1989 02 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, CounciLman Workman, Councilwoman
Dimler, Councilman Johnson and Mayor Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Todd
Gerhart, Lori Sietsema and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions and changes: Councilman Boyt
wanted to discuss the building and mechan~cal inspection department and comment
on Gary Warren's appointment at the State level; Councilman Workman wanted to
d~_scuss the City's Softball Leagues; Councilwoman D~mler wanted to make an
announcement for a meeting on the Eurasian Water Milfoil, a question about the
City's use of the Villager, having Roger draft a resolution for acceptance of
gifts for the City and that Council Presentations in the future be treated like
Visitor Presentations as far as following the same procedure for Council action,
Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the Senior Community Services and serving on the
Board of Directors for Community Action for Surburban Hennepin County.
Councilman Johnson wanted to put the discussion on the Eurasian Water Milfoil
after the Vis~.tor's Presentation on the agenda rather than under Council
Presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, CounciLman Boyt seconded to add an
item (j) to the Consent Agenda to read as follows: Approval of the Alco-Sensor
donated by the BCA for use by the law enforcement agencies which protect the
City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: A point of discussion. Our procedure requires us to have a
written recommendation on any ~tem within the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: This was previously on the last Consent Agenda so therefore it
can be carried through to this one.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded ~o approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
c. Resolution #89-11: Authorize Condemnation Proceedings for Eckankar
Stormwater Detention Pond, Project 87-2.
d. Resolution ~89-12: Set Public Hearing Date for West 78th Street North Side
Parking Lot Project, Project 87-17.
e. Resolution #89-13: Approve Change Order No. 2, City Hall and Fire Station
Expansion.
g. Resolution #89-14: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Audubon Road
and Authorize the taking of bids.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
h. Approval of Accounts.
i. City Council Minutes dated January 23, 1989
Planning Co~nission Minutes dated January 18, 1989
Planning Co-n]nission Minutes dated February 1, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 24, 1989
Park and Recreation Con~nission Minutes dated January 31, 1989
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 19, 1989
j. Resolution ~89-15: Approval of the Alco-Sensor donated by the BCA for use
by the law enforc~nent agencies which protect the City of Chanhassen.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING.
Councilman Johnson: This is on the Chanhassen recycling program. K~nen I first
read this I was believing we were getting the cart before the horse in that
we' re going out for bids for a recycling program before establishing our
recycling con~nittee. Then I realized that it's only a short term, this would be
just a one year recycling program while ~ establish a con~nittee. We've
discussed establishing a committee last sun~ner. Last fall. I've discussed it
several times. We need to get that advertised. We tried to get it advertised
last fall. We got to get that advertised, get that committee on board so we can
start doing t_his work. The second thJ. ng is, they talk about we may not be
getting any money fra~ the County. To the best of my recollection, which I
didn't have time to check on today, every ton of garbage t.~.pped over at the
landfill is taxes with some money going back to the Counties for recycling
purposes. I find it hard to believe that the second largest town in the County,
there's no money left over for us from this recycling tipping tax that's there.
That there's not going to be any this year. We need to look into that and get
our fair share. I'm sure we put some garbage in the landfill so we should get
some money back from it if the State is requiring that tax. So it's something
I'd like staff to look into on this particular issue.
Mayor C%tmiel: I might interject something. I had a call from Mike Lein which I
returned but he never got back to me and I was trying to find out some of those
s~me questions because I think there are some dollars appropriated within the
Metropolitan Council as with the Solid Waste Advisory Task Force as well as with
the other agencies which is just 9oing under MPCA. I think there may be some
dollars there.
Councilman Johnson: Then also, J.n the spec~fJ, cs for the request for the bids
for curbside recycling, under Section D, Description, it says that we will have
about 3,398 households. I would rather say, J.t is anticipated to be 3,4~ to
3,75g. We don't know how many new households we' 11 have next year and putting
3,398 is pretty darn specific. Everyday we have a new one in this town so
lookJ, ng at we had 35g single f~nJ. ly building permits last year, I threw in a
range of 35~ going from 3,4~g to 3,75~. Something in that nature at that point.
Under lg, they talk about Certificates of Insurance. We'd also like the
vehicular insurance to J.nsure that the trucks these people use have the property
vehicle liability insurance. Not just Workman's Comp insurance so if they
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
damage anything, they have the proper vehicular insurance there too~
Mayor Chmiel: I have something on that too that I was thinking about. Roger,
is there anyway that from them doing what they're doing, with designating them
to, should there be a hold harmless clause?
Roger Knutson: You can put them in but I don't know that it does very much for
you in this kind of situation. You can put it in if you like.
Councilman Johnson: I thought there was something in there. Generally we say
that anything done by the negligence of their personnel, etc., will hold us
harmless and vice versa. If negligence of our personnel, we'll hold them
harmless.
Roger Knutson: That's the case whether you say it or not. That's common law.
Whether you have it there, it's there.
Counc~.lman Johnson: It's interesting how many people argue a whole long time
over something that's conl~on law though. I've run into that indemnification
clause time and t~.me again.
Roger Knutson: When it really becomes sticky is like in construction contracts
where you have provisions that say, if you're 1% at fault and we're 99% at
fault, you hold us harmless for the whole thing. Those kind of people usually
Don Ashworth: I should note, if we can move the term up, we w~.ll do that. I
know a number of our people in the community had hoped that service would come
on in February when their garages are starting to get fairly filled.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a couple of other changes to this. In
looking at the responses that we got back from some of the potential suppliers
of this service, I would like to recommend that we look at other alternatives to
the posting of the bond equal to 3 months hauling fees which is item 8. At
least one of th~people who responded to us said that would increase their cost
and therefore our cost. I'd like to be sure that we've pursued other ways to
guarantee this service maybe aside from requiring a bond which basically, if
it's not needed, is just a cost. If it is needed of course, it's handy to have.
So I'd like to see us looking to see if there are other ways we can guarantee
pick-up. The other thing that they mentioned was that by requiring that the
whole city be picked up on the same day, we were eliminating some contractor's
ability to bid on this. Or if they did bid, they'd have to buy new equipment
and given the short term nature of this contract, their cost of that would
reflect that risk requiring new equipment. I think that the City has
demonstrated for any number of years, that we can adjust to having our garbage
picked up on a variety of days and I would suspect that we can adjust to having
our recycleables picked up on more than one day. So I'd like to see us change
the requirements and ask for them to submit a bid and allow them to pick up the
recycleables on whatever number of days it required them to do it as long as
they could make 2 complete swings through the City in a month which I think is
what we're after.
Councilman Johnson: In the original description, I thought we just said twice a
month. I thought there was something in there that allowed them to do it over a
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
longer period of time than one day. That's a good point though. I don't know
of any hauler that has enough vehicles to do the entire cJ_ty.
Councilman Boyt: Point B may cover it under 3(b) where it says total number of
days required to provide service. They put that ~.nto their bid but I remember
reading in the responses to this, is where I picked it up. I think it was the
first response letter or the second one from Recycle America that said in almost
the last paragraph of their letter, we also reco~mend that Chanhassen not
require t/nat the entire city receive service on a single day. So if that's not
in our requirements, fine but this person was apparently reading that it was.
CounciLman Johnson: Steve, can you address that specific issue?
Steve Hanson: What we used was several other cities as examples. One of those
was St. Louis Park which has got a fairly successful program and their curbside
pick up is, the entire city is done in one day. The intent was to get the pick
up all done in one day just so that it would be more consJ, stent throughout the
City. Everyone would know on Tuesdays when curbside pick up is and that's when
you have to put your stuff out. That's ~/nere that would come from. I have no
problems with putting out the bid to allow somebody to putting in alternatives
to doing it on that single day of t_he week.
Councilman Johnson: I found the area that indicates one day. It says the
entire area should be picked up in one day but a reasonable schedule will be_
considered if this is not feasible for the bidder. So they have an out.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yea, I see that. The second paragraph under B. That's the
change that I propose so it'a alright.
CouncJ. Lman Johnson: I'd like to move acceptance of item l(a) with the staff to
take consideration of the items discussed here.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to authorize the r~/uest for
proposals for curbside recycling with staff taking into consideration the items
discussed by the Council. Ail voted in favor and the motion carr~ed.
B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION AND AUTHORIZE
TAKING BIDS.
Counc.].lman Workman: I just wanted to go over the map c~ick. I'm bringing up
later in Council Presentations discussion on the softball fields, etc. We're
obviously going to see a little bit of pressure on that. The current Field No.
3, it looks like it's been turned which would be this. It says softball in
lighter print and then Little League in darker print. I'm assuming that's going
to be used primarily for Little League. Why are we going to spend money to turn
that field?
Lori Sietsema: That's the way Field 3 is.
City Counc~.l Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: Is it? Yes, that seemed a little odd to me. I never saw
it to be sitting that way. I guess then the only other note that I want to make
in regards to this is, we have stress on a lot of the different fields including
for Little League and it looks as though we're adding, since Field 3 is going to
be used for Little League a lot, that we are in fact adding only 2 more softball
fields? We're building 3 new softball fields.
Lori Sietsema: The discussion at the Park and Rec level so far is that Field
1 would be used for baseball. Field 2 would be softball. Field 3 would be
Little League a~d the other 3 would be softball so we had 4 softball fields and
a baseball/softball field and a Little League.
Councilman Workman: So basically we're only adding one real softball field.
Lori Sietsema: Right. The other one would be used as softball and baseball so
it's 4 1/2 that would be softball.
Councilman Johnson: It gets difficult with that raised pitcher mound for the
Babe Ruth teams we have here in town. We really don't have a good Babe Ruth
field or Little League.
Councilman Workman: No, and I don't have anything against Babe Ruth. I went to
State two years in a row with Babe Ruth. The reason I'm bringing this up is
because there's an awful lot of softball players out there who think, how come
we're cutting back softball? We're adding 3 softball fields. Well, in fact
we're really only adding 1 1/2.
Lori Sietsema: If I could con~nent further on that. Right now we have every
single softball field in the city in every neighborhood park being used by the
youth. That will happen this year. The standard policy is to not use those
neighborhood parks for league play but to leave those for pick up games for
neighborhood use. Not bring that traffic into the neighborhood. With the
addition of a field at Lake Ann, that will take some of the pressure off of the
outside neighborhoods and that's another reason why the eligbibility rules have
to be...
Councilman Workman: But they're not using those softball fields now? They're
not playing any league games there?
Lori Sietsema: The adults aren't but the little kids do use them.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is, there is some confusion. I'm a
taxpayer and this kind of talk. There's a misconception about what and where
and how these fields are being added and what they're going to be used for.
They're seeing an addition of fields and their tax dollars but they're seeing
the league cut back and that maybe is kind of a foggy point.
Councilman Johnson: Of course the fields won't be ready until 1990.
Councilman Workman: I'm just bringing up a point.
Jim Mady: We're looking at Lake Ann with the baseball fields at Lake Ann
possibly as short term. Baseball fields rather in the south park. The Park
Con~nission is envisioning the south park to be the youth sports complex.
City Council P~eet].ng - February 13, 1989
Soccer, Little League baseball games hopefully will be there. Hopefully within
the next 5 years with Lake Ann becoming an adult field. Softball. That was one
of our intents.
CounciLman Boyt: As long as th].s is off, I would make two recommendations to us
heading into this thing. One of th~n is, we need to do an excellent job of
informing the public that we're going to be watering that field when in all
likelihood they're going to have a watering ban. We need to prepare them for.
the sight of water shooting out over this freshly seeded sod. Then the other
co_n~nent, I think, and you probably have already moved in this direction, that we
should prepare a sign that tells them this is where your referend~ dollars are
going and ~ should put a reasonable completion date on it. Not this spring as
we saw downtown v/nich then went onto s~mer into fall to whatever. And we
should also put on there that it will be open for public use at a particular
date so that again that helps us fight this problem with people wanting to use
it before the sod or the seed can handle the traffic. That's all I have,
thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Hearing none, can I have a motion to
approve the plans and specs for Lake Ann park expansion?
Resolution %89-16: Counc~Lnan Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the Plans and Specifications for Lake Ann Park Expansion and Authorize
Taking Bids. All voted in favor and the mot]on carried.
F. JOINT POWERS AGREflMENT, FIRE RESPONSE 'IY) GEDNEY PICKLE PLANT.
Councilwoman Dimter: I brought this up because I saw in Jim Chaffee's letter to
Don Ashworth, it says that the purpose of this arrangement is to help Gedney
Pickle Company regain it's Class 6 fire rating for insurance purposes and that
they're looking at it as a permanent contractual arrangement. Yet in your memo
you reconanended that it .be for 6 months to a year. I just wondered about that.
Don Ashworth: The memorandum you're referring to is one, I believe, about a
year ago we were, that's the timefr~ne that we are working with Chaska and is
dealt with the annexation issue. One of the things that we agreed to was that
we would c~ne to a long term solution to help Gedney in resolving that
annexation issue. So that was part of it and this is kind of a follow up to it
so we not only as a part of the out of court settlement, agreed to allowing
Merle Volk's property to go into Chaska. We received 25 acres from Chaska and
they also agreed to long term fire service for Gedney. It was all part of one
package.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so this is a permanent arrangement?
Don Ashworth: As close as we could come to one.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Joint
Powers Agreement, Fi. re Response to Gedney Pickle Plant. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dimler: I got a note from a Mary DeCateur from the Lotus Lakes
Homeowners Association informing me of a discussion on the Eurasian Water
Milfoil to the lakes of Chanhassen and a Mr. Tom Reese is going to be speaking.
It's going to be on February 16th at 7:30 p.m. at the Chaska High School
conxnons. I just wanted to _make that public for anyone who wanted to attend.
It's our first effort to educate the public on this subject. So if that would
get into the paper,.we'd be really pleased.
Councilman Johnson: What was the time on that again?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's February 16th at 7:30 p.m. at the Chaska High School
Commons. This coming Thursday.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE
OF WEST 78TH STREET IN SCHNEIDER PARK EAST OF KERBER BLVD..
Steve Hanson: This is part of the downtown redevelopment area and when that
work was being done, there was an error discovered in the recording of the
right-of-way for West 78th Street. The request for this vacation is to clarify
and clear up that discrepancy on the north side of West 78th Street.
Consequently what we have before you is a request to vacate a portion of that
right-of-way. Roughly from Kerber Drive back to the east. It's a tapered
section and it just brings that all into an alignment. I have a larger map that
I could show you. It's probably not much more than what's in your packet
although it's a little larger is about the only difference.
Councilman Workman: The only two questions I have are why and how.
Gary Warren: Actually this came about as a part of a surveying bust or whatever
you want to call it. When the original section lines were run in, it didn't
accurately go down and traverse the section line. Those things happen
especially from the older surveys which this downtown area is an older section.
It's not that uncon~non. So this basically cleans up the right-of-way. It
actually was fostered through some of the earlier dealings when we were working
on the downtown. We only needed the 80 foot right-of-way to be consistent with
the rest of the downtown street section. And with the Burdick property and
James property it got quite complex. In fact, eventually there will be a
simP. liar request for the other side of the road to clear up the vacations and
acquisition of easements on that side.
Councilman Johnson: Basically two surveyors don't agree with each other.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Resolution #89-17: CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve ~ae resolution to vacate street right-of-way along the north side of
West 78th Street in Schneider Park east of Kerber Blvd. as described in the
attached resolution. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME OF BUTTERCUP ROAD TO
MCGLYNN DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF MCGLYNN PARK SOUTH OF TH 5 AND WEST OF
AUDUBON ROAD, MCGLYNN BAKERIES.
Steve Hanson: The applicant's requested this name change. On the backside of
that memo was a copy of the map. The street that they're talking about
essentially is a circle drive that loops around and provides access ho no other
parcels other than the parcels that they presently own. Consequently, the staff
is reco~ending approval of that name change in this particular case.
Mayor O~niel called the public hearing to order.
Public: Is that costing the taxpayers money to change that?
Mayor Chmiel: For the name change only?
Public: Yes. The name change to change the documents...
Gary Warren: The signs aren't up. The road's not built. It's a platting
change that they' 11 make on their platting documents.
Public: It won't cost the taxpayers anything?
Mayor Chmiel: No, basically it shouldn' t.
Resolution ~89-18: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close
the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public
hearing was closed.
CounciLman Johnson: Good ~]ing they're doing it now. We've seen some of these
come in 6 months after they built the street and then that did create the
problems you're talking about.
Mayor Chmiel moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to adopt the resolution
authorizing the change in name of Buttercup Road as platted and located in
McGlynn Park to McGlynn Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENTS AS PLATTED IN PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION AS
PART OF THE REPLAT OF PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION INTO ONE LOT TO BE KNOWN AS BOGEMA
ADDITION, LOCATED WEST OF 184174 AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND SOUTHEAST
OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA.
Steve Hanson: Let me just by way of explanation, this particular item is
wrapped into a couple other items that you have on the agenda before you
tonight. The vacation of these easements withJ.n this particular subdivision.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Further in the agenda you have a request for a replat for this particular area
and then subsequently a site plan approval for the same area. In order for that
building to be located there, they need to vacate the existing easements on that
particular piece of property. It contains four lots which comprised an entire
block. The way it's platted now, the easements run along those lot lines and
what this first action that you're doing is to vacate those easements as they
exist so they have full title to build the building where they want to. If ·
you'd like I can explain the other parts of it or just deal w~th those later.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's deal with the other portions when it comes back on the
agenda.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution ~89-19: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
the vacation of the easements as platted in Park One Third Addition as part of
the replat of Park One Third Addition into one lot. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: KRONICK STORM WATER DETENTION POND.
Gary Warren: We took bids for the construction of the outlet piping from the
storm water detention pond. As stated in the documents, the City purchased 1.6
acres of the northerly part of this parcel from Mr. Kronick and as a part of his
closing, he's responsible for doing the rough grading on the pond and the City
needs to build this outlet structure. The engineer's estimate for the
construction was $25,000.00 and we received some very favorable bids, a number
of bidders. Latour Construction is the low bidder, at a bid of $23,799.50. This
will be funded out of the tax increment district No. 2 proceeds and we
therefore would recon~nend awarding the contract in that amount to Latour
Construction.
