5. Review Concept Plan for Revised Plat of Tower HeightsCITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM:
Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE:
December 8, 1994
SUBJ:
Tower Heights Conceptual Plat
A d" IFY
On Wednesday, December 7, 1994, the Planning C'mmission held a discussion regarding the
conceptual plat and potential settlement to the Bedor lawsuit. Four of the commissioners
felt that the city should not consider a settlement ante two commissioners felt they did not
have enough information to even consider
t,' settlement based on the revised plat.
0
it
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISED PLAT FOR TOWER HEIGHTS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Renelle R. Ulrich
6581 Nez Perce Drive
Dick Osgood
22035 Stratford Place, Shorewood
Daryl Fortier
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley
Todd Noteboom
Doherty, Rumble & Butler, Mpls.
Larry Moloney
Doherty, Rumble & Butler, Mpls.
Todd Johnson
1061 Lake Lucy Road
Teresa Schrempp
1041 Lake Lucy Road
Karen Green
1021 Lake Lucy Road
Teresa Drake
980 Lake Lucy Road
Jay & Marlene Payne
1081 Lake Lucy Road
Linda Barck
960 Lake Lucy Road
Colette McKinnon
941 Lake Lucy Road
Kristi Weinstock
1101 Lake Lucy Road
Tom & Anne McGinn
1121 Lake Lucy Road
Bryce Fier
1040 Lake Lucy Road
Len Kluver
1080 Lake Lucy Road
Darryl LizAnn Wills
1060 Lake Lucy Road
Scott McCann
1100 Lake Lucy Road
Tom Scott: The Commission has a report from our office outlining why we're here tonight
for this matter and let just summarize that real briefly. Back in May of last year the city
initiated condemnation proceedings to condemn a lot owned by Frank Beddor for purposes of
extending Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. Mr. Beddor then sued the city
challenging the extension of Nez Perce on environmental grounds and that matter was,
continues to be in litigation. It was tried before the District Court in Carver County in
February and March of this year and the trial court judge in Carver County in July of this
year decided in favor of the city and dismissed Mr. Beddor's lawsuit. Mr. Beddor has
appealed that decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and that appeal will probably be
decided sometime in June or July of this year. Now recently, as outlined in my report to the
commission, Mr. Beddor's attorneys have approached the city about a potential, conceptually a
potential settlement of the lawsuit. And what that settlement would involve is that Mr.
Beddor would drop his opposition to the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road so
that Nez Perce would in fact be extended to Pleasant View Road. Second component of this
settlement framework that Mr. Beddor has approached the city with is that he would donate to
1
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
the city the right -of -way over his property upon which Nez Perce would be constructed. The
city would drop it's proposal to take the entire lot that Mr. Beddor owns. And the third
component of the settlement would be that the Tower Heights plat, which is a 13 lot
subdivision that was approved last year, which there was preliminary plat approval. As it was
approved it would access to the north, to the extended Nez Perce Drive. Now the concept
that's been proposed by Mr. Beddor now is that the Tower Heights plat would access to the
south through an outlot that the city owns onto Lake Lucy Road. Now what we're looking
for the Planning Commission and the City Council next Monday, is direction as to whether or
not the city wants to consider a settlement of this lawsuit to end this litigation which would
involve this framework. Nez Perce being extended through to Pleasant View Road and with
the Tower Heights Addition being replatted to access to the south, utilizing this outlot to Lake
Lucy Road. If the city is willing to consider that type of concept, and obviously the main
component is whether or not the access to Lake Lucy Road of the Tower Heights Addition.
If the city's willing to consider that, then we will go forward and negotiate a settlement
agreement with Mr. Beddor conditioned upon formal plat application with the revised Tower
Heights plat. Formal approval of that, ultimate approval of that plat and ultimate approval by
the City Council of the overall settlement agreement. So that's why we're here tonight. To
see whether or not the city, the commission and next week the City Council, wants us to
move forward with a settlement that would be structured along those lines. Mr. Beddor's
attorney, Larry Moloney is also here and I believe he'd like to make some comments to the
commission at the appropriate time.
Scott: Okay. Questions or comments from, or is there any more staff?
Harberts: What is staff looking for from us specifically?
Tom Scott: We're looking for direction as to whether or not we want to consider this type of
settlement which would involve the Tower Heights plat. The concept with the Tower Heights
plat accessing off of Lake Lucy Road.
Harberts: What's staffs recommendation?
Aanenson: We haven't looked at the plat. All we're doing is asking for your input. Obviously
if it's something conceptually, you'd recommend that to the City Council. They would still
have to make a motion on it. Then it would have to come back through the platting process.
What we're looking right now is this something you'd like to consider as an option for the
settlement of the city.
Harberts: Mr. Chair, in my perspective, I don't have enough information to, I guess what are
we compromising. We went through the process. It got approved. The city had, they
2
I
11
I7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
wanted to condemn this property, or whatever the steps they took, that's what they took so
they had an idea of what they wanted to achieve. I don't know what, by compromising or by
settling, what that would achieve. If we would still achieve our overall goal or not. I don't
know that. I guess if we could still achieve our goal without compromising it, fine. Then
let's move ahead because we're creating a positive situation for both parties. If we're
compromising it, if the city is compromising something in which we're not achieving our
goals, I would be more reluctant to say no. Let's go on. but again, I don't have enough
information to really give you much more than that.
Tom Scott: Well the thing that would be accomplished is number one, the litigation would
end. Number two, Nez Perce would be extended through to Pleasant View Road.
Aanenson: Which was the whole reason.
Tom Scott: Which was what the battle was all about. Now at the same time that that issue
came up, the Tower Heights plat also came in at the same time.
Harberts: Yeah, I recall that.
Tom Scott: And the Tower Heights plat was designed to access off of the extended Nez
Perce Drive. But the main battle, the main objective was to extend Nez Perce Drive through
to Pleasant View Road. That would be accomplished by this settlement.
Harberts: But at the same time, what other neighbors, what other residents would be
impacted? What would be the impact? I recall there was some kind of grade consideration.
Scott: Well the issue, as I see it is the, and I believe it's very bad planning to do this, is that
there is, it's kind of confusing so I got a hold of an aerial that I think really in my mind
points it out. Basically the bottom line is, I'm sorry you folks can't see this but Nez Perce is
supposed, and we can pass this around. Nez Perce is supposed to come through like this on
actually Peaceful Lane. I believe it's JMS who's got the development here. Their property is
going to access out this way. Well part of the settlement is that of course this goes through
but this development will go out the back onto Lake Lucy Road. Now the houses that are in
place now are not shown on that and Dave, if you could tell me, how much, what's the actual
dimension inbetween the two homes that are situated on either side of that outlot. Or if one
of the, do you happen to know how far apart those? I was there, it looks like, I don't know
50 feet.
Hempel: The outlot that the city owns is a 50 foot wide outlot. The homes that are set back
from the property line I believe about anywhere from between 24 to 28 feet.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 '
Scott: Okay, but were there variances granted to place those homes where they are? Are
they too close or are they within the setback? '
Hempel: I believe they are within the setbacks based on the status of that outlot at that time,
it was an outlot. Kate may want to touch on the setback issue. '
Tom Scott: Yeah, I can also discuss that one. I believe they're 27, 26 feet back from the
outlot. At the time those homes were built, it was designated an outlot. It's not a dedicated '
roadway. It's an outlot. So that it was determined by the Planning Director at that time, Mr.
Krauss, that they did not require a 30 foot setback because it was not a dedicated right -of-
way. It was an outlot. So they were permitted to build closer than 30 feet which would be ,
the required setback if it were a dedicated right -of -way.
Mancino: Excuse me, it wasn't a dedicated right -of -way. So why do we have the outlot?
Tom Scott: It was, as is often done in the planning process, it was designated as a potential
future access point at some point in time. I
Mancino: So it's always been designated that way that a road may go through there at some
point.
Tom Scott: That it may.
Mancino: That it ma '
Manc . y
Scott: Yeah there was a comment by Mr. Krauss that was in the, these are the City Council '
meeting Minutes of July 12, 1993 and one of the things, that was my question too is that, you
know why have the outlot and his final comment was, "there seems to be an implication that ,
the city was studying or is thinking about studying the widening of Nez Perce south of Lake
Lucy Road, or Pleasant View Road itself, or an additional connections to the Fox Chase
subdivision." Which I believe Fox Chase, now that's on the other side of Troendle? '
Tom Scott: Yeah Fox, it's further to the east.
Scott: Okay. And none of these are in fact the case. None of those have been talked about '
the 4 years I've been involved with this issue so I mean that's another part of it but the thing
I'm trying to figure out is that if we do in fact have two homes and we have what, 25 feet, we '
basically have 100 feet inbetween the physical houses that this, as part of this settlement we
would be putting a 30 foot section through.
�I
7 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
Hempel: That's correct.
Scott: And the grade, as I recall, would go from 1016 to, it's like an 8 foot drop. I just got
that from the grading plan. Dave talk a little bit about, what is that going to look like. It just
seems to me to be kind of a.
Hempel: The rough grades that were proposed on the grading plan I believe did range, at one
time they looked at a S% slope on there which necessitated extension retaining walls at the
property line or slope easements to do the grading beyond the outlot. There was also an
attempt to reduce that impact by increasing the street grade through there. Anywhere up to a
10% street grade. In doing so, it did lessen the impact to the adjacent properties but some
grading may have to be done. I'm not, I don't have the plan in front of me on what the
grades would be.
Scott: So basically what the trade off is that if, as settlement of this litigation Nez Perce gets
connected, but the Tower Heights subdivision is going to have access off of a relatively steep
roadway that's going to be put inbetween two existing homes. That's basically the trade off is
that Tower Heights ends up off ingress and egress to Lake Lucy Road.
