we're specifically talking
about. The sidewalk area that we're talking is this particular alignment right
here. Whether that line would stay in this location or preferably be looking
straight down in this direction which is the route that we talked about when
we...the site plan for this particular building. One of the reasons for the
flip flop on it was to allow for the traffic movement over into.., feeling that
was more of a pedestrian generater than the professional office building. We're
still looking at that in all honestly as far as...and also how to sig_nage that
area. One other item that was brought up at the Plann].ng Commission was this
access here which is a limited access. It's a right-in, right-out only and that
was the one dissenting vote on the approval from the Planning Con~nission for the
site. Also, one last graphic that's up here is an outline of Phase I which are
the improvements to the parkin9 area that would come during the first phase when
this actual building is constructed in this location. It's really the back part
of the parking area and then this would be the temporary access that's existing
12
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
now %hat will allow the access ~.nto that area. With that I conclude my remarks
at this point in time.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this specific item?~ As you
may or may not know, there are some assesanents that will be given to the
adjacent property owners. Consequently I had thought that there probably would
be someone to address those issues but if not, I will bring it back to the
Council then.
Don Ashworth: Just a point of clarification. We will go through the hearing
process regarding that downtown project. The property owners likely to be
assessed, Riveria, Mason, etc., will be getting their notice of that hearing and
they may be in attendance at a future meeting.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a comment on this. If there's one thing that
I listened to a lot this fall it was the unhappiness people have with this
corner. I am surprised, as I passed onto Gary and Steve earlier today, that we
would seriously consider keeping an entrance and exit at a corner that's as
difficult as the clock tower corner seems to be for people. We have talked, and
I'll bet somewhere on the initial plans that wasn't there because we have talked
for quite a while about when the 76 station left, that that was going to be
closed off. Now I think it's a mistake, although I can understand that it does
make it more attractive to get in and out of the parking lots but the reason I
think it's a mistake is because a lot more people go down 78th Street than do in
and out of those parking lots and everybody that's bothered by that is going to
think of it as a mistake that the City made. They're going to get there,
somebody's going to be turning out of that and they're going to say, dog gone
it, the City did this tome and I just don't think we need to take that kind of
continual harrasement so I'd like to see that changed.
Don Ashworth: Can I respond? You're correct, the plan from a year a~o did not
have that in here. Both Gary Warren and Gary Ehret are here. They may wish to
address the issue as well. In really looking at the traffic pattern, the only
really dangerous movement that's occuring out there right now is the left hand
turn movement going into that driveway and if you notice on the sketch in front
of you, the nose of that curb has been pulled down far enough to basically
eliminate the ability to come in. Does that accurately reflect, Gary? We are
going to allow the one driveway to come in. The other one is going to be
removed.
Gary Warren: Correct. The feasibility report actually shows it better.
Don Ashworth: That would be a right turn into the Cenex or for those customers
leaving Kenny's, they would be able to take and get a free right out. In
observations of actual turning movements, we have not found a problem with that
type of movement. There is a real problem with vehicles turning left, looking
to the right to see if there is anybody turning and at the same time to have a
vehicle stopped right in front of them. The potential for a rear end accident
there is very, very high.
Councilman Workman: The way it is now right?
Don Ashworth: Right, the way it is now. The curbing has been pulled down to
insure that a person can not take and get into that driveway in that fashion.
13
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Gary Warren: Sheet 2 in the feasibility report actually shows that proper
configuration where the median actually prevents ~%e left turn movement into the
parking area.
Don Ashworth: Did ! miss any points there Gary?
Gary Warren: No, I think it's consistent with what I relayed to Bill earlier
today. If we had our druthers, yes, you wouldn't like it there but it is a
manageable situation. Especially as it relates to the interest of the Colonial
Center as far as access.
(A tape change occurred at this point.)
CounciLman Boyt: ...those of you who weren't on the Council a year and a half
ago when we looked at this issue, I just want to tell you that the engineers
told us that corner would work. They'd probably tell you it's working today.
Counci~nan Workman: Does that entrance and exit from that parking lot help to
vent possibly some of the excess use out of the east end of that parking lot
onto Great Plains because I know on Sunday morning as you're coming out of St.
Hubert's, Great Plains is a bottleneck. When people are going in and out of
Kenny's to get the newspaper and the milk, and they've got to go out of that
exit...
Councilman Boyt: Not today they don't. They've got the exit over by the 76
station.
CounciLman Workman: Right so if you're saying take that out and then we're
going to have further problems and bottlenecks. I usually end up going down
Chan view because sitting at West 78th and Great Plains trying to get out from
behind people that are trying to make a left is impossible.
Councilman Boyt: But your problem there is because 78th Street is TH 1~1. We
can't put any stop signs there so there's no way of controlling the traffic
that's going east and west on 78th Street. Therefore, the traffic backs up on
Great Plains Blvd..
Mayor Chmiel: But in time we'll be able to put that sign up once it changes.
Councilman Boyt: Right and that will alleviate some of the problem coming out
of that intersection. Quite a bit of the problem.
Gary Warren: And you're talking about the most intense use with the church
existing. A period, the one time during the ~ek, that is, there's no question,
the most congested period for that intersection. Basically we'll have 3 exits
or entrances, if you will, to that parking area with the north side parking lot
because the road along the north side of Kenny's also will be made as a
connection so there's two that connect to Great Plains plus the one as we noted
here by the Cenex.
Councilman Johnson: I think moving the existing Kenny's exit further to the
west, making it wider which is what it's appearing to be done on these plans to
where you can't make the left turn in. To where at the point where you're
14
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
entering into 78th Street or whatever they call that little part there, it's
actually two lanes wide versus one lane wide where you are. If you could cut
through the 76 station and go out their drive, it would be a better exit.
That's basically what they're doing here is cutting out the west side of where
the, the Auto Unlimited there. We're not using the same exits. We're moving a
little bit west which should improve it a little. As long as we're talking on
this intersection, Gary and I discussed this intersection this morning and we
definitely are going to have to do some serious looking at this intersection and
the sign posts and the trees and everything in there. As a friend of mine at
work described it, he says the veterans in Viet Nam would have liked to have as
good of cover as the cars do as they come up this hill. So anyway, I~think it's
going to be an improvement over what we have today. It's not going to be the
ideal but I don't think we can pull it back far enough east to make it useable.
Then it will get too close to Great Plains. I think this is the best compromise
the engineers can cc~e up with. I agree with you, the engineers, this
intersection is not working the way they promised us. The way their computer
said it would. I think it's gotten a little better from the people getting more
aware of the intersection and using it a little better. When it first opened
up, it was really bad.
CounciLman Boyt: I have another point if I might on this and that's the
sidewalk issue. I think that sidewalks, if they stay the way they are now,
indicate that people are not going to take the shortest direction to get where
they want to go. I doubt that. I think that when people come out of that
apartment building, they're going to cut straight for wherever across there and
likewise, if they want to go to Kenny's, I doubt that they're going to take the
great circle route to get there. They're just going to go straight across. I
don't think that by putting a sidewalk in there we're going to encourage all
that many people to use it. I would rather see us wait until we get these
buildings in place. See where people are actually going and then give th~ a
sidewalk. Why tell them where we want them to walk when I'm pretty sure
they're not going to walk there because it just doesn't happen to be the
shortest distance anywhere.
Councilman Johnson: Just concrete everything in. It's about what they did at
the university of Texas to follow where the students were going.
Councilman Boyt: Let them cut the path in the grass and then put concrete in.
Anyway, I think it's nice to have a sidewalk so we can give it some kind of
protection but I'd like to see them laid out so they in fact go the shortest
distance between the places we think people are going to want to go.
Mayor Chniel: Any further discussion? Hearing none, does someone want to make
a motion?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I'll make a motion just to see how we do with it. I'll
move that we approve the site plan with the elimination of the exit from the
Cenex station. What was the Cenex station. The exit at the west end of Kenny's
parking area. And that engineering be directed to come up with another plan for
the sidewalk that provides a more direct route. That doesn't sound like it's
going to get a second so if somebody else wants to try one.
Councilman Workman: I'm still trying to figure out an option on this. Without
being able to vent traffic off of that corner of that parking lot, I'd like your
15
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
idea. Just extending that median so that they can't make a U turn or a left
there doesn't excite me either.
CounciLman Johnson: They don't have to extend the median. It's already far
enough once you move to the new location. You just can't make a U turn and go
back in there.
CounciLman Boyt: It's just not a good place to have traffic entering 78th
Street. We're never going to be able to control it there whereas at least at
Great Plains, if we need to, we can put a sign in.
Councilman Johnson: I don't like having basically one exit from an area.
CounciLman Boyt: Well, they can go down and enter and exit from the other side
of the professional building if they want to. I wouldn't encourage them to go
through all that parking lot.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move approval with the 3 conditions rec~nended
by staff. That the area be platted. Suknlission of final facia, signage,
exterior building lightin9 for Planning Con~nission approval prior to issuance of
building permit and the third one, traffic engineering should review sidewalk
location with, add review, change it slightly to discuss also 'that we want to
try to make the sidewalks as much on the shortest distance as possible.
Maximize accessibility of the sidewalks? How about that? That's my mot].on.
M~yor Ckmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Okay, next. What's our stumbling block?
Mayor Chniel: I think the accessibility coming in and out of that specific
location of which Bill is basically objectin9 to.
Councilman Johnson: Bill's motion handled that, he eliminated it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's right.
Councilman Boyt: I guess we haven't worked out a good solution to it. I don't
know that v~ can.
Mayor L]nmiel: Can we make a recomnendation of ~nat staff has suggested with
further study for that accessibility?
CounciLman Johnson: It'd work better if we took out the clock tower.
Mayor Chmiel: Some people might like that.
CounciLman Boyt: I voted against it the first time around, I'll stay consistent
with that.
Councilman Workman: Can we move the clock tower?
Councilman Johnson: We can move it over to your yard?
Councilman Workman: Put it by Admiral Waste.
16
City Counc~.l Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well Gary, do you have an alternate solution here?
Gary Warren: This was the alternate. Not to be coy about it but I guess from
where it started anyway, extending the median to eliminate the left turn
movement which as Don had presented, was our largest concern at that
intersection. All the hits that that intersection has taken, withstanding, I
guess I do not feel that, if we had a preference and we could put on the
blinders to the other aspects of the parking area, fine. That's not a good
!
connection to make. But the additional access that that does provide or exit
from the Kenny's area parking ramp I think is justifiable. The added
complications that it might add to that intersection which I don't think are
that significant. As a vehicle leaves the parking area there, it's in a
transition area where basically there is only one lane that you can enter and
then it widens out to the two turning movements so I think from that standpoint,
it's a visible and that clearly understood movement for both traffic going
westbound on West 78th Street and traffic exiting the parking area. If traffic
backs up from the stop sign in there, you can't get out and you have to wait.
That's as simple as it is so I don't see it as, it's an inordinate complication
of that section.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, it really doesn't make available anything that isn't
already available without it. We're talking a right in. Well, to turn off 78th
Street onto Great Plains Blvd. is not difficult. We're talking a right out. To
come out of that parking lot at Great Plains Blvd. and take a right is not
difficult. It's taking a left that can be the challenge. So what are we
adding?
Gary Warren: I think the primary movement that you've getting out of it is the
right out. An easier right out especially as it relates to the internal
corridors that have been established with the parking lot.
Councilman Johnson: I will take the position of the businessman sitting in that
shopping center and take his point of view. I'm the guy driving along. I've
gone past Great Plains. I look over and see Kenny's and said, oh the wife told
me to pick up milk. With that driveway there I can stop in Kenny's and pick up
milk. That's about when I usually remember it is when I'm going past. Withou~
it, I go to Brooke's.
Councilman Boyt: That's what I say. Just go down two more blocks, you've got
that covered. Wait until next fall and you can go another two blocks and you'll
hit the third convenient store.
Councilman Johnson: Really. The people paying for this are Kenny's and these
folks too. We start taking away their access and then we're going to have a fun
hearing on March 13th.
Councilman Workman: Gary, where were you going to have the stop sign and the
speed bumps? Number 3.
Councilman Johnson: It says consider.
Councilman Workman:
bumps?
Consider. Where would we add the stop signs or speed
17
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: In the parking lot.
CounciLman Workman: I know but where? Anywhere?
Steve Hanson: Where the pedestrian crossings were.
Councilman Workman: Speed bumps at the pedestrian crossings just by Kenny's
there?
Steve Hanson: Speed b~ps or signs. In both cases where the sidewalks go
through that parking area. The concern was to slow that traffic down.'
Gary Warren: Internal to the parking lot.
Mayor Chniel: I'm looking for a motion.
CounciLman Johnson: Let me change my motion slightly and try it again. I'll go
the same motion as last time, 1, 2, 3. Modifying 3 to maximize accessibility.
The sidewalk situation and add a fourth to further review the intersection that
we've been discussing and see if there is any other alternatives.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good solution.
Gary Warren: One clarification maybe. The actual construction plans for the
north side parking lot, if authorized by the Council here, would be another
opportunity for the Council to review that connection and that would be the
final say, so to speak, as to ~nether we're actually going to construct that or
not. So that will be after the feasibility study clears the public hearing on
the March 13th meeting and if plans and specs are authorized, it will be brought
back for Council review at that ti~e and that would allow us further time to
also bring back any justification, either for keeping it or eliminating that
connection.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to further stipulate on that item 4 that March
13th public hearing, we want the information on alternatives by the March 13th
public hearing because when we have a hearing on how we're going to assess the
people and we ta].k about assessment costs and everything to the people, we
better know what we' re going to do with our access. So we want that item 4 back
by March 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a problem?