Resolution ~89-20: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept
the bids as proposed by the City Engineer for the Kronick Storm Water Detention
Pond and to award the bid to Latour Construction in the amount of $23,799.50.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BOGEMA ADDITION AND A
REPLAT OF LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION LOCATED WEST OF 184TH
AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND SOUTHEAST OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA.
Steve Hanson: This is the request I was just mentioning before for preliminary
and final plat approval for the area to be platted into the Bogema Addition.
The staff has recon~ended approval as has the Planning Conm]ission. Since
the Planning Cc~mission review of this, we did notice one discrepancy that we'd
like to have added as a condition. I'll show you on this one map here. These
areas noted in yellow are where there are some inconsistencies in the boundary
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
that existed when the present owners purchased the property as far as their
sidewalks are located. They're asking that it be done on the plat as the
boundary be adjusted to take care of these discrepancies where the sidewalk
exists on s~me of their property and vice versa. There are some changes that
I'm not sure exactly how those conflicts came to be but we'd like to have those
corrected on the plat at this point in time. It's pretty minor, it's a minor
change that can be done with the plat. I did want you to have that placed on
there as a condition.
Mayor Ck~iel: Any discussJ, on by Council? Hearing none, I'll entertain a
motion.
Councilman Boyt moved, CounciLman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat for Bog~ma AddJ. tion, a replat of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block
2, Park One Third Addition with the following condition:
1. That the boundary be adjusted to take care of the discrepancies where the
sidewalk exists on the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 97,4gg SQ. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON
PROPERTY ZONED IOP, LOCATED WEST OF 184TH AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND
SOUTHEAST OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA/R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION.
Steve Hanson: This is a request for the Site Plan approval for this same tract.
The areas noted on here in the light green are the areas on the partJ.cular
property that will be disturbed and relandscaped. The brownish color here is
the manufacturing portJ, on of the facility that's being built. This redish area
was the office portion and that particular area is a two story office space for
headquarters. The exterior lighting as mentioned in the staff report, is all
located on the building on the outsJ.de...get the details on that to make sure
that that all go downwards in shining and not obtrusive to the surrounding
properties. Also, in the staff recon~nendation, you'll notice there's a
recon~nendation for additional landscaping at tl~e end of the parking.
Specifically at the end of this long row of parking here. The dark green areas
here and we' re suggesting that be added another island in the middle to bring
that up and break that area up a little bit... Also, in this particular
location...stand of trees would remain and also these trees along thJ. s northern
part of the property... A predominance of those trees will remain. Some of the
grading will encroach on that particular tree area and at this time we're
still... Also, we'll be bringing in the DNR forester to take a look at the
trees... Also, the setback here in this.. °existing vegetation to speak of...
That concludes my remarks unless you have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have maybe one or two. Manufacturing, what will
this building basically, what will they manufacture?
Steve Hanson: I think it would be easier to let the owner tell you. He is here
as well as one of his consultants.
Mayor Chn].el: Could pu do that please.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Del Bog~ma: My name is Del Bogema. I will be the owner of the building and the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, Ver-Sa-Til Associates
which will occupy the building. I have some literature here that w~uld probably
explain better what we do that you can pass around. Basically we're a high
precision machining facility supplying precision machine components and
assemblies to the computer and defense industries primarily. This is basically
what we're going to be doing in this facility. We've made arrangements to keep
up the appearance of the area. To keep all of our garbage, chip collections and
everything within the building so there will be no external accumulation of
anything that would be unsightly. We're trying, as I mentioned in the Planning
Cc~mission meeting, trying to be a good citizen to this con~nunity. I think one
of the Councilman I met at the Planning Con~nission meeting is probably as
familiar as anybody with what our business is all about and maybe as an unbiased
bystander he might be able to explain a little better than I w~uld. Are there
any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have no further questions. I appreciate you just
telling us as to what this business is going to be.
Councilman Boyt: I assume that noise really isn't a factor in your business?
Del Bogema: It's always a factor. It depends as what you classify as noise. I
would guess that we're probably not going to be as noisy as the forklifts that
are up at the Lyman Lumber Company which I understand has been a problem. No.
From our standpoint, in the building we're currently in in St. Louis Park, you
can stand out in the parking lot and not hear what's going on inside the
build ing.
Councilman Johnson: Everything you do is all self-contained within the
building?
Del Bogema: That's true and the air compressors which sometimes are a problem
in this type of a manufacturing facility, when you're utilizing the old piston
driven compressors, it's not going to be here because we're using the screw type
which are virtually noiseless by comparison.
Councilman Boyt: What are your hours of operation?
Del Bogema: Our hours of operation start at 6:30 in the morning. The shift
runs until 5:00 in the afternoon. The night shift comes in at 5:00 and runs til
3:30 in the morning.
Councilman Boyt: Almost 24 hours a day?
Del Bogema: 20 hours a day, right.
Councilman Boyt: How many employees do you anticipate having?
Del Bogema: About 140 probably 80% of which will be on the day shift and the
night shift is a skeleton crew. We basically run our big expense items on the
night shift. All the numerical control machines and things of this nature.
High ticket items.
11
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: You mentioned the forklifts and that is the direction that I
was heading in this thing, l~ne unloading, do you have deliveries by tractor
trailer or rail or what?
Del Bogema: Tractor trailer, mostly intown type trucks but we do get s~mis. But
as you would see, if you had the opportunity to look at the plans, we have a 70
foot long internal loading facility where we can bring a full, over the road
s~mi inside, shut the door and you'll never know it's there.
Councilman Boyt: Sounds terrific. What I would like to recognend in this
situation and Mr. Bogema, you might want to respond to this, and this is along
the lines of what I think we did with Lyman Lttmber and Rosemount here just
recently. Since we're dealing with potentially mature trees and our DNR
forester will tell us ~nat we're going to lose there, I'd like to see the
Council establish as one of the conditions that any trees that are removed that
are 4 caliper inches or greater, will be replaced with trees of a minimum of 4
caliper inches.
Councilman Johnson: Can you add the word healthy in there?
CounciLman Boyt: We don't need to worry about an elm tree that's been sitting
there dead for a ~nile but a healthy tree_, and I know there's some different
definitions of the quality of a tree and that sort of thing but I'd like the
jist of what -we're trying to do, to say when you r~nove a mature tree, you
replace with comparable caliper inch. That doesn't mean that if you remove a
inch tree, you ueplace it with a 10 inch tree. That would be impossible but you
might replace it with a couple of 4 inchers.
Del Bogema: I don't see a problem with that at all.
that...
The terrain will allow
CounciLnan Boyt: I would certainly be open to you working with t~ne DNR forester
and staff to work that out but my intent and if we can put an intent in a
condition, would be that we continue to require developers to replace mature
trees with something of fairly comparable, reasonable size and a 4 inch caliper
tree is a pretty substantial tree but yet it's still transplantable.
CounciLman Johnson: It doesn't have to go back in the same spot either because
obviously if you've done grading ~%ere, there's a reason. There are certain
areas of this land that can use some forestation and I do believe he's done an
excellent job of avoiding and designing around, designing to the site versus
bringing in a building and it's designed and plopping it on the site like we've
seen elsewhere. They have really done excellent work here.
Del Bogema: I don't have any problem with the intent because that's our intent
t~...
Bob Veeter: My n~ne is Bob Veeter. I'm with R. Johnson Construction and we are
doing as much as we can to avoid really having to remove any trees at all.
assume, t_here's going to have to be a few trees that would go but not too many
and there are, for this site there are quite a few trees. We are doing a fair
amount of additional landscaping. I guess ~nat I'm use to dealing with as far
as putting new trees in which is usually I think around more the several inch
diameter variety and that's quite a bit different than taking in even a 4 inch
12
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
tree is somewhat big. It's not real large but just with all the trees %ha%
we're saving on the site, it almost seems like it's kind of a little bit severe
even maybe to have to replace every one that's there. I'm sure we can work with
that but it just seemed to be almost a little bit much.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Veeter, what I'm trying to express here is what I hope
becomes a consistent policy with the Council that when you remove a substantial
tree, that you replace it with a transplantable tree that's still fairly large
and I think 4 inch kind of does that. As you said, it is a transplantable tree
but it's not the 1 inch sort of thing that we tend to get in a lot of people's
front yards when their house gets built. I agree with what the Council is
saying here and I don't think we're talking about very many trees given the
efforts that you've made. It's just an attempt to remain consistent in a policy
that I think we've followed with a couple of developers here recently.
Bob Veeter: I don't know how that w~uld relate to like, say a site that was
heavily wooded to begin with. I don't know what you'd do with that but I guess
that would be dealt with when it comes along. I guess I just wanted to bring
that up that it could be a little bit out of hand maybe from what would be
reasonable considering all the trees that we're already are bringing in. We_
just want to work with the City on it. There's kind of a balance in there that
we haven't exactly gone out and tagged the trees individually. We could have
done that but we haven't done that at this point but there will be a point when
we would do that once the building is laid out and then we can go out there and
just see exactly what we would be dealing with.
Mayor Chmiel: As Steve mentioned, we are taking many considerations into the
fact there are remaining trees going to stand and such. The additional
landscaping, if I'm not mistaken, is a little bit over and above ~nat the
requirements really are by the City. I think that's something that can be
worked out between staff and yourselves to come up with those conclusions as to
what's going to be required.
Councilman Boyt: So that would be condition 13. That the developer work with
staff and the DNR forester to replace mature trees that are removed along the
lines of the discussion that we've just held. That leaves it fairly open but I
think it's...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion on the floor?
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of the site plan review as stated in
item 6 of our agenda with the 13 conditions. The 12 previously stated and the
13th just added.
Mayor Chmiel: Does that also incorporate Bill the plans that were stamped
"Received December 27, 1988" and revised plans that were stamped "Received
January 11, 1989"?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
13
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan Review
#88-18 as shown on the plans stamped "Received December 27, 1988" and revised
plans stamped "Received January 11, 1989" subject to the following conditions:
1. Additional landscaping be provided in the parking area. Specifically, this
should include convert].ng 8 parking stalls to landscaped areas.
2. All rooftop mechanical equipment wii1 need to be screened and detailed
plans provided.
3. Details on exterior lighting need to be submitted and approved by staff to
show that lighting is screened and will not be visible from adjacent
properties.
4. Conditions from referral agencies:
a. The building must be sprinklered.
b. A checklist of requirements is attached that must be met as a part of
the building permit process.
c. Fire hydrants need to have a spacing of 30~ foot maximum.
d. Fire Department needs 25 foot minim~ clear width on parking rows
for ~nergency vehicles.
e. Inside trash storage area shall be protected by an ]reproved automatic
sprinkler system.
5. The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
6. The applicant shall install all erosion controls prior to the con~nencement
of any construction. All erosJ, on controls shall r~nain in place throughout
the duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for
making periodic checks of all erosion controls and making any repairs
promptly.
7. The plans shall be revised to incorporate the City's standard driveway
apron for con~nercial development as depicted in Attachment #1 of City
Engineer ' s 'memo.
8. The plans shall be revised to include typical sections for both types of
dr iveway surfaces.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for all debris and clean up on and off
site resulting from the construction of this site.
lg. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with a full set of "As-
Built" mylar reproducable copies prior to receiv].ng a certificate of
occupancy.
11. Conditi. oned upon replatting of the site by the applicant.
12. Add an inflarmable waste trap.
14
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
13. That the developer work with staff and the DNR forester for replacing
mature trees that are removed.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR INPUT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP, 195 WEST 78TH STREET, GUY
PETERSON.
Steve Hanson: This particular request, the applicants are presently before the
Planning Con~nission if you will. They had come to one of the last meetings for
site plan review for an expansion of their business. Through that discussion as
well as the staff report, there was one item that was mentioned in there as far
as a potential for this site to be acquired as a part of the TH 101 and TH 5
improvements. The Planning Con~ission felt that rather than moving ahead with
the site plan at that particular time, and I believe tha applicant concurred
with that, was that it would be beneficial for this item to come before City
Council in order to get some direction as to the potential for that area to
either be incorporated into those improvements of the property acquired, or if
that's not the case, that then they should go back to the Planning Con~nission
with their plans and go through the site plan review process as well as the
variance process that they will also be requesting. I think you'll find on the
memorandum that Planning Staff had prepared, that the City Manager added some
additional cc~ments. Essentially suggesting that the City should probably move
ahead with acquisition of this particular parcel as a part of those
improvements.
Councilman Boyt: Steve, would this be really an action, in terms of the
appraisal and condemnation, be better considered by the HRA than the City
Council? The reason I raise that is, if this is something that the HRA is going
to fund, which it is, it would se~n to me that they would be the ones that would
need to direct that action to take place.
Steve Hanson: You may be right. I'm not sure. I was looking for Todd.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, I believe there is actually two issues in here. That
and the expansion of the non-conforming use and how the Council would look at
such an expansion. I guess the other item is whether we believe that this is a
good action for HRA to do. Not necessarily that we would be doing it. Like Don
mentions in his part of it, HRA would be the one making this acquisition.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we could recon~end to them.
Councilman Johnson: We can recon~nend to them. Actually there's no actual, this
is a discussion item more than anything. I don't think we have any action
tonight to actually take. The owner would like to hear our opinions, I believe,
as to the probability of him expanding at this site and the probability of
acquisition. That's how I understood this item coming before us.
Mayor Chmiel: It's clarification for the Planning Con~nission as to which way
the Council wishes to go with this.
15
'City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Okay. That answers my question. How would you like to
proceed?
Mayor ~mnmiel: I think what ~e probably should wind up doing ~.s if th~.s is going
to fall under the realm of the HRA, I think it would behoove us to make that
recomme..r~ation that this be sent to the HRA with review of that specific
business and co_re up with a conclusion as to whether or not the property should
be purchased and reach a successful negotiation with the property owner. If
not, then go to the ultimate which is cond~nnation.
CounciLman Boyt: Well, I would make a motion that we refer this to the HRA with
our recommendation that they continue, or begin to pursue the acquisition of
this piece of property.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Before we move on, is Mr. Peterson here? Is
there any colr~aent that you'd like to make?
CounciLman Job_nson: I'll second the motion and would like to have some
discussion.
Mayor Clmaiel: It's been moved and seconded with s~me discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The discussion I want to go on is really now what the
future of that is, is even taken without the future action of that being
acquired by HRA, if that does occur. If this were just a piece of property and
we were looking to expand this. This is a non-conditional use. I have been
very consistent I believe over the last two years of recoa~nending against
expanding of non-conditional uses or providing expansions to anyplace that don't
meet our ordinances. This would not probably meet the 5 conditions of a
variance. It would be_ very difficult. He's got a business there. The
expansion of it, I doubt if it would occur. If we were at a point of voting on
this, I'd be voting against allowing a variance for expansion in this facility.
Councilman Boyt: I'm impressed anytime a local business cc~nes in and says, I'm
ready to expand. That means you must be doing well. I'd like to think that you
would do well in another location. What the HRA offers, hopefully, is a
situation of which everyone wins. They get a piece of property that they seem
to think they want for the developn~ent of the City. You get a chance to build a
building located where you and the City would both like to see them. Hopefully
it will be_ close to where you are now because you apparently built a pretty good
clientele. From what I understand, you do quite a good business there.
Especially at lunchtime as I understand you basically feed a big part of the
City. I'm glad to see things going so well for you and I'm real hopeful that
this works out so that everyone wins.
Guy Peterson: ... non-conforming use...
Councilman Johnson: In that you don't meet the proper setbacks. I should say,
maybe it's not a non-conforming. That might not be the right definition of it
but you have a zero setback to the highway right-of-way where you're requ~.red a
25 foot setback. You have a zero setback in another area where you' re required
a 25 foot or 30 foot setback. Those non-conforming problems. Not necessarily,
the use is not non-conforming. The site is in a state of non-variance. You
don't have a variance but it requires variances but you're grandfathered in
16
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
because the building was built before the zoning laws. It's comparable to the
situation we had with the little cottage hotel, whatever you call it down at the
junction of TH 169 and TH 101. There's a bunch of small cottages. They're all
on a septic system. They wanted to expand last year and we said, no, you can't
expand because you require too many variances to expand. This would just take a
bad situation, as far as variances from our zoning ordinance and make it a
little worse. If the lovely csment plant happens to also get taken over here,
this would make a fairly decent retail spot if we could decent access to it but
the road changes are an access problem. I think your business is going to
suffer with the road changes there too ~nen you end up with only right-ins so
the only way to access your property is for people coming from the north going
to TH 5 from the south. They won't be able to come off of TH 5 and get to you
anymore so that's going to be a problem with this property anyway.
The audio system could not pick up Guy Peteson's questions and comments from the
audience.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, if they can get the railroad to agree to another, what
would that make, a fifth crossing in town? A fourth crossing in town.
Guy Peterson made a con~nent.
Councilman Johnson: What about the other one that's further to the west?
Gary Warren: The single access driveway.
Councilman Johnson: The single access driveway I think they're talking about is
running through Jerry Schlenk's property or something. Just have h~m build a
bridge or something at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, could I make a con~nent?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead.
Todd Gerhardt: From what Gary has informed me, you were going to pass this
back to the HRA for their review?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's correct.
Todd Gerhardt: This is under special legislation and this is an economic
development district. Those monies would be used for the acquisition of the
Taco Shop and Redi-mix plant and the road construction. The City Council is the
authority in charge of that economic development district. The HRA is in charge
of a redevelopment district and you operate and control the economic development
budget so you are the advisory board on that.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question then. Now that you've got my interest.
Todd, maybe you can briefly tell us where we get the money.
Todd Gerhardt: The money is, that district collapses this year. After that,
that district no longer exists. We have special legislation in that should be
heard within the next 90 days that we extend that district for a 4 year period
17
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
of tLme. With that extension, those monies would be_ used directly for the
acquisition, road realig~nent and directly for that intersection.
Councilman Boyt: It's your impression Todd, excuse me but it's your opinion
that there are sufficient funds in that extended so that we're going to buy an
aparhnent building, build a major portion of a highway and these other two
acquisitions?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. The taxes generated from Redman
Products, Lyman Lumber, CPT, or DataServ now and the Press, those monies are
within that district and would be used to pay for tJ]ose costs. I don't know
exactly what those numbers are but they are sufficient and from what our
engineers have told us the estimate cost of the apart~nent and the acquisitions
and the realignment of the road vx)uld be sufficient.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would there be a problem though...
Councilman Workman: That's what he referenced. The special legislation that's
supposed to be renewed.