Mancino: And they'd have to have a variance. Correct?
Hempel: The final street grades haven't been.
Mancino: But they'd have to have... variances in here because of the setbacks.
Hempel: The setback would be an issue I guess.
Aanenson: It could be a legal non - conforming situation unless they try to add to it.
Tom Scott: Well, the setback of the homes?
Mancino: If you put the road in, then you would have a variance too because there'd be
corner lots and two fronts and you wouldn't have a 30 foot setback.
Tom Scott: That's correct. They would be within the 30 foot setback once the road is put in.
Mancino: So we would have to grant a variance.
Harberts: Well I think, again I'd just like to mention to the commission, I mean we're looking
at technical detail that in the past we usually rely on staff to look at. Bring forward the
R
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 '
Conrad: It's real tough to react tonight, seriously. I
Harberts: Yeah, I can't. I'm open to it but.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I really think we should, I don't know if we need to table this or not ,
but I couldn't tell you a thing. I've forgotten most of where we were when we wanted to runt
he roads a different way and to say, should we settle the litigation means I'd have to I
6 1
'
' in here that you may be looking
recommendation. The only thing that I m understanding e e y y g for is
do we make a recommendation to you to take to the City Council. Should we try and settle
this to prevent any further litigation? From my perspective, I don't have enough information
'
to say that. I would have to vote no, that we don't settle. That we go forward simply
because I don't know what the alternative here is. It seems that if the city, we went through
the planning process. The City Council was adamant about yes, this is what it was. That's
'
why they litigated with the resident on this that they wanted to move ahead. Now all of a
sudden we're halfway through, or all the way through, or part way through or what, and
they're saying that okay now, okay maybe this isn't such a good thing. Let's come back. I
'
don't have enough information and I don't see how the, unless we have technical information
in terms of what the impact is by compromising, we already started walking into other
,
questions about setbacks and road grades and things like that so, I'd be the first one to settle
in terms of a compromise but I don't know what I'm compromising on so at this point my
position is no until I get some technical information to make a decision here.
'
Scott: Well there's also an interesting situation here is that we saw the development, the
preliminary plat approval, and is there anybody from JMS here or any representatives of
'
JMS? Those are the guys who own the land, and they're not here. I mean we have someone,
I have a problem with. If I was in their situation and I see somebody else replatting my
property that I've already gotten preliminary plat approval.
'
Larry Moloney: I could probably address that.
'
Scott: Excuse me, this is not a public hearing. Yes sir.
Tom Scott: Mr. Chair, that's talked about in my report and I didn't mention it in my
'
summary but this is premised upon the fact that Mr. Beddor will obtain control of the
property and will in fact resubmit a plat along these lines. And if this concept is something
that the city wants to consider, so.
'
Harberts: I think that I'm open to any considerations but from my perspective it has to go
through staff, to our experts to tell us.
'
Conrad: It's real tough to react tonight, seriously. I
Harberts: Yeah, I can't. I'm open to it but.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I really think we should, I don't know if we need to table this or not ,
but I couldn't tell you a thing. I've forgotten most of where we were when we wanted to runt
he roads a different way and to say, should we settle the litigation means I'd have to I
6 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
' reconsider the whole road alignment and why go off Lake Lucy versus why go off Pleasant
View, or Peaceful Lane.
' Harberts: I'd rather see a recommendation from staff before I can say either or.
' Scott: Or I'd like to see too a drawing that shows, here's where the two homes are. Here's
where the road's going and then something that says, okay there's going to be a retaining wall
that's going to be 8 feet tall here and then as we know, when you have a grade like that and
' you're putting in a 30 foot section and there's any sort of a grade, there's going to be earth
that's going to have to be moved that will probably end up on the, I assume end up on the
property of the people next door. I don't know.
[I
Tom Scott: I guess what the intent tonight was to simply see, assuming the engineering
details work and assuming that the commission and the Council are ultimately satisfied that
those things work, conceptually do we even want to move forward with entertaining this type
of layout with Lake Lucy, with this plat accessing to Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce
extending through. And maybe, and what I'm hearing is that you don't feel you even have
enough information to react to the concept.
Scott: Can we get some other comments?
Harberts: It could be a good plan but I don't understand.
Farmakes: Kate how, I mean even if we were to vote on this, how could you sort of
disregard what took place during the public hearing because there's no input.
Scott: We already made a decision.
Aanenson: I know.
Farmakes: That would be made by the surrounding property owners.
Scott: Well it's like saying the access boulevard is going to go south and then all of a sudden
it goes north again. I mean we made a decision.
Farmakes: Well it's cutting a deal without open debate.
Aanenson: No, this is just conceptual.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
Tom Scott: We just want to get, that's one of the reasons we came here because, and that's
why all the residents were notified that we wanted number one, conceptually we want to
know whether or not it's even worth negotiating with Mr. Beddor on this particular concept.
can understand, maybe you don't feel you have enough information to even give us that
direction. If it's worth pursuing, then we would go forward and negotiate with Mr. Beddor.
Reach an agreement subject to, which would involve formal submission of the replat of this
property. Go through the platting process with a formal public hearing and then ultimately
for the City Council to decide on whether or not they'd approve a replat to end the settlement
agreement that would go along with that. So the purpose of this is just, are we wasting our
time in either pursuing this concept or should we move forward.
Mancino: To me you're wasting your time pursuing this concept as it is in front of me.
What I would look at, and this is really out there, is number one, I mean you'd have to get
approval from JMS that they would do this. Secondly, I just would not see the road going in
the outlot. I would not approve a variance to the homes because those homes have been there
for I don't know how many years but quite a few years. The only way I can see at all going
onto Lake Lucy is if Beddor actually buys one of those homes. When the homeowners
actually wants to sell the house and land to Mr. Beddor, and they would have to say yes.
Scott: Is it for sale?
Mancino: Is it for sale? Or trade for a new house ... but I mean that's how far I would need to
go to conceptually say yes. And those would all have to fall in line for me.
Nutting: It really comes down to do we want to say conceptually yes with no guarantees. I
mean conceptually sure. Go ahead but you're going to have to come back with a plan that's
going to have to go through the process and it gets through the process and we say, no. We
liked the way we did it in the first place, you know.
Scott: Well the City Council made their decision twice. And the Minutes, in fact the
Minutes that we received, I think it was Ms. Dockendorf or maybe Councilman Mason made
the motion and Ms. Dockendorf seconded it or vice versa, they said no. We already made
our decision. And personally I feel, we already made our decision.
Harberts: Well I don't want an answer to this question either but you know I'd like to know
where our position is as a city in terms of this case. But again, I don't want to know
publically. And second, I think staff did a great job the last two times, or one time. So at
this point based on what I have in this document, my position is no. We just go forward with
the path that we're on. Again, I would rather see a recommendation from staff but based on
what I have right here, my response as an individual is no.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
Scott: Do you want to go down the line and give the input. Ladd, what do you think?
Conrad: I don't have a clue. I couldn't react one way or another.
Scott: Okay. I'd say no. We made our decision once and that's enough for me.
Mancino: I say no.
Farmakes: I think it would be a bad precedent.
Scott: Ron?
Nutting: I don't have a clue either. That's not a no, that's not a yes. I hear you. I always
' get into these conceptual issues too. It's like the concept but I understand what you're trying
to do. This is a litigation decision that's trying to drive a response that can't happen. I don't
know, I think we're going to have to.
' Mancino: But we have a particular.
' Nutting: I think we just from a, we have to decide where we're going to go. If we've got a
case, you take it forward. If we don't have a case, then you get with city staff and everybody
else and say, we need to look at bringing something forward...
Harberts: I think Jeff said it well too in terms of precedence because it doesn't reflect well on
the city's decision making process, or the staff experts. I'm not willing to put ourselves out
there.
Scott: Well and also too, when as we go through from the District Court to the Court of
Appeals to whatever, the Judge, is it Goggins or Groggins? I'm sorry.
Tom Scott: Goggins.
Scott: Goggins. Not only did he find for the defendant, which is the City of Chanhassen, but
he also ordered the plaintiff to pay a portion of the City of Chanhassen's legal fees. So in my
mind that's a pretty strong statement that we are on the right path.
Tom Scott: We have a strong legal position. There's no question about it.
Scott: It's ... issue of...and it's like we back off and you guys save money, give us what we
want. That's what.
0
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994
Tom Scott: We have a very strong legal position. This is a matter of ending the litigation
and saving that cost and secondly getting this road, Nez Perce extension constructed during '
the 1995 construction season. Mr. Beddor will be donating the right -of -way instead of us
condemning his lot and paying him for that. There may be some other financial things we
can build into the settlement. The reason we're here, if from a planning standpoint the city '
does not conceptually want to consider utilizing that outlot off of Lake Lucy, then we go
nowhere with it. There's no sense spending our time on this so it's really a planning issue on
whether or not we want to consider using that access. And if we don't, then fine. If we're '
willing to look at that then there are financial issues relating to ending the litigation and the
acquisition of the necessary property to build the Nez Perce extension.
Scott: Well I think we gave some pretty good, we have four no's and two, no los contondres
I guess. So is that sufficient for you to know what our position is?
Tom Scott: That is sufficient.
Scott: Good, well thank you very much.
Tom Scott: Thank you.
10
7
n
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Ll
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
November 29, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Re: Concept Plan Review for Revised
Tower Heights Plat (Vineland Lots 6 & 7�
(612)45_' -5000
Fox (612) 452 -5i50
I Dear Kate:
INTRODUCTION
E
The Planning Commission will be reviewing a Concept Plan for a revised Tower
Heights Plat on December 7. The matter will go to the Council on December 12.
