1o. Minutes i
1 - CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
t APRIL 29, 1992
- 111 Mayor Chmiel reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m., which was
continued from April 27, 1992.
II MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing, Councilman
Workman and Councilman Mason
I STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Scott
Harr, Todd Hoffman and Todd Gerhardt
1 (CONINUATION OF REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF, AIRO PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST
FOR 141 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND 8.2 ACRES OF PARK
AREA LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD. JUST SOUTH OF
I TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, STONE CREEK. HANS HAGEN HOMES.
Public Present:
II Name Address ,
Richard Larson 8141 Pinewood Circle
1 Greg VanderVorste 8141 Maplewood Terrace
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
Karen 011son 8020 Acorn Lane
Dave Maenke 2041 Renaissance Court
I. Jim & Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
James R. Lano 2060 Oakwood Ridge
Hans Hagen 941 Hillwind Road
- II Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Court
Greg & Julie Sorenson 8121 Maplewood Terrace
Bonnie Murkowski 2051 Renaissance Court
II Mary Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace
Jean Dtrand Rollins 2081 Timberwood Drive
Jeff Heinz 2071 Timberwood Drive
Brad Foley 2061 Timberwood Drive
II
Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, we had this back here at Council with
our discussion. I think we've all had an ample opportunity to re- review the
1 entirety of what the project is and where we're going. I know none of the
Council members discussed anything with me...project and I none with them and I
think everybody is independently come up with a conclusion. As to what that is,
II we're going to eventually find out. So with that, let's just start with some
additional discussions on this proposal. I'd like to start with Mike.
Councilman Mason: I think we all understand the issues here. I understand
II where Timberwood's coming from about not wanting the road to go through there
and quite honestly if I lived there I'd feel exactly the same way. I think with
just one curb cut on the county road there, that poses a major problem. If we
can get another curb cut on that county road, I personally don't have any
trouble at all with dead ending or emergency barricade or whatever. I think if
we can't get another curb cut there, then I certainly would push to have
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
11 Timberwood come to a T intersection and have Timberwood end there and that would
be Boulder Drive or Boulder Trail or whatever we want to call it.
Paul Krauss: Would you like us to show you why we think there's only one j
possibility for a curb cut there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it'd probably be a good idea. And I did want to
get back from you too discussions with the...apartments as well.
Paul Krauss: Down here you have Lyman Blvd.. Lyman Blvd. is ultimately going
' to be 4 lanes and a very high volume street. And according to the County
engineer, we certainly agree with him that there's absolutely no chance of
getting access point down there. Then you have an area over here where you have
' to provide clear separation from this intersection. Here's your major
intersection. We need to provide distance back here for acceleration and
deceleration for turns that occur. And this intersections about in the right
place. I mean possibly you could move it down here a little bit but not very
much. Originally this plat had another intersection right over here and in
talking to, I think to the County Engineer, we got feedback from them that the
sight distance at that point wasn't too great. You have a hill situation on
' Galpin that tends to tell you that this isn't a terribly safe spot to turn out.
Even if you did, you wind up with a short circuited loop that really leaves
everything else a dead end. So in terms of coming out on these roads, we don't
' think that that's very likely. Or will really produce the results that we're
looking for. Now, we think that there's a long term possibility of another
entrance into this area. I can't tell you that it's got a 50% chance of
succeeding but we've been looking at it long term here today. Bluff Creek runs
II through here and there's a very narrow area of residentially zoned property
between Timberwood and a creek. It's possible to extend that road somehow up 1
through there and ultimately there's going to be another...to do something like
that. Come up and intersect with that. Provide another...access into the
neighborhood. There's a lot of issues with that though. Issues being this area
is not terribly deep and I'm not going to...double row of houses in this case.
II Houses on either side. That can lead, you'll have a major creek crossing here
and we're going to some great extent to make sure that there's a bridge over
TH 5 here and possibly another bridge here. It would be a shame to look at
putting a culvert over there. I doubt you can justify the expense of going with
I a third bridge in the area. So that is a long term possibility. I don't know
that it's a real good one. But in terms of this particular site, there really
only is one point to come out on the county road. -
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul.
Councilman Workman: How many acres is Timberwood?
Paul Krauss: Gosh, I don't even know.
1 Councilman Workman: 130 some. How many homes are in there? Are you ready for
me Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead Tom.
1
2
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Workman: I only ask because I know that Timberwood is trying to
depict their neighborhood as something that's a whole lot different than what
people would like to connect it to. 141 homes on 81 acres versus 37 homes on
137 acres is very different. They are very different. I think we all agree
with that. If we ran the second entrance to the north there as Paul had shown,
this really wouldn't serve a whole lot of homes. I mean this coming out here
wouldn't serve or really alleviate from here so something would have to come
through back here I would assume. But if we had just one entrance, one exit at
this time, really the rest of the neighborhood isn't just coming out on one.
They're kind of coming out on really two. Two main all the way through. And as
the last four lots or so that everybody's funneling onto one. And I understand
the problem with having just one for that many homes. That does create a 11 problem. I do promote the idea of two. And I maintain as does Mike that I have
a problem connecting it together. I talked to Kate today about it and some
other people. Not having this road at all stub into Timberwood. In other
words, not creating a dilemma that's been created as in Curry Farms and
elsewhere. In other words, leave no possibility for the connection. So two on
the west. I mean they're showing a dead end and a connection here on the east
end. I mean it's got to go somewhere if not across the creek and out to, I
think isn't there platted industrial?
Paul Krauss: No. What I think is more likely, it's more likely that that would
just be an extension of a dead end street that would serve the homes that would
occur in that area between Timberwood and the creek. The idea of another creek
crossing there, it's theoretically possible but it begins to stretch the
imagination a little bit.
Councilman Workman: I guess we're talking and every discussion that I've heard
has said, these people down here will never go through Timberwood. And I buy
that. So why put it in? Second argument being, and I had this humdinger of an
argument again today. You know the public safety issue. And we went through
this issue with the Kurvers Point. About the long cul -de -sac and will public
safety be able to get in. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. More likely than
not, they'll be able to get in to these things but it just seemed to me that too
many coincidences have to happen all at the same time for there to be a
situation where public safety's going to have a serious problem. And maybe I'm
taking that too lightly. But all in the same hour, somebody has to have a life
threatening problem, a tornado or something has to be coming through and a big
tree has to fall over in the right direction to block the road. And I never
really got much clarification on that at the Kurvers Point deal that that was
really something that we should be worried about. I lean over to Richard and he
tells me, we'll get through. Don't worry about it. Will they have to and
'that's where, as a City Council member, I've kind of had to think, well do I
have to worry about just about everything and lay awake at night thinking about
those things? And I've opted for not.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not thinking about it?
Councilman Workman: If we get Hennepin County Commissioner pay, then I'll. But
that isn't to mock or mimmick staff's understanding of what they think we need
to do. I understand that. And they're very real concerns. I just don't
personally tend to hinge things on those as heavily as they do. Timberwood is
in and almost done. People live there. These people don't live here. That
3 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
doesn't mean I don't feel for the developer but I think we can do some
II modifications to make it work so that this group of homes is onto itself and not
affecting the neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: What modifications are you suggesting that we could make to that?
How can we do that?
' Councilman Workman: Well, take Stone Creek Court and run it out and then bend
the west end over along the property line or wherever. I don't lay out plats
but.