Todd Gerhardt: We've been meeting with Hennepin County, the State, MnDot...
Councilwoman Dimler: %fnat's the liketihocd that they will give that up?
Todd Gerhardt: It looks be_tter almost...
Gary Warren: Just to add, we did the trip origination study here and that was
missing information that was recently presented February 2nd and that's Don's
last letter in the packet here to Mr. Garris. Basically, our results show that
5~% to 55% of the trips out there were Hennepin County oriented. Earlier
discussions with Co~nissioner Garris were that if we could show that say roughly
3~% or 33% of those trips are benefitting Hennepin County residents, that he
would have no problem supporting this legislation so we're opt]_mistic I guess
and we'll see when the final vote goes out for those but it would be appropriate
I think to condition any action here on the fact that the City needs to have
those funds or the District extended in order to make this all happen. We
wouldn't be condemning this obviously if the project isn't going to go forward.
Councilwoman Dimler: What's the timeframe then that you think you'll have that
answer?
Todd Gerhardt: Within the next 90 days. When the legislation, they have their
hearings and we' 11 probably have to go to the tax co~nittee and make another
presentation as we did last year. To keep on our time schedule, if you would
reference Don's memo in advising Roger to go ahead and have appraisals prepared
so we can stay on that schedule.
Councikaan Boyt: I would modify or amend my motion so that we direct the City
Attorney's office to obtain appropriate appraisals for the property and other
documents necessary to begin condemnation with no action being taken to condemn
the property until the district is extended by the State.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, .would you accept that as an amendment to your second?
18
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes, as long as you're also including negotiation of the
acquisition rather than just condemnation as in the last paragraph of page 2
there. The entire recon~nendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any
further discussion?
Resolution #89-21: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a
resolution authorizing condemnation of property in connection with the TH 101
realignment. Further, to direct the City Attorney's office to obtain
appropriate appraisals for the property which can be used to negotiate
acquisition and, therefore, potentially avoid condemnation. Also, that no
action be taken to condsmn the property until the district is extended by the
State. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN:
A. ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1 TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET DATE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING.
B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE TAKING OF BIDS.
Gary Warren: As summarized in the staff report, the December 12th Council
meeting, staff was authorized to have plans and specifications prepared for the
project and also in light of the importance of getting this trunk watermain
completed in anticipation of our peak water d~mands this July, we also were
directed to prepare a policy document that would reflect the cost associated
with connecting, the costs and the policies associated with connecting any
interested parties along the aligr~ent of this trunk watermain on Lake Lucy
Road. The addendum report that's before you tonight under item a is the
document that was prepared to reflect the connection policies that we're
recon~nending and has the input of the City Attorney, myself and the City Manager
in bringing these items together. It's basis is primarily founded in the
existing City Ordinances. This we found to be the most sensible way to our
thinking of allowing a lot of flexibility for anybody who wanted to hook into
the system but also for not requiring people to hook into the system but if they
did at some later date, that we have a vehicle for establishing a reasonable
cost for the residential benefit of having water available. If you'd like, I
can go down and itemize the specific elements of that policy or if everybody, if
there's questions, depending on how you'd like to handle it.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you go through that for clarification.
Gary Warren: I'll put it up on the overhead. I brought some projections along.
These are right out of the Addendum Report so if you want to follow along. The
basic premise that was agreed to as part of the overall, that we looked at as
part of the overall policy...part of the plans of Lake Lucy Road..proceeds would
be utilized that are available from the 1986 general obligations funds that were
used for the trunk improvements. 'We talked with Mr. Andy Merry and he said that
those bonds were justified based on the trunk needs of the six water systems and
reservoir, Chanhassen Hills and Kerber Blvd. trunk watermain... So this would
allow us, we wouldn't have to take any funds out of our water expansion fund
19
~ ~City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
which we don't have enough dollars for anyway. This allows us to cover the
project, l~e fees for each property owner are su~aarized here in matrix form.
Basically there would be a connection charge covered under the City Code. We
have basic calculations along the alignment of Lake Lucy Road to say, well
this...is on this side can potentially develop. How many users are we going to
have along Lake Lucy Road? It is a guesstimate but we believe that we've
applied good judf~nent as far as zoning for what is out there right now. Taking
into account existing preliminary plats that are in with the Ersibo property.
Also recognizing if the MUSA moves, that we maybe will see a whole different
development characteristic depending on how the Council is...at that time to
zone the property. This is the area along the abutting properties that is
generally the Urban Service Atea but all the rest of this is zoned rural
residential. A lot of the parcels up there are 5 1/2 acres...with I guess...I
would say it's $3~,0gg.~0 to $500,0~0.0~ h~nes in s~me cases so even if the
urban service area line moves, I shouldn't say if, when it moves, those
properties may not ever subdivide. So we were faced with that kind of a
judgment. What we did is arrived at approximately 8g units that we think
realistically could develop and ultimately use the trunk watermain. So we've
done a calculation in the report that's in the appendix to say, if we were just
constructing an 8 inch watermain along Lake Lucy Road which would be typical...,
what were the costs associated with that and dividing that by the 8g and that's
how we arrived at the $3,g35.~0. The City Ordinance also provides for a hook-up
charge which is commonly referred to as a trunk charge. Basically every user in
the city...a building permit today, pays a $65g.0~ fee for that building permit
which goes into the City's water expansion fund. We use that for normal
expansions outside of the...bond issue...operating system. As an example, we
recently approved the preparation of plans and specifications for rehabbing the
downtown tower. That 1,0g~ gallon tank. The funds for repairing the tank came
out of our trunk fund which is funded by those. That is a number, the $65~.0~,
the current number. That's not to say that it would not be increased in the
future. It likely would depending on how... Fire safety availability charge,
$8.0g per quarter. That is a charge that basically would be applied to any
existing dwelling, residential dwelling, I'm talking along the line of Lake Lucy
Road, that could tap into that main and it would benefit by having the watermain
out there from a fire safety standpoint. We're proposing that they would charge
consistent with the rest of the City properties who are not on the watermain but
could be on. That they be charged an $8.gg per quarter charge to reflect the
fact that they do receive the water from a fire safety standpoint.
Councilman Johnson: This would be currently, anybody who does not connect. If
they connect...?
Gary Warren: If they connect, then they pay whatever the useage is. Put a
meter on it and that's how they would go. The minimum charge...that were in
place prior to the watermain going in and a particular project was developed
okay so they weren't required to hook in. Same policy. Payment options.
Connection charge, first of all, this only applies to a person who wants to
connect to the syste~. If you don't want to tie in, you don't pay. You're not
required to hook up. But if you do want to connect to the system...plus you
have your own cost of taking the water service from the road right-of-way line
basically into your property and into your home... The next charge is the
hook-up charges. We're proposing that they do not pay at this t~me, that we'd
like the City to assess an additional cost...that they would be assessed against
the property. The City's policy is to take the rate of the bonds...in this
20
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
case, 7 1/2%, round it up to the nearest p~rcent and add a percentage so 7 1/2
plus rounding it to 8 plus 1 is 9% and a 6 year term which basically reflects
the ra~aining term of the cost... If a person does not choose to connect at
this time, say 5 years down the road wants to hook into the Lake Lucy Road
watermain, they would be allowed to do that with this policy. The connection
charge of $3,035.00 5 years from now to reflect the inflationary increases to
that charge and again, this is spelled out in the ordinance, we would apply an
interest of 4 1/2%...so there is an escalator built in here. Not to be an
incentive to having you hook-up. It's just to reflect the fact that $3,035.00
today is not worth $3,035.00 5 years from now. Hook-up charge, also City
policy...also could be assessed for a period of 4 years at 8% so there's an
option... I guess that's the policy. The feasibility study also did update the
cost of the project and that is sun~narized in the staff report. Basically we,
including the booster station improvements, we're looking at a $472,500.00
project for all practical purposes here. That is consistent with the original
feasibility study estimate with the exception that we do have, when we looked at
the policy for connections and in order to provide this option where the
residents can or don't have to connect, we were faced with the fact that the
watermains for the most part is on the north side of the roadway. What if a
resident on the south side wants to hook into that watermain? Is it fair to
make th~m pay the cost for going underneath, jacking underneath Lake Lucy Road
which roughly is a $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 added burden so we said that didn't
se~ reasonable. So the construction plans that are in tonight's packet include
7 crossings of Lake Lucy Road where a 6 inch stub would be jacked underneath the
road. So it's available. We've kind of taken a hard look at the properties on
the south side and said well, if you come across in this location, how would the
least number of crossings, how can we allow anybody who wants one on the south
side to hook ~n? So we have added that to the project and that is why we have,
it's a $40,000.00 cost that we did not have in the original feasibility study
but we think that it's necessary to give us the flexibility and to not have any
disparity between the north side and the south side. The second part of the
issue, and they are separate issues I should make clear, was to try to address
the bike trail option. Maybe you'd like me to hold off on that for now and just
deal with this?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'll deal with this one first and then move on.
Councilman Johnson: I see ~ have some residents in the audience.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone wish to address this issue? Hearing none, bring it
back to the Council.
Larry Kerber: I've got a question. Larry Kerber. My property is at 6700
Powers. You had mentioned something about a $8.00 service charge for people who
do not hook up to water for fire protection.
Gary Warren: That's for dwellings.
Larry Kerber: Existing dwellings that that line passes in front of that do not
hook up. Why is that?
Gary Warren: That's to recognize the benefit from a fire service standpoint.
That water is available from a fire hydrant for fire protection.
21
Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Larry Kerber: My does the guy who hooks up then not have to pay that? He's
getting the s~e benefit.
Gary Warren: He's paying that through his, his water is metered and he's paying
for that system.
Larry Kerber: So that's built right into his?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Larry Kerber: Now that's only going to be the property not serviced by existing
water as you've got the parcels on the corner of CR 17 and Powers serviced by
water on Powers. My place and the 3 little places on the corner. They will not
be assessed that $8.gg charge?
Gary Warren: Those that have access and have service stubs from Powers Blvd.,
that's correct.
Larry Kerber: Okay, that's all I wanted to know.
Mayor Ckmiel: Anyone else? Hearing none, we'll bring it back to Council under
Council discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I think Westwood has done a good job here along with Gary
and crew. I'm glad that we came in so well under budget on the water tower that
we can utilize those monies here without having to dip in the till anymore. I'd
like to hear more on the bike issue side of the thing. That see~%s to be a
hotter subject.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to thank Gary and Westwood for working with
the residents so well. I was there when they c~e in and looked at their
individual properties and Gary told them what would happen. Especially that you
were willing to go fr~n the north to the south when it was deemed reasonable.
CounciLman Word, an: With those_ '86 bonds in financing this whole thing, is that
a potential to open up a problem in the future when somebody is perhaps going to
be_ assessed? Is this a coincidence with this bond? This kind of funding?
I understand the importance of the project and that's why we kind of went with
that kind of funding but if we didn't have the bonds, what would we do?
Gary Warren: If we didn't have the bonds, I guess you could do nothing. You
could issue another bond or look at some combination of asses~ment program to
generate the revenues from the project perhaps in conjunction with using some of
our water expansion funds. The budget for '89, we had looked at $15g,00g.~g
coming out of that fund to SC money for this project but that was when we
thought we maybe had a $3~g,0gg.gg project. We didn't know. Without the good
fortune months, having the reserve from the bond issue, we'd be looking at all
kinds of different scenarios and combinations of assessments. Or maybe more
likely, because of, I don't see that the policies would change that much. I
think the policy that we've established here is well founded in the fact that it
is a trunk benefit and we happen to be going past a lot of abutting properties
and we want to be_ as congenial as possible to allow them to hook in without
making everybody hook ].n but the policy that it is a trunk sewer line would
probably come to the Council to be faced with do you want to cut another bond
22
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
issue to fund this. If that answers your question
Councilman Workman: What exactly will this do for our, in very simple terms,
what will it do for our water situation this sun, her, in the future? What are we
connecting and what are we gaining? It's an expensive project. What exactly
is the City of Chanhassen getting by adding this?
Gary Warren: In simple terms, let me just quickly put this graphic back up.
This doesn't show our water lines but basically right outside of Prince's
property on Galpin we have Well 93 which right now is the only well that
services all the properties in the Minnewashta area, the northwest corner of the
City basically. The water service is provided by Well #3 which pumps through a
booster at this intersection of Lake Lucy Road up to our 200,000 gallon elevated
tank on Murray Hill Road. We have 150 gallon well over at the high school up
here that is a very humble supplement to that system. Our Well 93 pumps at
about 1,000 gallons a minute. Right now if Well #3 goes out, we are very much
vulnerable to, we don't have another supplement if it goes out during our peak
demand in the sunnier here, we have trouble getting water... The 200,000 gallon
tank maybe carries a days worth of reserve so if we have a major problem, we're
hurting. Likewise, in the downtown, am ajority of our users or three-quarters
of them are in the rest of the urban area around Lotus Lake and such. This area
is serviced by Well #4 which is down by Lake Susan where we're currently...and
by Well #2 which is over by South Lotus Lake Park. Both those wells pump into
the syst~ but as we experienced last year, they are very strapped for keeping
up under peak conditions. They run about 20 to 22 hours a day when we hit the
July season. Whereas Well #3 on the west side over here maybe ran 5 to 8 hours
a day under peak conditions so there's about 10 to 12 hours worth of reserve
capacity that this well could be running if we needed it but because it's
oversized, not oversized but it's adequate for the northwest area, we can't tap
that reserve because we don't have any... Lake Lucy Road will allow us to pump
from Well ~3 up into what we call the lower service area and vice versa. Well
~4 will not be able to come back to the western service area so we provide
ourselves some good redundancy in the systsm and allow us to tap into the
reserve capacity that's in Well ~3 right now. Eventually and he was just here,
I guess my desire was to get a feasibility study authorized by the Council for
Well #5. This will buy us some time because ultimately we will need to have
Well #5 on line.
Councilman Workman: What will it have to do with our reservoir up there?
Gary Warren: Murray Hill or this reservoir? They'll be able to cross feed.
Basically Well #2 and ~4 are pumping and if they can't keep up with the
consistent demand, the telementry will be established so Well #3 will kick into
the system, if it isn't already, and it will feed back into that reservoir. The
downtown reservoir and this reservoir are tied in with an altitude belt to stay
at the same elevation. They both go up and down together. So when they hit
certain staging levels, 1 well, 2 wells, 3 wells will kick in to meet the demand
to fill those tanks for the service area. So they will all basically work as
one unit to service that plus they will also be able to feed back into the
northwest part...and reserve that's generated.
Councilman Workman: Is this going to do anything to alleviate our sprinkling
ban?
23
Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: P~ sure hope so. That's the idea is to tap the...
CouncJ. L~an Workman: This sun, her?
Gary Warren: Well, we're intending, if we stay on our schedule and we are on
our schedule right now, to have this project awarded at 'the March 13th City
Council meeting. Providing favorable bids and all those other good things, the
construction schedule we're comfortable with, this line would be in service by
July of this year. Typically, and last year was not typical, but we typically
are...
CounciLman Workman: So people that are out there right now and this is going to
be running down Lake Lucy Road, they're going to be charged basically $32.g0 a
year and that's about all until they tap in?
Gary ~rren: Right. If hhere's a dwelling on the parcel, a residential
dwelling, they will be charged $32.00.
Councilman Workman: But $32.00 a year is it and a little inconvenience?
Councilman Johnson: They should also check with their insurance companies. Now
that they have a fire hydrant closer, what effect that has on their household
insurance. I assume if you're under fire protection versus no fire protection.
That's a question my insurance company asked. How far it is to your nearest
fire hydrant. Right now it's a couple miles. Maybe, you're an insurance man,
you might know better.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like someone to provide a motion to accept the Supplement
Report No. 1, the feasibility study and set a date for public hearing. What
date for the public hearing have you indicated Gary?
Gary Warren: March 13th.
Resolution #89-22: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
Supplemental Report No. 1 to the Feasibility Study and to set the public hearing
date for March 13, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Can we discuss the bike trail option?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the next one.
Councilman Boyt: t think that we should point out though that this will not
relieve the city from the prospects of a watering ban for an even/odd day or
some sort of combination if we have a summer like we had last st~ner.
Gary Warren: That's correct. We would be able to tolerate it a little bit
better but if you have that kind of a condition, every city just about had a
sprinkling bans and watering restrictions. It was 'that dry.
CounciLman Boyt: I just don't want to set up false expectations. It might be a
little safer fra~ the terms of fighting a fire standpoint but people's lawns are
still going to suffer.
24
City Council Meeting - February 131 1989
Gary Warren: We haven't made up for very much moisture content in the soil yet.
Councilman Johnson: But we are in better shape having that new water reservoir
on line this year than we were last year without the water reservoir. It's not
all gloomy.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move to the trail issue portion.
Gary Warren: At the last Council meeting, the Council was presented with a
petition from the neighbors concerning the persistent issue that we've been
trying to resolve concerning on-street trails and the lack of parking that's
available as a result of that. I guess my thinking is that we were looking at
the feasibility study is that well, we don't have a quick fix to that problem
but to pose one alternative here, I had Westwood prepare a cost estimate for an
option that I thought might have some potential. That was, at the time of
construction of the watermain, we're going to have this 10 foot basically area
that we'll be clearing and restoring as a part of construction. ~at if we take
one of the trails off the Lake Lucy Road and put it right over the watermain?
Obviously there are some costs involving that...and maybe we could turn one of
the lanes, in this case I had said the south bike path, turn that into a parking
zone. We looked at that. The dollars are in the report. It was $47,000.00 to
$64,000.00, roughly, depending on whether we have to move our retaining wall on
Yosemite Avenue but just to touch on the highlights aside from the costs here
which I don't..., there are some hurdles with MnDot. Basically, this is looking
north, so this would be the north side of the road and this would be the south
side. The current road section is a 36 foot road section from face of curb to
face of curb. We would go up...to 6 foot bike path lanes, one in each
direction. As you will recall from the previous discussions on this, State
Statute requires that we can't have bike lanes going opposite directions on the
same side of the road. We pose a traffic, Statute problem... The road section
under MnDot's criteria, being a State Aid Road, in order to have a sufficient
road section that would allow one lane of parking, MnDot likes to recorrmend a 34
foot road. If we look at the section frc~ here over because we wouldn't be able
to include the bike path and if you take the bike path off on the south side of
Lake Lucy Road and put it off over the watermain, we have a 30 foot section.