Gary Warren: We'll have our consultants work on that one.
Councilman Workman: Can you read your number 4 again?
Councilman Johnson: Have the consultants review the intersection to see if
there's any possible alternatives and if possible, have a modified alternative
by March 13th.
Councilman Workman: Could staff also take into account the rest of the
intersection including the clock?
18
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: They're free to look at anything. If the alternative is to
move the clock tower, yes. I'd love to expand that to include the entire
visibility on that intersection. As you try and make that left turn and you're
looking down the road, you've got two, like 6 x 6 or 4 x 6 sign posts and a
light post and half a dozen trees between you and the cars but I think that
should be taken up under a different thing. I should have put that under
Council Presentations but yes, I think that they're open to look at anything.
I'm not tying their hands in anyway.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't part of this process to get bids?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: You want the bids to .reflect something specific, that's why
you drew this up right?
Gary Warren: The plans and specs will be the documents that w~uld be bid on
which would be coming at the future meeting.
Councilman Boyt: That's going to be done before the 13th?
Gary Warren: No. We're looking for authorization to prepare th~m at the 13th.
councilman Boyt: So the 13th I get a chance to vote against this? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: Again. And then after that, on plans and specs you get
another chance to vote. You get two more chances.
Don Ashworth: And award of bids.
Councilman Johnson: And award of bids, you've got 3 more chances.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than just sitting and holding this, I'm going to second
your motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Site Plans for the
parking area of the north side public parking lot as part of the site plan
review of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plans stamped
"Received February 8, 1989" and subject to the following conditions:
1. Platting the area.
2. Suk~ittal of final facia, signage and exterior building lighting
for Planning Con~nission approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of
the parking lot for safety with the possibility of realigning that sidewalk,
adding stop signs or speed bumps and to maximize accessibility.
4. Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection to see if
there's any possible alternatives and if possible, have a modified
alternative by March 13th.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
19
Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
REVIEW LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL/PARKING ISSUE.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item is the review of the Lake Lucy Road trail/parking
issue. My suggestion at this time is that I'm going to propose in tabling the
issue at this time but we will take public co~nents on this. We_ will bring this
back to the Council on March 13th. So anyone wishing to address the issue.
Tom Steink~p: May I ask why you want to table it?
Mayor Chmiel: Because there's one council member that's not here. Please state
your name ~nd address please.
Tom Steinkamp: Tom Steinkamp, 1771 Pheasant Circle. First of all I think
there's a bunch of people here. Maybe everybody concerned with this matter
should stand up. Either for or against it. Now you want to table this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Tom Steinkamp: I mean and make us come again. I guess my comments on the
thing, on the situation is I can understand maybe that some people would like to
park on Lake Lucy Road. I think the issue is maybe way bigger than that. It is
a trail. I've talked to some of you people. I think some of the other people
have talked to you people. Some of you people have the idea that the trail
doesn't get used. You drive it two times a day. I think Tom you drive 'it two
times a day probably at 7:3~ in the morning and 5:3g in the evening to pick up
and deliver your kid from daycare. That's what you told me.
CounciLman Workman: 5:30? I did not tell you that.
Tom Steinkamp: Okay, well you told me two times a day. In the morning and
evening. It' s probably around 5: 3g.
Councilman Workman: It's more like 8:0~-8:3~ in the morning and about 3:3~ in
the afternoon.
Tom Steinkamp: I think if you got out there and people are home in the evenings
on nice evenings you'll see that it gets used.
CounciLman Workman: I don't disagree that i't's not used. That's not my point.
Ta~ Steinkamp: Okay. I think that the trail J.s a part of a broad comprehensive
trail program. Trail system that the city's got in place that I think has been
voted on and passed which someday may c~ne to reality. Did any of you guys know
why Lake Lucy Road was realigned to the south on the west side of Lake Lucy
Road? Does anybody know? Wasn't it to line it up to extend it to County Road
41 at a future date?
Gary Warren: The City's State Aid program does provide for continuing Lake Lucy
out to TH 41. Because of the property owner at the time, Merrill Stellar was
platting Lake Lucy Highlands, that was at the fulcrum that got the road platted
and the right-of-way established as it is.
Tom Steink~mp: And that allows for Lake Lucy Road to continue?
2~
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Gary Warren: Because we couldn't push it through the Melody Hills area because
those roads are already there.
Tom Steinkamp: Where would that come out on TH 417 About directly across the
street from the park?
Gary Warren: Near the church that's going to be constructed up there.
Tom Steinkamp: About directly across the street from the park?
Gary Warren: A little bit north of there.
Tom Steinkamp: I think that adds to part of the reason why there should be a
trail there. These people in Curry Farms. Us people in Pheasant Hills. I
think we'd be more apt to use your parks if we could get to thom but if you're
constructing roads and you're not thinking about trails, this trail's already
there. I mean in the long range plan, there's going to be a need for it. Yes,
it doesn't go anywhere right now. It goes from Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Blvd.
but I think in the long term it's going to go someplace. I voted for the trail
system that failed. The reason I voted for it is I looked at how that trail .
system was going to affect me. It was going to affect me because I could get on
it. If you take away the trail on Lake Lucy Road, I'm not going to be able to
get on any other trails. I think it's necessary to keep it there. I think the
concern of one or two citizens or homeowners. I think there were 11 homeowners,
25 signatures, 11 properties, that signed the petition. I think there's a lot
more people that use the trails and want the trails there. I guess when I build
a house I have to consider the parking and I guess I can't see that I need to go
to the city to supply parking for me. I live on a cul-de-sac and there isn't
much parking on the cul-de-sac. Does that mean that I can come to you and ask
for parking lot across the street from me or something? I think you're opening
yourself up to building parking lots in this city also. I think the people use
it. I think it's going to get used more. I think it'd be foolish to take
something away. Yes, I'd like to have it a 6 foot trail off street but I think
that's going to cost some money and people aren't going to want it and it will
further encroach their yards and I can certainly understand that but I can't see
taking away something that's there already. Thank you.
Joe Moran: My name is Joe Moran and I'm building a home right now on Lake Lucy
Road. 1441 Lake Lucy Road and I expect to be moving in from Eden Prairie
sometime in April. What I have here is the petition that the previous
gentleman referred to and I'd like to present that to you. Also I'd like to
have Nancy Tichy provide you some more background and detailed information.
Would you like me to read this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would.
Joe Moran: Okay. The petition reads, We, the undersigned who live on or own~
property on Lake Lucy Road petition the City of Chanhassen to allow parking
on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that the best and least expensive way to accomplish
this would be to remove the no parking bike lane signs and markings. ~ would
prefer parking made available on one side of Lake Lucy Road in accordance with
State Codes concerning roads of this width. We feel that this solution would
accon~nodate the residents and citizens of Chanhassen for both parking and bike
useage as it did before the new road was constructed in 1987. You'll note that
21
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
there are 37 signatures on the petition. I also have two personal comments I'd
like to make. First of all, being new to this area, I think I'm fairly unbiased
in terms of the issue. One of the things I was most impressed with was the
sensitivity and sincerity of the people that put this petition together in
addressing the needs and concerns of all of the residents in the area so it
makes me feel good about my choice of moving to this area. The second point i'd
like to make is that I think the work petition is kind of an advisarial kind of
a word and I don't think we're really petitioning against anything. ~nat you'll
find Nancy talking about is really a proposal for something with some very minor
changes to the way things are and I'd like to think of that as more of a
constructive proposal, a compromise solution that meets the needs of all the
people in the area. So with your permission, I'd like to set up the overhead
and have Nancy present the proposal.
Nancy Tichy: My name is Nancy Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. I would
like to just make a couple comments to what Mr. Steink~mp stated. The area
designated for bike route on Lake Lucy Road is not a trail. They are bike
lanes. I think there is a difference. Also, as far as an overall trail syst~em
for this city, I believe the referendu~ came to a vote for the citizens this
past fall and was voted down. It had been brought to a vote previously and had
also been voted down at that time. I have several other personal comments that
I'd like to make before I present what the residents who have signed the
petition feel is a good proposal. First, the majority of residents on Lake Lucy
Road would like to be able to park and have the benefit to park on the road as
we ~ere able to before Lake Lucy Road was reconstructed in 1987. The houses
that existed prior to the reconstruction depended on parking and many of us who
live on that road and lived there before the road was reconstructed, were never
told that we would not be able to park on that road. As a matter of fact, we
were told we would be able to park on the road. Secondy, State A~d funded 69%
or about 69% of the cost of improvements made to Lake Lucy Road and 31% or about
of the cost was assessed to the residents with property which abuts to the road.
Since we are funding part of the cost of the road, we feel we should have the
benefit to park on it. Third, the improvements made on Lake Lucy Road were
completed about in August, 1987. The no parking signs and the bike trail signs
were not installed until the following spring in 1988. Now during that time,
that was a 9 month period where the road accorrmodated the residents for parking.
We parked on the road and it was not often and it also acc~nodated bikers and
walkers. I bike. I walk and there was no problem. I think many of the people
opposed to leaving the bike lanes there as they are think there's going to be
bumper to bumper parking on that road and during that 9 month span, it was
rarely parked on and it was just for special occasions when we had guests over
or we wanted to hold meetings or something like that we would use the street for
parking or inclement weather. I guess I'd like to present what we think is a
good option for all the residents. We're trying to come up with something that
would please everyone or make it available for everyone. I use the road to bike
and walk and I would also like to park on it. What Joe is putting up on the
overhead is also on this handout. Lake Lucy Road is 36 feet wide and according
to the State Aid Engineering office, the traffic lanes must remain at 12 feet.
That is the minimum which would allow 24 feet of the road used for traffic. If
parking would be allowed, I believe the State also requires that you allow 8
feet so that would add up to 32 feet. The other 4 feet could be used as a
multiple use route. The only markings, the State requires that you mark the
line for the parking and the center marking. The centerline marking but they do
not allow you, I believe to put the marking for a multiple use route. We feel
22
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
that the changes to the road would be minimum and at a minimum cost to the City.
It would be a matter of removing the no parking signs on the south side of the
street and move the center stripe 2 feet north. Now we don't really care which
side the parking is on. The parking could go on the south side or the north
side, it doesn't matter. We feel that this proposal meets the MSA guidelines.
Is modeled after plans used by the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka Park and Rec
Departments. They have had similar problems or many problems where they have
roads where people would like to park on them and also use them for biking and
w~lking and they have come up with this solution. It's optional but you .could
put up the sign bike route and that's what they have done in the past to handle
the parking. It provides needed parking on one side of the road and it provides
a multiple use route for biking, horseback riding, walking or whatever. We feel
that it accon~nodates all the residents. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Before our next person from the audience stands up and
talks, I'd like to make a statement. On the two referendums we held, we did not
vote as to whether we will have a plan or not have a plan. The referendum was
how would we finance trails in this city. It was not, are we going to have
trails in the city. The trail plan was not defeated because it was never voted
on by the citizens. It's never been brought to that. It has passed the various
Planning Con~nissions and City Councils and is part of our Comprehensive Plan
required through the Metropolitan Council, etc.. What has been defeated is that
the citizens of Chanhassen do not want ,to pay for the trail system. Narrowly
defeated twice. The existing system for financing the trail system is through
new development and charges being directed to the new developers and the new
homes. They each pay a trail fee and industry pays a trail fee as they move in
and through this method we will eventually have a trail system throughout the
city that our citizens can use. It's just going to take us a lot longer since
we weren't able to pass bonds or pass a referendum for it. So I wanted to
clarify that. I continue hearing from the public that we have voted down a
trail system and that's not true at all. We only voted down how we f~nance a
trail system.
Nancy Tichy: May I ask a question then? Why on some of the sheets it says
proposed? On the trail system that I got, it was proposed.
Councilman Johnson: Ail the trails are proposed because they haven't been built
yet. If they were there then there'd be a trail.
Nancy Tichy: I see a proposal as not have been passed yet or needed to be voted
on. I don't see it as it's already been voted on and passed. These systems,
from what I've seen, look like they're proposals. Not that they've been passed
already.
Councilman Johnson: Some of them we have to buy land and everything else and
until it' s completed, yes.
Nancy Tichy: Then it's still a proposal. It's not a plan.
Councilman Johnson: No it's a trail plan. It's part of our Comprehensive Plan
required by the State for each city to have a Comprehensive Plan.
Nancy Tichy: But it's still a proposal right?
23
Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
CounciLman Johnson: Sure, but it has never been, as a trail plan we have never
come to the citizens and say do you want trails except for the surveys and in
the surveys overwhelmingly, the citizens did say they want trails in this town.
We came and said do you want to pay for the trails and by an extremely narrow
margin, they lost. They said no, we don't want to pay for the trails. We have
to respect that.