•
II Mayor Chmiel: You're making some suggestions but I'd like to know what those
suggestions are.
I Councilman Workman: Well like I said, bring this piece. Now that's going to
leave a big lump and maybe they can work here, maybe they can't. But bring this
and bend it straight out along there or drop it through and ultimately connect
I up to there. Rather than make it a cul -de -sac. And that takes care of or
serves the other half of that.
Kate Aanenson: There's a wetland right there.
II Paul Krauss: There's a real pristine kind of a wooded wetland right over here
that we've assigned in the conservation area. You really wouldn't want to put a
road through that.
Councilman Workman: But we've got yards and lots in there. If you're telling
II me it's impossible, I don't believe it. But we have a pristine pond and some
pristine trees. We've also got a neighborhood that's going to be changed.
That's where I've been directing some of my concerns. I can worry about the
pond, which I will. Or I can worry about the long term affect it's going to
II have on the neighbors to the north and that's what I've done.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom are you saying, going and extending to the east from that
I cul -de -sac with that road? Are you really saying taking Stone Creek and going
to the west and coming out on CR 18?
Councilman Workman: As a second entrance.
II Mayor Chmiel: There would be two out on County Road 18.
II Hans Hagen: Maybe I can shed some light on this. I don't disagree with the
residents... I heard you and I went back... What we tried to do after we came
up with the PUD and we felt that that wouldn't be a viable alternative for the
city, we laid out the roads to do two things. To stay away from the wetlands
and to preserve the forest as much as we could. That's really our mandate
because the city really mandates that so you•have to start from there. And the
area that you've been speaking about which would be extending Stone Creek, as
I it's named here, and rather than hooking the cul -de -sac down here, bringing the
road across adjacent to Timberwood is a difficulty because of two things. You've
got the wetland issue here and you've also got a very steep bank here and you've
I probably got a 30 foot grade elevation from here to here. So going from this
location down to here, you've got probably 20 to 30 feet and when you do that,
11 4
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
obviously you end up taking all the trees out. That's why this road hooks down
around here to take care of the grade and be able to put the house pads in and 1
leave some trees between each house. And while the plat, as it's drawn here
shows a preserve area in here, it's our intent and we think we would be able to
maintain trees on the lot lines. Now not all of them will live but every
a attempt will be made to do that. And that only works if you follow the contours
carefully. So the road layout seems to just meander around but it has, the
reason it meanders around is to save the trees. Now I think maybe there's
another way to accomplish what Timberwood is after. I totally agree that you
don't want traffic needlessly running through your neighborhood. Here's
Timberwood located here. The road system you see coming through Stone Creek was
the original layout that we had and that is no longer valid. That was a PUO.
But generally speaking, this major road's coming through here and wandering
through in about the same way. Now you'll notice that Timberwood Drive. goes up
and circles around and goes north and actually even down south a little bit. So '
that is a circuritous route. It would be much better if somebody was coming,
leaving Stone Creek. It could go back and glance at this route rather than
going north and then east and then down south and going out onto TH 5.
Remembering that there's a speed limit within your neighborhood. There's a
higher speed limit perhaps on Galpin. Well, I understand...but in any event,
we've got a different issue with regard to neighborhood speed traffic than you
do on Galpin. So if people drove the speed limit, you would be wiser if you
were in a hurry to get someplace, to take this route which is the most direct
going north on Galpin. Now to make it a little bit more complicated to get out
of Stone Creek. Rather than bringing Timberwood as shown in the original
drawing. We're bringing Timberwood up to here. This is the line, our property
line... And as has been suggested to the Council at the last meeting is to
bring Timberwood down and have a stop sign here so that it makes it a little bit
more difficult to go through Timberwood. This would go out to Galpin. This I'm
suggesting goes to TH 5 but I understand that may be a difficult issue
because... I assume we can stop it right here at this intersection. What we'd
like to do is stop traffic to go this way so that we're making it difficult to
go through your neighborhood.
Resident: That stop sign wouldn't do it.
Paul Krauss: No, actually you'd want the traffic to feel a whole lot more
comfortable zipping out on Stone Creek rather than turning onto Timberwood.
Hans Hagen: You could take a right here and go north.
Mayor Chmiel: If we could just hold it so we can hear what he's saying. Thank
you.
Hans Hagen: You could add stop signs if the neighborhood decided to at this
location so you'd have a stop on the way through Timberwood which would slow
traffic down. That might accomplish keeping the traffic speed down on
Timberwood for the neighbors but it would certainly, if you've got a stop sign
here and you've got a thru street going out to TH 5, the logical traffic flow
would be that way. Now, I think the other issue with regard to the thru traffic
for buses and for also your emergency. Well not as much emergency vehicles but
for buses and trash and that sort of thing. If you take a bus and go in here,
pick up everybody and then return and go out, you're doubling the number of
5
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
trips you have with the bus and that's the same thing that's true with any
vehicles going on through so it would seem to me that logic would dictate that
you do permit school buses to go all the way through and you just reduce the
number of bus trips by 50% and the same thing is true with other delivery
vehicles that would be going through the neighborhood. So in all my years of,
25 years now of platting property and so forth, this is something that always
happens when there's an existing neighborhood and you bring another neighborhood
' on and leaving this road was extended to the property so that it could connect.
That does make good sense and yes, it takes a bunch of moons to line up to have
that crisis where somebody can't get there but when that crisis does occur, then
you wish you would have gone the other way. But I do feel that by changing, by
' putting the stop sign up at this intersection and by T -ing this intersection,
that you're going to get probably the best alternative...
' Mayor Chmiel: Paul, did you have anything that you wanted to say?
Paul Krauss: Actually there is one thing we could add. Kate, why don't you
' give the distances on that. We had some information that we didn't get a chance
to give you last night in terms of one of the prime reasons we think that most
of the traffic will naturally, by common sense, want to go out thru Stone Creek.
•
' Kate Aanenson: What we just looked at, if this was going through Timberwood,
which is 3/4 of a mile from this point out. And the longest from the edge of
this...other point out...Stone Creek Drive and that will be half a mile and this
' line...2 /3 of a mile.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you just leave that one up there. Richard.
II Councilman Wing: Well I see two issues here, and I've tried to separate them
out. Number one is Mr. Hagen's development which I have no problem with and I'm
ready to get on with it. The other is Timberwood and I feel that Timberwood
' people came in and they bought large lots intentionally. Isolated property
intentionally and I think that Timberwood deserves to be protected. They built
their neighborhood. It's kind of what we've called a little island and we've
argued about this and these two neighborhoods are very, very different. So in
my own thinking, I'm taking Timberwood out of this issue. I think they deserve
to be protected and kept away from this. So for my discussions I'm simply
taking them out of there and not worrying about them. Now on Stone Creek, I
think that if a piece of land is going to be platted, it has to stand on it's
own and it has to be responsible for it's own egress and entryways. I don't
think it's my responsibility to try and plat this project and I don't want to
get caught up in it. If that piece of property with 141 homes can't get cars in
and out, it doesn't have proper egress and ingress to the property, then I have
to suspect that maybe there's too many homes on that 81 acres and we have to
start relooking at the density that we've got there. I'm not suggesting that
and I'm not unhappy with the density but again to repeat myself on my opening
statement. I think Stone Creek has to stand on it's own. The last comment I
would make is the public safety issue and I think that in this particular
development as I'm seeing it, if there's only one way in and that one way
branches off into a maze of cul -de -sacs, that is a public safety hazard. We
don't have access to these properties and all it would take is one tree falling
down, as Tom mentioned but there aren't any trees anyway so that's sort of moot.