We're 4 feet short which, not to say that it couldn't .happen but MnDot would
have to look at that as a variance to the road section requirements in their
State Aid Manual... We didn't have time to get into all of that or even discuss
it very much with MnDot. I just wanted to point that out that it's not a given.
If we decide for example that yes, let's do that. Let's bear the expense of
putting the trail over on this side for this for parking, MnDot would have to
waive on their road section requirements so we've got a 4 foot issue there that
needs to be dealt with. Construction wise, it can be done. Again, the toughest
part of it is going to be the Yosemite Avenue area where our retaining wall.
Right now we have 5 feet in back of the curb...about the maple tree and there
are some ~mportant things that we'll have to be careful about. There are some
construction challenges to it... There's budget in the surplus funds here that
could be used for that where we haven't exceeded our $530,000.00... That's I
guess the alternate that we did include in the report here.
Councilman Workman: What do the neighbors think about the trail?
Mayor Chmiel: I've had a couple calls.
25
City Council [v~eting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: It's not going to bother me but what's it going to do for
you folks?
.Mayor Chmiel: Would anyone like to address the issue from the neighborhood?
Brian Tichy: My name is Brian Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. How do
we feel about the trail? I happen to like bike trails but I'd much prefer
parking. Right now with the state of the bicycle trails in the area, there
really aren't any trails to hook up to the Lake Lucy trail at the moment. I
feel the idea of a trail over the water trunk is a good one. The added cost is
a lot of money to spend and it's the City's money that, not just we would be_
spending but the rest of the community would be spending and I don't know if
that's worthwhile. We contacted the State and a gentleman named Roy Hanson
handles the State Aid on roads. He mentioned that 'the State does not dictate
that that road has to have a bike path. It is up to the City to determine
whether or not there wii1 be a bike path there. As far as the bike path, the
way it's used now, I don't know if J.t's necessary that there be a bike trail.
There are no other bike trails coming from the east or west side or coming from
the north or south. It really doesn't seem to be beneficial at this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: Brian, do you use the bike path?
Brian Tichy: I use a bike quite often. Try to stay within the bike trail
but...
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you miss it if it were gone?
Brian Tichy: No, I'd ride J.n the same spot.
Councilman Wor~nan: So you're basically what? You're against, not real
interested in the trail?
Brian Tichy: I'm not interested in the trail so much. I would rather not have
a trail there if it would mean that we could park in the road.
Councilman Johnson: You're for parking?
Brian Tichy: I'm for parking, yes.
Councilman Johnson: If the trail meant you can't have parking, you don't want
the trail?
Brian Tichy: Right.
CounciLman Johnson: If you can have both, would you like both?
Brian Tichy: That would be fine. If there's a solution that would meet that,
I'd be all in favor of it.
Councilman Johnson: Your objective is parking?
Brian Tichy: Right. And one side of the road is fine. We're looking for some
type of a c~npromise.
26
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: As I pointed out in the staff report, the maximum I believe that
we could get within the State criteria, even if both bike paths were pulled off
of that road, we only have enough road section to put in one side parking.
Councilman Boyt: Brian, I grant that you live at the bottom of a difficult
driveway. I'm glad I don't have that driveway.
Brian Tichy: I didn't when I built.
Councilman Boyt: Well, you do now Brian and we have an ordinance about parking
on streets in the wintertime. Where you're hurt the most, as I understand it,
or at least looking at your driveway, is when conditions, driving conditions are
otherwise poor. If they start to be poor in your driveway, they're already
terrible. My concern is that even if there were no bike trail there, by
ordinance, you still couldn't park up there. So the bike trail really isn't the
issue. The issue is a city ordinance in effect from November 1st through April
1st and it says one, you can't park there overnight basically. Two, you can't
park there anytime that there's snow to be removed which is the very time you
most need to park there. So I don't think the trail is the issue here. I think
the issue is that we have a person who is inconvenienced by a city ordinance and
I don't know that there's a way to resolve that Brian. To me, the issue is the
city ordinance and the issue isn't a $60,000.00 trail.
Brian Tichy: I'm not necessarily most concerned about ~ergency parking. As I
say, it's other residents along the road also. The concern is when people come
over. There's not access to provide parking for those people, whether it's
spring, sumner, fall, winter snow storms, it doesn't matter. Those cars are,
where do you put them? What do you do when you have more than a couple of
people over? It's not just a problem with me, it's a problem with other
residents along the road also.
Councilman Boyt: Granted, but they have the same problem with the ordinance.
The problem with what to do with people when you're going to hold a gathering of
some sort and have more than the normal number of cars, is one that we face all
over the City. I think we know how to deal with that problem. If that's the
only hold-up is where do I put people when I'm having a gathering at my house,
what most people do in the City Brian is they call the Sheriff's Department and
tell them, I've got an unusual situation and I believe, and I don't see Jim
Chaffee here but it's my understanding that the Sheriff's Department has been
very cooperative in that area. In giving people temporary ability to park where
they might not otherwise be able to do that.
Brian Tichy: That's an option. It becomes an inconvenience, not all events are
planned a week or two days ahead of time to be able to do that. The convenience
of having parking on the street, especially in an instance like this where the
road is wide enough, we're not in a very restricted or confined area, to provide
no parking in an area like that is definitely a burden on the residents along
the road.
Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with you about the burden at all and
I recognize that you are particularly burdened by it but Gary has already told
us that the road isn't wide enough to allow parking unless there's no trail on
it, legally.
27
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: Without a variance from the State~
Councilman Boyt: Right, and maybe v~ can get a variance but my point is that, I
think to build this parking situation so that we can allow people to sort of
have adhoc gatherings that they can't put in their driveway, is to give up a
situation that does benefit the city and will continue to do that more so in the
future because Lake Lucy is a main connector. It is going to have continuingly
large amounts of traffic on it. Brian, I think you've got a situation here that
from my perspective, the City can't afford to correct. It's just simply too
expensive to move that trail and that doesn't correct it because it's an
ordinance problem. That's my point of view.
Brian Tichy: If the expense is the problem, removing signs is a very
inexpensive solut.~ on.
CounciLman Boyt: No, we're talking about building a trail so that we can
maintain that expense.
Brian Tichy: I realize that. If that is an expensive solution to the problem,
that may be the way to go. What I'm saying is the one thing you could do is
remove signs, no parking signs and then provide parking on the road. That
becomes a very minimal expense.
Gary Warren: The city snow emergency signs would be back up if the no parking
signs were taken down.
Mayor Cnmiel: In talking to a few people that I've talked to within your
neighborhood, they've indicated too that as far as the bike trail is concerned,
when the bike trail went in, no one was ever asked if they really wanted one.
I guess the position that I see presently is that bike trail really serves no
one other than Lake Lucy Road because it doesn't go beyond that particular part.
It does not go onto CR 117 nor does it go on CR 17. I guess one of my concerns
is, maybe those bike paths should be eliminated and provide some off street
parking for them on one side of that particular road. I can understand some of
the concerns that they have and I think some of those concerns are basically is
they just don't have that accessibility.
Councilman Johnson: To argue the other point of view on this, we have an infant
trail system here where all the connections aren't made. We had an opportunity
to put a trail between two major roads on a major road in the city. We're
running trails up CR 17 now and there's a new trail that was constructed last
year running up to about Kerber Blvd.. That will be extending on and should be
connecting here within the next few years. We should be connecting. The trail
plans, our Comprehensive Plan calls for a trail in this area. I have seen quite
a few people on this trail in the summer. I would love to see this one off the
highway. I've seen kids on tricycles. Kids on bicycles with training wheels,
not exactly going straight, on the same roadway as we have people speeding.
This is one of the roads that is nice, very wide. You get the fmpression of
wideness with this road. You figure it's a 55 mph road. You go up over ~he
hill and here's a family with a couple people walking, a couple dogs and a horse
at]~ two tricycles and you're doing 55 over the top of the hill. I think if we
can build an off street trail at this location along the north side of here for
future use, even though it doesn't connect today. If we don't build it today
28
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
utilizing thQs~ moniQs that arq non-trail monies, then in the future we' 11 be
building it. We'll be building it for more because here we already have
construction material going in there. We're already going to be working. It's
the cheapest time, the best time to build this trail for the future. Once we
have a full trail systsm, we can dedicate our trail system money for making
connections to this trail. ~nis is used. There are people out there during the
summer. Especially surm~er evenings when I've been out on this road, I've seen a
lot of people out there walking along and primarily on the north side in the
area of, just drew a blank on the name of the road where we have the problem
with the retaining wall. Yosemite. Where people come down off of Yosemite onto
here, walk down a ways. I'm totally for this trail. I believe to get that
trail off the roads will be a benefit to the City overall as an interconnection.
It helps connect our city and connect us to Lake Minnewashta area which is an
area of town that feels isolated and this is one more method of saying, hey,
you're part of Chanhassen. I think it's well needed and this is the time to do
it. It would be the least expensive time to do it. With a variance from the
State, will be able to help with the parking situation also. So I'm in favor of
this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of Gary. If we opted not to do the bike
trails on the north side, then would we have to get a variance from the State or
would we have the 34 that we are required to have?
Gary Warren: I didn't follow you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if we opted not to do the'bike trails on the north
side as shown.
Gary Warren: Both of them?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And you said that the State required that you have
34 feet.
Gary Warren: 34 feet minimum.
Councilwoman Dimler: If you didn't do the bike trails there, would you have
that 34 feet?
Gary Warren: Yes, the total section exclusive of bike paths is 36 feet from the
front of each curb to the other curb so with both trails off, we would not
theoretically have any problem with MnDot.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then you wouldn't need the variance from the State.
Gary Warren: Right. Then we would be able to put one parking lane on the road
without a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I have a few more comments. I guess I would stick
with the residents on this. I would like to hear from a few more of them a
little bit later but as was stated earlier, they had never been consulted
whether they wanted the trails or not. They were just put in .... so we changed
the situation out there without their consent. I have gone out there and I have
seen people on the road because they were unable, the bikes would be on the road
and people walking on the road because they couldn't use the trails because
29
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
there was gravel on them and that is dangerous too. So if they're not going to
be well maintained and the people still end up using the road, then I don't
think we've accomplished anything.
Brian Tichy: With all the construction going on at the present time, that's the
case. The bike paths are not used.
Councilman Johnson: I would support having just a 6 foot trail off of the
entire road which still gives us the trail through the area. It becomes a
walking trail at that time because you could have put a two-way bike trail so
this could not become part of the Twin Cities bike path where they have these
trails going throughout the Twin Cities if you didn't put the two separate ones.
But as a c~promise, I'd like to see maybe just the 6 foot wide off street trail
for the people who are walking and the kids with tricycles and that kind of
thing. There's a lot of people that walk there and the only place they have to
walk is in the bike path which is part of the street. Anytime we can get an off
street path and when we get it down to where we're talking just an off street
walking path, 5 foot's probably wide enough at that section with the retaining
wall.
CounciLman Workman: It's supposed to be a two way deal. One path going one way
and the other path goJ. ng the other way. Now you're talking about two two way
paths right?
Gary Warren: He's talking about a walking path.
Mayor Chmiel: Just strictly one way.
Councilman Johnson: But if we break it down to a walking path to where we're
not looking at people at people doing 10 speed bikes at 30 mph.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is then what you've got is you've got a
bike pa~] on the road that bikers are using to go both ways which defeats...
Councilman Johnson: We'd eliminate that bike path all together. Not put any
bike path on the road at all a~d only a walking trail along the edge of the road
versus, if they want to keep a bike path on the road and a bike path off the
road, what you're going to have on the off road bike path is people walking on
that and people trying to drive bikes. I'm not sure if that becomes compatible
use. When you get a 36 foot wide roadway, a bicyclist without having a
designated bike path, as long as there's not four lanes there, a bicyclist can
ride that road. Our kids ride a lot narrower road to grade school everyday here
in the downtown area. 28 foot roads with curved gutters that are nice and
dangerous for th~n. My basic position is that I'm supporting the off street
trail in this location because I think it will be a vital link in our trail
system and this is the time to build J.t because it's cheapest at this point.
.Mayor CTmiel:
$63,000.00?
Are you talking about the expenditure of that $4'7,000.00 to
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Anytime in the future it will be more expensive.
Mayor Ckmiel: That's probably very true but I guess, let me just state my
position, as I see it. I think trails are necessary items within a city but I
30
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
think, in fact I know I clarified that a couple meetings ago. I feel there are
certain areas within this city that really needs trails. I'm not one for
putting trails in for trails. I think the areas that are needed within this
city is TH 101, CR 17, CR 15 and then TH 101 extending from north and south of
TH 5. To me those are probably one of the better areas to have because there
you're going to bring people into the con~nunity and utilize that a little more.
I think putting trails into other areas right now aren't really needed. Streets
are there. People utilize those streets. People can walk on them. I think
I mentioned at one time, if somebody wanted to walk on my lawn, that's fine.
All well and good too. But I think that I can see expediting dollars as such is
just not my forte. I just don't feel comfortable in spending $47,000.00 as
opposed to almost $63,000.00, depending on which way it goes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with Mr. Mayor and I think that we should add
Minnewashta Parkway to that list.
Mayor Chmiel: And Minnewashta Parkway. That was the other one I was thinking
of.
Councilman Boyt: You have listed a series of major collectors. Lake Lucy Road
is a major collector. What was the percentage of funds that went into Lake Lucy
Road?
Gary Warren: 80%.
Councilman Boyt: This is basically a highway that was funded by the State that
the City used with it's discretionary ability to place those monies where we
think it will most benefit the city and the rest of the people in the area. We
very heavily subsidized, if you will, that road. What we're saying is that, and
I take no issue with the neighbors ~no say they have a parking problem. I agree
with them. You have a parking problem. My difficulty Brian, ~and we talked
about this last fall, was I think that we're asking the City, and I guess to
some extent we're saying to the State, we spent more of your money that we
should have because we built a wider road than we ever would have built without
those trails added onto it. Now we're going to take the ability to protect part
of those roads as a trail and we're going to sacrifice that so a few people can
park when it's convenient for them to park. I think that you're right Mr. Mayor
in saying that the major collectors in this city need trails. Recognize that
the trail referendum failed by 8 votes. That means roughly half of the people
in town felt that there should be quite an integrated network of trails. Now
half of th~ didn't. They clearly have a message to say but I think we both
agree that the majority of the people in the city would support trails on the
major collectors. This is a major collector. It already has a trail on it. To
now pull that trail off, it's a loss for the city as a whole.
Councilman Johnson: All the roads you listed were north/south. What do we do
east/west for trails? We need east/west trails also.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to ask any of the other residents that live within the
area, their opinions.
Larry Kerber: I've got a problem with Mr. Boyt's comment. I know the road was
built as a major collector. Is it a major collector? It is not. The traffic
count is, the State gave me a figure, 700 and something a day on it. It's
31
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
nothing close to CR 17 or TH lgl in traffic count. True, the road was built
that way. Nobody out there wanted that road or needed it. Maybe you will lg
years from now. I don't know. If more subdivisions empty out onto it but why
can't the bike trails be off? People can still ride t3neir bikes down it.
You've got a 25 m~n speed limit on half of it. Park cars on the south side and
let people ride their bikes on it. Before we had a road 2g feet wide, all
broken up. We could park off of it and you could ride your bikes on it if you
wanted. Now we've got a road 36 feet wide and we can either, you're saying we
can either park on it or ride our bikes. One or the other, we can't do both.
It just seems like the people of the area, we al! got short changed. We paid a
lot of money for a road that now we can't do what we did before with our old
road. I think the parking issue is something that was never brought up at the
meeting. That we were going to lose our parking and move a bike trail. I'd
like to know who decided to put the bike trails on there and is every bike path
in this City two ways? Every time there's a bike trail it's goes two
directions? How many roads like this do we have with bike trails on both sides?
Mayor Ckmiet: I think you're the only one.
Larry Kerber: I guess that's the only comments I have.
Councilman Boyt: Kerber Blvd. has a bike trail on both sides. It was also
built on the road. It's just been recently that we built off road trails.
Mayor Cl~niel: Is it a bike trail or a walking path?
Councilman Boyt: What's off the road is a walking path. What's on the road is
sucicide as far as I'm concerned but it was planned by the earlier Council as a
trail.
Larry Kerber: But Kerber Blvd. has no driveways coming out to it. All streets.
You won't find one driveway coming on Kerber Blvd. so those people have their
parking problem taken care of because they all have off street parking. Where
Lake Lucy Road, all the houses were there and then ~ put the road in. We
didn't put the road in to meet the needs of the [~z~ople there. We put the road
in that somebody else wanted and now we're trying to make it work for the
residents. I think what the residents need &nd want should be considered more
than just for the sake of just having the bike trails there. Let's take bike
trails out. People can still ride their bikes on that road. The speed limit is
low enough. There isn't that much traffic on J.t and I think the situation would
be solved by putting parking on the south and eliminate both bike 'trails. The
path, if somebody feels it necessary on the north side, fine.
Dick Lash: My n~ne is Dick Lash and I don't even live on Lake Lucy Road but was
this bike trail part of the trail referendum that was voted down?
Counc i Lman Boyt: No.
Dick Lash: It was not on the drawing at all?
Councilman Boyt: It might have been on the drawing Dick as part of the overall
trail plan. This was designed to be there several years ago.
32
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Dick Lash: If it was on ~/~e drawing that was voted on, that's been voted on not
once, I know I voted on it twice. It appears to me that you're trying to put
portions of this bike trail in piece by piece and eliminate a vote again. I
don't know. I keep hearing bike trails and walking trails but it's been voted
down twice.
Councilman Boyt: There is a comprehensive trail plan for the City. What we all
voted on was how we might fund that trail plan. We didn't vote on whether or
not we w~uld have a trail plan. It's how we would fund it and that's what got
turned down.
Dick Lash: It does appear, you see trails going in on Kerber~. You see trails
going in on Lake Lucy Road. Pretty soon, like Jay says, they're going to
connect up. CR 17 will have a trail on it. It's coming down CR 17 now. We
won't have much... The trail system would be going in in Mall sections. You
just add a little bit of pavement then they'll all be hooked up but twice this
has been voted down.
Councilman Johnson: The referendum was to accelerate the trail plan and make
the connections earlier. Now without the money from the referendum, it's going
to take many more years to have a comprehensive trail plan in this city.