This concept review is to obtain input and direction from the Planning
Commission and City Council concerning a potential resolution of the on -going litigation
over the Nez Perce extension. In a nutshell, the potential settlement involves the
construction of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road as planned, with the Tower Heights
Plat being revised to access from Lake Lucy Road.
If the Lake Lucy Road access to the plat is not acceptable, there will be no
settlement discussions. If this access is acceptable, we will attempt to finalize a
settlement with Beddor, subject to City Council approval of the overall settlement and
formal application and approval of the new plat.
DISCUSSION
Frank Beddor recently approached the City about settling his on -going lawsuit in
' which he seeks to prevent the City on environmental grounds from constructing the
extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. In July, Carver County District Court
Judge Robert Goggins dismissed the lawsuit. Mr. Beddor has appealed that decision to
' the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Attached is a copy of attorney Lawrence Moloney's
November 9 letter outlining the settlement proposal.
' There are four major components to Beddor's settlement proposal:
`suite 317 • Ea<7andale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan MN 55121
Thonw 1. c ;;um1 +cll
\ gcr''. Knur"rn
'
Thoini< M. �c,ur
G:,r% (;. Fuch>
J;rmc' R. \\
'
Flh, rr R. Kncr >ch
Eli -J A. Lun_cr
A 11JR:J \1c1), „c(_11 P,)chlcr
Ll
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
November 29, 1994
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Re: Concept Plan Review for Revised
Tower Heights Plat (Vineland Lots 6 & 7�
(612)45_' -5000
Fox (612) 452 -5i50
I Dear Kate:
INTRODUCTION
E
The Planning Commission will be reviewing a Concept Plan for a revised Tower
Heights Plat on December 7. The matter will go to the Council on December 12.
This concept review is to obtain input and direction from the Planning
Commission and City Council concerning a potential resolution of the on -going litigation
over the Nez Perce extension. In a nutshell, the potential settlement involves the
construction of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road as planned, with the Tower Heights
Plat being revised to access from Lake Lucy Road.
If the Lake Lucy Road access to the plat is not acceptable, there will be no
settlement discussions. If this access is acceptable, we will attempt to finalize a
settlement with Beddor, subject to City Council approval of the overall settlement and
formal application and approval of the new plat.
DISCUSSION
Frank Beddor recently approached the City about settling his on -going lawsuit in
' which he seeks to prevent the City on environmental grounds from constructing the
extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. In July, Carver County District Court
Judge Robert Goggins dismissed the lawsuit. Mr. Beddor has appealed that decision to
' the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Attached is a copy of attorney Lawrence Moloney's
November 9 letter outlining the settlement proposal.
' There are four major components to Beddor's settlement proposal:
`suite 317 • Ea<7andale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan MN 55121
Ms. Kate Aanenson
November 29, 1994
Page 2
First, Nez Perce Drive will be extended to Pleasant View Road as planned.
Second, Beddor will donate to the City the right of way for the Nez Perce
extension. The City will drop its plans to acquire Beddor's entire parcel.
Third, the Tower Heights Plat would be revised to provide for access to the 13 -lot
subdivision from Lake Lucy Road to the south by the 50 -foot outlot owned by the City
instead of from Pleasant View Road to the north.
Fourth, Beddor will reach an agreement concerning the revised plat with the
present Tower Heights developer, whose preliminary plat was approved in July of 1993.
Beddor's attorney has assured us that such an agreement will be in place by December 7.
There are other matters which will need to be addressed in any settlement. One
item is the amount of the assessment against Beddor's property for the Nez Perce
construction costs. The City may also need a larger ponding easement from Beddor.
The goal is to accomplish the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road in
1995 at the least amount of additional expense. The settlement would put an end to the
current environmental lawsuit and any potential additional lawsuits relating to the City's
condemnation proceedings involved in acquiring Beddor's lot. We are scheduled to
submit an extensive brief to the Court of Appeals in February and have oral arguments
in late Spring. Beddor will most assuredly petition the State Supreme Court for further
review should his current appeal by unsuccessful.
I will be at the December 7 Planning Commission meeting. A representative of
Mr. Beddor will also be present.
Please call if you have any questions.
TMS:slc
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lawrence Moloney
Best regards,
CAMPBE KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCH , P.A. L
By:
0
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
,,& EB ,.U TL ER
3500 Fifth Str, -Wers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 554024235
Telephone (612) 340 -5555
FAX (612) 340 -5554
28(X Minnesota 1lorld Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
Saint Paul, 'Minnesota 55101 -4999
Telephone (612)'_91 -9333
FAX (( 291 -9313
I Attorneys at Law
Writer's direct dial number: 612) 340 -5592
November 9, 1994
' VIA FACSIMILE
Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
' CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
' Eagan, Minnesota 55121
�1.. - :er Building
1625M Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036.3203
Telephone (202)'_93.0555
FAX (202) 659 -0466
23 One Tabor Canter
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202AS23
Telephone (303) 572-t,2()0
FAX (303) 5'2 -6203
Reply to Minneapolis office
RE: Beddor, et al. v. City of Chanhassen et al.
' Court File No. C9 -93 -1111
Dear Tom:
' As you know, we have filed a Notice of Appeal in the above -
captioned suit. Thus both the Plaintiffs and the City of
Chanhassen will soon be obliged to focus their time and resources
' on preparing the appellate briefs and record citations and on
arguing the case before the Court of Appeals. Further, on the
horizon is the prospect of additional appeals and the condemnation
proceedings.
This quiet before the next storm seemed a good time to explore
' whether emotions had cooled to the point where a reasonable
compro dse might -be reached between the interested parties. I.ith
this thought in mind, I have recently informally explored some
settlement ideas with you, and you have requested that I put them
in writing so that they may be considered by the City Council.
This letter is written in response to your request.
' The concepts expressed in this letter are not intended to be
a firm offer because some of them could not be implemented unless
certain contingencies take place which are not in the control of
' either Plaintiffs, or the City. Nonetheless, the tentative
proposals made here are offered seriously, in good faith, and with
the belief that if the City is agreeable to these concepts, the
prospects are good that the disputes between the Plaintiffs,
' including Mr. Beddor, and the City, can be finally laid to rest.
At the very outset of this controversy it became evident that
' the principle concern of the City has been to proceed with the
extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. While
Plaintiffs, and many other residents of the impacted area, have
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
November 9, 1994
Page 2
opposed this extension of Nez Perce Drive on safety grounds, we
understand that the City has rejected these objections. As we
understand the City's position, the extension is deemed desirable
because a north -south connector road is needed and because the
extension would allay countervailing safety concerns of homeowners
on Lake Lucy Road who feel that too much traffic is being diverted
onto their street. In addition, some City representatives have
insisted that one of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Beddor, had previously
supported the extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road,
and that the extension was a "done deal" which had been too often
revisited by the City Council. On this basis, the City determined
in May, 1993 to authorize the official mapping of the Nez Perce
Drive extension and to condemn the parcel often referred to at
trial as Beddor Lot 5.
The core of our proposal to the City would be to drop
Plaintiffs' opposition to the extension of Nez Perce Drive. In
fact, Mr. Beddor would be willing, assuming other conditions are
met, to donate to the City the right -of -way necessary for the
extension of Nez Perce Drive. Under this scenario, Mr. Beddor
would retain the ownership of the balance of Lot 5, eliminating the
need for the City to incur legal expenses in the condemnation
proceeding, or to pay Mr. Beddor for any condemned property.
In exchange, the City would simply approve the replatting of
the Tower Heights Addition property so as to provide access through
Outlot A. As you know, Outlot A was originally obtained by the
City in the mid 1980's for this specific purpose. Representatives
of the City's planning staff and engineering staff have previously
indicated that using this access route is feasible. In fact, this
access route has certain benefits which might even be acknowledged
by the City outside of the courtroom, such as saving several mature
trees, and the diversion of some stormwater from Christmas Lake, a
resource that both of our experts opined was precious and
vulnerable.
We are cognizant of the fact that the City has already
approved the preliminary plat for the Tower Heights Addition
development which calls for an access road to the north. We
recognize that some form of agreement would have to be reached with
JMS in order to make our proposal work. While no such agreement
has been reached, we are willing to make a good faith effort to
reach agreement with JMS to address any concerns that it might
have, if the City is open to our proposal. On the other hand, if
the City is not open to these concepts, the prospect of an
agreement with JMS is eliminated, and we will be obliged to return
to the litigation process, and any other means at our disposal to
oppose the City's proposed actions.
J
0
F�
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION November 9, 1994
Page 3
I believe that we presently have an opportunity to finally put
this controversy behind us. Our proposal allows the City to
achieve its principle goal and eliminates the cost of land
acquisition and legal costs which would otherwise be required by
the effort to condemn Lot 5. Environmental concerns that should
also be of concern to the City would be addressed. The safety
concerns of the Lake Lucy Road homeowners would be allayed given
that the bulk of the traffic at issue would be diverted to the
Nez Perce Drive extension. Any new traffic on Lake Lucy Road from
the Tower Heights Addition would be minimal given that traffic from
that development may be expected to usually turn toward County
Road 17, and would be very minor in any event.
The outlot A access would require minor variances which the
City should have no concern about granting. The City has recently
acted to widen the standard for residential streets, but our
proposal would merely require that the access road be built to the
width the City would have required until a few months ago.
Moreover, the two homes adjacent to Outlot A will be a few feet
within the front setback requirement of the City.
However, we believe that the benefits of our proposals far
outweigh the costs. We sincerely hope that the City is of a mind
to enter into a compromise which is not merely reasonable, but
beneficial to the City. If you have any questions, or want me or
other representatives of the Plaintiffs to meet with City officials
to discuss our ideas, please let me know. You should be aware that
we are under some time pressure and need within the next few days
an indication of whether the City is willing to settle the pending
litigation on the basis of our proposals. The opportunity
presented to the parties to end the litigation may be short - lived.