It will be 20 years before a tree's going to be big enough to fall over and
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
bother us. But any calamity that should happen that would block off that
initial entryway and we don't have any way to get to the rest of that community 1
rt whatsoever so this development with this many homes, I'm going to suspect the
fire chief, speaking as one of the fire chief's or the fire marshall's going to
say nix. It is unacceptable to have only one entryway into this. It's going to
have to have two. But when I start again, Stone Creek has to stand on it's own.
Be responsible for it's own development and not rely on the Timberwood area to
give them that second access. So Timberwood's not in my discussion for the
future here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Since our last meeting, which wasn't that long ago,
I did drive out into Timberwood and I went to the end of the drive there and I
discovered that there is a huge amount of trees that would have to be cleared to
put the road through and there's also a creek there. Is that correct?
Paul Krauss: There's a flowage that would have to go, be routed under the road,
yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I didn't know that before and I guess that does
kind of change my outlook on that particular opening. I also, you know think
that we need two entrances here for safety but as I thought about it, I began to
think why do we have to make Timberwood less safe in order to provide safety for
a new development? So I would kind of tend to go along with what Richard just
said. This Stone Creek has to stand on it's own without depending on Timber-wood
to provide it with another access. And I think Timberwood is safe today and it
will be as safe tomorrow without that street going through there. But it's
- Stone Creek that we need to be concerned about the safety. Then I have an
unrelated question as well and that has to do with the model homes that are
supposed to be ready by September without utilities in there but maybe we can
talk about that later. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I had, I received a call this evening. There
were some good issues that were brought up to me from that discussion. It was a
resident within Timberwood. Many things that I heard, concerns about speeds
within the development. I guess I charge each and every one of you to
respectfully watch your own speeds so you can bring that back down to where it
should be. 30 mph is basically what that road is designed for. And if it be
necessary, we can provide the kinds of protections that maybe you're looking for
but I don't like to see our officers write tickets on our own residents, or
anyone else. I don't think this is a police state. And if everyone has certain
numbers of children within that area, I think each of you owe it to yourselves
to police, as I said, yourself rather than us do it for you. I've learned over
the years and this right foot of mine probably has some lead in it, just like
you have in driving through your neighborhood. I find that if you've got a
cruise control, set it on 30. It's amazing how well it works. And I use that
driving in town. On the main street. In the neighborhoods and mine even trolls
down to 25 mph and I use it in a 25 zone. Never have to look at the speedometer
because I know exactly where it is once I set it. Just -a word of advice. One
of the other things that I also heard was the fact that many of you have
indicated that you were made aware that there was not going to be an outlet from
that area or a connection. In discussions that I've had with a couple people in
7
•
1
i
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
buying those properties, from what I've been told, everyone has been told that
there could very well be a connection through the neighborhood. I just found
that out yesterday in doing some more checking as I said we would do and
consider and think about other things. I'm sure that Mr. Hagen is not in any
particular position of saying I have to have that access into Timberwood and I
don't think he's going to take that position as I've just heard him say that
before as well. So some of the things that I really see is his proposal in
putting this residential development in there. I'd support it because of what
I've seen. This platting has indicated with the sizes of lots and you have a
vast different amount of sizes. From 15,000 square feet. As much as 33,000
square feet. So he's working with that particular piece of property I think
' very well. Whether or not that access goes in there, I think we've stood more
behind Timberwood than we have in any other subdivision within the city. And
even during our preliminary stages of going through our comprehensive plan and
making the changes to accommodate you people, that's who we represent. But
sometimes when I look at the necessity of public safety. We're charged with
that and I want to feel comfortable with the public health and safety of this
particular connection of if the connection were to go through. I'm getting a
' feel from Council, I don't see that right now. But even for your own concerns
and some of the concerns I have for your own properties, that is something that
has to be looked at and I did look at it quite strongly. And everybody feels
comfortable enough right now. Hopefully you'll feel comfortable enough if you
live there for the next 20 years or 30 years but in this changing world as we
have it, how many of us are going to still be here. I know I will because I'm
' going to retire here. Very shortly, in about 2 months. But how often are we
all going to stay here? The job markets change. We make changes. We leave the
area. Once everyone leaves, is this going to be the best for the city and
that's what I look at again. So with just a few of those analyzations that I've
gone through, I'm ready to poll the Council for a motion regarding this
preliminary plat as well as the two other aspects of the platting. The wetland
alteration and the rezoning. If the desire by Council is to eliminate the
connection into Timberwood Estates, that should so be indicated. Whether or not
the Timberwood Estates name should be on there, because I'm sure the reason that
was done to have that connection into Timberwood. Possibly that should change
and that's strictly up to you. But with that, I would request a motion in
regards to this particular platting.
Councilman Wing: Don, just one clarification. For me to approve the plat, part
' of the approval would be the requirement of two entryways. Is that correct? Or
would that be part of the motion, if desired?
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you want a clarification?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I wish Roger were here tonight. I think you're raising an
issue here because we've already gone on record telling you that we don't think
' there are two good points to come out on the county road. This developer does
have an option to loop a street but you're considering precluding him from using
that option. If you then put the developer in the position where you're
insisting that he have two accesses but it's impossible to provide it, therefore
the property can't be developed, I think we have a problem.
Councilman Wing: Alright, I'll go along with the one but then the Fire Marshall
comes along and says that's not going to fly.
1 8
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Paul Krauss: That's the situation we'll have. I mean we can reopen the book
and see what we can do but we did look at this intensively. We have conferred
with the County Engineer and we've pretty much eliminated those alternatives.
Councilwoman Dimier: Is there anything that can be done to that second side
that you said the.
Paul Krauss: The sight distance?
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, wasn't good enough. Can we do something with that
intersection there?
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know. It probably would involve some major
reconfiguration of a street. Lowering of grades. Significant and you can't do
that just on a localized site. You've got to go half a mile up the road so the
grades match. You probably look at loss of trees.