John Speiss: My n~ne is John Speiss and I live at 6610 Arlington Court., I'm
relatively new to Chanhassen as a resident. I don't know, a lot of people have
moved out of the city for one reason or another and if you've ever lived in a
city with parking on both sides of your street and in front of your house, you
find out how soon you can't stand it anymore. Everytime you look for a parking
place, somebody's in it. The children can't get out between the cars too
easily. A lot of th~n get hit and I guess one of the big issues about on street
parking is that we_ do have to have our children out there at some t].mes. Usually
in the summer when everybody's trying to use the parks. It creates traffic. It
creates people drivil~%g to our parks and trying to get in there when they're no
parking at the parks. It seems most sensible that if the people want to use the
parks, they can use their bicycles to get there and we won't have a parking
problem. But if we start creating parking all along our trail syst~, we're
going to have a big probl~n getting rid of it when it's uncontrolled. I don't
see a problem in the winter. Nobody can park there anyway because of snow
removal. I don't see a probla~ for the children in the winter. They're not
going to be out there that much but usually when everybody wants to park is in
the sm~er and it's just going to be overloaded be_fore we know it. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: My n~ne is Eric Rivk]n. I live at 6095 Stellar Court. Stellar
Court is a side road that is a new road that comes off of, empties into
Lake Lucy Road. I won't have a parking problem necessarily but I fear for my
child's life on Lake Lucy Road when he starts to grow up. Ride a bike. Walk
along the road and I think this problem of safety is a lot deeper than anybody
has mentioned so far. I've had a lot of chance to talk to neighbors here. I
know by n~ne most everybody ~no's involved in this and is sitting here tonight.
I've also got a little bit of past history with this. During the past year
I built a house, i contracted it myself and I was there every single day driving
along Lake Lucy Road. Before it was paved, I happened to notice that there was
a lot of people using the road. It was appealing to walk on it. Horseback ride
on it. Jog on it. Even bike on it. There were bike races. Jogging races.
Things going along the road and everytime I would drive on it, which was all
times of the day, I'd see a constant stream of people. Especially on weekends.
Now that the road has been paved over, I don't see, I was here every single day
during this past sun, her and spring and fall and I'd have to say that the
population of strollers and joggers and what not has noticeably decreased and
it's because of the design of road. I want to stress that safety is the biggest
issue here for me and I think, we had a neighborhood meeting here a couple of
Sundays ago and a lot of the residents voiced very loud opinions about the
feeling that the road was unsafe. That it was converted fr~-~ basically a quiet
country road, albeit very dusty and something had to be done about that but from
a quiet country road to basically to one equivalent to Highway 101. The
pavement is wider than TH 101. TH lgl's pavement is 30 feet. I know.
I measured it because I had a development there that I had to measure it. So
it's designed for motorists. It's not designed for people. It's not designed
for developing or encouragi_ng a community who's getting an influx of a lot of
young families who want a coherent co~-nunJ, ty. It's designed for people to pass
24
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
from one end of town to the other. If you're extending ko TH 41, which I hope
you never will, it's just going to aggravate the problem because people are
going to see this as a nice, smooth way to bypass the traffic on TH 5 between
those Powers Blvd. and TH 41. I changed my opinion about parking. I empathize
with the residents who feel they need parking. I think it was a right that
should not have been taken away or a design feature that should not have been
taken away. But I want to propose a compromise solution that I think might
solve everybody's, maybe solve some problems. It also creates new ones but I
think with some creative legislation, perhaps some work on your parts, maybe
this thing could be considered. I'd like to use the overhead if I could. Right
now the road is 36 feet. You've got 6 feet on either side for what m61tiple use
as Joe and Nancy have called it. I think it's a very dangerous situation.
Almost all of the people here tonight have young children who are going to be
growing up...and as more people are moving into the area, they're going to want
to visit their friends and the only place to walk is in a very dangerous zone.
I think for purposes of safety we should consider maybe another proposal in
narrowing the road area down and with a curb in it and put in some sort of
sidewalk off to the side. Now without increasing easements, this has been done
on the Lake of the Isles where they were forced because there just wasn't any
room to go, to be able to create, take the same easement, narrow the road down,
decrease the speed l~mit, put in a sidewalk and narrow the tar with little bump
outs in the road where you could park for a stretch of a 100 feet or so. Just
park in certain sections so you don't have this probl~n of a stream of cars or
unsafe opening and closing of doors from parked cars. This gentleman over here
mentioned the problem of children not going between cars and that. Well, by
spacing the parking areas, you can easily get because there's a lot of open
space between them. I realize there's some problems maybe getting the State to
agree with something like this because we already paid the money but I think
maybe we ought to just go to them and admit that thing's a bad design and we
want to improve it. The residents are in favor of it and find creative ways to
be able to finance it as cheaply as we possibly can. As long as the objectives
are met and it's making a safe passage, I think we'll all agree, or get some
agreement to what useage it actually is going to be or is. Since the road
project was proposed 2 years ago, there's a lot more residents there. I think
they should have more voice into the use of it. So we'd be able to get, design
it properly for what the residents feel is a good and proper design. I really
feel that this solves the safety problems and it also would solve the super
highway feeling that people get from looking at this road. We basicaliy took a
dirt road and converted it into a beautiful highway. It is straight. It's
smooth. It's got curves. It's better looking than Ga.lpin Blvd. or Powers.
People are going to use it as a passage between the two roads and all the way to
TH 41 and I think that's a real mistake. I think we should encourage it as a
community street and make it look like one, work like one and be a safe one. I
don't think it should look like a passage street with this dividing a community
up. And an unsafe one at that so that's my opinion.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I believe Eric's come up with an interesting
Alternate #26 or whatever on this. With his basic plan, I think some of his
numbers are a little mixed up on his drawing but with his basic plan, instead of
having to put a full 8 foot side bump out on parking, you'd only need about a 4
foot bump out on parking and you'd have the 34 foot width of travel space at the
parking area. We would still have a 6 foot trail on the north side. I like
his idea of trying to separate the trail. The method of separating may not be
to build a full concrete or raised area. It may be just to run a beam of, a
25
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
little seam of asphalt like our little islands except for not as big as an
island to separate the traffic from the people. I think the cost consJ, deration
here would be considerably less. We would solve the problems of the people on
the north side saying they don't want an off-street trail because that impinges
more into their yard. By providing a couple of the cut outs at tt~ proper
locations, the cost of the cut outs are going to be half of what they used to be
because_ they're only half as big now. We could put more cut offs in there for
parking. By having a slight separate, on, by having a curb between the' walking
area and the driving area, it would be a safer walking area and there are kids
walking on that street. Thank you Eric. I appreciate looking at this. I think
this is an alternative that needs to be looked into a' little closer., when it
c~nes out, it's much less expensive than the $47,000.00 to $6g,0~0.00. It may
be a little more expensive because I would like to put something to keep the
cars to where they don't come over into the walking area to where we have it a
little safer. That maintains the tra~l. It might work.
Joe Moran: I'd like to build on what you just said. I think the idea of the
bt~p in the highway along this multiple use route is a very good one indeed. I'm
also concerned for the safety of our children.
Councilman Johnson: It'd be on the other side. It'd be on the parking side.
Joe Moran: This would be the multiple use route for traffic for the trail
system.
Councilman Johnson: In Eric's version, the bump outs would be on the south
side.
Joe Moran: In Eric's version there were bump outs for parking but I'd like to
call your attention to the fact that at the top of the hill at Lake Lucy Road
after the constructJ, on, the road was raised about 6 or 8 feet. When I first
bought the property there, this was from the gravel road down to my property was
a nice little slope of about 3 or 4 feet and now it's a 9 foot cliff. There
would be no way you could put a bump out there or on the property on either side
of it. So the bump out idea probably isn't feasible in this area but [ really
do like the idea of having some separation between the multiple use route and
the traffic.
Councilman Johnson: The bump out will be the where the parking will be. That's
what the bump our's for. At the point where you're going to have parking.
Joe Moran: I was referring to the raised hump that you talked about rather than
a raised sidewalk that would be put in for pedestrians.
Councilman Johnson: On your version of it, I'm not going to drop it down to 4
foot. 4 foot isn't even enough for a residential sidewalk. We have to keep
that 6 and then go for a variance from the State to allow for parking at 6 on
your version of it because we would be down to less than 34 feet.
Eric Rivkin: You Could buy an easement, just 4 feet on the edges of the bump
outs for the sidewalk. In other words, you don't have to extend it to 4g feet
all the way. Just in the areas where the bump outs are. That might be added so
you have enough passage for bikers on the road and correct me if I'm wrong but
is it illegal to have biking on a sidewalk?
26
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I'm not worried about the biking because this is a wide
enough street for the bikers are compatible with the cars. I'm worried about
the walkers.
Eric Rivkin: 24 feet is enough for bikers and cars?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Eric Rivkin: It is? Okay.
Joe Moran: I want to make one other point. When you think about the on street
parking, we're not ~magining a whole stream of parked cars on the side of this
road. Most of us have plenty of parking already except in the rare instances
where we'd have vistors for Christmas or Thanksgiving or things like that where
we'd overflow and then w~'d need to have something for people on rare occasions.
Councilman Johnson: Can we do parking by permit only?
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address?
Mark Lewis: Mark Lewis at 1771 Ringneck. I've been here since Apri~l. I read
an article about this street when it was paved over and the people complained
that lived there about the cost. The street's fine. Leave the_ street alone. I
use it. The cost of all this is not going to be paid by everyone that is not in
favor although we have no choice because we live here. The people that live on
the street are complaining of the cost of changing everything. There's joggers
on there. There's bikers. There's walkers. The street is not dangerous. The
drivers are dangerous. There's no street that's dangerous. What's the speed
limit? It can't be a highway if it's 35.
Larry Kerber: 30 and 35. Half of it is 30 and the other half is 35.
Mark Lewis: I use the street in the morning at 5:30 on a nice day in the
morning when I jog and in the evening I'm out and there's no problem with the
traffic. The problem I see right now is all the construction in Curry Hills?
Curry Farms? That's where the problem is right now. I don't think that the
cost of changing it is going, we're making all these proposals to change it is
worth taking apart a street that's already fine. You can park on one side.
Maybe that's a compromise. Park on one side of it and leave one side open..
Thank you.
Larry Kerber: My name is Larry Kerber. I have property at the corner of Lake
Lucy and Powers Blvd.. I agree, our street is wide enough now. It's a 36 foot
road. It's wider than any road leading to it or from it. It's the wi~est road
there. It's wider than CR 17, CR 117. It's almost 50% wider than the roads in
Pheasant Hills and Curry Farms. Those roads accommodate parking on either side,
two way traffic, biking, jogging, whatever they want. This road is~, like
I said, almost 50% wider than that. I can't believe we can't work parking on
one side alone and still accommodate bikers and joggers. It's just a wide
enough road. The speed limit is low enough. The visibility, everything was
supposed to be increased when they redid it so the road just has to accommodate
this. I can't believe we can't come up with a solution for it with the road we
have. Another thing I'd like to point out. This parking issue is not just
27
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
something for the Tichy's. There are people all along that road need parking.
There's Palmers on the end. Babbits. All the way down to the other end where
my property is with the 3 little houses on the corner. They park on it
virtually every night one of the cars is out there. One of them does
babysitting. Another one has another occupation where they've got a car home
and just about every night I go by there I'll see a car in the street so it's
not just for Tichys. Everybody needs the parking occasionally. We're the
people who paid for the road. We're also the people who had the parking and I
think we should have it back.
Kathy Kerber: I'm Kathy Kerber and I guess what I'd like to remind the Council
is right now at this ti_u~e Curry Farms has something like 6 acres, 7 acres park
in it right now? And the Pheasant Hills is looking at a possible parkland of
11 to 12 acres right in the northeast corner of that subdivision and I guess I
don't really see where the trails is something that should be in line because
the kids are going to be playing in the parks. And I, myself would much rather
see the money spen~ putting playground equi~ent in those parks so the kids play
in the park rather than riding alongside of a road without an adult or walking
in a street without their parent. They belong playing in a park and I guess one
thing that really upsets me is my daughters and I ride Lake Lucy Road. We have
for the past 10 years. We walk it. We ride bikes. We've never had a problem.
We've always been able to park alongside of our property and I guess I'm just
really irritated by the fact that some people represented their concerns at the
last Park and Rec meeting. My understanding at this last Council meeting, this
was tabled to this meeting and yet they discussed it anyway and the people there
concerning their probl~ns were people that lived at least within a half a mile
off of Lake Lucy Road. I believe children belong playing in parks and not along
roads.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
Jim Mady: . ..~ haven't had a problem. Thank God. Knock on wood. A child
hasn't been killed in our city. We're trying to prevent that right now. If we
wait until that happens, we're all the poorer for it. If there is a way to do
this, and I understand tax dollars are very tight but we need to investigate
this plan. I ask the Council to allow the Park and Rec Commission to review
this ita~m. Your last meeting you wouldn't let us review it because you needed
to go forward. Time was of the essence. Mr. Mayor, your motion tonight is to
table it again. I believe it's important enough that we need to get heads
together and get staff to review this item and let's get a good design that
everyone can live with, especially the children in our co_u~nunity.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Mr. ~ayor but it would seem to me that it would be
appropriate to hear from people who haven't spoke at all before we hear from
people the second and third ti_me.
IMayor Chmiel: We' 11 keep the meeting open for anyone ~fno wishes to address
anything at all Bill.
Nancy Tichy: I would like to just comment on what Mr. Mady had said with
reference to the Park and Rec Commission meeting that was held on February 14th.
I was informed via phone conversation and by letter from the park and Rec
Commission that the bike trail issue would not be addressed and it would be
addressed by the engineering department. On February 13th at the City Council
28
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
meetlng~ I believe the City Council voted to have Westwood Professional Services
do a study on alternatives regarding bike and parking useage. The Council
decided that Park and Rec would not meet on this issue. On February 14th at the
Park and Rec Con~ission meeting, discussion was initiated by Park and Rec which
was against the vote of the Council and I believe this was unethical.