Therefore, please provide me the response of the City as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
v .•
Lawrence A. Moloney
LAM/ksg /67368
cc: Frank Beddor, Jr.
Julius C. Smith, Esq.
David C. Sellergren, Esq.
Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
our areas that are just adjacent to theirs. So that's... issue.
Councilman Senn: Isn't that something we evaluate ourselves first?
Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point we do, right. But this also becomes involved
where upon Council would look at that and view that and come up with conclusions
as well. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As I understand it, it's just a 3 year study to look
into the possibility. We're not recommending any collaboration or anything at
this point.
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm just curious. I don't want to throw this
comment back in your face Don but you say we're tired of being kicked around. I
didn't understand what that meant.
Don Ashworth: I think we provide a very good service level for our community
and I think we've provide it in a very cost effective manner. But it seems as
though the Governor's office has continued to take and say, cities are bad guys
and others and quite truthfully I'm tired of being kicked around. I'd just as
soon stand up. Show people what it is we do and why we do it and to prove that
we are a cost efficient government.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval of item 2(f).
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Memorandum of Agreement for Metrpolitan Council to provide technical assistance
in program review and analysis to Lake Minnetonka area cities. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the lotion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE. FRANK BEDOOR.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sherry Novacyzk
John Fess
Tami FalkowsS y
Jeff B
Gary McCauley
Curtis Anderson
6371 Pleasant View Cove
6280 Ridge Road
850 Western Drive
850 Western Drive
420 Pleasant View Road
500 Plesaant View Road
5
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Name Address
Jonathan Smith
Birgitte Wyller Bernstsen
Michelle Beddor
David Beddor
Todd Cocallas
Jame Ledin
Steven Jaeger
David & Linda Lyndahl
Don & Darlene Miller
Dan & Sharon Rogers
Renelle R. Ulrich
David & Paula Donna
Frederic Bruno
Steve Beddor
Gail Dorn
Jim & Mary Stasson
Mike & Mary Meuwissen
Frank & Marilyn Beddor
Darlene J. Lyndsey
Daryl Fortier
David Sellergren
Julius C. Smith
Bill & Ann Miller
W.P. & B.J. Gullickson
Laurie Curnow
Larry Tivy
Jeff & Norma May
John & Jan Nicolay
Peg Scheletzche
Karen Robideau
David Kelly
Jerry & Teri Frederick
David & Valerie Rossbach
A.W. Owens
Kenneth Lincap
Kimberly Murphy
John Schevenius
Conrad & Michelle Eggan
Greg & Barbara Hedlund
Marlow Peterson
Lynda Johnson
Hank
John M. Cunningham
Gordy & Patsy Whiteman
Sharon Graef
Jim Meyer
Steve McKinnon
Jeff Schoenwetter
Ron & Karen Green
Teresa & Dan Schrempp
Bryce, Shelly, Luke & Katie Fier
7600 France Ave So, Minneapolis
1050 Pleasant View Road
850 Pleasant View Road
1050 Pleasant View Road
860 Vineland Court
840 Vineland Court
880 Vineland Court
6501 Nez Perce Drive
395 Pleasant View Road
6500 Nez Perce Drive
6581 Nez Perce Drive
881 Vineland Court
6560 Fox Path
1010 Pleasant View
1010 Pleasant View
6400 Peaceful Lane
6580 Troendle Circle
910 Pleasant View Road
7951 Powers Blvd.
Golden Valley
St. Paul
Chaska
6561 Fox Path
830 Pleasant View Road
650 Pleasant View Road
370 Pleasant View
745 Pleasant View
608 Pleasant View Road
680 Pleasant View
540 Pleasant View
6580 Nez Perce Drive
660 Pleasant View Road
670 Pleasant View Road
6535 Peaceful Lane
6735 Nez Perce Drive
6870 Nez Perce Drive
570 Pleasant View Road
6500 Peaceful Lane
748 Lake Point
1180 Pleasant View Road
1140 Pleasant View Road
855 Pleasant View
6665 Horseshoe Curve
825 Pleasant View
855 Pleasant View Road
6225 Ridge Road
941 Lake Lucy Road
J.M.S. Development
1021 Lake Lucy Road
1041 Lake Lucy Road
1040 Lake Lucy Road
0
6
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Name Address
Todd &.Gayle Lantto
Jim & Sue Duchene
Mary Jo Olson
Terry Bauk
Len Kluver
Jenny Johnson
Jan Hansen
Darryl & Liz Ann Wills
Rodd Johnson
Ron Green
981 Lake Lucy Road
961 Lake Lucy Road
1020 Lake Lucy Road
960 Lake Lucy Road
1080 Lake Lucy Road
1061 Lake Lucy Road
1081 Lake Lucy Road
1060 Lake Lucy Road
1061 Lake Lucy Road
1021 Lake Lucy Road
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, prior to Mr. Seddor conveying his presentation, I would
like you to provide the Council some of the background that we have done with
this particular project. So just sort of a refresher and I think you've
probably all read it but I think there may be something you may have to add to
it.
Paul Krauss: Sure Mr. Mayor. The original roadway concept was developed in
1989 with the Vineland Forest plat. At that time the city contemplated running
the internal street in Vineland Forest between Lake Lucy and Pleasant View Road.
Mr. Beddor, and several others, raised concerns with potential traffic issues on
Pleasant View and it was agreed that the city should study options that minimize
the potential for problems and minimize the concerns before they ever had a
chance to occur. Staff developed 4 alternative road alignments. Ultimately the
City Council selected what was referred to as Alternative #3 which has really
served as the guiding document for all the city decisions since 1989. That does
show a connection, generalized a connection between Pleasant View and Nez Perce
via the Peaceful Lane intersection. The plat, the Vineland Forest plat was
approved based upon the plan for the connection. Every home buyer in Vineland
Forest is put on notice through notice in the chain of title that the road's to
be extended and there was a temporary cul -de -sac constructed with a barricade
that had a sign on it that said this road is to be extended. The Lake Lucy Road
loop that's recently being billed as a solution by some was studied in the 1989
document, which I included in your packet. It doesn't show up on the
alternatives but we did go through an analysis of all the potential connections
into the Vineland Forest, Troendle, Owens area and it was dismissed at that
time. Largely because it really didn't resolve the access issues. Because it
would have impacted lots on Lake Lucy Road and because there was some grade
questions. Grade's not impossible. It could be done but it was pointed out as
a problem. I should point out that where that Lake Lucy Road loop is now being
proposed is an outlot that was acquired by the city a number of years ago
potentially for right -of -way. Homes have since been built on Lake Lucy Road on
those two adjoining lots. Since we didn't anticipate this road, or this outlot
coming back as a road, those two homes were built with less than the required
front yard setbacks on what's in essence their side yards, which would face this
outlot. One is 25 feet from the right -of -way. The other's 27 feet and I
haven't been inside the homes but it looks like the orientation is that, because
the garages are away from the outlot, that some of the living space is actually
focused on the area-that is in the outlot. So again that was studied. City
code does require a 20 foot setback if a street's to be put through there.
There would be a variance situation that would result. There would probably be
fl
J
0
J
1
1
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
some fair sized impacts to those homes as well. In 1990 Mr. Beddor brought
forward plans to develop the Troendle Addition. Lake Lucy Road residents were
very concerned and were very vocal atshat ''t`ime about having all the growing
levels of traffic into the Vineland Forest, Troendle Addition coming down Lake
Lucy Road, Nez Perce in front of their homes. They came to the Council meeting
and asked that no approvals be granted for the plat until the road connection
was made. Mr. Beddor's representatives indicated strong support for the
connection as illustrated in Minutes and materials that were submitted by them.
However, they indicated that the connection was ultimately out of their hands at
that point since the last piece of the puzzle is the Owens parcel and that was
in a bankruptcy proceeding at that time. They indicated that they were
negotiating on that parcel and would be cooperative with the city. The Council
considered limiting the number of lots that could be built on the Troendle
Addition. I don't know if all of you recall but you actually approved it
preliminarily with I think only 6 lots being allowed, if memory serves.
Ultimately we sat down with Mr. Beddor's representatives and negotiated an
arrangement whereby they were allowed to proceed with the entire plat based on
the road connection ultimately being made incrementally, which was always it's
design, and that they would pay $10,000.00 towards the ultimate cost of that
road which was computed to be what would have been assessed to those lots had
they had a road project existed. A development contract was ... and I understand
that the money was, or a letter of credit was deposited for it. Similarly with
the Vineland Forest plat, the Troendle Addition homeowners were also put on
notice that the road is to be extended. The city then approved a grading plan
which allowed Mr. Beddor to regrade and landscape the ponding area on the Owens
parcel. This was approved based upon the determination that finish grading
would still allow the connection to be made and that reasonable development of
the site with single family homes would remain possible. There has since been
related a smaller scale actions including, that were related to the road
connection including a small lot division in Vineland Forest. And again, we
have exhibits that were prepared by Mr. Fortier on behalf of Mr. Beddor
illustrating how that connection would be made. The Owens parcel cleared
bankruptcy and was sold in two pieces. Mr. Beddor acquired the north half while
another developer has purchased the south. The owner of the south half
currently has a plat pending that's based upon the approval of the connection to
Pleasant View Road. It was scheduled for last week's Planning Commission
meeting but in light of the fact that you were discussing roadway issues and we
couldn't really act on the plat without the roadway being determined, we pulled
it from the agenda to await your decision. At the same time we received that
plat, Mr. Beddor's representatives announced opposition to the street connection
and implied that they would be building a home that would sit in the propose
alignment. We've since had exhibits that show where that home would be. When
this came up before the Troendle Addition, staff was asked to bring this item
back to the Council within 18 months or when anything significant occurred on
it. We did bring it back to the Council in May. We did bring it to you asking
that you consider official mapping or some other mechanism to at least reserve
the right -of -way through there so that the road connection could ultimately be
made. The Council at that point elected to order the condemnation of the
right -of -way and that was the last official action that was taken on this
proposal. There's a tremendous amount of information of one sort or another
that circulated on this - issue. Staff continues to believe that the connection
makes sense from a traffic safety, for vision of emergency and maintenance
services, traffic equity and good planning practices standpoint. We'd be happy
8
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
to expand on each of those if desired but we've prepared numerous staff reports
that go into them in detail. with that I would close, except I'd like to add a
comment on some of the calls that we've been getting. There seems to be an
implication that the City was studying or is thinking about studying the
widening of Nez Perce south of Lake Lucy Road or Pleasant View Road itself, or
additional connections into the Fox Chase subdivision. None of those are in
fact the case. None of those have been talked about in the 4 years I've been
involved with this issue. with that Mr. Mayor, that's the background on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Don, do you.