Councilwoman Dimier: Is this a county road?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Hans Hagen: The County did deny that other entrance. 1
Kate Aanenson: That's what went to Planning Commission were the two entrances
and the County said no. So we came back with the revised.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, two things. I have a little trouble with a
development has to stand on it's own. We're talking, then I think all of a
_ sudden I've heard some citizens accuse development of being patchworked. I '
think if all of a sudden we're saying a site has to stand on it's own, then
we're creating patchwork. I also did hear a number of Timberwood people say
their first choice is absolutely no road through there and I've already said if
I lived there I'd feel the same way. I also did hear them say that if that
can't be done, can we please have a T intersection and Timberwood end at what is
currently now called Boulder Drive. I share your concerns about the public
safety issue also. I think if we approve this with one in and out, we're
essentially not approving anything and we're going to have to deal with it a
month or two from now anyway, is my opinion. And if the County has already told
us that two in and outs on CR 18 is not going to wash with them, I find us to
some extent, caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. And if that's
the case, then I think we need to take a little harder look at a T intersection
there. Where Timberwood and what's now called Boulder Drive come together. 1
Councilman Workman: If I can add to that. I guess it's, and I understand where
you're coming from. It's not my job to plat and I don't know out of which book
or which law or to what degree the County can say yes or no to an entrance
there. It would appear to me that where Stone Creek would come out, the
elevation is 981. If you go to the north, the next elevation I see anywhere
near there is 985. That's 4 feet. The next one I see is 968. So it drops
significantly there. So they're almost near the top of the hill. I guess if
not near it and so while I'm hesitant to, during a variance process to help
somebody design their garage for them, I guess I think the developer's kind of
getting a strong idea about what we want to do and that can either be worked out
9
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
or it can't. I don't know that I'm convinced that it can't be. To say that it
II absolutely can't. Roger Gustafson has made the decision. It's now in stone
down there at the County without Al Klingelhutz and everybody else looking at
it. I don't know. I guess I'm not a surveyor or other but I'm not convinced
that it can't be done.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor. What it basically boils down to is, being that it is
a county road. Carver County has of course jurisdiction over that road. Any
II other agency looking to tie into that County Road has to get an access permit
from the County. If the County is not willing to grant that permit without
taking further action, legal action or whatever, you can't acquire the permit.
II Basically as Paul's mentioned before, to try and cut that hill down to make the
sight lines feasible to provide a secondary access, one is that economically
feasible? Who would pay for it? I'm sure the County is not going to be willing
to pay for that. That's something that would have to certainly be considered.
It's not impossible but it would be a major task to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you know what the sight line was and what the given
II problem is?
Charles Folch: The exact distance? I don't have that off hand what the exact
distance was. It's not too far down from the crest but that is the problem.
Kate Aanenson: If I could just add to that. The other issue that the County
raised was based on the volume of traffic, this space, they have a requirement
II of spacing of entranceways and that also fell into too narrow of a gap there.
Spacing. With the volume of traffic. Conflicting turn movements.
Mayor Chmiel: If, and I'm not into designing either but if Creek Court were
looked at, that's probably better than 500 foot distance from the existing
verbage of Timberwood Road to Stone Greek °and of course that would eliminate
I that cul -de -sac there. But I don't know where Hans is coming from with that
part either.
Hans Hagen: I think the two issues you have are, one coming over the crest of
II the hill here does not have good sight distance. We pull this out. So that's
one problem the County had. The other problem is the County has a minimum
distance between access points on Galpin Road. On this County Road. So they've
II denied it based on that. So when we received that information, then we backed
off and made this a cul -de -sac. Because originally we had put this through.
When you get over to this point however, and you can see all these lines coming
down pretty close and for the public who isn't dealing with plats everyday, that
indicates there's a very sharp hill going down this so you've got a situation.
Actually we are peeling off the top of the hill as part of the grading program
but to pull a road back through here and I think it's probably a moot point
because you can't get out here anyway with your second access so it really
doesn't change anything but you can't pull a road down through here because the
wetland here. You've got a very sharp hill which is in grade and in order to
make that grade work you'd have to pull it down to a 7% or less grade and in
order to do that, you would really have massive grading and pulling all the
trees out. So we were trying to work with the environment. We thought quite
honestly when this road came down and T'd at this property, that typically that
II should be pulled on through from a safety point of view. It isn't our company's
1 10
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
point of view that that should be done. It's just that cities generally require
that so we just followed it through. So I think from an environmental point of
view, when you're talking about the trees and woods and all of you have talked
about those, and the wetlands. You've talked about those. The plat is
sympathetic to those issues. And so if we start out with the trees and we start
out with the wetlands and start out with the hills and the grades and work out
plat out and then come out with a safe intersection, it really ties you in. And
whether it's Hans Hagen Homes, you know. If we don't get this through, somebody
else is going to come back and do the same thing. You're kind of stuck and I ,
think the solution to your problem is not really devastating the forest or the
wetlands or creating an unsafe process out here because I think that's doing the
wrong thing: - You're creating lots of problems there. The better issue is to try
and get the traffic not to want to go through your neighborhood. That's really
what the issue is. Now one other thing and I tried to explain it on the other
plat and I wasn't very good at it. But what we're proposing to do is to change
this road so the road does this. And now it goes through and this, Timberwood
comes down and stops here and there's a stop sign here so that's what I was
trying to explain. Actually there's a little difference than I'm showing here
but it's very close. Then we would change this name to Boulder Creek Drive, and •
I think some of the neighbors brought up the fact that what happens if
somebody's looking for Timberwood Drive. They come to the first one on Galpin,
take a left and they're really trying to find somebody that's on Timberwood
Drive iri Stone Creek. Well, we can resolve that by changing the name to Boulder
Creek Drive down here so they aren't going to look for Timberwood. So
Timberwould come down and stop here. That would keep your neighborhood
identified as Timberwood and not mix it up.
Resident: I'm confused with your logic. If you want to restrict traffic, which
we do through Timberwood, why put a road there? ,
Hans Hagen: That's fine with me. I have no problem. We don't have to do this
and I'm not arguing for it. You know we can block that off but then the issue
comes back, is it safe? Is it safe for you? Is it safe for us? I'm not going
to make that decision. That isn't my job. We can take and simply make this a
loop street. That isn't a problem with us but the question is, is it good for
you ultimately and is it good for the people that we're selling to here and from
a safety perspective, I would say this is not.
Resident: People keep talking here about the distance... The other night Paul
had mentioned that first, lower portion of Timberwood was maybe a little farther
away from...than it needed to be. As well as north... Maybe some of those lots
on the north should be just pulled and the road should curve up more to the
crest of the hill. There are options there...well it's going to fail. By how
much and how much can you make it work ?...fails the test. Maybe another
proposal...that passes the test.
Councilman Workman: If in fact, if we make believe for a minute that we have a
road through there and the developer and staff are telling us that people aren't
going to really use that. Buses and the UPS guy. Then in fact what we have is
141 homes draining out one entrance and exit. That's in fact what we're telling
the people to the north. That is not safe. If we have one access here, it's
not safe. Forgetting the emergency vehicle argument for this point. That means
we've got everybody, because it takes so much more to go up through Timberwood, '
11 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
and so much more time, everybody and whatever trip they're going to take, is
going to come out this exit and I don't know who in their right mind would live
there with that kind of traffic unless this were in fact going to be used as a
purge valve out to the north. So we either have a very, and believe me, I'm
I maybe giving the developer mixed signals. I think Timberwood would much rather
have this than a commercial and I agree that they do do nice work but it's a
difficult parcel. We're working very hard on what and how the environment on
this side of the creek is like but it is going to affect the environment on the
1 north side. I know it is and you can tell me that by making this connection
nobody's going to use it. It's just there for service vehicles and emergency
vehicles but then you're telling me that everybody's coming out this thing and
' that is going to be a very, very unsafe one place to come in and out of this
neighborhood and 141 homes.
II Councilman Wing: When I come home at night, I'm going to make the first turn
off of TH 5. I'm going to make the first left into Timberwood and roll through
that open land and those wide streets right into my home in the middle of this
to avoid having to come down here and wind through the whole thing.
1 Councilman Workman: I don't deny that it's not a difficult thing to lay this
all out with the contours and everything else. I'm not trying on purpose anyway
I to be ignorant. If all the arguments that I've heard are that people are not
going to go up to the north and don't worry about it, then 141 homes are going
to empty out one spot. That's where I would piggyback on Richard's comment that
it needs to stand a little bit more, at least on it's own. And have that extran
one to the north and...