Tom Steinkamp: Were you at the Park and Rec meeting?
Nancy Tichy: No, but I have the Minutes and I can read you...
Tom Steinkamp: Were the Minutes recorded Minutes?
Nancy Tichy: Yes.
Tom Steinkamp: Because there was some co~ent about the trail system in regards
to the Pheasant Hills request for parkland. I think I was the one that brought
it up.
Nancy Tichy: Mary Cordell was...
Tom Steinkamp: But at any rate, I don't know that from what I took from the
Park and Rec Commission meeting was not so much that, yeah they were unhappy I
think that they w~ren't involved in it but their main thing was, hey you people
that want these trails, that use these trails, to stand up and speak your mind
or know about it. I guess I read the Council meeting agenda and there was
something to the effect of parking on Lake Lucy Road but by gosh if I would have
known that the elimination of a trail was about to be voted on, I'd 'have shown
up so I think it's unfair to the Council not to inform the people about what's
going on or what's potentially going to be voted on. I guess I find it hard to
believe that without any input frc~ any of the other side of the story that it
came that close to a vote to eliminate the trails completely. I don't have a
problem with parking on this street but I don't want to give up, I don't see it,
to give up the trails in lieu of that. If w~ can come up with some sort of a
compromise where we can have parking and we can have a trail, I'm for that. I'm
not for, I can understand your position but I think parking and maybe you can
correct me if I'm wrong, I think a bike trail on the street you have to have a
bike trail both directions then don't you? Okay, so if you eliminate it off of
one side of the street, don't you eliminate it off of both sides of the street
unless you make it an off street bike trail? Is that correct? So really what
you're talking about is if you're going to have a bike trail, you're going to
have to have it off street or you're going to have it some way divided from the
street. Now if you're going to have parking on one side and a small median like
the gentleman suggested and then your bike trail, that's fine and I think off
street would be the best but that may be costly too.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question? Are you for only a bike trail
or...
Tom Steinkamp: I think it should be multipurpose. Bike or walking or what have
you. ..
Councilman Johnson: Because to me bike trail and walking aren't terribly
compatible if you get the helmeted 10 speeders or 12 speeders running down
through there. I think that the bikers, a trail that a kids on and a 2 wheeler
29
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
with training wheels is something different. What would you feel about having,
not a bike trail but just a multiple use trail on one side of the street and
parking on the other?
Tom Steink~mp: Yes, I don't have any problem with that. I guess it was my
understanding that if you eliminate it on one side you eliminate both sides.
Councilman Johnson: Only if it's a bike trail.
Tom Steink~mp: It's a bike trail now, is that right?
Counci ]_man Johnson: Right.
Jim Mady: It's a bike lane.
Larry Kerber: Now does that allow walkers and joggers or is that specifically
for bikes?
Councilman Johnson: I have no idea.
Larry Kerber: I know the bikers don't because they never use it.
Kathy Kerber: Jay, the State Engineers did tell me that if you put the parking
in, they can still serve bikers and walkers on that s~tme side that the cars are
parked in. That is not a problem.
Tom Steinkamp: But I don't think that's the way to do it.
Kathy Kerber: As eny other road does.
Tom Steinkamp: I think you're really then, you're just making a parking lane
that you can ride bikes on.
Councilman Johnson: In drivers ed one of the big things you always look at is
the ball coming out from behind the car. The car just hides the vision of the
kid that's there which if you have kids walking along, you don't want to give
them semething to hide behind.
Tom Steinkamp: I think you do that, with putting in parking and not having some
means for a trail or a bike lane or walking or multiple use or whatever you want
to call it, I think you're just compounding the problem then. You're going to
have the people out there. Pheasant Hills, it's safe to say that Pheasant Hills
park, if it does go through, it isn't going to happen for 5 years anyways and
we're going to want to use Curry Farms park. If Lake Lucy Road ever goes to TH
41, we're going to want to go to the park there and I think you people are too.
I think to make it more dangerous than it is is foolish. I'd like to see some
way that you can park on it but I don't want it, not at the expense of giving up
a trail or a bike lane or whatever you want to call it.
Mary Cordell: Hi, my name is Mary Cordell and I live at 173~ Lake Lucy Lane and
our property does abut Lake Lucy Road. It goes down to Lake Lucy Road. I've
been listening to a lot of the different proposals tonight and a lot of the
different opinions on the bike lanes or the multiple use trails. I'm definitely
in favor of keeping some sort of a multiple use trail and I guess the proPOsal
3~
City Council Meeting - February 271 1989
that struck me as meeting my needs the best and possibly the needs of the
co, unity was Eric's. That would narrow the road which make it seem like not
such a highway going through a purely residential area and putting sc~e type of
a barrier for multiple use. For biking. Whatever and then having the, I don't
know what they're called, the little butt outs in the road for the parking.
That would se~ to me, it would meet the needs of the people that would need
parking and it would also provide a safer road for our children to bike on or to
walk on and retain our trail system. ~
Ed Hasek: My name is Ed Hasek. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I live at 6570
Kirkwood Circle. I'm also a member of the Park Board. I guess there's been a
lot of discussion tonight about design. I guess I'm really impressed at the
amount of engineers we have here in town. I also called MnDot today and talked
to a Mr. Chuck Weisenbaum who is the head of the State A~.d Section Department at
MnDot. I asked him I guess for a number of options that might be available to
us on this trail. As a member of the Park board it's important to me that we
keep a trail of some sort through this alignment to eventually connect to
MIS school and to the County park over on Lake Minnewashta. He informed me that
if we were to put parking on one side of the road we'd have to completely
eliminate any sort of a trail on the road surface itself. It takes 36 feet to
get 2 lanes of traffic and parking into a State Aid design road so the option of
putting some sort of a trail on with parking has been eliminated if we should so
choose to do that. I asked th~n about other designs that might fit into a 36
foot wide road surface and he said there is one alternative but they frown on
even impl~enting it and the reason for that is because how far the center line
has to be moved. If you're to put parking on one side and two lanes of traffic,
the center line now is off center on the road. In instances where you hav~ snow
on the road surface and an unfamiliar driver, they're ~riving down the road
thinking that the middle of the road is the center line of the road when in fact
it's not. That's why they hesitate and really frown on even approving that and
they'll only approve it in the worse case scenario if there are no other
options. I guess related to design, I would like'to suggest that perhaps the
City's engineering staff and any engineering consultants they have, sit down
with the State, as long as the State is funding this thing 61% and we'd like to
keep that funding, and see if they can't come up with a design that would work
for both of us. The thing that I liked about this particular project, the way
that it went in was the fact that we got the State to pay for a part of our
trail system. Something that is difficult, it going to be difficult for this
City to do.. Living on the other side of Lake Minnewashta, we have no parks and
we have no trails. We have nothing over there. All we have are our
neighborhood streets to play on. We have no way of getting from Cathcart Park
down to our neighborhood on the side street on any sort of a trail systsm. We
have to cross TH 7 to get to that park. The next closest park is over in
Minnewashta Heights and that's just a small neighborhood park and we have to
travel down TH 7 to get to it. If we wanted to go down to the Arboretum, we
would have to go about 2 miles down Minnewashta Parkway. Talk about a narrow
street with no trails marked on it whatsoever so as a m~ber of the Park Board
and I w~uld certainly hope that the Council would consider the possibility, if
this trail were to come off of this alignment, they would consider the
possibility of working in my neighborhood before they would look at spending
more dollars putting a trail into this alignment when we've already got on in
this alignment. I've got a lot of irritated neighbors out there that forced me
onto this planning con~nission to keep harping on the issue of getting a trail'
and a park in my neighborhood. We haven't been able as a park board to fund
31
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
dollar one_ to even study the possibility out there yet and now we're talking
about maybe putting in another trail on this alig~nent and spending $45,g00.gg
to $65,0gg.0g in addition to what's already been spent out there. If We were to
change the design, I was infor~ned by Chuck Weisenbaum that we'd lose our State
Aid funding which to me would seam to indicate that the residents who paid for
the first 31% would then be burdened with an additional 69%. Either that or the
rest of the residents in town would have to pick that up and I'm sure that if
you brought the issue before the rest of the residents who are now going to be
paying for that particular road, that they would want to see that trail in place
before they had to pay for perhaps a road that they don't even use. I think
I have to agree. I think safety is a primary issue in this thing and that was
the concern that we had when we put the trail in in the first place. 6 feet is
a min~mu~n design standard by the State for each side. You can't have it on only
one side because of bicycle traffic. If you ~ake the bicycle traffic off of it,
then you don't have a multi-purpose trail at that point so I stronly urge the
Council to consider leaving in place the trail before they look at any other
options. The one other thing I wanted to mention was the bump outs. I guess by
State Aid standards, I don't believe that the b~lmp outs, and it's not a question
that I asked specifically Jay but I think it's one that needs to be asked, I
don't think that they would approve bump outs but I'm not sure of that. That's
s(>mething that I think the engineers should talk about a little bit. There was
a con~nent made about TH 101 being narrower than this. Yes, it's narrower .than
this simply because it's a rural section road. It's no~t an urban section road
and it goes under completely different design standards and it also doesn' t have
trails on other sides so there is no comparison between TH 101 and this
particular piece of road. The traffic counts on that road as of 1987 as counted
by the City were 587 ADT. That's average daily trips. That's simply a car
going on direction or another on that road. It's projected to carry 1,000 by
the time that it's through and it's projected to carry more than that if Lake
Lucy Road should be extended to TH 101 so it does qualify as a collecto~ and
maybe even a high collector by the time the whole thing is built and collectors
are those areas that are looked at, and when Met Council considers alignment for
trail systems so we're not out of line thinking about this corridor for a trail.
I guess the only question is under which design and again I'd like to stress
that I'd like to see it stay there so we can spend the money that it might cost
to put that trail off of the road and service some other areas of the city where
residents like myself and my neighbors have no recreational facilities
whatsoever. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: I agree. We need a trail syst~n but we need a safe trail system.
If you're going to have trails, when people think of trails they think well I
can walk from one park to the next or my kid can bicycle fr~n one park to the
next with his friends and my son and daughter can go visit their friends in
other parts of the neighborhood and stuff and I like the idea of the trail
systam. I appauld it. I think it's wonderful that someday there will be
something that will link all these beautiful parts of the city with one another
but we have to do it safely. Putting pedestrians, small children out onto the
road surface is foolish. We should not do it. We can not do it. If it's the
State's standards, then the State standard is bad. Okay? And we do~n't have to
follow that. We just do what's right and that's what I want to say.
Ted Coey: I'm Ted Coey. I live on Lake Lucy Road and I really don't have an ax
to grind as far as the parking because I'm 800 feet off the road so I'm kind of
looking at this from both sides and we've wasted over an hour here talking back
32
City Council Meeting L February 27~ 1989
and forth on an issue that should be settled in about 5 minutes. It's obvious
that what Council's got themselves into and this is the reason you guys are
sitting up here and not sc~ebody else because the doedoes that voted for this
thing about 3 years ago and got this road in place which we didn't want have got
us in this mess. We're sitting with a road that the residents on the road did
not want and if we would have had the road we wanted, we would have probably
paid about the same assessments. %~ wouldn't have had the State involved and
you wouldn't be messing around with all this stuff because you could have put
your trail off the road. Now I hope you learned s~mething from this because we
were telling you this for 3 years. Don't get the State involved. We don't want
this road. It's too wide and people are coming back from all the neighborhoods
and saying the same thing. ~ne thing's a freeway. The mess we're in is because
the Council didn't listen to what we were saying and now you've got a problem
with the highway out there. You've got people doing 50 mph, 60 mph on the road
because it was designed that way. You've got a trail system that is on the
road. It shouldn't be. It should be off the road and you're sitting with a
situation where you've got all the residents going back and forth against each
other and it's stupid. So let's sit down and try to figure out something
without getting the god dan%n State involved. They're already into this too
much. That's why we've got all the problems. In the future, if you get in a
neighborhood situation like this, don't use the State money. If you get your
hand out and they get into you and now you're stuck with all their rules.
That' s my observation.
A1 Harvey: A1 Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road. I agree with Ted. We petitioned
against the road. We indicated we did not like our assessment. At that time
there wasn't anyone of these people from the development come and say oh, we'd
be glad to pick up our fair share. I would like to see the Council consider
re-evaluating our assessments. If this is such an important thing to all these
new developments, apparently they didn't devote enough land for the parks in
their areas, I would like to recommend the Council reconsider our assessments
and realign them. It's definitely a benefit to this City. It's definitely a
benefit to the Park and Rec. I'm satisfied with what we got now only because
we've got it. We voted against it. We petitioned against it. It came to deaf
ears on the Council. They listened to us a little bit and come t~me to vote,
they didn't know us so that's why some of them aren't here and some of them that
are still here remember this going on. I even brought a piece of blacktop that
we did have a blacktop and I gave it to the Mayor showing that it was a blacktop
road at one time. But the heavy construction tore it all apart. We would much
rather have a 24 foot wide road with parking on either side and then if you
wanted to put a trail on the side, you could have. Now like Ted said, we're
stuck with what we've got but needless to say, the residents are not happy from
what we got stuck with and the Council did not listen to us and I would suggest
that maybe you go back and if the City wants to do what they want to do, pay for
it. Don't stick us residents. We're sick with it and we've had enough of it so
that's where it's at.