Dick Lash: And this is the way to do it, right? In little sections?
Councilman Johnson: This particular section is already there. We've got a
trail. What we're looking at is should we change this trail.
Dick Lash: At the expense of these pc=ople's parking though.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That was done three years ago. Prior to any member
of this Council being there. That was approved by the Council several years, 4
years ago or something. The question tonight is should we get rid of the
existing trails and allow parking? Should we save the existing trails? Should
we get rid of it as a bike trail? Put only a walking trail in, which is the
$47,000.00 to $60,000.00? On a walking trail if we can go down to 5 feet, we
probably won't need the $60,000.00 but the $47,000.00. There's a nun~ber of
issues. What's best for the whole future of the City here and will this be a
collector in the future. I agree that right now there's not a lot of traffic on
it. I sat with a radar gun there one way trying to, only two cars came by in
the half hour I was trying to see what the speeds were out there. But I think
in the future, as the west side develops and as the MUSA line changes, you'll
see a lot more traffic on there. I think the trail is something that we'll want
to see for those kids that are out there on their tricycles on the pavement
right now. I'd rather see them off the street. $60,000.00 is not a lot of
money, I don't think, for this many miles of trail system. It's a long trail.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to recon~nend that we send this to the Park and
Rec Commission tomorrow night for further discussion.
Councilman Johnson: Or when it can be placed on their agenda rather than
necessarily tomorrow night?
Councilman Boyt: It needs to happen fairly fast. We don't want to hold up any
part of this project. Is two weeks from now holding up the project Gary? That
33
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
means it puts it back to us roughly a month from now.
Gary Warren: We will proceed based on Council direction here tonight to
advertise for bids. We're looking to open those bids on the 10th of March. If
there is an addendum, which is the way that this trail issue would be handled
fr~n my perspective, we should be getting an addendum out within comfortably the
next week or two at the most.
Councilman Johnson: Could we bid this with an addendum for the trails and say
that that bid will or will not be awarded. In other words, give us a price.
Let's get actual numbers. Whether it's $47,0gg.0g or $63,ggg.gg. Get them to
bid on the trails and at that point decide whether we're going to award that
bid.
Gary Warren: The construction documents could be modified to include the trail
and have it bid as an alternate, yes.
Councilman Johnson: And then we approve the alternate after Park and Rec has
reviewed it and we get all the facts together. This way we don't delay the
project. We get more facts. I think that w~uld be the best way to go.
Councilman Boyt: But Jay, you're proposing a 5 foot trail. I've heard 6 foot
trails. I know Park and Rec has occasionally looked at 8 foot trails out in the
rural parts of town. I don't know that we're in a position where we can even
ask for a reasonable bid. That's why I was suggesting that Park and Rec discuss
this tc~orrow night. You certainly have the interested neighbors here so they
would know that it's going to be discussed.
Gary Warren: I'll agree with you to go, in fact I'll second you to go to the
Park and Rec. I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to discuss that. If you reme~k~er in t/ne Council
Minutes that we just approved tonight, that was, originally what we proposed to
do to put it on the February 14th agenda for the Park and Rec and I spoke with
them today and they indicated that they didn't need to review it because of this
plan that Gary was proposing. They felt that Council could make the decision.
Mayor Dimler: I see another person from the area who'd like to address.
Kathy Kerber: I'm Kathy Kerber and we have property on 670~ Powers Blvd.. I
guess one of the questions I want to ask is, where did these bike trails come
from initially? They never were talked about to the residents in the beginning.
We never were allowed to say, yes, we wanted them. No, we didn't want them.
I'd like to know ~ere they initially came from.
Councilman Johnson: If you actually look back to when they did hold the public
hearings on the Lake Lucy Road improvements, they were included at that time 4
years ago or 3 years ago. I do remember the plans at that time, even though I
wasn't on Council at that time but I believe they were discussed with the Lake
Lucy Road improvements prior to authorizing the bonds and all for this. I'm
just, this is back memory a long time ago. Lori might know better if she
recollects that.
34
City Council Meeting - February 131 1989
Lori Siets~ma: No, I don't know. I know they were included with the road
construction.
Gary Warren: The construction plans did include the trail. That was not added
as an afterthought but it predates most of here unfortunately. It did show in
the feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road project so that would have been a
public hearing document.
Councilman Johnson: They've never been a secret. They've always been as part
of that. I guess you're in charge now Tom.
Kathy Kerber: I'm not insinuating that they were secret. I just wanted to know
initially where it came from. I guess one of the other problems I have is, at
the time when the road went in and everybody at that time, on the road believed
that we were going to have parking on the road. The road got stripped and all
of a sudden the signs went up saying bike trails only. When some people called
into the City Hall and asked the engineering department what happened here to
the parking, they told us that the State made this requirement. That they had
to have bike trails. That is not true because we have spoken to the State
Department and they told us they do not put any restrictions or tell the City
how the extra footage is to be used. In fact they told us we could take down
the bike trail signs and we can use it just as the road was before. I think as
all the neighbors are here tonight, we want a road with the same options that
anyone of you live on. Not one of you have a no parking and it only says, only
bike trails. We're asking for the same option. That's all.
Councilman Boyt: You will find that there are a few councilmembers that live on
a street that has no parking in front of their house.
Kathy Kerber: Well, most of the people who live here within this city does not
have that. Being that this road operated underneath those same functions
before, I don't see what the problem is now. I think it's just being blown
totally out of proportion. I think we should still have the same option that we
had before and after speaking with several neighbors this morning, they all feel
the same way. They w~uld like to see our same options given to us that we had
before. We're being deprived of not being able to park as we did before. Now
if we're going to receive a benefit from this road, we should receive all the
benefits we had before and it shouldn't change because we have a new road.
That's all I have to say.
Councilman Johnson: The changes that seem to be occurring right now that would
warrant this going back for Park and Rec to discuss it tomorrow night, would be
the total elimination of bike trails completely off both sides of the street and
going to a walking trail which was my idea. That would allow for the parking
without a variance. We maywant to look at parking with a variance or parking
without a variance. I'm not sure if we need a bike trail through here. I
firmly believe that this is vital east/west connection of our trail system. We
have a real east/west probl~ here in the city, especially on the north side
because of our the lakes we have to run around. We can't have a trail system
that only runs north and south because we have the people on the west side of
town that don't feel they're part of the town and we need to give them that
connection and there's people using it. I'm just going over old ground again
here so I'm going to shut up.
35
C].ty Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, didn't we just establish that Park and Rec didn't
know where the bike trails originated? The idea did not originate with them.
CounciLman Johnson: I don't know that. If we established that. She said she
doesn't know.
Lori Sietsema: I don't recall that. I'd have to do some research to find out
where it originated.
Councilman Johnson: It's on our comprehensive trail plan and that originated
with the Park and Rec.
Councilwoman Dimter: Again, it was proposed to go on their agenda and it didn't
go on because of Gary's proposal and they felt that the Council could handle it.
Counci]~nan Johnson: We've modified Gary's proposal a little bit. Gary's
proposal includes two bike paths and one option we're coming up with, which Bill
would like to hear their opinion on, is eliminating both bike paths and putting
only a walking path. I would like to see us find out what the actual price is
as putting it as an addendu~ so that Gary can go ahead putting in his addendum
on a 6 foot. Have Park and Rec consider it and see if they want to look at
maybe two options. 6 foot-8 foot so have Park and Rec look at it again tomorrow
night. The Council go ahead and authorize the, I guess that's the next action
we have to take. Authorize plans and specs and include in there addendums for
the bidders to give us a price to put in a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail with
the option of narrowing it at the point that there's that retaining wall to
avoid that retaining wall. Then we'll all be working from a more solid basis.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but delaying the action then, would that delay their
right to park on the road or could they start parking there?
Councilman Johnson: They can't park there now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but I mean we can change that. That's why I'm
saying, we can change that tonight if we don't delay it.
Councilman Johnson: No, we can't. We can't change this no parking tonight.
We're going to change a city ordinance tonight that's not on the agenda?
Councilwoman D]mler: I'm talking about just letting them park there and they
would abide by the restrictive ordinance.
CounciLman Johnson: So they can park there during the day but not at night?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: The bike trail signs would have to come down. The designation
would have to come off the road, in my opinion. Roger would like to address it
before we would be able to allow parking on it.
CounciLman Johnson: I think this is a long term issue. I don't think we should
jerk too quickly on this one and quickly drop everything until we've considered
all the facts. I think that we should move towards getting parking on this
street. It does make some sense for those people to have on street parking in
36
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
this area. How's the best way to do it. It also makes sense to me to have an
off street trail running along side of this area.
Councilman Boyt: Can we hear from Jim Mady so he can sit down?
Jim Mady: I just wanted to bring some additional information to you concerning
the trail on Lake Lucy Road. Currently there really isn't anyplace for those
residents to go along that trail. You're right in that there are no trail
connections. Curry Farms Park hopefully be developed within the next couple of
years. That's on the east side of that area. The Park Commission is
aggresively seeking parkland in the Pheasant Hills area. Hopefully we'll be
finding some within the next few months. Upon getting those two parks in place,
we should be increasing the amount of east/west traffic along Lake Lucy Road for
trail use dramatically because we will be providing those residents with actual
places to go which is the reason we have a trail system. That's why we have it
is to provide a method for our residents to safety get from their residence to
an area. Be it a school, a park, shopping area, what have you, without having
to actually drive or be on the street. That's what the reason is for a trail
system. Just to make you aware, that's where we're heading right now on the
Park Commission. Although maybe right now the residents don't have a place to
go, within a couple years, there are going to be a couple places for them to go
and it should definitely increase the amount of pedestrian and bike traffic on
that street.
Counc~.lman Johnson: We're going to have a park on both ends of this trail.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we have a motion to refer this to the Park and Rec
Commission tomorrow night.
Betsy Glaccum: I'm Betsy Glaccum. I live at 1510 Lake Lucy Road where the
retaining wall is. I'd just like to be on record that I'd hate to see that wall
come down. It's beautiful and quite an expense and people say, what about the
tree and of course, I'd hate to lose that because it's my shelter and it keeps
me cool and stuff. The parking is a problem for some of the neighbors. It
doesn't really include me. I'm doing okay with that. I would like to see the
problem solved for people with bad driveways but I do not want to see a bike
path moved over and have it doubled and come down the road on our grass, our
front lawns and do a lot of damage so I'd just like to be on record that I'm
against that. Okay? For the parking, when the road was built and the
feasibility study, I believe this is an urban road, minimum width was 44 feet,
two traffic lanes and parallel parking. This width can be reduced by the City
Council if it passes resolution banning parking on the roadway. The recommended
design is 36 feet and that's what we've got. I'd like to see the bike paths
stay there.
Councilman Johnson: What'd you say? You want to see them stay?
Betsy Glaccum: The bicycle paths stay where they are. I'd like to see that. I
don't want them to come over my front lawn and move it over further and then
damage the retaining wall, my neighbors front lawns and like that. I'd prefer
to leave the road as is.
Councilman Johnson: Which would eliminate parking then?
37
Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Betsy Glaccum: Yes, we don't have parking now so, I mean I'd like to see
s~nething to solve Brian Tichy's problem especially. I think that's terrible
with their driveway so high a~d so dangerous but in the feasibility study it
said~ 44 feet wide and we went to 36 feet wide, right? Two traffic lanes and
parallel parking. But there is a footnote to that that was in the feasibility
study. The footnote says, this width can be reduced if the City Council passes
resolution banning parking on the roadway. The whole thing was that they would
have to get 19 petitions, 19 of us neighbors to give them easements. 19 of us
to give you easements to make the road wider so ~he Council knew we were so
upset about ~his road as is, getting so wide, that's ~y I think it was left at
36 feet. Mow Gary I don't know...
Gary Warren: The 44 foot section is what MnDot requires on a State Aid road to
have parallel parking on both sides of two travel lanes. And as a result of the
process, the road sectJ, on could be shrunk, dollars and other concerns were a
factor a~d also the inclusion the bitmninous curbing was another factor to
comply with MnDot's clear zone requirements, if you will, so this section was
shrunk and as a result of that, the no parking came from that also because it
was a 36 foot instead of a 44 foot wide road.
Betsy Glaccum: I think that's why the bike trails were put there.
Councilman Boyt: ...as would any of us faced with that kind of increase, I'm
sure their reaction was we don't think so in terms of approving it. We have
already agreed, the City has already agreed that in order to reduce that to 36
feet, there would be no parking. Is that right?
Betsy Glaccum: It's in the feasibility study of February, correct. The thJ.ng
I'd like to see the neighbors problem solved with the parking situation but you
know, I can't go along with the thousands of dollars that would be spent and all
our lawns and trees danaged to bring another bicycle path in when the Council
already agreed to keep it less width and put in the bike paths so we wouldn't
have to walk in the road.
CounciLman Boyt: It's clearly not :ny option to remove, or my preference to
remove your tgg year old maple tree. Gary, you seem to have some hesitation
about, and I thought earlier you said with 36 feet we can have parking on one
side of the road. If the feasibility says, if you agree to 36 feet, you agree to
no parking. Can you clarify this?
Gary Warren: I can't attest to the discussion on the feasibility but what I can
say is that the State Aid Manual which we've reviewed as a part of the
preparation of this report, shows that an urban section roadway width, in order
to have one lane of parking on an urban section roadway, you need a 34 foot wide
road section. We have 36. .So whether the discussion at that time was that, I
guess I don't know how they interpretted that at that time. Today's standards
shows that if you have a 36 foot road section, you should be able to accomodate
one lane of parking.
CounciLman Boyt: I would like to see us take the time to look at this issue in
more depth so as I speak in favor of the motion that's on the floor, to send
this to Park and Rec as part of it.
38
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler.' I would favor that motion only if w~ can get it on the
agenda for tomorrow. Lori, is that a possibility?
Lori Siets~na: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the neighbors, would you notify the neighbors Betsy
to have th~m come out for this meeting t~morrow?
Betsy Glaccum: Okay. Where will that be? Right here?
Mayor Chmiel: 7:30 right in this room.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, for putting this trail in, will anything be disturbed
that is not disturbed by the watermain construction already? We're going to be
digging a pretty good sized hole to put in an 8 inch watermain more than 4 foot
underground.
Councilman Boyt: It's across the road though Jay.
Gary Warren: The only area that would be impacted by the trail is if you
decided to put the trail, a full 6 foot trail, in front of the Glaccum property
and get the total 10 feet of width basically from face of the curb then back.
Otherwise, the rest of the construction from the Lake Lucy Road watermain would
be integral with the trail construction.
Councilman Johnson: The trail's right over the top of where we're digging the
watermain?
Gary Warren: There wouldn' t be any additional disruption as a result of that
except for where you got to the retaining wall area.
Councilman Johnson: If we're talking a walking trail, 5 foot's no problem.
A1 Harvey: A1 Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road. I'll take objections to what Gary,
I've been trying to get him out to show him. We built in '65. Our sewer goes
to the front. We've limited for our drainfield system the way it is now. Coming
further closer to our house will definitely cause a problem. Either the City
will have to move our septic system somewhere, I don't know where, we've been
disturbed now through the road construction. I can not tolerate any more of it
coming north. We've accepted where your bike trail is now. If you come any
closer to our house, it's going to cause a real hardship to us. I've been
trying to get Gary out. Unfortunately we haven't made connections yet. Another
~]ing that I would like to suggest is that, take down the bicycle signs. I have
horses. I have 11 acres up there. We're still rural up there. I've had to
rename my horses bicycle in order to ride on your road. I would prefer to see
one side row of parking. ~ne people that go by there on bicycles now, they're
riding 4 abreast anyway. They're not using the trail to the effect what it was
designed for. They're coming down the center of the road. They've got hard
hats on and they're buzzing. So are the cars. It's not a safe road anymore.
We used to have a nice rural road. We now have a speeder up there. There's
some consideration about any type of trail going on other than what you have
already. We've lived there a number of years and we've seen the increase in
speed since the new road. My suggestion would be, leave us where we're at.
Please don't come &ny further north and take down the bicycle signs. We'd like
39
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
to ride our horses there too.
CounciLman Johnson: Gary, will this watermain be on any private property or is
this all public property that we have this on?
Gary Warren: Mr. Harvey and I have talked, he's been out of town and just got
back in. When we last talked I said, let me know when you' re back in town and
we'll go out and look at it so tomorrow or ~nenever it's convenient we'll do
that. His gray water tanks, or septic tanks may be in the city right-of-way
because the trail is proposed or if it would go in, would be totally within city
right-of-way but stranger things have happened.
CounciLman Johnson: But the trail is not going to affect his gray water tanks
as much as putting a watermain through. ~e definitely don't want to put a
watermain through a septic system. If this septic system happens to be on city
property, then we're goir~g to have to work on that.
A1 Harvey: If you stay within your right-of-way, which is the telephone poles,
I'm on my own private property with the syste_~s but the damage, the seepage and
such going into the construction. It was disturbed when the other thing...so
I just would like a solution of some kind developed if you're coming further
north. I'd prefer that you didn't but we're 9g feet from the road but
everything keeps coming on the north side of the road. I can not even agree
with your feasbility study. You look down and you see a whole row of telephone
poles. Nothing on the south side of the road. We need sewer up in our area
much more than we need the watermain on the north side of the road. You've got
to have a distance between your sewer line and your water line. 10 feet? You
put the waterline on the north side and and the people on the north side who
need sewer. There's a lot of problems in that area. I'd like to see the City
develop a comprehensive plan that would do more than one thing at a time. We
petitioned against the city for the road. All we wanted was a blacktopped road.
We didn't want bike trails. We didn't want curb and gutter and all this other.
The City didn't at that time listen to us. We've kind of had our hardships up
through there. Now we'd like to see something resolved at the benefit to the
people who live there.
Gary Warren: The Harvey property is outside of the MUSA area which is the
reason why it doesn't have sewer.
A1 Harvey: It's 20g feet...when you run down the hill.
Gary Warren: There's no physical problem with connecting. It's just the fact
that Met Council won't allow it.
Councilman Boyt: Could ~ vote on the motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to suggest that if I could stop coughing. We
have a motion on the floor and there's a second to send this back to Park and
Rec for tomorrow s_nd then come up with some conclusions on it and get back with
Council.