Resident: Are we free to make comments? No?
-Mayor Chmiel: Not right now. Not yet.
' Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, in regards to those comments. I can't believe we
could possibly hear anything we haven't heard already. I would ask you to
temper those. I want to go home. Thank you very much.
1 Councilman Mason: I'm almost to the point of being amazed at all this
discussion. If the County is telling us they will not, and maybe we need to
find this out 100%. But if the County's telling us we won't give you another
I access there, what's the issue?
Councilman Workman: Whether or not 141 homes are going to empty out of one.
1 Councilman Wing: We should have one exit.
Councilman Mason: So you're saying then, if we only have one access there,
1 we're not going to let that road in there so therefore we're not allowing
development there and we have to buy more property.
I Councilman Workman: No. I'm saying pretend that road is there. I'm being told
that people are not going to use that.
11 Councilman Mason: Right.
1 12
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
•
Councilman Workman: That means 141 homes will have to come out this okay. But
in reality I know people are going to use it. Okay so, how many? Who in the
room can tell me how many of those homes? Is it half? So is that 70? Then
that does.
Councilman Mason: I'm not saying it's not going to impact Timberwood. I'm just ,
saying I think we're beating a dead horse. If the County is saying one access,
I don't know that we have any choice.
Councilman Wing: But is it the right choice to approve that? That's pretty
extreme. On the other hand, what we haven't looked at is taking some of these
upper lots and T -ing those into dead ends and then letting this half come out on
this one. Break the division into. In other words, take the northern lots.
This whole group of northern lots and connect them into Timberwood. Dead end
and then let this other half drain out onto...
Resident: I did suggest that at the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Dimler: I didn't hear what Richard said. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, we were trying to have some discussions here. I hate to
say I wasn't paying attention. ,
Hans Hagen: Your Honor, maybe I can help in one other issue. I know it's
cumbersome but we are putting a right turn lane in here. The County requested a
right turn lane put on Galpin right here so the people would come out, the bulk
of the traffic would be going north. So people would come up here and take a
right. I think the other issue is at some point there is a cut off and nobody's
denying that somebody will not go through Timberwood. What we're trying to do
is suggest making the most difficult route and I think if you drew a line here
somplace and said it's illogical for people to back track and go north. So the
question is, how many lots in Stone Creek. All 141 wouldn't prefer to go '
through Stone Creek, or through Timberwood rather. There is some point and
maybe this lot would choose to go this way. That's possible. These 4 lots here
and there's some in here but it would seem to me that you could draw a line,
some weave through here. These logically would have a shorter route going to
the west and then to the north or south. And some of them might go through
Timberwood. That's possible. Certainly. But we aren't loading 141 people
through Timberwood. We are only take those that might find it more convenient
• to do that. And the question is, you've got 37 home sites in 90 acres or there
abouts. If you add another 20 homesites, it probably wouldn't affect your
neighborhood a great deal. Granted, you wouldn't want one more. That's why you
moved there but the issue is some reasonable approach. Because it won't die
with our project. Somebody else is going to come back in and it's a question of
if this is the best. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Potentially we could, Paul? On Stone Creek Court,
which the cul -de -sac faces CR 18. What would happen if that road were to go
through Lot 10 and veer to the north more? ,
Paul Krauss: We in fact were playing with that a little bit. I'm not sure if
it works from a design standpoint.
13 '
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
•
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not either.
1 Paul Krauss: What you basically have to do is come out something like that to
get to the top of the hill. You have to come in perpendicular to the road which
means you'll probably have to go onto somebody else's property to put a road in.
Councilman Workman: Paul? When I see at the tip of Stone Creek 981 and where
you're taking it, it's 968.
1 Paul Krauss: I'm sorry Tom, I can't read it from this.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's 968 to 985. Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Workman: 981 I see down at the tip. And it sounds like, yeah.
1 I mean down here but then it does look like through Lot 10 but you're going up
II through what would probably be an outlot or something and that seems to drop
- about.
I Paul Krauss: Again there's two issues. There's the hilltop which is someplace
around here but what you're doing is you're having an acceleration lane to get
back onto, to allow traffic to accelerate up to speed. There's going to be a
by -pass lane on that side so people can turn into this thing. If you're going
to do a similar treatment at these intersections, they start to overlap.
Councilman Workman: We can't put it on the downslope. Can we?
Councilwoman Dimier: No.
II Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: I mean that's not. Then the traffic coming from the south
1 will surprise them.
Paul Krauss: Right.
II Resident: ...if they're going to go to the north, if I took my car and I
started heading downhill right away, I could get going up to speed...
1 Councilman Workman: Want me to make a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Co ahead.
1 Councilman Workman: I'll make it and you guys tell me if it flies. Are we
considering three things ? The wetland alteration, the rezoning?
Councilwoman Dimier: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I move to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit, Rezoning
of property from A2 to RSF.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I make a clarification with that Tom? Items 1 thru 5 and
your other items on rezoning?
1 14
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Workman: Okay. And the Preliminary Plat to subdivision 81 acres
into 141 single family lots, Hans Hagen Homes with the following additions. Not
have what is Timberwood Drive, not have it stub and not have it go through
through Timberwood. Have the applicant work with staff to design a second
ingress /egress to the north on Galpin. Period.
Councilwoman Dimler: Will they still be able to get 141 lots then or do you
want to maybe leave that number out?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe with the redesigning, I don't think you can get another lot
in that particular. Removal of that portion.
Councilman Workman: I'll say maximum of 141. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It could be less.
Mayor Chmiel: Approximately.
Councilman Wing: Paul, what I'm coming up with, this site may not be suitable
for 141 homes. It's sort of what's coming out here.
• Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, if you're asking me to respond to that, there's a
lot of ways of approaching that.
Councilman Wing: No I'm not. Just a comment.
Paul Krauss: I guess I wanted some clarification on your stipulation. We'd be
happy to sit down with Roger Gustafson and our staff and the developer and try
to figure out how to get a second curb cut in there. But you've got to realize
we may not succeed. I mean looking at this and if we can do it, fine. We're in
a position to do that but if we're not in a position to deliver on a second curb
cut, is there still a condition that they provide two curb cuts? '
Councilman Wing: I think that's the motion.
Resident: You say the second access but not define where it is. Could it be to
the east. Could it be to...
Councilman Wing: If I'm reading Tom's motion, he's just requiring this plat to
get two ways in and out. That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what the motion basically was. And I guess if that fails,
we can bring it back and review it.
Paul Krauss: Again, I need to define this. Does the second curb cut have to be
on one of the County Roads on the east side? I mean there is a long term goal
potential, if we can get it through at some point in the future, to have another
access into there which means you may live with a situation with 141 homes with
one access for the next 15 years. Or one year. I don't know. '
Councilman Workman: And we'll probably have Stone Creek saying no way.
Paul Krauss: Well you can bet that would happen. '
15 '
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Mason: That's the whole point there.
I Councilman Wing: Then if that's the case and if we're going to use that type of
time frame, I'm going to solicit the fire department stepping in. I think
I that's too many homes, too isolated. Too much, one call for 10,000 population
per day and this is you know, getting up to the point where they're going to be
calling for help down there.
II Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, again I'm not your City Attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't know if you can do that either.
I Paul Krauss: You've got an option here for another curb cut. Now granted you
don't want to use it but you're denying him the use of a right -of -way that
terminates on his property. You've made the situation. If he can't resolve it,
it puts you in the position of having to figure out something because this
development meets city standards.
' Councilman Workman: Or somebody needs to come up with a different and better
motion.
II Mayor Chmiel: Just to back off just a tad. Chan Estates roughly has 120 homes
with one access.
' Councilman Workman: Well now they can get out through Brookhill but they
didn't.
II Councilwoman Dimler: They've lived that way for 15 years. For 15 years or more
they didn't.
Councilman Workman: Of course people were dying by the dozen.
II Councilman Wing: Paul brought up some valid points Mr. Mayor. First of all
I'll second that motion just to stop it.
1 Councilman Workman: Thank you. I don't want to, I want to be able to work with
it. I don't want to lock it up so that, yep. That's it. Can't have that curb
cut but we need to maybe have the County do a little more work on it and I
I don't, I'm not taking for granted all the work that Hans Hagen Homes have done
and staff have done. So we get another crack at this right?
II Paul Krauss: You get final plat.
Councilman Workman: So, my preference would be that we get it all worked out,
' resolved by the next time. But if we're all saying that it can't be done and
I'm personally sticking pretty close to what I see is trying not to bridge the
two, then we do have problems. You know, I don't know how to resolve that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. The only other way you could resolve it is to then relook
at the Timberwood access.
I Councilman Wing: What about Paul's comment that if they are unable to come up
with a second curb cut, the option? Are we giving an option to?
' 16
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Paul Krauss: I don't want to beat a dead horse any more than I have to but if
Timberwood is not an option, and it seems like it is not, I'd ask you to word
the conditions to the effect that staff work with the developer to attempt to
obtain a second curb cut onto the county road but failing that, this layout as
proposed without the Timberwood connection will have to be acceptable.
Councilman Wing: One other comment before we move on Mr. Mayor. If these
first, if you only had one entryway and immediately upon entry if the road T'd,
went north /south and looped around, it would effectively give us two ways to get
to the back side of the neighborhood without a large entryway going through the
middle.
Paul Krauss: Except that you'd wind up double fronting lots. ,
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I don't know how this lays out. I just see this loop as
being close to the highway. '
Paul Krauss: That can be done.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. And as Paul
indicated, is there any desire to change any of that motion as a friendly
amendment? ,
Councilman Workman: I thought I left in there that I wanted staff to work
further with the developer and the County to get this second access. That's
what's needed.
Councilman Mason: And failing that?
Councilman Workman: Failing that, I guess we would just have to discuss that at
final plat. I mean we're going to have to anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: But we're leaving the developer sort of hanging where he doesn't 11
know which way he's going to go either. 8ut maybe through some design or
redesign or whatever, I don't know.
Councilman Workman: But doesn't the, and I can ask the developer. Don't you
think, this looks like an awful lot of homes. Don't you think, and I don't know
what's common but isn't this an awfully stressed access anyway? '
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, just for clarification. You have to remember what our
ordinance reads. 15,000 square foot lots and that's what he is really complying
with. And when you say whether there's too many homes, I don't think that's the
question.
Councilman Workman: No, only in relationship to the access. That's fine. I'm
just saying in regards to that one access which they're relying on very heavily.
Councilman Wing: We have information that it appears to be inaccessible
development the way it's drawn. That concerns me.
Hans Hagen: If I could ask a question...because there's no way I can proceed
with the property coming up with a final plat and not having a resolution to
17 '
1
II City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
this. Can I come in for one portion of it and say fine, we'll approve that but
you have to resolve the...so I think the preliminary is the point to resolve
major issues. That's where roads will go and... This is a major issue and
that's a preliminary plat issue...
II Councilman Workman: Then we'd have to deny it.
Councilman Mason: Could I take a shot at it? If staff, developer and County
are unable to come to agreement on a second egress, we'll approve the plat with
one entrance /egress? If they can't come up with two. I mean it's either that
or approve the Timberwood shot so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As that to the amendment, as a friendly amendment. Would
the first and second accept that?
Councilman Workman: So you're saying what Paul had said?
I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard? Okay. With that I'll call the question then.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #92 -3 with the following conditions:
II 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until
the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table
I for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development Contract. The
buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be
preserved by an easement.
I 3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to
the wetland and not during breeding season.
' 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and
Rezoning #92 -2.
. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Rezoning 192 -2 of
property from A2 to RSF with the following conditions:
1. The applicant pp11C nt shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of the
conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required
financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall be recorded against
the property.
II 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the compliance table.
w 18
•
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -3. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Subdivision 1192 -
1
as shown on the plans dated April 21, 1992 with the condition that staff work
with the developer to attempt to obtain a second curb cut onto the county road.
Failing that, this layout as proposed without the Timberwood connection will be
acceptable, Ind subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the ,
plat. All building sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall
be shown on the building permit.
2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations
Section 18 -61 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
3. Parkland shall be dedicated, 8 acres of property, as recommended by the
Park Commission, including a 20 foot easement south of the Timberwood
subdivision between Timberwood Drive and the park. ,
4. A front yard variance shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree
conservation area but in no case shall the front setback be less than 20
feet. - 1
5. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the
temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Boulder Road. In addition, a sign shall
be installed on the barricades stating that the street (Boulder Road) will
be extended in the future.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the
final plat over all utilities located outside of the public right -of -ways,
along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be
constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter. ,
8. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits,
i.e. Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA. 1
9. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with pond storage
calculations for storage of a 100 year storm event, 24 hour intensity,
should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
10. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be
provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to
improve turning movements into the development.
11. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest
Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail.
12. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as 11 provide storage for a 100 year storm event.
19 • '
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
' 13. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any
grading or construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
14. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the
subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
15. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated
' easterly to provide adequate room for future trail considerations.
16. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of site
grading or before November 15, 1992 except in areas where utilities and
streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas disturbed with a
slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood -fiber blanket.
II 17. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance
purposes to the proposed retention ponds.
II 18. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications and
detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit
for City approval.
19. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from
' the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from
Carver County Public Works.
20. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water
facilities to the site.
II 21. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a
development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
construction of the improvements and payment of any pending assessment.
II 22. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they
may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will
be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk
improvements. The credit amount will be determined as the difference
between a standard lateral pipe size (8 inch diameter) and the proposed
trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
' 23. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building permit
application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots,
11 specifically Lots 1 thru 7, Block 1, Lots 1 thru 24, Block 4, Lots 1 thru
21, Block 5 and Lots 1 thru 12 and 15 thru 24, Block 4.
24. The applicant shall work with staff to explore the possibility of conveying
backyard drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
25. The outlot along County Road 19, Gaipin Blvd. needs to replatted with
another lot.
20
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
11
26. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and the
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: If I could just make a quick comment. I think people who know
me know I tend to not be very pro - development but I would like to thank
Mr. Hagen for his consideration...in trying to come up with plans,that were...
REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND COMMENT ON HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY
DISTRICT. 1
Paul Krauss: We've been talking about a Highway 5 corridor study since about a
year ago and of course I think we made a lot of progress in a lot of areas.