Tom Crocker: Tom Crocker, 6441 White Dove and I also own some property off of
Lake Lucy Road on Stellar Court. I think it's been expressed that there's a lot
of unhappy people with the Lake Lucy Road decision but unfortunately that's what
we're stuck with. I think the recommendation that was made by a couple of
people that the City really take a look at this and try and learn something from
it. Try to listen to the citizens. Let's not compound one problem with
another. I think the gentleman from the Park and Planning Con~ission, have them
33
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
take a look at that or maybe there's a city engineering staff. I'm not certain
which is the right group but I think the Council is in a little over their head
here. You need to get some facts. You need to get some figures. Obviously we
have very high taxes. One of the highest taxed communities in the State,
particularly in tlne metro area so money is an issue. One thing that wasn't
mentioned, I have children that are a little older than 4 or 5 or 6 and they do
ride t/qeir bikes on that trail and I ride a bike on the trail so I'm in favor of
the trail. It's unfortunate that people that live along the road lost their
parking rights and maybe there is someway to work out with the State some
restricted parking arrangement for certain times over holidays or at night or
sc~nething 1].ke that 'when most people aren't biking anyway. Later at night when
the safety conditions aren't 'there but I think the main issue is that the
Council needs to listen. Needs to study and doesn't need to react immediately
to this concern. The signs have been on the road for a while for no parking and
a little study to try to figure out a good method to this would be time well
spent in my opinion.
_Mayor Chniel: Anymore con~ents?
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can cor~nent and that might stir them to further
remarks.
CounciLman Johnson: I think we've heard most of the r~_narks Bii1. I think it
would be nice for each of us to have a co_~rnent but I think we've got more things
going on the agenda and move t/his along.
Mayor Ckmiel: I made a co_~ment previously that I think we should table this
until we have the remaining council person here so there would be 5 people to
come up with conclusions and I'd like to make that into a motion that we_ table
this to March 13th.
Councilman Boyt: Before we look at a second to t/nat, i would like to make a
comment. First, we are under some time pressure. It may be a little hard to
see that now but when July comes along and we don't have this well connection in
place, we're all going to pay the price for this delay. I think that this trail
is a compromise at be_st. I assume that the previous Council and I wasn't here
when they voted on it, but I assume that they placed this trail on the road as a
compromise. If you look at Kerber Blvd., they did exactly the s~ne thing and we
now have off street trail there because it was not safe. It was something that
an adult could use but it was nothing that a parent would trust their child to
be on. So it's an attempt to reduce the impact of neighboring properties and to
minimize the cost for the construction and work out some kind of a balance.
I've heard the figure about 69% but I can tell you that the City Council gave
the residents the max]mum allowable State credit for that road. It's my
understanding that that's 8g%. I don't know what it is. I won't stand up and
tell you absolutely it is but when v~ conducted the assessment hearings, that
was the figure I was given and I do know one thing for certain, it was the
maximin ~nount allowed. It happens to be a collecter. If I was living on Lake
Lucy Road, I wouldn't have wanted it to go in either because a collecter means
traffic and there aren't many people that choose to live on a road that has high
traffic by choice. I wasn't here to vote on that so I couldn't tell you how I
would have voted. I can see the pressure on the City to have more east/west
connecters. As it would turn out, this is the one that got chosen. I don't
know if that was the right choice but the trail was put on there as a means, as
34
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
was mentioned. It was an economical way to do something that needed to be done
and it was a compromise. It was not the safest choice. It was an attempt to
balance the need both to limit the intrusion on the property along there and to
try and give the people a safe means of walking or riding in the area. Now
Mayor, you campaigned against the trail referendum on economic priorities as
I heard several times and not because you said you were against the trail and I
think w~ ~ to make it clear that this is not an economic issue. The trail is
already in and it's already paid for so I don't think we can use economics to
say we should take it out of there so that means it's an issue of public safety
and general welfare and how do we balance those two together and that's why
everybody's here. We all have a slightly different opinion about how that
balance should fall. The trail is part of the comprehensive trail plan. You
can call it a proposal. You can call it a plan. Regardless, it's been approved
by the City Council and it is in writing and I'm sure you've seen a copy of it.
Now we need some way, I would maintain, to allow people to bike and walk to get
to the parks in the area. Eventually in this case, maybe out to Minnewashta .and
the City park down in Lake Ann. There needs to be some way to do that. So how
do we balance the need against the request for the neighbors to have parking?
The City has gone through this in other places. This is not a new issue. You
can see any number of places in which the City has posted no parking and those
people have lost the right to park in street in front of their house. Generally
those have been for safety reasons and I would maintain that that's what they're
doing now. They're saying that this is a safety issue and as it's currently
drawn up, doesn't allow parking. Now, if we put parking on there, and given the
current road without changes, I don't think anybody is going to say that that
~mproves the safety situation. It does improve the parking problem so let's
look at that for a minute. Not being able to park in front of your house is an
inconvenience. No one would argue with that. I've always preferred off road
trails. One of the things I campaigned on 2 years ago was I thought the City
Council was very short sighted in putting trails on the road and I'll never vote
to put one on the road. It's money saved but it's risk assumed. Now if we look
at the engineering report which was done by a third party, they say there's only
one family on all Lake Lucy Road that absolutely needs s~me additional parking.
Now we can argue they don't know what they're talking about, whatever and you
can say that about any engineering report but that's ~nat they said. As it
would happen, the Tichey's told me last night that they have two 4-wheel drive
cars and that getting up and down their parking area is not the problem. As
Brian told me last night, the problem is that when they want to have people
over, guests over, they need additional parking. The City has always worked
with the Sheriff's department to allow additional parking in those situations so
it's not a matter that parking is absolutely not available. It's a matter of
inconvenience because clearly it's an inconvenience to have to call the
Sheriff's Department and tell them I'm going to be parking out there. I'm going
to have guests. Don't give them a ticket but it's possible to do it that way.
So how do we balance the inconvenience and the need to make a phone call against
the trail which at best is not the safest trail? Do we come back and spend
$47,000.00, assuming we're not going to take out the wall and tree, we'll figure
some way around that, to put in an off road trail? Now Ed, it wouldn't come out
of Park and Rec money and it's not money that we could take and spend on a trail
someplace else. As it works out, it comes out of water money. Ironic that
water money would build a trail but in this case, because we're tearing up the
ground anyway, that's a possibility. I don't think we've ever asked this town
if they want a trail system and maybe that would be a legitimate thing to put on
the vote sometime. Do you want a trail system? But there hasn't been a vote
35
~ ~'r~ity Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
other than by the Council and the Park and Rec Department. I personally can' t
imagine that a majority of the citizens in this town would say that we don't
want trails on our collecters. Even the people that voted, many of the people
who voted against the last referendum told me they voted against it because they
didn't want in front of their house. I had one guy on Lake Minnewashta who said
to me, I don't want it on Minnewashta. I never had it and I don't think it's
dangerous but I'll bet he's not in the majority. I think if we can figure out a
way to put them on the collecters, the thing will pass because there's
definitely a safety need there but nobody has ever voted to remove the trails
once they've already been built. So I think we should leave the trail as it is
on the road. Now we've heard some options. From what I've gathered in talking
to staff, those options won't fly through the State and the system. That we run
into probl~ns when we try to put a bike route on one side of the road. I don't
know about the problems when we put a ridge in there and I agree that that would
certainly _make for study and worthwhile study but we've got a choice of spending
$2,60~.0~ in building the pad, and by the way I don't think the City-should
spend that money, or we can spend $47,g0g.0g and build an off road trail. The
parking pad really doesn't meet the Tichey's need for additional guest parking
because it only has enough room for 3 spots so that's not going to work. So how
do we strike the balance? For my part, we can't lose the trail. Give me one of
the options that the engineering department and the State says they'll accept
and I can live with that but if it co~es down to pulling the trails off the
road, I can tell you that I'll vote against it. I may not vote in the majority
but I'll never vote to pull a trail off that, we've already built, off a road in
Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, when you say built a trail. Basically there's not a trail.
It's just the markings that are on that street right?
Councilman Boyt: Designated &nd paid for and the road was built to that width
to accommodate it. What would you call that?
_Mayor Chmiel: I still would call it just a marked street. Basically it's not a
trail.
Counci~nan Boyt: %~11, we disagree.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other coherent? Jay do you want to say something? Quickly
please.
CounciLman Johnson: Yes. I think Bill said it more eloquently than I will.
I'm for the trail. I would like to move this to Park and Rec for them to review
it officially. Trails is under their jurisdiction. They should be_ having a say
so. They're our advisory board. I think we should ask them. I do not think
that this is going to delay, the only way this delays the contract on the
watermain is, I don't think it delays it anyway to tell you the truth because
this is, the $47,~.~0 to $6~,~.~ off street trail is an option that can be
added at any time to the contract. We already authorized them to go out for bid
and that's of the utmost importance is to get that watermain connected. I'm in
agreement. I think there's several options we need to continue looking at. I'm
not sure if we need this designated as a bike trail. A bike route is a
different designation which allows you to ride a bike, it designates and warns
people that there are bicycles on the same street as there are cars. Hopkins
has bike routes throughout the City and the street is no different. It's just a
36
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
bike route. I would like to see it looked at to whether the State w~uld look to
a variance under certain areas of this. Certain small sections to allow parking
on a variance on one side. Take out the south side trail designation. Bike
trails. Take the bike trail designation off. Hopefully put a little chunk of
asphalt down to kind of a free standing curb to separate the two areas that we
can have as almost an off street trail. It wouldn't be what I'd want. I'd want
the off street but like you said, this is a compromise that was made a long time
ago. I think there's room for more study on this. I don't think we need to
knee jerk on this tonight or even the last time. I think we came real close, it
was very scary last meeting and I think we need some more study and I think that
that study should not be done at the Council level. I think it can be done at
Park and Rec level and we want to attend a Park and Rec meeting and give our
comment to Park and Rec and talk to the people. More, I think it needs to be
better advertised as a trail issue and not a parking issue only. But the safety
issue there is my main concern. If we .can accommodate parking, I think that as
far as the cost of putting the bump outs, the City caused the probl~ by
extending the street further to the south. I think primarily if the Tichey'S, I
think a lot of their property, the street went their way. In my r~collection
of driving the street a little bit, I didn't drive it a lot when it was gravel.
I don't r~nember very many people parking along it. It was pretty narrow. You'd
take your car into your own risk if you parked along it. You'd get side swiped.
Rocks hitting it as the people drove by so I don't think that there was that
much parking before. If you wanted to park it, you might have parked~ it there.
Especially at a party or something but I'm for moving this to Park and Rec like
we tried last time and letting them look this over in the next couple weeks and
come back to us sometime in April because I don't think we're ready to decide on
this in March.
Councilman Workman: I don't think there's any doubt about what Park and Rec is
going to say about this trail. At all. They're the ones that, and I do have
the Minutes, they're the ones that brought it up. They intended to bring it up
the whole t~me, you know, and they did. "Mary, since you brought up Lake Lucy
Road, I don't know if you attened the Council meeting last night but they
discussed taking the trails off Lake Lucy Road and I'd just like to say if any
of you live out there you might want to let the Council know if you don't agree
with what they're doing." We know what the Park and Rec's going to do.
Councilman Boyt: Would you prefer that they didn't inform them?
Councilman Workman: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Jim Mady: That's what you did to those people...
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. It's here at the Council. We're discussing i~.
Thank you.
Councilman Workman: I think it'd be fine. I think it'would be fine if they
would discuss it. I think the information that they're going to come back to us
with is exactly what Bill has said so eloquently tonight. If they'd like to
discuss it and it's not going to tie things ~%o, that's fine. They cab discuss
it for an hour and a half too. That's fine. I don't see what it's going to
accomplish but if that's what they want. They want to get it on their docket
and talk about it for an hour and a half or two hours, that's fine but I think
we know exactly where. It's not a negative to like trails. The Ticheys have
37
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
said they use the trail. They like the trail. That's great. They ride their
bikes on it. They use it. People all along it. That's fine but nobody has
said, nobody here tonight that has said keep the trail has said this is my plan
for the parking so the Ticheys and everybody else can park. That's the problem.
It is a parking problem. That's the question. How can we get those people some
parking? If we decide to go with an off road trail, I can tell you that
Elizabeth Artn Glaccum will be here and going nuts. There's going to be a loser
here somehow no matter what. I have told people on 'the phone, I'm not excited
about r~noving a trail. If we can keep trails, let's keep trails. Let's work
something out. I think it was made to believe at the Council meeting that
night, we' re going to y~nk them off. That's it. Too bad. And if you' re
misguided and I don't think that was ever the point. I don't think it was scary
at all but there are people here with rights as far as their property. The
Ticheys also had to spend excessive amounts of dollars to redo their entire
driveway because of the level of the road as constructed was higher than they
were told. They spent more than even the assessed values. So it's a tough
position for them. I would hope and I'm still standing where I hope we can work
out a trail situation. I talked to Gary Warren today. He said that
realistically an off road trail on the north side could go between the road and
the retaining wall so it would be $47,0~.0~ instead of $63,00~.~ or
$68,00~.~0. I'd prefer to see the money spent for Well #5 as I indicated that
night. This is a unique situation. This is a unique road. It is putting
unique stress on property owners who live on the road.
Councilman Johnson: What' s your solution?
Councilman Workman: That's the point. That's the point. What's the solution
and that's ~nat I'm still trying to, that's why I want it tabled so we can
figure out a solution. If we want to table it tonight and send it to Park and
Rec, that's fine too. Maybe they can come up with a solution.