4~
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to send the item of bike
trails along Lake Lucy Road back to the Park and Recreation Con~nission for their
review. Councilmans Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman
Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted against the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Johnson: If that failed, then something needs to be resolved doesn't
it?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. What we do need is another motion on the floor as
to what are we going to do.
Councilman Johnson: I'll make another motion. I'll try this one. We add an
addendum to 8(b), which is coming up next, to add as options the construction
of, so we can get the cost, construction of off street trails over the disturbed
area of the watermain 6 foot and avoiding the trees and the retaining wall at
Yosemite. That we place that on the bids of plans and specifications to be
added as an option to be approved or disapproved at a later time. We can hold
some meetings on that and Park and Rec look at that under a less strenuous
schedule than tomorrow night. We can collect more information to look at the
whole issue.
Councilman Workman: You're saying accept everything except the trail part?
Councilman Johnson: No. We put out a bid that has the trail as an option. In
other words, we'll collect a cost to build a 6 foot trail over the top of where
they're going to dig up for the watermain and that will be an option on the
contract to get an exact bid price for them. Then we'll have Park and Rec take a
look at that over the future so this doesn't delay the plans and specs for
putting the watermain in because the watermain is very important to the City.
The trail seems to be a side issue.
Councilwoman Dimler: We already voted on the watermain.
Councilman Johnson: Not the plans and specs.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know. That's the next one.
CounciLman Johnson: Exactly.
Councilwoman Dimler: ...their motion to not leave this hanging since the other
motion didn't pass. We're not going to take it to Park and Rec so now we've got
to deal with it.
Councilman Johnson: The trail?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: I was dealing with it by getting exact costs and putting it
on as an option.
Gary Warren: Do we remove the on street trails then as a part of it?
41
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and then we'd r~move the on street trails as part of
that to where all we'd have is an off street trail. Then we could have parking
on one side.
Councilman Workman: It seems to me Jay, the problem really isn't the cost of
the trail for these people because they're not going to pay for it. It's their
property being abutted by a trail or the retaining wall problem or the oak tree
problem or septic problems or anything else. This again is one of the things
about the trail referendum, people concerned about a trail going over their
property. I haven't made too many comments on this issue yet and maybe I should
make a few quickly now. I've seen a lot of lost love for this Lake Lucy Road.
I haven't seen or heard anything good about this road. First there was the
construction of it. Now the watermain. Bike trails. No parking. Retaining
walls. I don't think the stripes and signs are followed very carefully and the
horse named bike is using them and everything else. I've seen little kids on
their wheely bikes going down that hill faster than me, and I speed but I'm for
speed traps too. I would like to see possibly that extra money used for Well #5
so we can water our lawns in the coming years. It's an awful lot of money for a
trail that again, the people in this area aren't real excited about. It seems
to me that, unless we can figure out an option with the existing trail system,
parking on one side, trail on the other somehow, it's a problem. The elaborate
off road trail, taking again the people on the north side of this road, is again
adding insult to injury. They've had to take a lot I think. Even though
they're not going to have to pay for the trail, although they will one way or
the other, we all will, it seems to me that they've pretty much been picked on a
little bit and they're not about to get excited about this. I don't know how we
can expect them to.
Councilman Jottnson: They live on a country road and then it's turned into an
east/west connecting road as we suburbanize the city.
Councilman Workman: It is though a unique road in how it was built. The width.
From what it was to wlnat it now is. It hasn't made them happy. It is a country
road. I had to throw a mud turtle or ~natever it was about this size that was
sitting in the middle of that road one day. It's a beautiful area but I think
again we've got a lot of signs, stripes, wide. I think we've made it into a
super highway. I don't know that parking on it is going to slow anybody down
but it sea~s to me that we've got to give a little bit to this area on this road
issue because how much can we beat on these folks up in this area with this road
which has become the scurge of their lives.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see us move in the direction of
giving the residents what they want and that we focus not on the trail but on
the parking. That we do whatever is required, and Roger maybe you can help us
in this area, is do whatever is required to get the signs changed and whatever
to allow th~n to park there just as soon as possible.
Roger Knutson: Ail it takes to undo that is, the bike trail is a decision of
the Council. If you made it a bike trail, you can take down the signs by your
own direction with a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just throw out something in addition. Would it help those
few who have problems with accessibility with their driveways, to have a pad put
in adjacent to that road for parking? Would that be of any benefit?
42
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: At a cost to all the taxpayers of the City?
Councilman Boyt: But wait. There is some logic to this idea of solving the
problem where the problem is rather than eliminating what we have. If it
amounts to building 100 yards of pad, that's a heck of a lot less disruption
than putting in an off road trail over the whole length. We still keep our on
road trail. I think the Mayor may well have found a solution here that's quite
a bit cheaper than a $40,000.00 trail. It gives you closer access parking than
you're going to have otherwise and keeps us from being the first Council that's
actually pulled trails off the map.
Councilman Johnson: We certainly wouldn't want to be known as that.
Councilman Boyt: So I would sure support your plan.
Councilman Johnson: That would be on the north side then where the construction
of the watermain is taken. We ~uld put some expansions to the street. The
south side, like in Brian's area, is kind of a cliff. It would be kind of hard
to expand there and there's no construction going on there so it would be at a
great additional cost. As long as we have construction already going off,
grading, digging on the north side, I believe that's where it would be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: It would avoid the wall. It would avoid the tree.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. It sounds like we may have co~e up with a
good compromise.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would that be acceptable to the residents? Do you want to
cc~ent on it?
Mayor Chmiel: That' s what I 'm waiting for.
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I have the concept of this plan.
Councilman Johnson: I think engineering needs to do some drawings here.
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff should come up with some kind of alternative to it
to see if that could resolve the problems that the people are having presently.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe they could discuss it tomorrow night a bit.
Brian Tichy: The only concern I would have is where, first of all where the pad
would be located. The south side of the road does fall off... Secondly, it
would have to be equitable for everybody... Your compromise here is worth
thinking about...all the residents.
Councilman Johnson: We may not be able to solve every problem in the world
every time. I would be against removing the trail, even though temporary while
we study an option.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just removing the signs Jay.
43
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: You remove the signs, you remove the trail°
Mayor Ctmniel: l~ne no parking signs.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That means you can park in the bike trail so if you
r~nove, from what I gather, if you remove the no parking signs, you've got to
remove the trails because you can't have parking in the middle of bike trails.
The two uses are not compatible.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they're not being used as such right now.
CounciLman Johnson: Not during the winter. They're being used during the
sun~ner.
Don Ashv~rth: I think there's another problem. I thought that the initial
issue was one of being able to get up to the properties in the winter and
therefore some necessity for parking do~rn be_low during the snows. Even .taking
down the signs, you still have the parking ban during snowfalls. They still
would not be able to park on the streets.
Councilman Johnson: You take down the signs, they still have the problem. The
signs won't solve their problem. The winter's right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but only when it snows and we haven't had a whole
lot of that.
Councilman Johnson: You can't park overnight on any city street right now.
When it snows, you can't even park there during the day.
Gary Warren: We've got pavc~nent markings that are painted on the roadway and I
don't know, Roger I guess I hate to put you on the spot here but don't we also
have to remove those pavement markings before legally the trail is gone?
Roger Knutson: i haven't seen them. ~at do you have them marked in just a
yellow line?
Gary Warren: We have a while line on each side of the road at the 6 foot mark
plus we've got bikeway sign painted on the road, diamonds and such.
Mayor C~miel: I would like to recommend that staff come up with some
conclusions as to parking availability for those people that have problems.
Then have this come back to Council within 2 weeks.
Councilman Boyt: Would you be open to having Park and Rec discuss it in the
meantime? Because this really still affects them.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it will be getting to the position that I'm not sure
whether they should have it back to discuss it or even go along with it. I
think what we' re trying to do is resolve a problem here. We' re trying to
resolve a problem that the people have and I think we can do it right here. At
least that's my op].nion. I don't know if anyone has any others.
44
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
A1 Harvey: I think some of the parking problem is also for entertaining. If
you have friends there, whether it's sun, her or winter or whatever. You've got a
problem with parking when there are people there...so I think a pad located in
the right situation probably would help the situation. Some of us, although
we're closer, we have parking off the road but if you do have friends, 8 or 10
cars and...
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we need a motion on that, to proceed with it. Is
there a requirement for a motion on that Roger? If we were to request staff to
come up with some solutions with pads and in conjunction with that, showing it
to the residents so they're aware as to what they're thinking.
Roger Knutson: I don't think a full motion is necessary unless someone wants to
call for one.
Councilman Johnson: It clarifies the issue if you have it in motion form. It
clarifies that it's got three-fifths staff approval if you make a motion that's
voted on and it passes.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'll make that motion. The motion is that staff should
review the areas of concern with parking and to design a pad that would be_
acceptable to the property owners.
Councilman Johnson: Actually what you're asking for is a mini-feasibility study
of placing pads that will alleviate the parking problem. I'll second a
mini-feasibility study of such.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good idea but I would still like to see
them able to park in the meant~me. We don't know how long this is going to
take.
Councilman Boyt: Let's vote on them one at a time maybe.-
Councilman Johnson: They've been without it for two years, a couple more weeks
is not going to disturb them.
Councilwoman Dimler: We say 2 weeks but we don't know.
Councilman Johnson: Even a month.
Mayor Chmiel: At least we're trying to resolve the issue and trying to assist
as much as we possibly can without causing a real big concern.
Gary Warren: We'd like to see it resolved quickly so that if it needs to be
incorporated with the construction of the watermain project, that we can factor
that into the plans so we will try to bring it back as soon as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like it back within a 2 week period.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to prepare a
mini-feasibility study for installing a parking pad to alleviate the parking
problem on Lake Lucy Road to be brought back to the City Council in two weeks.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
45
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Don Ashworth: Just for clarification. With limited staff, we would be going
outside to get this work down. I don't anticipate it being a lot of money but
we would be spending sc~e on some outside help.
Councilman Johnson: I would recoil]end Westwood Professional Services who have
done this feasibility study and are familiar with all the details so there would
be no cost to bring them up to spe~. I believe they're also sitting here
listening to all this.
Mayor Cl~niel: I'd like them to go out in the field and take a look at what's
there existing. Not just at the papers that we have. Alright, we'll move on to
item 8(b). Approve plans and specs and authorize taking bids for Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain project.
Councilman Boyt: Can we do this when we don't have all the information?
Mayor C!~niel: I think %~ can.
Gary Warren: I think you should proceed on. We._ would be able to modify with an
addendun any further changes to the plan as far as a trail is concerned.
Councilman Johnson: Would we want to note that in our plans and specifications?
I don't think there's any need to either. I move we approve the Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of Westwood Professional Services
and authorize the taking of bids.
Councilwoman Dimler: I' 1! second it.
Resolution #89-23: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of
Westwood Professional Services and authorize the taking of bids. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, UPDATE, CITY ENGINEER.
Gary Warren: I can mentioned a few co~anents from notes that I took about it.
Basically ~issioner Savanich was present to seek the County's, Carver
County's co~nitment, if you will, to supporting acquisition of right-of-way and
supporting the light rail transit concept. I guess my interpretation was that
he received some support in that regard although not any commitment of funds at
this time. The discussion was that 1995 would be the start of construction of
the 1-35 piece so that would be phased in after we got out first corridor
established out here which would go out as far as Hopkins. I guess the real
impact as far as I read it for Carver County was a continued solicitation of the
County's support and acquisition of right-of-way and properties that would
impact this area. He also, I thought, had an interesting slide presentation,
aerial slide presentation of the corridor from Chaska on through which I thought
was a pretty good way to visualJ_ze how this would run. And he talked about that
they had made a con~nihnent to the high platform loading concept which seemed to
make sense too as far as the access for handicapped and those types of difficult
access. Also that allowed th~n to rapdily load and unload cars ~nich added to
46
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
the efficiently of the project. Hennepin recognizes, at least they said, that
they were just getting involved to get this project going and that they fully
anticipated that this would be a Metro Council chaperoned project ultimately but
at this time there didn't seem to be corm~itment or staff to really get this
going ar~ that at s~me point in time, that Met Council would really be the
coordinating agency for the whole 7 County program. Please feel free to add.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you covered it quite adequately. That's basically
what it is is they're talking of having light rail coming in to Hopkins as you
mentioned. Of course, our area would be much farther down the line but
eventually they feel that the need is there with the growth of the area would
dictate those needs. I think he's probably right looking far down the line.
Light rail has always got the bad connotation because of, if you think about the
Chicago elevated which causes a lot of noies and a lot more problems. This kind
of light rail system is not as noisy. It's much quieter. It's a different kind
of rail that they put in. Consequently, it does and probably will service the
needs of the people in the future. I think it's been covered quite well unless
you have something to add to it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to say that it will be effective
also to settle a portion of our land so therefore, when we consider zoning or
rezoning or development of the souther portion of Chanhassen, that we should
keep that in mind.
Gary Warren: Basically the existing Sioux Line corridor right now is the one.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of that's being utilized for a period of time but eventually
that's going to go.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand, about 90% of this line is in the city of
Chanhassen or something of that nature. Maybe it's 70% but a majority of the
line is in the city of Chanhassen. The city of Chanhassen, other than it's
County Con~nissioner who lives down on the lake, is not represented. Only Carver
County is represented on the Carver County Light Rail Transit Commission. I
would like to see the City petition the County Board to include a member from
the city, a city representative on the light rail transit co~mission. This is
not a new effort on my part. I tried this last year also but it makes sense
that we have a say into what happens in going through our city versus only the
County Board having a say about transportation within our city. I'd like to
make a motion that we petition Carver County to allow us to include a city
representative on the Carver County Light Rail Transit Con~nission.
Counc i lman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to petition Carver County to
allow Chanhassen to include a city representative on the Carver County Light
Rail Transit Con~nission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
100,000 GALLON ELEVATED TANK PAINTING/LOGO SCHEME, VERBAL REPORT BY CITY
ENGINEER.
Gary Warren: There's no staff report per se but I thought I could verbalize
basically. We've approved the preparation of plans and specs for the 100,000
47
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
gallon elevated tank downtown here which does need some improvements here. When
the new reservoir was constructed, at that time the color scheme was selected.
Basically the cumulus color which you see it painted now was chosen with public
input from that area. The action of the Council at that time was to choose this
color and that we would then paint the rest of the elevated tanks that same
color for consistency once we dealt with the rehab of those tanks. Just to
confirm for the Council that we are proceeding with that direction and the
downtown tank, which presently is sort of an aqua green, will be painted the
cumulous color. We've had some good comnents actually from the residents arour~
the reservoir how it blends in with the sky and such and that was the intent.
The other item I wanted to touch base with the Council on is the logo. The new
reservoir has a maple leaf, the City's logo. The downtown tank obviously has
the word Chanhassen on it which I think is, from a historic standpoint, strictly
my preference. We're suggesting that the tank would be painted with the
Chanhassen n~me. Not only on the south side as it is now but also on the north
side. I noticed driving in from the north, especially on Kerber Blvd., it's
really stands up and it's a very visible point. It'd be nice to have the name I
think on both sides of the tank. I'm just throwing that out. I guess we do
want to include that in the plans a_nd specs that are presently being prepared so
we can get bids out. It really wouldn't impact the cost in any significant
fashion as far as adding another n~ne.
Councilman Workman: What color is it going to be?
Gary Warren: Cumulus.
Councilman Workman: That light blue?
Gary Warren: No, no. The color of the new reservoir which is basically a cream
white that blends in with the clouds. We have had some very good comments from
the residents up there. It does blend in pretty well.
Councilman Workman: Are you going to put the n~me Chanhassen and the maple leaf
on it?
Gary Warren: I don't think we have room for all of that. Just put Chanhassen
on the north and the south side. We'll pursue it from that standpoint.
DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTORS YARDS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Steve Hanson: This item has been referred to you by the Planning Commission.
It had been referred to Council towards the end of the year last year. Going
back to Planning Commission, the Planning Co~nission at the last meeting had a
fair amount of deliberation regarding the contractors yard. They decided that
they really wanted to get a little more direction from the Council...with new
people on the Council, to get a little more clear direction as to ~nat this body
is thinking regarding this. I won't go through the entire package. There's a
memo that you have from Mark Koegler that was prepared back in December but
essentially what it boils down to is the Planning Commission is asking for some
direction on three different options. One of those is to leave the ordinance as
it is. Presently it allows contractors yards in the A-2 district as a
conditional use. The second option is to amend the ordinance but still allow
contractors yards within the A-2 district but restrict the size of that. The
48
C~.ty Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
intent being that it would be more of a ma and pop type operation rather than a
large wholesale contractors yard. Then the third option is to delete
contractors yards entirely from the A-2 district and allow them in the
industrial areas only. I don't know if you had a chance to read through the
Planning Con~ission Minutes contained in your packet...but basically the
Planning Con~ission is leaning towards the option number 3 which is eliminating
them from the A-2 district. What they would like is the sense of the City
Council or what your thinking might be and whether they should pursue that...
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to make a cogent. As you're describing nuv~ber 2,
what's wr~.tten in our packet is to limit the contractors yards as an accessory
use. I think that's ~mportant to point out to where w~'re talking about having
a person living on the site and he's also, like Buck in his excavating business,
he lives there. He's got an excavating business there. He has a contractors
yard that's an accessory to his home and his business. That keeps it a mom and
pop. I like that option. The gentleman on CR 117 has his home there and he
wants to put his business at his home and it's a fairly small business. He has
a few more, a lot more amployee actually. He has 10 to 12 but our current
ordinance will allow anybody to go out and buy 40 acres of farmland and turn it
into, if they can meet the 1 mile radius criteria, and turn it into a
contractors yard where nobody lives. They just start bringing in semis. I
think they've probably hit every spot they can with the 1 mile radius right now.
It's close. There's a couple spots but I like number 2 because I think that as
an accessory use, if somebody such as the Buck Excavatings of the world and the
landscaping contractor, I forget his name out on CR 117, that seems to be a
legitimate use for a property. Coming out and avoiding going into an industrial
park by being able to buy farmland at much less price and doing this, is not
really what we should be doing with the south side of Chanhassen or the north
side. I mean somebody could buy some acreage along Lake Lucy and do this also.