Some areas we haven't. I think tonight's meeting was an interesting one and
showed the kinds of things that a highway corridor study could have done. I mean
we could have know, we should have ideally have gone through this process before
Target or anybody else thought about going there and we would have known what '
the City's position is and we could have dealt with it effectively. Plus it
would been an ordinance and you would have had another tool in the arsenal to
make these visions happen. We need those tools. We need something to convert
the things that you hear from 8i11 and Barry and from us into the realty. The
last time we met on this you asked me to go back and try to come up with a
proposal to put together that corridor study. Put together those elements and
those elements include a lot of things. They include working with MnDot to
refine the design of the highway. They include designing those arterial, or
sorry. The parallel collector streets in an environmentally sensitive and
effective manner. It includes working with MnOot and the Metro Council to
hopefully procure funding under that Federal Ice Tea Bill. It includes revising
the land use plan as necessary to fit this new vision and it includes getting
ordinances and a plan amendment into our Comp Plan that again we can put on the
table and say, developer. This is the way we want you to do things here. It's
part of our ordinances and still give plenty of flexibility. I think tonight
you saw how much flexibility you can really have but still get a good idea of
what you'd like to achieve. So we started from the concept that those were the
goals we wanted to achieve. We also started from the concept that there is I
think a fair amount of comfort here with Bill and his staff and a desire to keep
them involved. At the same time there's I think a good comfort level with
working with Barton - Aschmann. Barton - Aschmann has a good relationship with
MnDot and the Highway 5 design folks. They've also had a good relationship I
think with the City, with the HRA and designing the streetscape improvements.
The complimentary work in accordance with TH 5. So building upon that, we
really needed to add a final element and that was a good planning function.
Somebody who can convert all these things into the reality. And what we came up
with is the firm of Camiros who has a working relationship with Barton - Aschmann.
They've been in the Twin Cities area for a couple years. Their principle office
is in Chicago. I do happen to know their local person. They are working on a
number of design projects including Minneapolis' design ordinance. They've got
a number of other projects throughout the State and in the area. They're
working in Sioux City as well and Galena, Illinois and they've done some
interesting work there. I think that's a fairly good fit. What we had them lay
out for you was a flow chart of how this study might work and who would be
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
interacting with whom. I don't have an overhead for it but it's the one in your
packet and there's also a schedule and the schedule attempts to lay out. We're
talking about almost a dual track approach going at the same time. Time is
really of the essence. Highway 5 is being designed as we speak. The time to
' get the gears rolling and the Mayor and I were chatting this morning, to get the
Metro Council on board to support this Ice Tea Funding. To get the MnDot folks
working on it, that's got to proceed very quickly. At the same time we don't
want to let too much time pass until we get the completed documents for the
corridor itself. So we've set this up as a dual track approach. I know cost is
one of your concerns and to be up front, I don't have a great answer for you
yet. I think that I know what, I mean I've laid out what I think should be in
this study based upon what you've told me. Based upon my experience and what I
think we need. What we've done here is set up a process wherein we would go
through the organizational steps of the study. Have a corridor issues paper
laid out and a lot of this stuff is already, I mean we're not going to reinvent
the wheel. A lot of this stuff already exists and the stuff that Bill and Barry
have done. Some of it needs to be repackaged. Get together. Set up a, I
forget what we call it but an Advisory Committee in some sort of structure.
We've suggested a structure for the Council to be able to appoint this Advisory
Committee. That includes Planning Commission, HRA representation, Council
representation. Pius there's a potential for adding resident participation in
this as well. I think the Surface Water Management Task Force is working out
really pretty slick and that is a very similar kind of a make-up. So get that
group together and then hold the public hearing that we really never had. It's
been a concern of mine for a long time that we've come a long way but we haven't
brought the public with us yet. I think we need to invite them in. Have 8i11
give his dog and pony show. Say that the slates open here but here's the
issues. How we see them. What do you see and then come back and at that point
I finalize what needs to be done in this study, and get a formal contract. So the
discussions Don and I thought that we would proceed sort of on an hourly basis
to get to that point. Then we have the information we need to actually lay it
' out. Get the hard numbers and go. I guess I'd be a little bit leery suggesting
this kind of approach if we weren't so familiar with most of the actors that are
involved in this. We're not proposing we spend a whole lot of time going out
' and soliciting bids. I think for those who were involved in the storm water
process, that took about 6 months I think from start to finish and we really
don't have that kind of time. So what we've proposed for you tonight is to take
a look at this and if you're comfortable with this, hopefully give us the go
ahead to get the ball rolling and we could do that pretty expeditiously. The
second thing that I prepared for you is the, do you want me to stop there?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I never like to give a blank, open check to do anything.
To really feel comfortable with it, we'd have to get some kind of an estimate as
to what this is going to be. And before we say, run. Go.
Don Ashworth: How about the first portion of the work will not exceed $2,500.00
before it goes back to City Council?
Paul Krauss: If that's the case, I mean I'm sure we can probably work with
these folks under that scenario and let them know. So if it's not, I mean that
might be cutting it a little tight but if that's the number we have to work
with, we'll work with that.
' 22
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
11
Councilman Workman: Is that coming out of HRA funds?
Don Ashworth: For the most part, yes. I need to make sure the HRA knows that. 1
Councilman Wing: You know I respect the Mayor's position on the dollars.
However, this has run so long, been delayed so long. If for but...so long and ,
with the conservation nature of the Mayor and the City Manager and you Paul, I
don't think we're going to spend any more money than we have to. Have to.
And I'm willing to give you an open check to get this going because you'll only
spend what you have to and it's not going to be exceed $30,000.00. I mean it's
going to cost some money and it would have cost maybe $40,000.00 to $60,000.00
with all these in house things. That's been reduced down to some unknown. It's
got to get done. It doesn't matter if it costs $2,000.00 now or $2,500.00
later.
Mayor Chmiel: We've had a lot of freebee stuff going into it right now. '
Paul Krauss: That's true. Morrish is, I'm kind of surprised by it but Bill is
putting a whole lot of time basically thus far for free. I mean beyond his
original contract.
Councilman Workman: If it's over $15,000.00, the contract, doesn't it have to
go to a bid process? If we're talking about $30,000.00.
Don Ashworth: This is a for service. This is the same way as choosing a
City Attorney. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not comfortable with the open check.
Councilman Workman: I would like to get a handle on that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've got that, as Don said...the need for those dollars
are there, then we have to get back to it and address it. 1
Councilman Mason: I think it was made abundantly clear tonight that we need to
grab this and run with it as opposed to be chasing behind what's going on.
Paul Krauss: The second aspect of it was, I felt, I've been feeling since we
got involved with this that everybody. You know people are getting on board.
People are excited by this and then they look at me and say, well go do it and
I'm saying, what am I supposed to do it with? Looking to get a foot in the
door, I came up with the idea of an overlay district that would put people on
notice that while we haven't finished, we do have this visions of the corridor
newsletter that Bill put out. We do have some documentation coming together and
we already have established a preliminary set of goals. And to be able to
overlay property with that and put people on notice that that's the kind of
thing we're starting to look at. And then when we do actually have a plan, you
just adopt it by reference in this overlay district and you're have done with
it. Now, I laid this out for Roger and Roger, being a cautious City Attorney
first told me that he didn't think we could get away with it. And then we
talked about it and massaged it around a little bit and then he said you
probably could. I'm a little leery about the cart before the horse. If we're
actually going ahead, and it sounds like we are, with the study. Maybe this is
23
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
something we can lay on the table at the issues meeting because at that point
the educational process has begun and people will know where we're going. At
that point it may be a little more effective to do the overlay. 1
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, and I think we've had some coverage through the news media
on this so a lot of the people within the community are made aware of this
already. That we've been doing something. We are looking at things. And quite
frankly every time I pull out that brochure that was put together for us, people
are really impressed to see where we are and where we're going.