Don Ashworth: If I could Mr. Mayor. The City Council can be reasonably assured
that you will have 50 or more residents from Lake Lucy Road expounding upon the
dangers that exist on that roadway and the terrible impact that will be created
if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is reconnected to Lake Lucy Road. City
Council can also reasonably expect 50 or more residents from Pleasant View
expounding upon the dangers of that roadway and the terrible impact that will
occur if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is allowed to connect to Pleasant
View. Property owners along Lake Lucy Road will be asking the Council not to
reconsider the decision that was made by the previous Council and Mr. Beddor 4
years ago. Property owners on Pleasant View will be asking that the Council act
to reconsider that decision. I believe it is reasonable to state that property
owners on both Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Road can contend that they made
decisions to purchase or sell relying upon their reading of the Minutes where
Mr. Beddor received his approval, relied upon the signs that were posted showing
the new connection, and relied upon the covenants which were placed on each of
the lots which showed that connection would be made to Pleasant View. I don't
think that the current Council should get caught in the dilemma as to the
effects of 15 or 20 lots on either of the two streets. The sole question to be
answered is, did Mr. Beddor portray how the traffic from his new subdivision
could best gain access to and from their properties and had the City Council
agree with Mr. Beddor's presentation. {Unfortunately we cannot go back and
eliminate the 15 to 20 lots. Accordingly, the only issue we can reasonably
review is whether or not that decision had been made and whether or not Mr.
Beddor had made those commitments as a condition of his plat approval. If
there's a liability issue, it currently rests with Mr. Beddor. Staff cannot
recommend that liability now be shifted to the city. Reconsideration cannot be
recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Beddor. If you'd like to go through your
presentation as to what you have.
Frank Beddor: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I didn't realize I was such a bad guy. I
would like to have, if I could, I'd like to have Daryl assist me. I don't have
overheads but I would like to show a couple of plats, or boards. I appreciate
the opportunity to come here before I would like, before I start to clear the
air on a few items. In one of the memorandums that went out by the city it
sounded as though I was questioning the integrity of the Minutes that were kept
at the last meeting. The last meeting of the 24th I was unable to attend and I
had Daryl Fortier and Jules Smith attend. Well, sometime after that I read the
Minutes of the meeting and when I read these Minutes I was
called Jules and I said Jules, what were you doing at that
see one word in there where you made a presentation about
7
U
E
�I
n
1
u
J I
very upset and I '
meeting? I didn't
our solution. Jules
0
1
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
said well, I certainly made the presentation. Maybe they ran out of tape.
Maybe they were changing tape, so I said fine. Then I called Daryl and I said
Daryl, I just read the Minutes and 'I said,'I 'know that Jeff, the developer of
Owens' is a nice young guy but why were you up making presentations on his
behalf? He said well that was an error. They probably should have put, they
just accidentally put my name down instead of his. I said okay, I can
understand that. I said but how come you didn't make any presentations on the
solution? He said, well I don't know. I made the presentation and what I put
in this little mailing was, is that it was a coincidence that both
representatives that I had here, there was no mention in the Minutes about what
the solution was. And I apologize to the, either staff or Council if they felt
in my mailing I sent out I was trying to question the integrity. I think I used
the word coincidence. Incidentally, we have had some meetings with different
homeowners and I was very surprised at one of the meetings when one of the
Vineland people said to me, you know I can't sign this petition you have and the
reason I can't sign this petition is we signed a covenants. In our title
there's a covenants that says, give me a second. That we're not allowed to sign
this type of petition and I said, well I can't really believe that. I said I
have a developers agreement after that period. That's not on my developers
agreement, I don't think. So I had Jules check it out and I kind of blew up a
copy of the 1989, December 18th of the developers agreement with Vineland Forest
and to read just part of it. It says, each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland
Forest agrees not to object to such a possible future roadway extension. So I
said, now that might not have anything to do with me or at Troendle's but then
we talked to the developer and he sent us a letter and he said that provision
was put in the covenants and the restrictions at the insistence of the City of
Chanhassen. Now I wasn't involved in that. At the time this came up we did not
own either Troendle's property and we didn't own Art Owens property. But if
this was such a, if 4 years ago here this was such a cut and dry deal, I wonder
why that wasn't put in our developers agreement. The other thing that, before I
start, that I'd like to check on is, people are wondering why we're concerned
about Pleasant View Road being widened. well, one of the reasons I'm concerned
about it, I'll get into in just a second but at a meeting on August 8th, 1990
when we were applying for a plat, Jules called me and said well, I'm all set
with the plat. However, there's one last thing you have to do. Really two.
You have to donate or dedicate some land along, a strip along Pleasant View
Road. I said what do we need that for, and let me read what the memo I got from
Jules said. This is, he's quoting the staff. The reason that the staff stated,
one reason amongst others. You are dedicating this property to the city so that
they will own this property in the event that they wish to widened the road in
the future. And if it were not dedicated at this time, and they decided to
widened the road in the future, they'd have to condemn the property and
reimburse you for the value. Well of course my antenna went up when anybody
talks about widening the road. One other thing that did happen during that
time, so we dedicated the land. Now I didn't agree with that but I accepted it.
You know a lot of times you accept something, that sounds like an agreement but
I accpeted it because we didn't have any other choice. Another item we had to
accept was, and I probably take a little exception at this. That we pay
$10,000.00 for improving Nez Perce Road or making the extension. Well first, we
didn't pay $10,000.00. We issued the city a letter of credit to be drawn upon
when and if there is a.new intersection. I was told that this $30,000.00 was
needed not to extend Nez Perce Drive, but where Pleasant View or where Peaceful
Lane and Pleasant View join, there's two great big wide swinging turns and they
10
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
wanted to bring that back into a T. So to make that T was going to cost
$30,000.00 so they couldn't assess Vineland anymore because they had already
settled with the city. So they were assessing Troendle's and I put up the
letter of credit because I didn't want it as an assessment. I had to have clear
title to the lots, and then they were going to assess whoever bought Art Owens
property and what they're going to do to the other $10,000.00, I don't know. But
you know it kind of sounds as though Frank Beddor knew all about this road. He
willingly put in money. He had to get his permit and he was going to contribute
towards the extension of Nez Perce Drive. And that's not really true. I was
under the impression that this was for a T in the road. I do have one thing to
say to the, that I would like to address for a second to the Lake Lucy
residents. All of us that live on Nez Perce Road and Pleasant View sympathize
with your problems of increased traffic and speed and safety and maybe a partial
answer there would be stop signs and lowering the speed. But you know it was 8
or 9 years ago that we were at this same kind of a meeting and Pleasant View was
going to be widened at that time and we defeated that and if that road had gone
through at Pleasant View at that time, I don't think anybody from Lake Lucy
would be living on that road and I brought a plat just to show what that is.