There are some spots there that would probably be outside the 1 mile as long as
you get away from Larry Kerber's contractor yard, which is another example. The
other th~.ng I want to make sure is that this is only in the non-sewered areas
and that as the MUSA line changes, I'd like to see some way, we want to make
sure that it doesn't go with the property so that if Larry sells his home, the
person he sells to could not be able to continue to use that as a contractors
yard in that he is now in suburban Cnanhassn, not rural Chanhassen. When he
opened his contractors yard, he w-as much more rural. That's another thing I
would like to look into is those contractors yards that are now in suburban side
of the City with curbs, gutters, sewers and everything else. That gets limited.
But I like option 2 as long as we have some acreage requirements. I hate to see
a 2 acre contractors yard put on a 2 1/2 acre lot with a little house there in
which case the accessory use turns out to be the house, not the contractors
yard.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and maybe Steve you can answer it. If
we go with option 3, which is to prohibit them altogether, then the ones that
are there are non-conforming. It says they will be allowed to remain there but
they will not be permitted to expand or intensify but when they sell, does that
non-conforming use pass to the next possesser?
Steve Hanson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: It does. Okay.
49
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
CounciLman Johnson: Is there anyway Roger that we could make a conditional use
permit that when the zoning changes and it went from a conditional use to a non-
conforming use that we could, once they get in a non-conforming use, do they
still have a conditional use_ permit that goes with that property?
Roger Knutson: Yes. It's just non-conforming.
Councilman Boyt: You want to buy our Redi-mix plant? There you go.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. That's exactly the same thing. The Redi-mix plant.
Councilman Boyt: Tt~y're forever. I'm pretty sure that the Planning Commission
really wanted to hear from the 3 new councilmembers on this issue.
Councilman 'Workman: I think what we're kind of looking at is the south side
specifically isn't it?
Councilman Boyt: That' s where the A-2 is.
CounciLman Workman: I've read same of the information that Tim Erhart has
loaned to me. I've been driving through that area of town since I was a 2 year
old and Jim Klobuchar lives in my co_gnunity. It's uglytown out there. There's
no doubt about it. What are we really saying about this area? Do we want it to
go back to nature as part of the bluffs and the river and the wildlife area down
there? Is that realistic? I don't think allowing it to go back to nature is
going to happen. Do we want it rezoned A-2, is that what we're looking at?
Agricultural?
Councilman Boyt: Residential. Agricultural residential.
Councilman Workman: Because I don't see that as really being a viable
agricultural. Farming on bluffs, there's just nothing t2~ere anl~ay. Which
leads me to the question, so what do we do with the people that are down there?
Or people who had intentions such as Admiral Waste who had intentions to operate
their business there. What happens to the value of their property? What
happens to their whole game plan? They're stuck with a parcel perhaps that has
now changed intended use and what can they do with it?
CounciLman Johnson: They're not in ~%e A-2 by the way. Admiral.
Councihnan Workman: They're in the BF?
Counc i Lnan Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: So I understand fr~n certainly the neighbors in that
vicinity to the north, that it is uglytown. But again, I don't see it as going
back to Mother Nature. Have we got a restriction on the junkyard down there?
As far as their expanding that. Are they allowed to expand that?
Councilman Johnson: Which junkyard?
Councilman Boyt: You mean the auto place?
Councilman Wor~an: Statewide.
5~
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Don Ashworth: I'm sure that's a non-conforming use.
Councilman Workman: They haven't been alloweed to expand?
Councilman Johnson: That's BF also. That's not the A-2.
Councilman Boyt: You've got to think of south of TH 5 Tom. That's not just the
bluffs.
Councilman Johnson: Ail the way from TH 5 south. As soon as you get out of the
MUSA line, we're talking Lyman Blvd., Pioneer Trail, the Merle Volk property.
West of Lake Ann Park. All that area is A-2 also. The A-2 expands from here,
from south of Lake Minnewashta up to here, down along and then all the way down.
Not just the bluffs.
Councilman Workman: Right, but I'm thinking specifically of the bluffs also
because I think that's probably the rubbing the squeaky wheel right now in that
what are our intentions down there? I understand the safety aspects and the
aesthetic aspects of it but, isn't that what we're trying to do? We're trying
to send a signal to that area also?
Councilman Johnson: That's a different issue of eliminating the BF and changing
that to A-2. I think that's a separate issue.
Councilman Workman: But isn't Admiral Waste a contractors yard?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, in the BF district right now.
Councilman Workman: But we're saying they can't do that either.
Councilman Johnson: No new contractors yards. They would be able to continue
with what their conditional use permit was when it was issued last year if they
do anything before their 1 year period ends.
Councilman Workman: No, they went to the Planning Commission for an extension
and didn't get it.
Councilman Johnson: That comes to us yet so it hasn't been, the Planning
Co~mission recommends to us that they don't get their extension. That will be
coming before us probably our next meeting. The question here, more than just
the bluffs area and that area, is should ~ allow contractors yards in our A-2
zone and how should they be allowed? Admiral is considered a contractors yard,
yes. Larry Kerber's place, that's a contractors yard. Do you know where Larry
lives there? Then you have across the street from Pryzmus' little golf course,
a contractors yard without a permit. It's just been there forever. He's never
gotten the permit. Then just north of him is another contractors yard. Further
north of that is another contractors yard that's going in. We just gave
permission last year. Pryzmus is in the A-2. He's not a contractors yard
though. I think the question comes, do we want to continue encouraging
industrial uses in the A-2 district or only residential uses? Is this area
going to be industrial/con~nercial or residential in this City? I think that
really comes down to the question as to what do you want to see it in the
future. There's a lot of people who would love to make it industrial. I
51
City Council Meeti_ng - February 13, 1989
personally think it should be residential and that some limited contractors yard
useage accessory to somebody's residential useage, I have it there as my house
but I also want to run my business out of my house. When I've got lg acres or
4g acres, I have room to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple of conxnents. I was reading here i.n the
middle of the page it says, in the long term, contractors yards are compatible
only with industrial land uses. Did everybody find that? At the present time,
future industrial areas in the rural service area have not been identified. I'm
wondering if it isn't time to do so. That we could do that ahead of time in
zoning and then prevent problems in the future. Why can't we identify them now?
CounciLman Boyt: It's the idea of zoning, we probably should.
Councilman Johnson: I recon~nended that last year as a part of 212 because as
the 212 corridor goes through, it makes sense that we might want to put some
con~nercial, some industrial around the 212 corridor. It doesn't make sense to
put it down along Pioneer Trail.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so now who do we take that to get that done?
Steve Hanson: ...At this point in 'time, if someone were to ask, at this point
in time your position is that it's agricultural with some other conditional uses
it allows. For example in this case, allow really an industrial type use out in
that agricultural area. So I think from the standpoint of your question, what
you're really asking is what should the City be looking at for these areas? A
long term...
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, when it is a service area, what do you see? You can't
rezone J.t right now for that? We could zone it right now for that and then that
would prevent contractors yards from coming in if it's not compatible.
Steve Hanson: I don't know that you're in a position right now to know what
zoning you'd place on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We could direct to where they would be allowed and in
other areas they wouldn't. I'm just asking if we couldn't plan for the future a
little bit more than just going...
Steve Hanson: I think that's what we should be doing but at this point in time
we're not in that position.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get in that position?
Steve Hanson: I certainly hope so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what would it take?
Steve Hanson: First of all it would take going a~.~ updating the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Boyt: W/nj. ch you're doing now.
Steve Hanson: We're in the process of doing.
52
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Workman: It's going to save a lot of problems in the future fOr
denying this kind of thing.
Steve Hanson: You can look at it two different ways. You can take it and say,
take everything that's in the City and determine as best as you can what should
happen in thos~ areas or you can take the tact that the City has in the past and
that's to take those areas outlying where you don't really ~ave a good sense for
what the market is going to be and what things really ought to happen out there.
I think in an agricultural district, to allow that to occur, and I think that's
where Planning Cc~ission is coming from at this point in time. They're saying
we don't know what those areas need to be. We don't want to make a rash
decision but the Planning Commission doesn't believe that a contractors yard of
the type right now is the right kind of use to stick out there, especially with
the conditional use, the way that it works. It's, in a lot of respects, putting
it there permanently. I think they're recognizing that that's not the best way
to deal with it. The best way to deal with it is to pull that use out of there
because it's not appropriate at this point in time and then take the t~rae to
decide what should happen in the long term.
Mayor Chmiel: Why couldn't you put a restriction on the n~m~ber of years on
something? Like 1995 or something of that nature.
Councilman Johnson: On a conditional use permit? We tried that. P~tting it to
our attorneys, we couldn't make a temporary conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: I can point out that there is a bill that will be introduced in
the legislature this year. I'm on a conm~ittee that's recommending that that
change take place to allow temporary uses. So if that's passed, you can do it.
Maynard Poppe: I'm Maynard Pappy and I own property just up above where this
contractors yard is supposed to be. It's detrimental to the property that I
own. In fact if they put a contractors yard down there, from what I understand
is to be for garbage trucks and that sort of thing. It will ruin the property
that I own. It's a residential area. What does it take to change it from
agricultural residential to whatever it would have to be? Also, how long a term
would it be given if they were given a permit or whatever they're going to get?
Another thing, when the property that was Bushick's property was up for sale, I
don't know 7, 8, 10 years ago, I own the property next to that and looked into
the possibility, went to the Minnesota Highway Department asking if I could get
an access just up above the underpass that's down there on TH 101. They said
well, I would have to put in a written request but he didn't think that the
Highway Department would give me an access going in there even if I owned the
property unless it was just a l~mited access which meant, what he told me, that
if you come out of that property, you'd have to go up the hill. You couldn't
make a cross over or coming down. You couldn't make a left turn. Now I'm
wondering how come the roadway just below that underpass is more of a hazard,
highway hazard than the part north. I wonder how they give a permit for an
access where there would be trucks going in and out and give them an access.
They're sure not going to go uphill to get out of there with the trucks.
They're going to make a turn and go to the left. The same way coming down the
hill so I think that would be very much of a hazard if we had to fight those
trucks coming down the hill. You come under that underpass. It's bad enough
the way it is now with the traffic that we have. The traffic that was 8-10
53
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
years ago is nothing compared to what the traffic going up and down there now
because they're going up the other way. So I would very much be against giving
a permit for anything like a garbage or contractors yard of that sort.
Mayor ChmJ.el: That will be coming before the Council next meeting. Within 2
weeks.
Maynard Poppe: T-hat's why I was wondering. I called City Hall and they said
they were talking about that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Just whether or not the availability of contractors yards should
be within the city or what determination we should cc~ne up with.
Maynard Poppe: Okay, I thought that that was ~nat was going on. I didn't get a
notice. That's one thing I would like. When there's something going on down
there, that we would, along that road, get a notice of something that's going
on.
Mayor Chniel: If you leave Steve your name and address, he will be more than
happy to send you a notice.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I kind of like what Jay had to say about the
accessory use but I do wonder sometimes how many ma and pa operations we still
have ccxaing before us...major businesses. However, I think maybe it's a little
bit too restrictive when we go saying that they shall not work on Sunday and
holidays. It seems like we're going back to the past.
Councilman Johnson: No, I don' t think so.
CounciLman Boyt: We're trying to give people some quiet.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but you've got to remember they're on a
10 acres and your neighbors aren't that close.
Mayor Chmiel: It depends upon what they're doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but I'm just saying that we can't be that restrictive
for everybody because people that are doing...cut their grass on Sunday.
CounciLman Johnson: So what's the guidance coming from the Council to the
Planning Commission on this? I haven't seen any clear cut guidance as of yet.
.Mayor CT~aiel: No, I guess I'm looking for, as I see that there may still be a
ne~ for some of these contractors yards. I like the idea of putting a
limitation on it, if that becomes law. I think that would be the thing to do is
to put a restriction for numbers of years. Because the growth goes with it, the
MUSA line moves, we've got a lot of different things that we have to think
about. I'm not sure whether we should delete yet at this time contractors yards
entirely from the A-2 district. I think there should be a restriction as to
numbers that can be there. There are restrictions as far as the hours that
they're operable. I think that we really have to, I like these ma and pa kind
of situations because I think it's good for us and it's good for them. I think
I would be pretty much in favor at this particular time, looking to amending the
ordinance to allow 1hmited contractors yards as an accessory use in the A-2
54
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
district~
Councilman Boyt: Sounds like what we have is Jay who is for, as you call it,
the mom and pop operation. Don, you seem to be leaning that direction. I'm not
sure how Tom and Ursula feel. I'll take two minutes and tell you that in the
last year I saw the previous Council approve a contractors yard that had 5
tractor trailers that was put in what was generally considered to be good
residential property just north of TH 212, rolling hill kir~ of country.
Councilwoman Dimler: How many acres?
Councilman Boyt: Ursula I don't rsmember the number of acres but the cost of it
wasn't the issue for this gentleman. He needed an area to park his tractor
trailers and that was the best place to do it as far as he was concerned. If we
don't change this ordinance, we currently don't, in my opinion, we don't have an
ordinance because the previous Council gave a variance to the within 1 mile down
to a couple hundred yards so I don't think we have a 1 mile limit, in my
opinion. We're dealing with, basically a situation in which, regardless of what
we do, if we shut th~m off altogether, we still have more contractors yards than
any c~Nnunity around us right now. Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. I don't
believe Chaska allows them. That's my best guess because I don't r~member
exactly but I know for a fact that Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. They're not
felt to be compatible with developing communities although it's a needed service
but we have got quite a few contractors yards today and we're not going to be
able to do anything to eliminate those contractors yards unless you want to buy
them. So to go out, maybe the mom and pop thing is an option. I don't think
we're going to get any of those situations so maybe that's a possibility but the
contractors yards, as I understood from the previous council, that situation was
created so that people who currently were sort of a mom and pop, could continue
to do that. What I saw happening was it got, as far as I'm concerned,
completely out of hand. We granted them. The tractor trailer thing was an
excellent example of where somebody was taking it to the extreme. My particular
position is to agree with the Planning Co~mission as they previously stated and
as they reaffirmed that when you build, as we are in south Chanhassen, very
expensive homes, you'd like to think that somebody just over the hill isn't
running tractor trailers or doesn't have the ability to come in and do that
after you've bought your home. As it stands today, they do have that ability
and I think we should prevent that from happening.
Councilman Workman: It really, to me, it is leaving us open, how do I phrase
this? It kind of leaves us open to a can of worms a little bit I guess. I did
follow that semi trailer issue. Is that the one just on the other side from the
SA down there?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I understand they can't even get their tractor trailers in
there.
Councilman Johnson: It's not across from the SA. It's by the Assumption
Seminary isn't it? You're talking the cold storage area. That's a cold storage
area.
55
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
CounciLman Boyt: It's down by the Assumption seminary but it's right in that
difficult triangle of traffic.
CounciLman Johnson: It's west of the Assumption Seminary. It hasn't been
constructed yet?
Councilman Work~an: They're doing a good job of hiding it.
Councilman Johnson: It's way off the road.
CounciLman Workman: I guess the point of, and I read through Tim's articles and
he's got a personal issue in that surrounding area, and even prior to taking a
seat on the Council, there's a lot of issues about contractors yards and tree
farms a~J that kind of thing going on. I don't want to limit people's ability
to use their property to earn a living but to me it's still so vague out there
about what a person could use that for. They could use it for tractors or he
could use it for a mom and pop but until we can say, we've got to keep this back
a little bit so that we don't have willy hilly all over everyplace, I don't feel
comfortable in saying yes, let's go ahead and let them do it. To me it just
hasn't been proven to me that ~ have a certain amount of control here and that
in the future we' re going to stumble over a lot of them.
Councilman Johnson: I hear what you're saying and to phrase it slightly
differently, I think we need to define a contractors yard better because the
s~ni thing under our present ordinance is defined as a contractors yard and I
don't think it should have been but unfortunately it is. So I think there's two
issues to me. When we're talking a ma~ and pop accessory use, I'm not talking
that the guy's running a Consolidated Freight out of his backyard. That's
definitely an industrial use. It's more, and I continue using Buck Excavating
or Larry Kerber. Larry Kerber runs, has got a couple tractors and a couple pick
up trucks. That type of small, non-intense use. I think we._ should put
something on the n%m~ber of employees allowed. The one on CR 117, I believe he
said his maximu~n ~mployees were 12. That's getting a little high I think. I
would want to see anything more than that. In fact, I would rather see less
than lg employees. The Merle Volk contractors yard where he's got 3 or 4
different contractors sitting in there. He rents out the houses, he doesn't
actually live there anymore. I don't consider that. I wouldn't consider that
as mom and pop constractors yards. It's an industrial park in the A-2 zone. I
agree with you Tom. There's a real problem there of allowing, what do we allow
in there? We can't just allow anything. We have to define it better also.
Councilwc~nan Dimler: I do have a comment and that is, I did ask for the acreage
on Bill's example because I think it does make a difference if you've got 5
tractor trailers on 40 acres or if you've got them on 5 acres or lg acres. I'm
asking, if A-2 is agricultural residential and how many actual agricultural
businesses do we still have in Chanhassen? We do still have some real bonafide
farmers and are we then restricting them, let's say if they have a grain
operation, are we restricting th~_n from using and hauling trucks?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's agricultural. I wouldn't think it would fall under
contractors yards.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's in the A-2.
56
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: But it's agricultural. That's what the A stands for2
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but then if you're saying, the neighbor over
here who has 40 acres and because his business isn't agricultural per se, he
can't have his trucks parked there but the next guy can. Do you see what I'm
saying?
Councilman Johnson: But then the guy that's got his agricultural knows that in
the future it's not going to be agricultural. He knows that 20 years down the
road or 40 years or whatever, that he's not going to be allowed to park his
trucks in there because...
Councilwoman Dimler: He's not going to be able to farm ~%ere?
Councilman Johnson: When the price is right, he won't be able to farm there
anymore.
Councilwoman Dimler: What if he wants to stay?
Councilman Boyt: He can farm there forever. He's tax exempt as long as he's
farming that land and if he wants to hold it Jay, it's his.
Councilman Johnson: When I moved into my house I talked to the farmer behind
me. He says I'll leave this land feet first. Horizontally. He said, I can see
Shakopee from my upstairs window. I can see Lake Minnetonka from my upstairs
window. I'll never leave here. You know I know have 30 hours behind me because
the price was right.
Councilwoman Dimler: He sold off part of it.