Councilman Johnson: There's been some new ideas come up out of the audience.
Councilman Workman: I like the idea of Eric Rivkin. Making it more narrow.
It is incredibly difficult to go down that road at or near 3g mph. That is a
chore. I don't know, if there are people in this road who are allowing their
kids with training wheels to ride their bike on that road, that's scary. That
white stripe is protecting nobody on that road. It's a shoulder. They're
riding on the shoulder of the road. It's a cheap ~mitation for any kind of a
trail and someJoody is going to get killed on that road with the ~nite stripes
because that's not going to, like I said last ti_me, kids going down that road
ahead of me in a car no where near the trail, right down the center of that east
side hill. It's a difficult situation but I don't think the trail as it is now
is anywhere near adequate. But again, getting back to, we need a solution so
that these people can park also. Again I'll mention it, these people have had
to put up with thousands of dollars of assessments for this road. They're
putting up with the construction of Pheasant Hills and Curry Farms and the dirt
and everything else. Now the watermain and the possibility of an off street
trail on the north side, which is another situation. Again, I'm for tabling it.
I'll second Don's motion to table it tonight. I don't think we're going to do
anything with it anyway. If you would like to bring up the motion to send it to
Park and Rec, after that I'd vote for it.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we do it all in one motion?
38
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Workman: Okay. I make the motion that Council~
Councilman Boyt: Refer this to Park and Rec.
Councilman Workman: Don, you have the motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I'll withdraw my motion and you can make your motion Tom.
Councilman Workman: Did you want to throw your two cents in?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Go ahead. There's no sense in digressing any further.
Councilman Workman: Let me just add, I'm not against trails anymore than say
Don is other than for the economic reasons. I think we need them. I think
we're going to get them. I think that's fine but let's do it properly.
Councilman Johnson: It's a cost of suburbanization and this town is becoming
suburban.
Mayor Chmiel: Isn't it time now?
Councilman Workman: The motion is that Council table this action this evening
to send it to Park and Rec tomorrow night. For two weeks? 15 days from now?
Lori Sietsema: Our next meeting is the 14th of March.
Councilman Johnson: I think they would like to get some more information. Take
a couple w~eks from some of the ideas that have been talked about here.
Councilman Workman: I'll start my motion over. My motion is to tabl~ Council
action this evening and send it to the Park and Rec Commission for further
review.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second it.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the Lake Lucy
Road Trail/Parking issue and to send the issue onto the Park and Recreation
Con~nission for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE TH 101 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS/STAGING (PAT HALLISEY LOTS 1 AND 2, HIDDEN
VALLEY 2ND ADDITION AND SINCLAIR STATION ACCESS).
Gary Ehret: I believe the Council has in their packet Figure 2 from our report
and the staff cover memo. Essentially what it's dealing with is a staging as we
perceive it based on a number of issues. The need to provide access to
Rosemount. The need to work with MnDOt for the TH 5 schedule, etc. but
basically to deal with the staging of Market Blvd. and how it would be
constructed. The staging as we are proposing at this time looks at a three
phase process. The first phase would build Market Blvd. from TH 5 down to what
we refer to as Lake Drive East. That would provide the primary access to the
Rosemount facility. The construction of Phase 1 would be in 1989. That would
39
Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
be open December 1st of 1989. Phase 2 is a temporary connection. It could be a
permanent depending on where and what momentum for future construction of TH 101
to the south might or might not occur. But Phase 2 essentially at this time is
a temporary connection to connect the permanent Phase 1 condition to old TH 101.
The primary staging of Phase 2 is based, if the Council will recall, on what I
call the north leg of I~H 101. The Dakota Avenue intersection. The big issue,
one of the big issues there is the funding which is currently in process. The
second issue is the staging with TH 5. Basically TH 101 will remain routed
through the downtown until TH 101 can be routed on the north leg to TH 5 then
down to Market Blvd.. The staging that we've shown calls for Phase 2 to be
constructed at the time the north leg proceeds and is built. What will then
occur is that the R~H 101 designation will be removed from the downtown segment.
It will be routed on the north leg to TH 5. Down the TH 5 corridor to Market
Blvd. and down through the Phase 1/Phase 2 alignment. Phase 3 then is the
construction of future Lake Drive East. At this point the approach to Phase 3
has been one based on the desires of the property owner. The entire Phase 1,
Phase 2 and Phase 3 area is essentially an area owned by the M.J. Ward Estate.
They have given us fairly definitive ideas on what they would like to see for
Phase 3 in terms of the route, location, etc.. What they've also said is they
have no desire to have that segment of roadway proceed at this t~me. We do not
see any significant ramifications delaying that segment of work so that is the
current proposal. One other thing I want to mention. During Phase 2
construction we recognize, in particular, the concerns of Mr. Hallisey relative
to the traffic and the business in particular for him that's generated from the
area south of Lake Susan. So what we've shown is a temporary connection that
will allow people from the Lake Susan area to continue up TH lgl and take the
old TH 101 route up ho that area. So there is a provision for a temporary
connection in the Phase 2 plan. That in essence is a simple walk through of the
staging as you see in your Council packet. In terms of dates, it's still a
little tough to predict. We had a meeting with MnDot last Friday and got the
latest update on their schedule for the TH 5 improvements and basically the
staging as we have shown it will stay consistent with and fall in line with
their current phasing for the TH 5. With that I guess I would conclude relative
to Mr. Hallisey and the staging.
Mayor Chniel: Would you like to make a con~nent Mr. Hallisey?
Pat Hallisey: Not that I need an introduction because I've been here before but
formally I'll reintroduct myself. I am Pat Hallisey. The managing partner of
Blue Circle Investment Company. The people that own the Total Mart shopping
center. It seems as though when I've been here before all you think I can do is
complain. I want to go on record this evening as doing something other than
complaining and that is, let you know that we sincerely do appreciate the
cotnnunication between BRW, the City staff and ourselves. Although the timing
was very short from the time we received the communJ, cation until we had to
respond to it, at least we were informed and we want you to know that we do
appreciate that very, very much. My letter to the City, to Mr. Warren on
February 17th, I understand you have that in your packet. I want to go on
record again tonight as saying that we are still violently opposed to the whole
rerouting of TH 101. I don't want to leave any impression in your mind
whatsoever that we approve of that rerouting in any manner. As much as we don't
make City policy, I guess we have to capitulate to the fact that this Council
has decided that TH 101 is going to be moved at some point in time and now we're
forced with making the best or trying to work with you and make the best out of
40
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
a bad situation. I understand the phasing of the first phase and that is to
construct the new Market Blvd.. My plan called it the new TH 101. I hope you
don't call it the new TH 101, Phase 1 because if you do, you're going to build a
dead end State Highway. That's the comment in my letter because the plan that I
received called it TH 101. New TH 101. We understand that will be Phase 1. We
do appreciate the consideration given to us in leaving some connection to the
people south of us until such point as Phase 3 is built. As we've stated, our
preference would be for Phase 3 to go at the same time as Phase 1. This would
give us, what we feel, min~a~ize the affects of the rerouting on our property to
the best situation available. You are now planning a major development at the
intersection of Market Blvd. and Lake Drive East and we'd like to have an
opportunity for those people to get to us. Shy of that, we certainly would want
you and we would beg of you to not designate Market Blvd. as new TH 1~1 until
such time as Phase 3 has been implemented. What we're attempting to do, as
some of the members of this Council are aware, I've sent them a letter and the
provisions within the lease with our major tenent in the past, at the point that
you redesignate TH 101, they have a kick out clause in their lease. They can
just say, hey guys, we're gone. We have a valueless piece of property. We are
trying to do all that we can to make this development as attractive to th~m as
possible so that from a business standpoint they've got some way to justify
staying there. If in fact they can get to the people in the development, the
industrial people, the 700 employees that are planned to the west prior to the
point that TH 101 is redesignated, I can't speak for them because they can't
answer that question now but it may have an affect on their decision making not
to leave us. We don't want to have an empty shopping center and be at odds with
the city of Chanhassen. That's why we're making this proposal is that they
can't leave us until such t~me as TH 101 is redesignated someplace else. At the
point it is, they can't leave us. Keep in mind this was a 20 year lease
con~nitment they made to us. The phasing of the development, although we don't
agree with it because it relocates TH 101 away from our door, we would like you
to change the phasing or at least the designation of TH 101 until such point as
Lake Drive East is completed from the existing TH 101 to Market Blvd. or what
you consider to be the new TH 101. I guess in keeping with the spirit of open
communication, I'd also like to see that whatever you do tonight, if there's
some kind of a change to it, I'd like your commitment that you would' inform us
prior to doing it so we have a chance to respond to it in the future.
Councilman Johnson: I believe the State's going to do the redesignation and
what you are actually asking us to do is not to ask the State to do that.
Because it's a State Highway, we can't designate it either way. Then the Phase
3 is up to the Wards.
Pat Hallisey: I think it's you that are asking them to redesignate it So we are
asking you not to ask tham to redesignate it until Phase 3 is done.
Gary Warren: The State would have control on when the redesignation would
happen. We obviously would hold off, based on this discussion. We're not going
to force them to do it or request them to do it any earlier than it would have
to. That's, I guess, our comments with them but there is in likelihood, the
State will be interested once the north leg of TH 101 realignment is established
in getting the designation over so that the separation between the intersections
is maximized. That's kind of been their understanding as they reviewed the
concepts for the realignment but we certainly would be trying to hold that off
as long as possible.
41
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Pat Hallisey: My solution to that would be, don't implement Phase 2 until such
time as you implement Phase 3.
Mayor Cbxniel: Is that at all possible?
Gary Warren: The realignment or 'the Phase 2, the north leg and completing the
south leg has been a very important interest to the City here as far as the
traffic is concerned so I can't speak for the Council here but that has been a
high priority to try and make that happen as soon as we~ve had the financing in
place.
Councilman Johnson: Why does the current schedule say 90-95 on Phase 2? Is
there that much...
Gary Ehret: 199g or later was the revision I made. Based on the input, I
wanted to add that based on our meeting with [enDot Friday, I believe the
absolute earliest that that designation would possibly be changed would be June
of 1991. I think that's when they were showing basically enough completion of
TH 5 through this area that that designation would be changed.
Councilman Johnson: That's only is Phase 2 is complete by that time?
Gary Fiqret: Correct.
Gary ~rren: The State Highway 5 project is also part of the driving force on
the schedule and right now they are telling us that February of 1990 is the
letting date for the TH 5 improvements from the Hennepin County line west to
Lake Ann Park.
CounciLman Johnson: Which then drives Phase 1. What drives Phase 2?
Gary Warren: Phase 2, the State legislature right now among other things as far
as the extension of our economic development district for the funding.
Councilman Johnson: That drives Phase 1 and Phase 2 doesn't it?
Gary Warren: It drives phase 2.
CounciLman Johnson: Just Phase 2 but that also drives the north leg?
Gary Warren: Which J.s Phase 2. Part of what we would call Phase 2.
Councilman Johnson: And that we're hoping for any time. Is that the only thing
driving Phase 2 as far as timing?
Gary Warren: As far as I know.
Gary Ehret: And the TH 5 improvements.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Those two items.
Pat Hallisey: It was my understanding that MnDot was clearly willing to accept
the realignment for the leaving of TH lgl in it's present location. They stated
that they ~uld prefer it to be moved to Market Place but they were willing to
42
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
accept it in it's present location. Upgrade it and run it to the south. Now if
I'm incorrect on that, I'd like s~mebody to correct me but that was my clear
understanding. So the point I'm trying to make is that if in fact they were
willing to accept TH 101 in it's present location when that was going to happen
for years and years and get to the point where we had 20,000 cars a day on it, I
think that the City of Chanhassen can leave TH 101 where it is right now by not
implementing Phase 2 when there's only 3,500 cars on it. There certainly is not
a traffic driven need at this~point in t~_me to relocate to build Phase 2 and
relocate TH 101 to that alternate route.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, did you say the State required that? To be designated
as TH 101 when the funding goes through?
Gary Warren: The State would be the driving force as f~r as if they wanted us
to move the designation.
Councilman Boyt: So the City wouldn't be petitioning the State to change it?
The State would be coming to us and say we just changed it?
Gary Warren: It's a State Trunk Highway. It's their road basically. They've
bought into the alternate as far as the realignment with the north leg moving
and Market Blvd. picking up as the southern leg. It basically is when they
would want to move the designation one way or the other.
Councilman Boyt: And the ~ay we got into this was by the designation of the
traffic handling capacity of these intersections. In order to make the
intersection of Great Plains work we had to move TH 101 further to the west.
Gary Warren: We took a look at levels of service and did some transportation
analysis as a result of the, what was it, 6 or 8 alternates that we were looking
for at that t~me and that's how we arrived at convincing MnDot that the
alternate, Market Blvd. alternate for example was acceptable for spacing. Mr.
Hallisey is correct. My recollection and Fred, maybe you can correct me if I'm
wrong but that when we were looking at using the existing TH 101 intersection,
that became more of an issue because that was even a tighter space between the
north leg realignment and this one. They also saw the level of service was not
significantly impacted at that location.
Councilman Boyt: So the City could choose to not petition the State ~to change
this and Mr. Hallisey could really work with the State? If he could convince
them not to change it, fine. What is it to us if it's ~hanged?
Gary Warren: I think that you build the north leg and spend funds to do that to
improve the traffic situation and the ultimate solution is to try to get rid of
as treacherous a road as the existing TH 101 alignment is and I think that's the
motivation that the State would have.