What was proposed way back 8 or 9 years ago, when Near Mountain was going in,
was coming from TH 101, right straight across to Pleasant View Road. Down
behind Pat Cunningham's and right out where Lake Lucy is. My contention has
been to the Lake Lucy people is, that if we let this extension go through, it's
going to create more traffic and now it's going to be more traffic that's going
to come on Nez Perce Drive, Pleasant View Road and also just the extra spillage
that's going to come on Lake Lucy. So when the question comes up about we're
never going to extend. We never think we're going to widened Pleasant View
Road. We've gone through that. The residents that have been here, we've gone
through that before. I thought this was an impossible situation then and this
was already in my mind. At that time, if I remember right, was okayed by the
city and the Metropolitan and it was because all the homeowners came out, and
even the developer was against it, of Near Mountain, that we defeated that
purpose. You know, tonight the statement was made that this is a Frank Beddor
issue and I don't think it's a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel I'm standing up
here alone tonight. We have the petition signed by 202 homeowners on Pleasant
View Road and Nez Perce Drive and Vineland and I don't think that it's just
Frank Beddor. I believe that I'm representing a lot of other homeowners who
feel the same way I do. And I would like to briefly tell you how I envision
what happened since 1989. Daryl, can you put. In 1989 the developer came with
this plan, which was two cul -de -sacs to develop that property. And the city
evidentally objected to this and you have to remember at this time we did not
own any of the other property. They wanted a cul -de -sac that comes up to the
property and then a short one off Pleasant View Road. And then city staff came
up with what we, the 4 plans you're talking about and what they recommended was
plan 4. And we violently opposed plan 4. Plan 4 connected a straight shot
through Pleasant View and we were all here at that meeting and what we
recommended was 3, which ended up being 3A. And that was as shown up here on
the plat, a cul -de -sac. Now we're talking that we agreed to it and we said
fine. That I agreed to it. We accepted it. That this was the road and
everybody from that point on was going to abide by this road. Well, if that
were true, you notice there's a big cul -de -sac going up in here. That cul -de -sac
is not in there. What we were concerned obviously was, and we always have been,
is the increased traffic. We voted for plan 3, not because we thought it was
the best plan but it was certainly better than plan 4. So we said, the people
11
1
1
C
P
0
iJ
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
who were here, and it was our understanding that this was going to be looked at
because nobody owned Troendle's property. Nobody owned Art Owens property. So
to say tonight that 4 years ago or in 1989 this alas a cut and dry deal, I don't
feel that's accurate. Now I was enthusiastically for 3. I sent out a petition
for 3. I got a lot of people here to vote for 3 because that was a lesser of
two evils. Then in March of 1 91 we purchased the Troendle property. And we did
it a little differently again than the city recommended. You know Pleasant View
Road has a character and it always has had the character of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 acre
lots and we've tried to keep it in that area. So we did not put the 7 or 8 lots
up that showed in the cul -de -sac on the plat as presumably was okay then. We
showed, we made one big lot on Pleasant View Road of 2 acres. And then we took
the Troendle house and made that into a lot off Nez Perce Drive and one other
one along side of it. And when we later purchased the Art Owens property, it
was a mess. The pond was a mess. In going back through the history, this
originally, that I found out, was caused by the city when they put the sewer in
in 1970. They cut off the drain. They didn't discover that until they put a
water tower in in 1980 and then the city went out and corrected that problem
with Art Owens but by the time he was supposed to correct his part, the city did
their part and he was supposed to correct his part. He was in a bankruptcy so
we wanted to go in and clean that area out. What we did, we ended up in our
plat with 3 lots on the south part and 11 lots in the back. And out of those it
we exchanged 3 of them with the developer of Vineland for the 3 that were
running in tandem from Nez Perce to Pleasant View. So then the remaining 8 lots
we sold to a developer. Not, a homeowner, Michael Holmes. And then we platted
that and when we went for the plat, it was recommended we only have 6. The plat
was okayed. Not like it was in 1989. Not with the big cul -de -sac. Not with 7
or 8 more lots up in the south but there was 3 on one end, on the north end and
there was 11 on the back, 8 of which we ended up with and sold. Art Owens had
his property platted way back in 1989 and he showed in this front property,
which the city approved 5 lots on Pleasant View. We did a lot of research and
we looked, we talked with Art Owens and unfortunately Art Owens was caught up in
a bad bankruptcy proceeding with the government, which in my opinion was the
result of Art Owens standing up for his religious beliefs and the government
kind of took him to task. That may be a different item. But we purchased the 3
acres of Art Owens and then when we looked at putting in 5 lots, we found that
the cost to bring those lots. To dig down, get rid of all that muck, it's kind
of in a wetland area. To bring it up to the right height would cost about
$70,000.00 per lot. So then we explored the possibility of two lots and we did
get a permit for grading and we kept in mind that there was a possibility of
someday that this could come through. Well, it took 2 years of negotiating with
Art Owens to get this cleared going through the bankruptcy court. During this
period of time I was informed by my legal counsel that Lot 5, Lot 5 is the whole
3 acre lot. That Lot 5 was one lot and we would not have to go to the city to
plat that if we wanted to just get a building permit to build one house, and we
looked at it. We thought well, that really makes more sense for just having one
house there. We never thought seriously that the, which I certainly was wrong,
that the city would ever think of condemning private property for an interplat
use and have to use taxpayers funds when it doesn't serve the whole community.
However, we did grade the property. We got a permit for that. Then things took
a little brighter look. At least in my mind. See but ever since 1989 I said
there's got to be a better way to develop all this property rather than bringing
excess traffic back through Pleasant View and Nez Perce because any connection's
going to increase it. So we came up with a plan which would be to take, go up
12
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
the driveway and go right back out Lake Lucy Road. And this would give 13 lots
and I said well, we're in the right direction. I think if we can think long
enough we can come up with a solution. However, after looking at that, there
was 3 pitfalls of this so we never brought this to the City. One was that the
grade was too steep. That we were told going up Lake Lucy. Second, it did not
help the Lake Lucy people because it did not get rid of the traffic that comes
onto the Troendle. But the third one was that you would have to tear out a lot
of trees to go up the driveway to Art Owens. So then we took a good look at
those trees and where the proposed development is now, still that development we
had, the same thing still holds true. If you look, going up this driveway, the
yellow is where the driveway presumably is and the white is the outside of that
driveway. This is going up the driveway. The next one is looking from the
driveway going back down. And the third one t.hat we researched is, we went back
and counted all those trees and measured all those trees then we found that
there was between 20 to 33 trees going up that driveway and some of those trees
are 60 to 80 years old and to 100 years old. That was one of the reasons why we
never came back to the Council with this plat going straight thru. We thought,
at one point I thought that was an answer because out of 13 lots, Pleasant View
would take half of them. Lake Lucy would take half of them and we'd eliminate
the connection. So we did not, we were looking at purchasing Art Owens southern
property but we felt his asking price was too high because what we wanted to do
was to leave his driveway alone. Come up to his house and make two big lots and
possibly maybe develop 7 lots in the back, exiting on Lake Lucy. This didn't
seem to be feasible from the standpoint of a cost standpoint so we did not
purchase the property. Then a nice young guy named Jeff bought the property. He
came to you with a plat and we met with Jeff. We met with him in our office and
we had a visit with him and he told us that he was not really concerned about
the road. He didn't want to get involved in the road issue. So I said, well do
you have any other suggestions? So we looked at this, this is the board we call
the problem. The way the road's going through. He said well rather than coming
up that driveway, he said maybe I'd like to come across your property and turn
in and come off Nez Perce Drive. Leave the road where it is but come up through
this area and not come up on the other side. So that was a good idea. It saved
all the trees but it didn't answer the one question about additional traffic. So
Jeff left and Jeff no more left and I thought, my lord. Daryl, there's
something we ought to check out. We're always talking about Lake Lucy for 4
years and that, that it's too steep and what is it? 8% or 9% that's too steep.
I said why don't you go over there and check that grade for me. And he did and
the next day he came back. The next day and said to me, that the grade going up
Lake Lucy is only 5.3%c. The grade going up Nez Perce Drive going in the way
we're proposing it is 5.5% and the grade going up the way that the city is
agreeing to, or the developer wants it going up Owens is 10.5%. So now I'm
delighted. I said now we've got a real win - win -win -win situation. We could win
for the city because they don't have to condemn the property. The homeowners of
Nez Perce Drive and the homeowners of Pleasant View won't have any additional
traffic. We have a win situation for the developer. He gets 14 lots instead of
13. And in my opinion, we had a win situation for the Lake Lucy people because
anybody that lives in Art Owens or Troendles is going to come down Lake Lucy and
then take a left go right up into the area. So we thought that this solution
was great. And I said Daryl, I said Jules, we just thought of this a short
time, a week before this meeting so when people say they have explored these
possibilities, saw Lake Lucy before, I have never seen any plans for that
myself. So maybe, I'm sure somebody has but I suddenly thought we had an
13
n
I
I
0
n
' City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
original thought. I was all excited about having this solution so I said, go
' over to the Council and tell them we've got a win -win- win -win situation. So
they did, and I couldn't be there indt`he conclusion, they came back. Nobody
even wanted to listen to the solution, or they'd listen to it but instead, my
' property's condemned. Now, I'm not dishearten because we have another solution.
After that I happen to run into Art Owens and Art said you know there's one
thing Frankie I don't like about your proposal and that is that it comes too
close to my house. So I said okay, that's a good concern. So I went back and I
said to Daryl, I said what if Marilyn and I sacrifice one of these lots. Lot 9.
The way the city would word that would be to dedicate that. what if we dedicate
that. Kind of like, it's kind of like Clinton you know. You're not going to
' pay more taxes. You're going to have a little sacrifice here. So he went back
and came across Lot 9 and came back out this way._ The developer still gets 13
lots. 12 plus the house and I said, we're not going to have to take any trees
down on either end so I thought that was the best deal. Now, the reason I'm
here tonight is, and I appreciate your time and your efforts to let me speak
tonight. First, I don't feel that this is a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel
' that I ever signed a contract or said yes, I absolutely agree that this is going
to go through. And it probably is a little disheartening to me to think that
you would sign a contract with someone like Vineland and put it in that he will
not fight back. And a year afterwards I buy the property, why wasn't that put
' in my contract. We've been trying to keep, we've been trying to stay, not this
one Daryl. Let's see, I'll leave that one on. So what I'm asking tonight of
the Council is for you to, yeah. Is for you just to rethink or to give another
' chance and go back and take a look. It was 4 years ago that decision was made.
Now isn't there anybody here that made a decision 4 yearg ago and later, if
nothing was happened, they made another decision and found the better decision
for it. So I'm officially asking tonight that the, and I'm requesting,
' respectfully requesting, that the city of Chanhassen do the following. Order a
preparation of an update of a feasibility study which would add Lake Lucy option
to it because before we had two options. 3 and 4 and now we have a third one.
' And you know in that you could include the total cost. Including the land
acquisition. The new ownership interest. The difference between what would
happen if in Peaceful Lane or if you went up south of Lake Lucy. What the
' impact on tree removal would be. The impact on the slopes. The storm sewer
issue. But even more important than that, and before that's done, I think it
would be wise if the city on their own would prepare an environmental assessment
worksheet. This would analyze the traffic. That's the traffic on Lake Lucy and
' the traffic on Pleasant View. You know since 4 years ago there's a lot of new
people that moved in. There's some Council people here that weren't there 4
years ago. They could look at the safety of the traffic issue and the air
' pollution, the tree removal and the wetland impact. Darlene, can I have those.