Councilman Johnson: He sold off all of it. He's not there. He's built a house
over by St. Hubert's.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still go with that number 2 but my position on that is,
if there is a limitation of years that they can be located there. That's my
only condition with that.
Councilman Boyt: If there wasn't, would you go with 3?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I more than definitely would.
Councilman Johnson: When you talk limitation of years, would you say review of
the contractors yard permit every so many years? I think right now, that was
another thing is I'd like to see anytime there's a conditional use permit of any
sort in any district, that w~ have a review of that conditional use permit on a
schedule.
Councilwoman Dimler: It' s not legal though.
Councilman Boyt: It's legal to stay in touch with them following it but it's
not legal to pull it away from them simply because they've had it for 5 years.
Councilman Johnson: No, no. I said a review to see if they're meeting their
conditions is what I should, I didn't complete that. We've got conditional use
57
~'"~ ~"~ldity Council M~eting - February 13, 1989
permits out there that they haven't ever done what tl%e conditions say to do but
we have not gone out and enforced it. I would like to see, this is something I
talked about last year, is an ordinance ~nendment that requires inspections of
conditional use permits and an inspection fee. If they want to make a profit
off of it and that's why 'they're getting a conditional use permit, then we
should inspect it. We can incorporate an inspection fee just as we do a fire
inspection fee, whatever, into the conditional use permit process. Have you got
what you need for the Planning Commission?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on. Next, Council presentations. I'd just like to
address the ones that I brought up rather quickly. The Senior Corm~unity
Services are requesting some money from the City to support the South Shore
Senior Center during the year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 3g, 199g.
I'm not sure whether there's any CDBG's available on this for that support. Can
you tell us?
Councilman Boyt: We already gave them a substantial amount of money out of last
year's budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, but they're looking for now July 1, 1989 and ending June 3~,
199g.
Steve Hanson: We do have $7,50g.00...
Councilman Boyt: I think they requested that. I think that study was the
result of their request that we hel~-~t fund.
Steve Hanson: They're J.n the process of doing their own special study.
Councilman Johnson: No, this was my study.
Steve Hanson: This was a study for...
Councilman Boyt: Oh, excuse me. I thought we helped them fund a study.
Councilman Johnson: I think we did too. ~ designated part of our Ca~rmunity
Block Grants that way and we designated part of the Community Block Grants for
us to do a study of the Chanhassen seniors and what are the needs of the
Chanhassen seniors here.
Mayor Chmiel: Ail they're really looking here, what they're saying is to help
support ongoing operations of the center as well as providing matching funds for
a new lift equipment van awarded to the South Shore Senior Center.
CounciLman Boyt: Weren't we involved in funding a van there just this last
year?
CounciLman Johnson: Yes.
CounciLman Boyt: I'm sure we were.
58
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's all conmlunity block grants. Usually that cOmes up
when that money comes around.
Todd Gerhardt made a comment that was not audible.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. They say that. We very~uch appreciate
Chanhassen's strong support and that's part of it. You're correct.
Todd Gerhardt: This year's allocation of Block Grant monies have already been
distributed...and staff's in the process of a proposal together...comprehensive
sewer update as a part of the Cc~prehensive Plan. That work has been completed,
or a draft of it anyway. Those allocations have already been distributed.
Don Ashworth: I would suggest that staff be allowed to research this. If I
r~nember correctly, the funds they're looking for really go into this next year
so I would anticipate that we can bring back a favorable position but it would
be allocating some future dollars.
Councilman Johnson: Future Block Grant money?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Johnson: If Block Grants survive.
Steve Hanson: There is another year of funding on that coming up. When
I talked to the County, we'll be getting the application for that sometime...
Councilman Johnson: They probably know that. That's why the letter is just in
front of us getting the application package.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll have staff review that and come up with some
conclusions. The other item that I have is from ~]e Board of Hennepin County
Cor~nissioners. It says that the Hennepin County Board of Con~nissioners is
inviting interested public officials from suburban Hennepin County
municipalities to serve on the Board of Directors for Corm~unity Action for
Suburban Hennepin, CASH as they call it, the County Suburban Community Action
agency. Nominations, and I won't go through the whole thing, but nomination for
appointment should be submitted to me by March 31st and that to me is Kay
Mitchell. I want to encourage you to consider this opportunity to serve and
inform other public officials in your jurisdiction of these vacancies. This is
addressed to former Mayor Tom Hamilton.
Councilman Johnson: What exactly does this group do?
Mayor Chmiel: The County Suburban Con~nunity Action agency is basically what it
is and it doesn't go into details. By-laws for CASH require that one-third of
it's 27 members be elected. It doesn't really say anything. I think what we
should do is write back and get a little more information as to what it is and
what it consists of and then we can act on that. We have until March 31st
anyway.
Councilman Johnson: Our piece of Hennepin County is not too residential.
59
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Mayor Chniel: Bill, you had an it~ on building.
Councilman Boyt: Right, I'd like to see this put on the agenda on one of the
two next meetings. I think sooner better than later. Sometime during the last
budget cycle and several ti.~es during the last year, I have brought up the
discussion of the number of building, plumbing and related inspectors that we
have. If you look in our packet towards the end of our aclministrative pack,
they talk about the nu~ber of dwelling units and that's only one part of their
inspection of course but the number has gone from 1985 of 265 up to 346
estimated for this year as of October 31. I am sure then that the last two
months we've probably pushed to towards 4gg.
Jim Chaffee: 389.
CounciLman Boyt: 389. Okay, thank you Jim. We are taking inappropriate
advantage of these people. We need to look, and the previous Council did
indicate an interest in looking at the beginning of this year, at increasing
their staff. I happen to think this is a crisis. If we don't do something
about it, we're going to lose them. They bring in substantially more money than
we spend in that department and they have for years. It's just not fair. We
expect them to do, and we do expect th~n to do an excellent job of working with
developers. Not only conducting the inspections but making sure that the City
has a well built building for the future. We ought to be providing th~n the
resources to do that job so I'd like to see Scott Hart come in with a
presentation sometime in the next month and have us as a Council address their
needs.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, the next item, Park and Rec softball.
Councilman Johnson: Bill had two.
Mayor Chmiel: What was your other one Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Gary Warren. Does that mean Mr. Mayor that this has your
approval to be on the agenda sometime in the next month?
Mayor Chniel: I think we can listen to it, yes.
Councilman Boyt: The other point is in your administrative packet, I think we
all noticed that there was, Gary Warren notified Don Ashworth of his appointment
to National Con~nittee for the Public Works Association. Also, his role as 'the
State Chapter Director and State Treasurer. I think that the City Council
should go on record as co~mending Gary for taking this kind of an active role at
the State and national level and I would so move.
CounciLman Johnson: I'll second that.
Resolution #89-24: Councilman Boyt moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded that the
City Council commend Gary Warren for his active role as State Chapter Director
and State Treasurer and his appoinhneat to the National Committee for the Public
Works Association. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
60
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Activities at this level provide much more information to
our City Engineer than just being a mamber of these organizations. They get
involved with things and the extra effort is really going to benefit the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom?
Councilman Workman: The softball issue. I'm not sure what I'd like other than
to maybe make the Council more aware of the situation. It's a powderkeg. I
would again like to go on record as saying that I was on the City Champion
Merlin's Rental. Nonetheless, my wife would be just as delighted if I were to
say that I wasn't going to play softball this year. The discussion is on the
stress of the fields. What's basically being proposed and from the Minutes that
I gather and from discussion from both sides with Todd and others, there is a
strong movement towards eliminating any kind of outside ballplayers in the adult
leagues from playing on softball te~s. I think they left it at 4 per team. A
lot of the teams have a problem with that because they obviously have more than
4 players playing on these teams which creates a problsm. Let me just say, I
understand that the City residents should have first option to use these fields.
If there's a problem there, you have teams from the outside coming in and
playing there, they ought to go. I think, and the Park and Rec Minutes do make
mention that in fact a lot of Little League teams also have outside players on
them. Chaska, Excelsior, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie.
Councilman Johnson: The people who play against us.
Councilman Workman: Some of the other ones that are using the fields are some
of the outside fields.
Councilman Johnson: It's our home field. It's our kids playing on it.
Councilman Workman: But in softball leagues you don't have the option of
playing other towns. What I want to get at is, it's virtually going to
eliminate the women's league and it's going to be very strong damage to the
competition levels of the Men's Open League and the Over 35 League and these are
tl~ people that are having a problem with it. I guess where the heart of the
problem is, they wish to possibility look at the grandfathering clause. I
talked to the Park and Rec Department down in Chaska today. They have 14
softball fields and 156 teams or something so they're doing an awful lot and
obviously it's open to more people than just Chaska but they continue to have
the Chaska clause. If you played there, you're kind of grandfathered in. You
can continue to play there even if you've maybe moved out of there and aren't
still working there. I think Chanhassen is unique in that there's not a lot of
con~nercial. There's not a lot of retail where people are actually coming in and
working in the City so if you don't live here, you're kind of out of luck. I
guess my bottom line is, you're going to either eliminate some leagues or the
competition level, meaning the number of teams in those leagues, is going to
reduce and it's not going to be much fun for the adults. I guess I would like
to continue to look at what we can do to maybe help that out._ I haven't heard
the suggestion of possibly playing later in the evening. Scheduling games later
at night or something so those of us who are still in the City and still want to
have a viable league, our only other option would be to play in possibly Chaska
but they're not accepting anymore teams. For those that are left behind to play
softball here, to leave something of a competitive league for these people to
61
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
play in so that they at least have that option. If you live and work in
Chanhassen, you haven't got any other option to play softball anywhere else and
you're left with the kind of league that I suspect might be left, it's not going
to be much fun and fun is what it's all about perhaps.
Jim Mady: Tom, the Over 35 [¢eague, ~ anticipate 3 teams folding... Two from
Excelsior and one from Shakopee I believe. We also recognize the Over 35
League...like my te&m is just as bad as the rest. We had a tough t~me getting 9
guys much less lg. What we want to do is send a message to the coaches, let's
try to consolidate so we can at least have some good games. Then we have a
problem with the Little League coaches that come up to the Park Commissioners
all the time saying, why can't we play in our own town? We can't. There's no
place for them to play.
CounciLman Workman: Li. ttle Leaguers aren't in competition with softball fields
are they?
Jim Mady: They have no place. Our park and rec progran is bias to our adults.
We don't provide much for kids.
CounciLman Wore'nan: You're saying the Little Leaguers are playing on the
softball diamonds?
Jim Mady: If they could, they would.
Lori Sietsema: Yes, they have.
CounciLman Johnson: They did this last year.
.Mayor Chmiel: How often a~x~ what days did the Little Leagues play on?
Jim Mady: We'd like to have on league, I talked with a coach last week. He
'would like to have the baseball field at Lake Ann every night during the week so
they could play their games and practice and it's not available to them. Next
year hopefully with Lake A~n expanding, we'll have some room but this year,
we've got a problem so this is the way we'll address it. Or try to at least.
CounciZnan Workman: ~at if the Little Leagues were to go within an intown
league? In other words...
Councilman Johnson: We don't have enough players.
CounciLman Workman: So what I'm saying is, then what you have left is not a
very fun league. I'm not suggesting that we do that because if you get them out
in other towns and everything else, that's great but then you don't have much of
a league left so when you do that to the adults, it's the same thing. You don't
have much of a league.
Jim Mady: We can go the same route with the adults. The St. Boni and a number
of other towns went with a traveling Over 35 league because they couldn't get
more than 1 or 2 teams per city so there's about 4 towns now that have a
traveliag adult league.
62
City Council M~eting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Our kids have to travel. The same with soccor to meet our
needs.
Jim Mady: Let's let the adults who are over 35 or at least of driving age, let
tham do the driving. Let's let our kids play in town. The adults are the ones
who are mobile, kids aren't.
Councilman Workman: And that's not what I'm saying either. You just have said
that you're not going to change the league. You're going to be going to towns.
~den Prairie...or Tonka or Excelsior. You're going to have to go up there once
in a while. We can't always have our kids at our park in that situation.
Again, I'm not being blind to the stress on the field. I'm just saying, I'm
hoping we can work something out so that we can maintain something of a
competitive league here for the adults that do want to play.
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question. I know that there are no such things
as equal situations in town. It's my understanding that Eden Prairie does not
allow anybody to play in their leagues that doesn't live or work there. No one.
Councilman Workman: What is their population?
Councilman Boyt: Alright, it's 38,000 but...
Councilman Workman: It's four times as much and they have probably quite a bit
more...
Councilman Boyt: But I'm just saying, if we look at, there's one example of a
surrounding conm~unity T~m that doesn't allow 4 or 5 non-residents to play.
They don't allow any. You go into their swimming program, if you, as a
Chanhassen resident want to enter their swimming program, you wait until
everybody in Eden Prairie that wants to sign up, signs up. If they've got room,
you can sign up. When there's limited resources, aren't we just doing what
surrounding communities do? What's the population of Chaska? 14 fields. How
many fields have we got?
Councilman Workman: 4 1/2.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we don't have those yet. 3.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is, they go by school district and have it
pretty wide open as far as who can play. The school district, you can live and
work.
Lori Sietsema: It was my understanding that Chaska was going to go to a limited
number or no outside too.
Councilman Workman: But they'll keep the grandfather clause. They're keeping
the grandfathering. He called it the Chaska clause.
Councilman Johnson: But there's 14 fields versus...
Mayor Chmiel: It's my understanding that tomorrow their meeting you're going to
have some of the concerned people who have concerns about the ball diamonds at
your meeting tomorrow to discuss at the Park and Rec.
63
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Lori Sietsena: We were. They requested that it be tabled until the following
meeting because they wanted to kind of organize everyone.
Mayor Ckmiel: So there we can get that addressed maybe at that particular
meeting. I guess that was all you had to talk about Tom. Ursula? You had a
couple different ones. The Villager.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, let's start with the Villager. I just had a
question on the Villager. I noticed and I think it's really great that they are
printing the agenda. However, I believe that they used to print it in the past
and we weren't being charged for it. Don can you explain why we're being
charged regular advertising rates for the agenda? Did we used to get it for
free?
Don Ashworth: We received it for free at the time that we were using the
Herald. Then we went to the South Shore and incorporated that into a
newsletter schedule. W~nen it came back to tlne Villager, it was on the basis of
being charged. So we've paid for it for at least the last 4 to 5 years. I would
say the last time we were with the Herald was 6 years ago it was free.
Councilwc~an DJ.mler: Can you tell me how much that is? How much that costs?
Don Ashworth: The City, I'm trying 'to remember the memorandum. I believe our
legal ads were about $9,00~.00 and our paid subscription was about the same,
maybe a little bit less.
Councilwoman Dimler: A year? Right now?
Don Ashworth: For each of tt~e two types of accounts. You have this is a paid
advertisement in what I'll call the front part of the paper. You also have the
legal ads in the rear portion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I can see paying for it. I was just wondering when
we used to get it free with the Herald, why we can't get it with the Villager...
Don Ashworth: 1 think it's simply a change in their policy.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is a good service and ! think the people appreciate
that. Then what was the second item?
Councilman Wor~nan: Acceptance of gifts.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I would like to go to the other one first on Council
Presentations. That's simply just a housekeeping item. It is my feeling that
when we have visitors presentations, if the presentation requires action, that
it's tabled until the next regular agenda to allow for publication and review of
items prior to final consideration. I'm just wondering if we could also add
that to our Council Presentations?
Councilman Boyt: That is the approach ~ use with Council presentations.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not always and I would like to see it in print.
64
City Council Meeting - February 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I would think that when Council Presentations are, like
they are tonight, they're all added as an amendment to the agenda, that would be
appropriate. You can also, at any time, if you get it prior to publication of
the agenda, have a Council presentation to Don and supportive documentation and
then it can be advertised in time for the meeting because there have been
council presentations listed in the paper.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but I'm saying that sometimes you don't
have the time. I would just like to make sure that not only by intent but that
it's printed that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes you can just say that...
Don Ashworth: So right after Visitors Presentations, you'd like to see some
form of note.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. No, just under Council Presentations, print the same
thing that's under here because several things have c~me up and it required
action and we didn't have any information on it.
Councilman Johnson: The exception there again would be the Council
presentations that is properly published. It doesn't have to published but
makes the newspaper and is published, visitors Presentations generally don't do
that. Occasionally they do. Is Council Presentation listed there? It's not
listed there but it can be. In the past we have had, I've called up Don and
said I've got this information I want to share with the Council and I give him a
packet and it goes in with the packet and the rest of the Council had the
information. It was published in the newspaper.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but I'm saying, in the situations where it's
brought up at the last minute.
Councilman Boyt: Can you think of an example where it's been a problem?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying w~ should follow the same procedure.
Councilman Boyt: There are times in which Council presentations have been made
that have needed action. We don't always get the luxury of having two weeks to
look at an item.
Councilman Johnson: A_nd there's been visitor presentations that have needed
action at that time and we waived, without formally waiving it, we've taken
action in the past. Sometimes the action I don't think has been appropriate.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, we can always waive it but I'd just like to see it
there for general use and then if we decide to waive it, we'll waive it.
Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't matter.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the last one that I had was, when we get to
acceptance of gifts for the City, I called Todd today and asked h~m if there was
anything in the City Code and did you indicate to me there really isn't? Okay.
I would like to see us take some action in that regard because I think all gifts
that are presented to the City that are valued, let's say about $50.00 or above,
65
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
that they should be_ voted on by the Council. I really don't know of any
organization that just accepts gifts randomly without having some policy for
accepting them. Also, I'd like to see in that that if the gift requires
operation costs, maintenance costs or replac~nent costs, then certainly that
must be_ voted on by the Council. I'd like to ask Roger to draft us a resolution
containing these conditions that we could consider at our next meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Would Roger need to do that or could staff do that? It
costs less to have staff do it.
Don Ashworth: I want to talk to Roger. I'm sure there may have been something
similar to this in the past. I personally thing it should go in as an
ordinance, if it were to go there, to insure that anyone in the future...but I'd
like to talk to Roger so we'll do one or the other.
Councilman Johnson: Could it also go under our Council Procedures that we vote
on every January?
Don Ashworth: Yes, it could go almost in any document. That defines your role.
If I'm hearing Councilg~nan Dimler, she'd like to have something so everyone in
the organization knows what.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would prefer to see an ordinance if that's the best
route to take. Thank you.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor art3 the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepar~=d by Nann Opheim
66