Councilman Boyt: But my point would be Gary, what you call the road is only
significant to Mr. Hallisey and his business client and people are going to
choose the route that makes the most sense to them regardless of what you call
it. So why is it the City's concerned whether it's called TH 101 or not?
Gary Warren: Phase 2 wouldn't be built I guess until the City chose that that
was what was going to be built.
43
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
CounciLman Boyt: Let's suppose the City built it. People can use it. Does it
have to be called t~ lgl?
Gary Warren: I still think that it will come down to the State saying that as a
part of the feasibility and the review of the alternates, the City had indicated
that this is where the new TH 1~1 realigr~ent would be.
Councilman Johnson: But we don't have any necessity to go to the State to say,
hey please redesignate this? We finished the construction and if the
bureaucrats in St. Paul get around to redesignating, it happens. They probably
will get it.
Gary Warren: For everybody's benefit, it would be great if the Ward property
would come in next week ar~ say they want to do phase 3 right, and then it all
goes away. But I think from ~%e City's interest and traffic safety standpoint,
the sooner that we can get rid of the existing TH 1~1 alig~.~nent, the better off
we're going to be. Now that isn't very sympathetic to Mr. Hallisey's concerns
there and I don't mean to be that way but from a road safety standpoint, that is
a very bad piece of roadway.
CounciLman Boyt: But the answer is, the City doesn't make that decision?
Gary Warren: Right.
Pat Hallisey: I'm not quite clear on exactly why it is that Phase 2 has to be
built before Phase 3. Once again, MnDot was willing to accept the current TH
lgl if in fact the City Council had chosen that as the route so %fny do we have
to rush to judgment because there is no current need, traffic standpoint wise,
to build Phase 2. Why can we not have the city just not build Phase 2? That
way the State has no alternative about n~ning what's what. If Phase 2 is not
built until Phase 3 is, which is really when the start of the build up of 'the
traffic is going to occur, and Phase 2 is not built, they can't tell you that's
new TH igl. That is within the City's power to do. Not build phase 2.
Mike Klingelhutz: I'm Mike Klingelhutz and I live further down TH 1~1 on what
they call Klingethutz corner and I think that by doing Phase 2 before you
straighten out the rest of 1~ lgl is going to do the people that live along Lake
Susan where I live like on the corner that catches half the cars that run in the
ditch. They're going' to cane speeding down, flying down the straight part and
then hit the corners and it's dangerous enough the way it is. The upper half
catches half of them now and we catch the other half. We're going to wind up
catching them all. I think that doing Phase 2 before you bring...perhaps even
to the TH 212 alignment isn't too smart.
Fred Hoisington: Let me just say that everything depends on timing. Really
that's all we're talking about tonight and we're speculating on when any one of
these projects will be built. I can tell you that if the legislature approves
of the funding or the extension of the tax increment district, then the City
will be confronted with building the north leg of TH lgl. If it builds the
north leg of TH lgl, then we no longer have the present TH 1~1 and there's going
to be a lot of pressure by MnDot and everyone to move the designation over to
Market Blvd.. If we're not funded by the extension of the tax increment
district, then we could be here 5 years from now talking about the same thing
44
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
and it's very possible that things are going to work exac%ly as Pat wants them
to work. Very possibly that that's what's going to happen. That Phase 2 will
not be built before Phase 3 and that it will be the other way around. There's
no way that we can give you any answer to that tonight nor can we give Pat any
answer to that. It's a very dynamic process as we've indicated to them in the
past and we simply can't answer that Pat. All we can do is give you every
assurance that we'll provide you with the connections we can here and we'll do
that and I think that's what the City is making a con~nitment to you to do.
Pat Hallisey: Fred, let me just explain to you. The construction of the north
leg does not reroute the portion of TH 101 that I am concerned with. It only
reroutes the portion of TH 101 north of TH 5. I don't care about that. I'm
concerned about rerouting the portion of TH 101 south of TH 5. That wasn't the
way your statement came across because you said when the new north leg is done,
TH 101 is automatically rerouted.
Fred Hoisington: Let me just say that again. When the north leg is constructed
MnDot is going to want that redesignated over on Market Blvd.. No question
about that. They will not want us to bring traffic down the north leg, over on
TH 5 and down the present alignment and we have an interest in now having that
traffic on old TH 101 because of the alignment problems associated with that.
But Pat, nonetheless, it's very possible that Phase 3 will be built, it's
unfortunate it even says Phase 2 and 3 because Phase 3 may well be built before
Phase 2. I have no doubt it all depends on Ward's scheduling of their
construction.
Pat Hallisey: That's the hypothetical that nobody sitting in this room has any
control over. There are sc~e people in this ro~m that have control over Phase 2
because the State Highway Department can not tell you to relocate, redesignate
TH 101 if Phase 2 is not built. I can't do anything about building Phase 3 and
the City Council is unwilling to do it but there is something that can be done
to stop the redesignation of that road and that is not building Phase 2 until
Phase 3 is done.
Fred Hoisington: Another option is, if we get the dollars to build the north
leg, the Council doesn't have to build it right now. It can hold off for a
period of time until such time as the Wards are a little further along in the
process and let the tax increments accumulate. I wouldn't recon~end that but
you can do that if you want to be sure and try to get Phase 3 ahead of Phase 2,
that's possible to do that so there are a number of options available that will
resolve that question.
Pat Hallisey: That's an option that I did not hear in our meeting. I heard no
options when you and I met with Mr. Warren. That is news. I understand that
it's not probably the most desirous option as far as the City is concerned but
if that is the only way, jealously speaking, if that's the only way to alleviate
my problem, I'd recon~nend that you do it. I still think it's far simpler just
not to build Phase 2 than to delay the building of Phase 1, of the north leg. I
think that's a far more practical and beneficial solution to the City..
Councilman Workman: Gary, how could building Phase 3 before Phase 2 jeopardize
Phase 2 later? At all?
45
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Gary Warren: No, I don't see that being a proble~ at all. Phase 3 could go on
it's way on it's own timeline without any ~.mpact at all to Phase 2. In fact it
would be better, as we're saying, to see that happen.
CounciLman Workman: Phase 2 and Phase 3 are all right now still dependent on
negotiations with the Ward property?
Gary Warren: Phase 3 is and there are s~me easements on the southwest corner of
the Ward property that we need to acquire but basically Phase 3 is being driven
by the development of the Wards.
CounciLman Work, an: So Phase 2 is further along in this process than Phase 3
and that's maybe why it's called Phase 2 right now?
Gary Warren: Yes. Phase 2, as Fred mentioned, is the ultimate location for TH
lgl and because the north leg of TH lgl and the intersection modifications
on Dakota that are a part of the TH 5 project, I guess that's why that is a
match and would c~e no doubt earlier than, I guess wh~t we're guessing would be
the Ward's interest in developing. I really think, as we tried to point out
also in the staff report, is that we understand Mr. Hallisey's concerns. We're
sympathetic to them. I think that all we can say right now is that we're
building Phase 1 and we will continue to be sympathetic here and there will be
additional opportunities for the Council and Mr. Hallisey to communicate as %he
timing comes forward. %fnen MnDot, the TH 5 project is a reality for letting' and
when the legislature decides on the economic development district life and these
other factors that come in that each of these are going to be a step to once
again review the phasing and how we're going to proceed.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose a motion. That the City Council approve
the site access configuration for the Sinclair station as doc~ente~ in our
February 9th correspondence and that the City approve the phasing concept for TH
1~1 removing the dates of the second and third phase.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. I'd like to have a slight bit of
discussion. I'd like to ask Fred a question somewhat related to this. Last
year when we came down to this decision that this is what we were' going to do
and we posed it to the State, one thing we asked to have proposed to the State
was that we go ahead right now and redesignate the north side of TH lgl and get
it out from in front of St. Hubert's and get it moved over across the tracks at
Dakota Blvd. now. Has that been brought to the State?
Fred Hoisington: You mean the north leg, has that been brough to the State?
Councilman Johnson: Has anybody asked the State that qkay, our final plan is to
build a north leg, to move it out to Market Blvd. and send it down eventually
but what we'd like to do is today, 1989, change the signs. Instead of the
people turning right and going through downtown Chanhassen on TH lgl, take a
left and go over to TH 5 right now which gives us back our Great Plains and 78th
Street intersection.
Fred Hoisington: Have we ever made that request...?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. That's the question that that request was directed to
be made last year.
46
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Fred Hoisington: I r~member that question being posed at that point and Carl
Hoffsted was at that meeting when it was posed, if you recall, he sat here in
the audience. As a matter of fact, somebody asked him to respond to that that
evening and he said he couldn't. I don't think we've ever officially, formally
made that request that they use the Dakota Avenue intersection as that. We
could do that Jay. I'd be a little concerned that they'd tell us no very
quickly but we can make the request and see what happens. Carl's response after
that meeting was no but we never made it formal either so if you w~uld wish us
to do that, we can make that formal.
Councilman Johnson: With a little back-up of we're trying to remove the
State Highway from going between a church and a grade school and trying to make
your State Highway more efficient than it is today because of the realignment we
did in Chanhassen, we think that you will have a better State Highway to take it
to the left. Not just plain old say we want to do it because we want to do it.
That's kind of an aside, trying to get old business.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded that the City CounCil approve
the site access configuration for the Sinclair station as documented in the
February 9, 1989 BRW correspondence to Ivan Johnson and that the City approve
the phasing concept for TH 101 removing the dates of the second and third phase.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW MEDIAN CUT PROPOSAL FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY, 7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
Councilman Workman: Maybe Gary would still like to address it but I guess
Ursula, Councilwoman Dimler brought this up. As she is not present, I guess in
her interest, I thought maybe of tabling it. I think A1 was here for the TH 101
also so it wouldn't be a loss cause unless he'd like to make some comments in
regards to this also. We can get the comments, just like we saved ti~e on that
trail issue.
A1Klingelhutz: If you're going to table it, I'd just assume wait and make my
comments at the next meeting.
Councilman Workman: I guess Ursula was the one that was carrying the ball on
this and I guess out of courtesy to her, I would like to table it and I would
make a motion to do so.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that motion.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table review of the median
cut proposal for Klingelhutz property, 7811 Great Plains Blvd.. All Voted in
favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE CARRICO PROPERTY FOR PARKLAND.
Lori Sietsema: I don't know if you want a staff report?
47
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably gone through much of the staff report. At
least I have.
Lori Sietsema: Mark is here. He prepared the study, the land study in the area
of Lake Lucy Highlands and he could answer any questions or go through the
study. Whatever you like.
Counci]~nan Johnson: I see no public here. Can we move on this?
Mayor Chniel: I guess I had just a couple questions. On the park itself and
'the acquisition of it. How will this be basically funded Lori? How will this
be funded for total dollars for the Carrico property?
Lori Siets~ma: It's anticipated that the funding would occur through the park
development fund. Park acquisition and development fund. In looking through
the 1989 budget, there are monies in a reserve fund and there is also the
projected ~nount of money taken in in 1988 through the park dedication fees was
higher than we had anticipated and there could be funds available through that
as well.
Counci L~an Workman: How much?
Lori Siets~na: Don, do you recall the nm~bers?
Don Ashworth: Actual 1988 revenue was $59,000.00 over what we had originally
anticipated. There is an undesignated fund balance of $21,090.g0 and there is
an amount set aside for grants, purchases like this of $1~g,~0g.g0. So between
those three sources, there's roughly $18g,ggg.gg. I think the Council would
definitely want to keep the $10~,~.~ in reserve but I do see the $8~,0~0.~
as currently being undesignated and eventually available. Mid-year budget
adjustments are something that I do not really endorse but the acquisition of
parcels and the ability to guesstimate that a particular parcel will c~ne up and
whatever is unusual as well.
CounciLman Word, an: We're just approving or authorizing negotiations?
Lori Sietse~na: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: I think there's an underlying assumption though that if staff is
able to negotiate something that would be favorable, we're looking to a s~ of
about $6g,ggg.gg that the Council would feel comfortable when we brought that
back. If 9~ brought back a number twice that amount...
CounciLman Workman: I guess I'd like to say that I don't think there's any
doubt about which area, I think we're given A through F or something. I don't
think there's really any doubt about which is the one. C. But hadn't you guys
had s~e concern about lower parts of that being wet or not wet? It's not
designated a wetland is it?
Lori Sietsema: It's not on the City's wetland map.
CounciLman Boyt: I think it's got those kinds of grasses, there's going to be a
wetland.
48
City Council MeetJ. ng - February 27~ 1989
Lori Sietssma: ...it's questionable whether it can handle parking for park
facilities on that. I don't know that we would want to...
Councilman Workman: Is that big enough to have fields? Ballfields? A couple?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. It would accommodate a ballfield, totlot equipment, like a
basketball court or tennis. What else were we looking at?
~V~rk Koegler: We did a hypothetical site plan and that had a ball diamond of
about 250 feet which is a large neighborhood scale. Two tennis court.s. There's
potential for parking off of Lake Lucy Lane, whatever that is to the south, and
picnic areas and play areas so it would accomodate all the ~neighborhood
functions. The wetland area would not be included in the actual development of
any of those facilities so that would remain intact but potentially be
enhanced...
Mayor Chmiel: You say open water. What depths are you...?
Mark Koegler: That's totally, very preliminary statement. There were con~nents
made at the meeting and in walking some of the sites in the field with some of
the representatives from Fish and Wildlife, they had made conm]ents. They have
an open water situation...bottom for purposes of wildlife. That could be 2
feet. It could be 4 feet. Whatever.