This is what I'm requesting. Would you bring me up those. Mayor, pass those
out to each of the members there. Mr. Mayor, I've given you all the original
' copies of the petition and I've given everybody else here a type written copy,
alphabetized, there are 202 residents in this area who are all taxpayers. Who
are all voters and they are homeowners who feel the same way we do and I do not
feel that this is a Frank Seddor issue, and I do not feel that I stand alone. I
' feel that I have the support and I'm just 1 of 200 that are standing here
tonight and I would hope that the Council would listen to the overwhelming, the
voice of the overwhelming majority. Thank you very much.
14
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I just didn't want this to take up much more time
with all the applause. I'd like to ask Council for any of this reconsideration
and I'd like to start with Mark. Mark, do you have any comments or questions
that you may have regarding this?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, I wasn't here I guess 4 years ago when all this
came up one way or the other. The thing that strikes me the most about it is
that, from everything I've now received and read I know 50 some letters and 50
some phone calls I think. There was a lot of information to be had. The thing
that strikes me the most out of it is, is that there's really an apparent safety
problem on Lake Lucy Road. You go look at lake Lucy Road and it's kind of hard
to disagree with that premise or that assumption. A lot of traffic moves
through there and it moves through there at a pretty good clip. At the same
time I look at it and I say, well the solution for Lake Lucy Road isn't to move
the problem. Or split the problem. Or to redefine the problem. And then I get
back to looking at the overall issue of should the extension go through or
shouldn't it. I'm not prepared tonight to say whether the extension should go
through or shouldn't go through. I don't think I have anywhere near enough
information to make that judgement tonight. I hoped to spend some time with
Charles this week before the meeting but he's on vacation so that kind of made
that impossible. From a traffic standpoint it seems to me that, there are
traffic controls and there are ways to control traffic. There's ways to reduce
speeds and there's ways to reduce traffic through a given area. The ultimate
solution here may be the extension. But either way if you look at the amount of
traffic going through that area, I think ultimately not only the extension is
the issue but also what safety controls or what traffic controls are you going
to put into place to assure that you don't grade or further exasperate a bad
safety condition. And I'm not sure I'm always on the same side as staff is that
way because I'm not as opposed to cul -de -sacs as they are and I'm not as opposed
to what I'm going to call traffic safety measures or traffic barriers as I think
staff is. I would really like to look further into the issue and really make
sure that we solve a traffic safety problem and not create another one. That's
what I guess I look at the real issue as being. You know not whether a street
is extended or not. In looking at that, I don't know if all the alternatives
again have been looked at or not. I mean I've had a quick couple of weeks to
read a lot of memorandums and letters but again I wouldn't say that's anywhere
near adequate to make a decision. So from that standpoint I guess I'd like a
little more time to look at it and to see some of the alternatives.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Is this a lottery?
Mayor Chmiel: I decided I'd move it around a little.
Councilman Wing: Well I was on record back when all this occurred as supporting
what we did, having been on the Council at that time. But I also was very
protective of Pleasant thew Road and it's future and it's aesthetics and it's a
horse trail. I think calling it a poorly designed horse and cart trail but I'd
like to keep it that way because that's one of my major thoroughfares for
jogging and running and biking, especially in the fall months. So I'm
certainly not anti Pleasant View but this thing's all, some of the comments
tonight, you know where was I? I attended all of the planning Commission
15
0
' City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
meetings. I attended all the Council meetings. I haven't missed any. Looked
' at all the alternatives and the facts as I remember them, the issues that
occurred as I remember them, to the best of my ability, don't coincide with the
comments that were made tonight and the petition with 250 names is wonderful if
' the facts that went into that petition are accurate. And I won't attest to
that, whether it's right or wrong but I do know that, you know I've got this
pile of letters, like we all have and here's half from this side. Here's half
from this side. And they're all 100% diametrically opposed which means there's
' two real hard core positions here. So now it's up to us. We're elected to make
some decisions based on facts and dealing with some issues and one half at some
point's going to be mad and one half is going to be happy. I voted with the
' unanimous Planning Commission and I voted with the unanimous Council at that
time to go ahead with the option we selected, and we looked at options 1, 2, 3,
4, 5. I mean all of them. We looked at north, south, east, west, up, down.
' Going straight thru and to call this a collector road is inappropriate. I think
this is a neighborhood connecting road. It's got a lot of turns and curves in
it. It's not going straight thru to anyplace. It comes off Nez Perce and makes
' a hard turn. Goes up, makes a hard turn. Winds around. Makes a hard turn.
That's not a collector street. And the issue of Pleasant View Road at that time
and tonight to me remains almost a separate issue. The impact of this,
regardless of what we do. Whether we make this a U and it goes onto Lake Lucy.
' the impact is massive. So whether we go up to Pleasant View. No one can tell
me what the impact's going to be because we looked at the traffic counts and the
traffic studies back then and we looked at how many cars were going to be moving
' north, south and the predicted road movements. And the issue came up, it's
going to be coming from the east and the west, not the north and the south.
This isn't a major collector going from one point to another that's going to be
the major road. So if I was asked right now to review this, based on all the
' work, we went through and the Planning Commission went through before, I think
we're asking ourselves what's new. What are we reviewing? We've already gone
over all this. On the other hand, if the majority of Council wants a little
' more time, I can also accept sending it back to the Planning Commission and have
this proposed new idea. And this isn't a proposed new idea to me. It's just
old news that we're being asked to review again. If a review is appropriate,
' I have no problem with that. We've looked at Lake Lucy as being a dangerous
situation. Quote you know. There's been no accidents there. We've looked at
Pleasant View. Mr. Harr's reviewed the accident history there in depth.
"Dangerous road ". I won't deny that. We've said that on many other roads.
' What are we going to do about it? But what's the Planning Commission going to
do? Come back with the same recommendation? Or are they going to come up with
a new recommendation based on... information so I don't know if we're wasting
' time or not. But if this is a very heated issue, I think the residents on this
side deserve to be heard, maybe in a little more established manner and this
group allowed once again to present their case. And if there's anything new in
1993, so be it. I guess I would stay with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was wondering which way you'd go. Well there are
just volumes here and I've tried to catch up on the history and I can plead
innocence to being here when the decisions were made but, I've weeded through
' the volumes and there are some, I've tried to gather all the salient points but
there are a lot of exterraneous issues here which I think really fuddle it up.
16
0
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
The way I see it there are two related but really separate issues. You
definitely have a safety problem. That's come through with everyone I've talked
to. Every letter I've read. And then we have the road extension. I guess I'm
not, a lot, a lot of time and effort has been put into this extension by staff.
By the Council. By all the residents and by Mr. Beddor. Like Richard, I'm not
sure what's going to be accomplished by looking into it more. I guess I'm, you
know I've been out there several, 7 -8 times in the last week. Driving the speed
limit and walking it, and you know I'm not a planner but it just makes sense to
continue that road. Just as much as it makes sense that people will not be
using that to cut through. If you come up, if you're going north on Nez Perce,
it's very unnatural to turn and continue to go on Nez Perce. You're going to
shoot out Lake Lucy, unfortunately because we do need some,. we have some safety
concerns there and we do need some traffic control, which I would recommend that
we look into as opposed to relooking at this extension issue. So I guess I'm
not ready to look at, to send it back down and look at it again. I think the
Council has moved on it. I think we do need to look at the safety issues. I
think it's worth looking at and making it where Lake Lucy and Nez Perce connect,
maybe doing a 3 way stop there. Just as much as where Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View connect to make that a definite T to tighten that up, which I
understand is the plan. The only thing that I think people are still uncertain
about that it hasn't been addressed yet tonight is the cost, because I think
there was some misinformation sent out about who's going to be paying for this
extension. Paul, if you could expound on that.
Paul Krauss: We received some information that preported to give data on the
cost of the roadway. The only information that we have is in the feasibility
study that was done for the City Council. That does not take into account
right -of -way costs, which is obviously significant. But the cost as I recall
was $127,000.00. I might also add that, as we're on the subject of the
feasibility study, that the feasibility study that was prepared by an engineer
working for you shows a grade of 5 1/2% on the Nez Perce connection, not 10%
which was illustrated earlier.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, you can go out there and look at it.
Paul Krauss: But the cost of right -of -way is a significant issue and with the
action to go to condemnation, that will tell you what the cost of the property
is. I don't have any additional information.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
the people here is, will
correct?
Right,
but the crux
of the issue I
think
for most of
they be
assessed and
the answer is
no. Is
that
'
Paul Krauss: Well again, you never, I think you received the feasibility study
but you didn't approve it or whatever you need to do. You didn't order the
project so we can only conjecture as to what may or may not be assessed. I mean
clearly the Troendle Addition has already paid a share and as Frank mentioned,
it was anticipated. You know Frank's share was theoretically for the connection
from the end of Owens' parcel down Peaceful Lane. The reason for that being is
we always assumed we would get the piece across Owens parcel for free. The same
way as we got it across Vineland and the same way we got it across Troendle. So
in terms of who might be assessed, I mean it was always clear that there was an
7
17 1
'
City Council Meeting - July 12,
1993
assumption that when the Owens
parcel developed,
that that would bear it's fair
'
share of cost.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just
one more comment.
Sorry, about the trucks and
speed issues. I live in a neighborhood
that is
still being developed and I find
that most of the safety issues
and the speeding
vehicles are construction. And
'
I can only say hopefully that will
go away soon.
That's just been my personal
experience with who drives too
fast.
' Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. I've sat on that road many, well I shouldn't
say many times. I've sat on there a couple different times with a radar gun
observing speeds and writing down license plates. 'I've heard this through the
' grapevine that has come back to me and said, if that's all he's got to do it's a
shame but that's part of my responsibility to do. Because I get the complaints.
I'm the guy that gets them on the phone and by letters and I do want you to know
that yeah, there has been some of those vehicles on that road that has exceeded
' the speed limit. But with writing down the license numbers and checking those
license numbers, I've found that almost 982 of those are from that area. And I
just wanted to make sure that I made that particular.
' Audience: Question.
' Mayor Chmiel: No question. I'm not entertaining any questions at this
particular time. I'm still talking with the Council and I'm just making a
statement that I have made. I've done this in other neighborhoods as well where
I've received complaints and I've done that. Over and over. And I know where
' it's at and it's normally within that same specific area.
Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, just before we get off that. Having served
' for 10 years on the Public Safety Commission and having done a minimum of 3 of
those traffic studies, I would just concur that your statement is 1002 accurate.
In one case the State Highway Patrol on Highway 7 stated if the local residents
would simply slow down and stop tailgating, you'll resolve your problem on
Highway 7. In every case that we studied, the 10 years I was on the Public
Safety Commission, not once did we find the problem to be with the outside
traffic. It was local residents in all cases. Documented. Documented cases.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I stand corrected. That's been my
observation in my neighborhood but, if that is what you're saying, the case,
' then I remember sitting at that podium last year and getting publically berated
by Mr. Mayor about our neighbors driving too fast in our neighborhood and I
guess you're right.
' Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's unfortunate.
' Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
' Councilman Mason: A little history I guess. I've been driving on Pleasant
View, well I've been married for 14 years and she was essentially born and
0 18
PA
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
raised off of, on Yosemite off of Lake Lucy Road on the other side of Powers
Boulevard. So I'm very familiar with Pleasant View. I live on Woodhill Drive,
about 4 houses down from Nez Perce. And I've been there for 7 years. When I
moved into Carver Beach there were 2 homes on Woodhill Drive. There are now 9
homes. Lake Lucy Road did not exist. The connection was not there. None of
those homes were there. Vineland was somebody's dream. Troendle wasn't there.
The only connection was Pleasant View. I was appalled when I came back from a 2
week vacation to see that the 5 acres down my hill had essentially been plowed
over and going to get developed. Woodhill Drive went from about oh, seriously
maybe 4 cars a day to I don't know, maybe 15 -20 cars a day. To me it was a lot.
It still is. I wish there were just 4 cars there. There aren't. And I can't
do anything about that. Richard, Don and myself were on Council when all this
came by. I was initially opposed to a connection going through there. I thought
you know geez, that's awfully close to me. I just, personally I don't want it.
I'm seeing my neighborhood get developed. It doesn't make any sense to me. As
I've said before, I have to weigh what I think is in the best interest of the
city. Now I appreciate the work that Mr. Beddor has put into this and 202
signatures is quite a few. Make no mistake. It certainly is a majority of
people on Pleasant View. I take a little issue with the newer residents on
Vineland complaining about the traffic simply because they've been there 6
months or a year, whatever and clearly development is part of the problem here.
There's precious little we can do about that. After talking with neighbors and
after receiving the volumes and volumes of letters, and I have talked with
people on Nez Perce that are both in favor and not in favor of that extension.
So some people in that area I think are a little up in the air about it. I have
trouble reconsidering this. I think we've spent an awful lot of time on it. I
know there are unhappy people. I'm sure that the people on Pleasant View think
they have continuously taken it on the chin, and I know from driving on that
road for 14 -15 years now, it is busier than it was. I question that people that
live say in Near Mountain, if they're coming into Chanhassen, are they going to
go the quarter mile on Pleasant View and get on TH 101 or are they going to wind
around on Pleasant View, come through on Nez Perce and then zip by my house.
That isn't how I'd do it and some people probably don't think I'm the norm but I
think I'm a little closer than that. We'll see. I think we decided a number of
years ago to go through with this and yes, there are times to reconsider.
Certainly I've changed my mind on things that happened 4 years ago. While as I
understand that there are many people that claim, and I disagree with them that
this does not serve their best interest. I think in the long run it does serve
the best interest of the city and there are times I think it's unfortunate but
my job is to do what I think is best for the city and I think not reconsidering
at this point is in the best interest. I would, having said all of that, I'd
like to get a real quick opinion from staff about what they think of an updated
feasibility study.
Paul Krauss: I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure that we have anything more
we can give to this issue. You know we've looked at it intensively and maybe
we're even too close to it but my staff, the engineering staff has worked on
this extensively for 4 years. We had an outside consultant give us a feasiblity
study for the connection which says it is feasible. I mean from a technical
standpoint it's a relatively easy one to make, and there are cost considerations
and others. The issue of the Lake Lucy Road loop is one that can easily be
studied. It is in the report that Dave and I did 4 years ago. But we didn't
study it in that much depth because it didn't really seem to serve the purpose
19
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
at the time. If you did want to go with another study, I'm not exactly. I mean
' I would be real specific as to what your expectations are for information above
and beyond what you have. And I =would also ask'that you seek to bring in
someone from the outside who maybe could take a fresh run at it. I don't
' honestly believe it's going to add too much to the argument but if you wanted to
do that, that's probably the way to approach it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. I guess it doesn't take too much reconsideration
for some of these things. As was mentioned previously, and I'm not going to
reiterate much of the things that have already been said. But when we looked at
this back at the time that it was proposed, I too thought that the solution that
' we proposed at that particular time was the best solution for everyone within
the city. You always have to take that in and look at that real strong. We're
not infallible at all, believe me. We're just like you are in making decisions.
' You know even in your own home but what we think sometimes is right, basically
comes up as right. Mr. Beddor gave me a call and asked me to listen to what his
proposal was and at that time I said sure. I'll be more than happy to sit down
with you and talk to you. But I said too that I felt that if he were to make
' that particular proposal, that all the people within that adjacent area would be
in favor of what that proposal might be. And if there was some of that that was
not, then my position would be standing as it is right now. I'd like to take
' the time to study these things, but believe me we've gone back through and we've
read and read all the letters and I do appreciate all those letters of concern.
All except one or two that I had received. I don't think the Council, nor
' myself as an individual, should at any time take some of the "complete ignorant
attitudes" concerning the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. I
don't get paid enough money to take those kinds of comments from people. I took
this job because I thought I could do a job for the city the best I knew how,
' and it irritated me quite a little bit to see that. I think we try to do the
best job we know how, and we work hard at it. So I'm ready to call a question
in regards to this of whether or not we should consider additional study or not
to reconsider. And I would ask for a motion in regard to this at this specific
time.
' Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion saying that no
further consideration is needed on this subject.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to make a quick comment to clarify where we are
here. I'm going to support the motion, but in doing so I want to make it real
' clear to everybody in the room tonight that those of us sitting up here are not
isolated government. We're you. We're neighbors. We're friends. We're
acquaintances. We're taxpayers. We're residents of this city. We listened.
' We've heard what everybody's said. We've tried to obtain the facts and then
deal with the specific issue. And that is our responsibility and we were
elected by you to be visionary and look to the long term best interest of the
' city. And I feel very comfortable on my part in supporting Mr. Mason's motion
that we have in fact lived up to those expectations.
1 20
i
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Mark.
that Councilman Senn and Councilman Dockendorf are "relative new" of what's
'
Councilman Senn: I guess I don't see
the urgency. I don't see the
rush. It
seems to me in a democracy like this,
we have 200 people here that
are against
something. We have 30 who live on Nez
Perce. Again, I can't say I
like
,
necessarily Mr. Beddor's solutions that
I've seen presented. I can't
say that
I necessarily like staff's either. I
think there are alternatives
and that's
just from sitting down and playing on
a piece of paper. I just don't
see again
'
the rush and why after 4 years we can't
take another look and just
make sure
that it's the right way to go before
we leap.
'
Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm kind of
sitting in for Charles here this evening. He's on vacation. On Thursday, July
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
improvement project, Project No. 92 -5. Total of 5 bids were received and the
'
Councilman Mason: I guess my comment to that would be, while as I understand
that Councilman Senn and Councilman Dockendorf are "relative new" of what's
'
going on here. I don't see what I'm doing tonight as taking a leap in any way
whatsoever. To say that I haven't thought about this. To say that I haven't
spent an awful lot of time talking with people. Looking for solutions myself, I
,
think is not doing this Council justice. We've been working on this concern for
a number of years. Intensively for the last 2 or 3 months.- Taking action
tonight is, in my opinion, by no means a leap.
,
Mayor Chmiel: With that I'll, any other discussion? I don't disagree with you
about a democracy but democracy has been looked at a long time and I'm not going
to expand on what Michael has said. So if there are no other discussions from
'
Council, I'll call a question.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
'
not reconsider the extension of Nez Perce Drive. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
AWARD OF BIDS: JOHNSON/TURNER/OOLEJSI TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 92 -5.
'
Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm kind of
sitting in for Charles here this evening. He's on vacation. On Thursday, July
8th, 1993 bids were received and opened for the Johnson /Turner /Dolejsi trunk
improvement project, Project No. 92 -5. Total of 5 bids were received and the
'
low bid being received was from Northdale Construction in the amount of
$746,576.90. The engineer's estimate for the project is $810,000.00. The low
bid received is approximately $160,000.00 below the project estimate. Northdale
Construction Company has performed satisfactorily previous work in the city. Is
therefore recommended that the City Council award the Johnson /Turner /Dolejsi
Trunk Improvement Project No. 92 -5 to Northdale Construction Company in the
'
contract amount of $746,576.90. If there's any questions regarding the bids and
so forth, Mr. Phil Gravel of Bonestroo and Associates is here this evening to
answer those.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dave, I think I have a real simple question. Where is
this?
21