Mayor Chmiel: I have concerns with children within that area with that.
Mark Koegler: I think to speculate on the depth on that right now is probably
premature.
Councilman Workman: Is this going to be a park that can be used for what?
Lori Sietsema: It would be a neighborhood park used by the neighborhoods that
are in the area for pick-up games. It's not a type of park that would be used
for league games. Although when our facilities are as short as they are now, we
do spill into our neighborhood parks.
Councilman Workman: Can we do something to beef that up a little bit? I know
that creates a problem then for traffic for the neighborhood parks, etc. but...
Councilman Boyt: You've got a collector right beside it.
Councilman Workman: We are desparately in need of those fields. What do you
need for a softball field? 270? 250 sounds small.
Lori Sietsema: 270 is a little short. I'd say 280 to 300.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would make a suggestion to, since I don't see in
the future how we're going to accumulate a whole bunch of fields to maybe take
care of some of the needs that we have, that we do make the fields a little bit
more versatile for more uses so that, since we're going in there and making a
field anyway. I have a problem with making a field strictly for a pick-up
basis. I lived 2 blocks from one where I was growing up. We maybe played half
a dozen pick up games on there in my life. We just as soon use the lot that
wasn't even a city lot. I guess we have a really great need for those fields
49
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
for leagues. Little League or whatever and if there's anyway that we can
designate such to alleviate the problems that we have. Again, that's what they
do in Chaska. They've got them all over. Jonathan.
Lori Sietsema: We could certainly look to accomoa~ate those types of uses. The
policy in the past is to try to discourage organized league play in the
neighborhood parks because it brings in more traffic than ~nat the park is
designed for. It means that you have to have more parking available and it also
takes that neighborhood use away from the park. That availability.
Councilman Workman: I can see that if you have like the open men's league which
could possibly be more abrasive but if you could take Field 3 at Lake Ann and
make that a complete softball field and then take the Little League option out
of it and place that say in this park. I think Little League, played early,
children aren't as wild. That kind of thing. And I'm not suggesting moving
beer drinking softball players into neighborhoods but I'm saying there's other
options for the younger kids that is less of a threat to the neighborhood in the
earlier hours.
Lori Sietsema: I'll make a note of those concerns at the time that we'd make up
a master park plan for that area and keep that in mind for the planning.
Councilman Word, an: Other than that, everybody up there just loves this plan?
I mean Pheasant Hills?
Lori Sietsema: The people that were at the meeting were very responsive and
were very pleased with this selection. They felt that the other choices, the
other alternatives did not meet their needs as well as this one would as far the
prox~nity of their neighborhoods. Mary Cordell is here representing the
pheasant Hills, or actually both neighborhoods. She's talk~] to them. I don't
know if she wants to make any con~nent or not or if you have any questions of
her.
CounciLman Boyt: Isn't the general consensus to approve this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As far as I'm concerned. Why don't we just proceed with
thi s.
Councilman Johnson: I have one question. I wanted to go at it first but once
you brought up league play and all. I'm with the CAA, as you know if one of my
other part time jobs. We don't seem to attract very many kids at all out of the
Minnetonka School District. Do you know where they offer their T-ball and
ragball and that type of, where the kids in Pheasant Hills go to get their?
'Very few of them come down and play in our league.
Lori Sietsema: I'm not sure where the people in that area go. I know that
Minnetonka Con~nunity Services offers those programs through their department.
Councilman Johnson: Mary, do you know how far the kids have to travel to play
with Minnetonka Con~nunity Services?
Mary Cordell: I'm really not sure. We moved to the area about 9 months ago.
My oldest is just turning 6 so I haven't gotten into that too much but I think
it is Minnetonka Con~nunity Services.
50
City Council Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize further
negotiations to acquire the Carrico Property for parkland. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a motion that Willard Johnson
and Carol Watson be appointed to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Boyt: I would like to have the Planning Co~ission and any
appropriate others directed to review the fence ordinance. Particularly, I
think there's several items. We had, last sum~er, there was quite an issue over
a 6 foot fence put up in a person's backyard by a neighbor that was q~ite
disturbing. There are a few fences, chainlinked fences in front yards that
just completely throw the view looking down the block. You see 10 houses with
no fence and then one with a front yard fence down it. I think we need to look
at that issue. I don't know what the answer is but I think we've got a problem
here and I'd like to see those folks look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Why do you feel that way? I think it's up to the individual
property owners. If they feel they want to, that's their property for a
specific reason, that they have that right to do that.
CounciLman Boyt: Well, they certainly have a right to fence their property.
Maple Grove, for instance, says they don't allow fencing in the front half of
your yard anywhere. Now I'm not saying that that's the right answer. All I'm
saying is that I think there are several areas in the fencing part of our Zoning
Ordinance that need to be looked at. I think one of the issues is, do we want
fencing in the front yard or not? Maybe we'll decide that we do.
Councilman Workman: Where are these fences?
Councilman Boyt: Well, if you drive down Frontier Trail. As soon as you enter
into Chan Vista West or whatever it is, you'll see it. That's just an example.
A1 Klingelhutz: I have a question, seeing that I sat here all night waiting for
a decision. Can I be put on a little earlier in the agenda?
Don Ashworth: You'll be unfinished business next time.
Councilman Boyt: Well, that's the thought so ~fnat's the support? Do you want
to do it or don't you want to do it?
Councilman Johnson: I'll move it.
Councilman Workman: Are neighbors complaining?
Councilman Boyt: Well, about the 6 foot fence, yes.
51
Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Workman: I mean about the front yard fences? I guess I'm not into
fixing things if people in the vicinity aren't real...
Councilman Johnson: My point of view is, we're going from a sleepy little rural
village into suburbia very quickly. As such, we previously didn't really have a
lot of need for a lot of rules and regulations. Unfortunately, as our
population skyrockets, we've got to have some control. If a person can put up a
6 foot privacy fence all the way out to the street...
Councilman Boyt: They can do that now.
Councilman Johnson: You're living with other ~ceople. Things you do affects
your next door neighbors on either side of you. That's why we have zoning
ordinances. That's why we have setbacks. Setback's also for public safety.
The firemen have to have access. There may be a public safety issue of having a
fence in the front yard as far as fighting a fire. Now the firemen have to
negotiate a fence. At least they can get at half your house without having to
go through a fence. Then there's some size restriction. If you're on 20
acres...
Councilman Word, an: This doesn't need a motion to go to the Planning
Con%mi salon?
Councilman Boyt: No, just consensus. Do we want to see that happen or not?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have them look at it.
Mayor Ckmiel: I don't have any...
Councilman Workman: I don't fear it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, your second point Bill.
CounciLman Boyt: Okay, my second point gets back to the issue of the recent,
all the discussion about the Public Safety Department and what not° I guess I
could preface this in 15 seconds by saying it didn't go quite the way I would
have liked it to go but I would like to see the Council recognize that I
thought, and I think the Council would agree, that Jim Chaffee did a good job of
weaving his way through that thing. I saw a lot of co~t~ents in the paper from a
lot of people but I didn't see many from J~xn and the thing got resolved and it
got resolved on kind of an upbeat note there and I think that's worth
accorrmodation from us. Even though it didn't get resolved the way I wanted it
to, I thought it was handled well.
Councilman Johnson: Politically a very hot issue and it was handled well.
Mayor Chniel: Very well done.
Councilman Boyt: I t_h]nk we._ should note that.
52
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: Tom, manholes
Councilman Workman: Very quickly, Gary, how deep can a manhole sit before it's
out of conformance?
Gary Warren: Are you talking about the lid itself in the roadway?
Councilman Workman: Yes, below the pavement surface. I've seen a lot of deep
ones that I've got to really swerve or I'm going to be having alignment
problems. Now some of them are near my home and this is not specifically for
that. That's where I see them. I'm sure there's others. Is there a yard stick
on this?
Gary Warren: Well new construction, first of all we want to have them below so
that when we're snowplowing snow we don't hit them. It gets to be quite a shock
if you're driving a snowplow and you hit one of those things so new construction
requirements are that the manhole lids have to be between 1/4 to 1/2 inch below
the paved surface. Manholes move differentially with the frost and heaving and
stuff so we get some movement there but we do require with new construction that
they get 1/4 inch to no more than 1/2 inch below the paved surface.
Councilman Workman: How would you correct a problem like that?
Gary Warren: You dig them up. Dig up the frames and readjust them. There's no
simple way to do it. You just have to saw up the pavement and lift them up.
councilman Johnson: It's amazing though how much they move on an annual basis.
I have one in front of my house that moves 6 inches.
Gary Warren: And we will do that if we have some that are pointed out to us
that are really bad.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a list. Bill's doing fences. I'm doing
manholes.
Gary Warren: I was going to say, because Boucher is on vacation and couldn't be
at this meeting, we'll have to defer that to the next meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION:
DISCUSSION OF BONGARD ACQUISITION AND COUNCIL/STAFF WORK SESSION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I think on 14(b), I'll be asking that that be tabled just because
of the time that we' re in and that you and I have not had a chance to further
discuss this item. 14(a). I've included the correspondence received from Abbie
Bongard. This is a parcel that will be taken as a part of the realignment of Th
101. It's the piece that basically is just north of Dakota Avenue, that
spaghetti junction area. I don't really know what the. solution is. I think
that throughout the process we continue to try to number one, inform people.
But where you do have owners in that they are proposing to do something, the
City's plans can often come in their way. It disrupts them. They had other
plans and now here's a proposal from the City. In every instance that I can
think of, we have in every case told the owner to move ahead with whatever their
53
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
plans are. That if the funding can c~e about, if we have to take a footing~
that's probably cheaper than not allowing, let's say the shopping center on the
Kerr property to proceet. That was an alternative that a year ago we felt was
going to be the best alternative. Now we're not really look.~.ng to that site at
all. I really think that funding should be in place, well, it has to be in
place by the end of the legislative session. Unfortunately, this year's
legislature is going to go longer than normal and I continue to believe that Bob
and Becky are trying to work in our best interest to get that through but they
want to be assured that Hennepin County is now fighting us in that process. The
short and the long of that is that if we do not get the 2 1/2 million dollars
that would be generated fr~n that district, I don't know where we'd come up with
the money. Although I'm not happy with the 'thought that we may not be able to
do that north leg, that's where it may come back to. The bottom line on Bongard
is that they had chosen to wait. Now that's creating some problems for them.
You have an individual n~med Bill Diam. He's been involved. He would like to
portray that we've made certain con]nitments. We have not. We did do an
appraisal there to get an idea as to the price. Mr. Di~n is looking to a
significant amount over that value. About 1 1/2 times what we had it appraised
at. In that process we've asked for certain documentation of why he feels the
value should be at that higher level. We have not received that. In the
meant]me, we have a long term resident of our con~nunity who is being affected.
I guess what I would like to do with the Council's concurrence is to be able to
start negotiations, especially if we can work directly with Mrs. Bongard. I
think that point in time may be here because I believe Mr. Diem is basically not
acting as her agent any longer and I don't know if that's a fact of time or not.
Fred, were you able to obtain any additional information on that?
Fred Hoisington: No...did not get back to me...
Don Ash~rth: Trying to come up with same type of a solution for the lesser
money. The acquisition probably will be into a $3gg,ggg.g0 area. That's
probably reasonable final costs out of that but if in the meantime we could come
to some agreement where her builder would hold the property for whatever period
of time a_nd that would cost x nt~eber of dollars, that we could enter into an
option agreement that would keep the thing open for 6 months and pay her some
reasonable amounts so that she could keep the thing viable. Some alternative
that's lower dollars for us but let's her move into that hane or take advantage
of that. As we're talking, without knowing, is she represented by someone or
isn't she? Is that representation ending or isn't it ending? Is there
solutions? I can't be specific with you.
Mayor Chmiel: ...if you're going to approach him, does he have some kind of a
retainer...
Don Ashworth: That's what we're trying to verify at this point in time. He's
not an Attorney. I believe though that he would be put into a category of
realtor for him and whether or not he has signed a realty agreement for a
specific period of time, I'm not quite sure. In talking with Ms. Bongard, it
sounded as though that she, if it would help resolve things, if she would like
to take and work directly with us, and she led us to believe that that may be an
option. I don't know that that's true. I don't know that to be true. i don't
know that she knows that it's true.
54
City CouncJ~l Meeting - February 27~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Who is Mr. Diem versus Mr. Plowman who seems to be her real
estate agent?
Don Ashworth: Plowman is the one who is basically building the new home. I
think that's his only interest.
Fred Hoisington: He's also the broker for the sale of the property.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's what she indicated in her letter was that Mr.
Plowman was her realtor on this property. Diem was a potential buyer. Do we
know what she listed her property for? That should be public information just
about if it was listed in multiple listings and everything.
Don Ashworth: That's the type of information that we've asked for and really
haven't gotten from Mr. Diem.
Councilman Johnson: I think we could get that elsewhere from any real estate
agent should be able to tell us. Multiple listings you can access with a
computer and everything.
Mayor Chmiel: I think in lieu of what's all happened here, I think it would
probably be to our advantage to make that contact and come up with some kind of
determination. Then once that determination is gotten, get back to Council.
DOn Ashworth: The primary purpose of the it~ is to make the Council aware and
we will put it on the next agenda you'll have an update report.
Counci~an Workman moved, Counci~an Johnson s~onded to adjourn the meetly.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55