Paul Krauss: So I wanted to lay that on the table for you. I guess I didn't
I want to suggest that we should just jump into it right now and blindly do it.
If we were to go ahead with an overlay district, it has to be coupled with an
educational process. The educational process starts with this issues meeting
' and that's probably the place to bring it in.
Councilwoman Dimler: I want the public input as soon as possible.
1 Paul Krauss: Right. That's the way we've structured this Councilwoman Dimler.
The first thing we're going to do is have a kick off meeting and notify, I mean
I guess on a preliminary basis we'll try and define what the corridor is so we
I can start notifying owners of property. Then notify probably developers and
then we have interested parties. Jerome Carlson's wife and I can't recall.
' Councilman Workman: Linda.
Paul Krauss: Linda has several times asked to be on the corridor study group
and I'm sure there's other people. Probably somebody from Timberwood. Other
people who would like to be involved as well.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we have to get is we talked about it and you've
I listed it here as well. Four members representing corridor area residents at
large and then two members of the business community. Then you're going to have
two members of the City Council, one member HRA, two members of Planning
' Commission. That's fine.
Paul Krauss: Okay. Then if we're going ahead with this and we're fast tracking
it, we probably ought to work on getting this committee assembled as soon as
II possible. Would you like us to put a notice in the paper since we have the
still current reporter and editor here?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Indicating what we need. We're going to need 6 people from
the general public. What I'd like to get 2 members of the business community
but I'd also like to work that through the Chamber of Commerce. See if they
I can.
Paul Krauss: Would that be through Joe Scott or who's the chair person?
I Mayor Chmiel: No, Kevin McShane.
Paul Krauss: Oh Kevin. I'll give him a call.
Councilwoman Dimler: And should there be someone from Public Safety?
' 24
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Paul Krauss: That's a good point.
Mayor Chmiel: There's no one from Public Safety and I think pretty much like
those, in fact I was going to suggest that. Like I suggested having this
meeting this evening. It would probably be good to have that because if some of
those issues did come up.
Councilwoman Dimler: Park and Rec?
Todd Hoffman: Recreational issues. Trails.
Paul Krauss: Actually, we did consider Park and Rec. If I left Park and Rec
out, I shouldn't have because clearly there's a lot of recreational issues.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, put both of those on.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't like to get it too big but I think if you were to get
probably the Chair and Vice -chair or anyone who'd wish to serve off those
particular commissions. If they don't have time, have someone else. '
Councilman Wing: The only other thing I'd maybe ask Mr. Mayor is that as far as
Council involvement. The number. Because there may be. '
Mayor Chmiel: Well we may all be in there.
Councilman Wing: Because I clearly would want to be part of that. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to sit in on one of those things, I know.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well two of them are HRA. '
Mayor Chmiel: If we're only going to have one member of the HRA, we should
really have 2 there.
Paul Krauss: Whichever you prefer. I mean frankly, you can get a group that's
too big but more often that not, keeping the ball going, keeping continuity,
especially over the summertime.
Mayor Chmiel: We may have 5 Council members. '
Councilman Workman: You know how those guys and Mike and I were talking about
let staff just, they get dog eared from all the committees. You know I'm on the
sign committee and we're kind of hacking away and yelling at each other there
and I'm on the schools facilities committee and Paul's at that. And there's a
lot of stuff going on. If I didn't say yes to another thing I'd be happy but I
can show up. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: That's how I feel too.
Councilman Workman: But I do want to have the packet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So you're going to get on a fast track. Get an ad in the
paper and request 4 of those members of the community and then when are you
25 ,
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
•
contemplating in having your first meeting? Do you have a schedule?
II Paul Krauss: I really don't. What we need to do is go back to Barry and Bill.
Mayor Chmiel: How quick do you want those people to respond?
Paul Krauss: Oh, I'd like them to respond in the next 2 weeks or. I'd like to
have them at the next Council meeting.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well that's May 18th so that's a long way from then.
1 Paul Krauss: Well that should work fine. Because I think that we can give the
consultants the go ahead on getting this issue stuff together before the
committee gathers.
•
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything more? If not, I'd entertain a motion to cover the
TH 5 corridor study proposal and discussion for potential TH 5 overlay district.
II Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilman Workman: Second.
II Councilman Wing: Is that strong enough? That's alright Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's strong enough.
II
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize staff to
advertise for citizens at large and form the Highway 5 Corridor Study Committee
II and direct staff to begin work on the overlay district. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION OF THE MAY 4, 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to cancel the May 4, 1992
regular City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I Mayor Chmiel: I'd also like to just get an amendment. I would like to get an
amendment to the agenda for one item that Don has here today that we have to
II move on it.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the agenda to
' include an item by Don Ashworth under Administrative Presentations. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: So that Lundgren Bros. can file their plat, there was a goof up
1 in 1989. The Council mistakenly vacated the entire plat instead of vacating the
streets.. This Resolution makes that correction. I verified that it was just
mis recording. Recommend approval of the resolution.
II Resolution 092 -58: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
approve a resolution correcting the vacation of streets for Lundgren Brothers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 26
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Wing: There is in the administrative section a very, very good
letter from Paul Krauss dated April 20, 1992 pertaining to lot size. I'm not 1
bringing up lot size but while I am bringing up the PUD hassle we had on this
last discussion this evening. PUO versus standard subdivision. I believe the
Planning Commission is hung up on...because they can't decide on minimum lot
size. And if they can't decide on it, it clearly is a political issue that is
the responsibility of the Council to guide and direct. I'd like Paul's letter
to be on the next agenda and I would like the Council to just address PUO and
lot size and are 10,000 feet okay or too big? And there's a wealth of
information available that other cities are doing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55
p.a..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Hann Opheim 1
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
1
CITY COUNCIL FETING
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
Wing and Councilwoman Disler
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott
Harr, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, and Sharain Al -Jaff
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
puBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. PIOCLAMATION ESTABLISHING MAY 17 -23. 1992 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS MEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a couple public announcements this evening. One being
the proclamation establishing May 17 -23, 1992 as National Public Works Week.
And it reads, Whereas, Public Works Services provided in our community are an
integral part of our citizen's everyday lives; and Whereas, the support of an
understanding and informed citizentry is vital to the efficient operation of
public works systems and programs such as water, sewer, streets and highways,
public buildings, solid waste collection and snow removal; and Whereas, the
health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends upon these
facilities and services; and Whereas, the quality of effectiveness of these
facilities as well as their planning, design and construction is vitally
dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials; and Whereas, the
efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works
departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding
of the importance of the work they perform. Now, Therefore, I, Donald J.
Chmiel, by virtue and authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Chanhassen,
do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 -23, 1992 as National Public Works Week in
the City of Chanhassen, I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to
' aquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing our public works and
to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to
our health, safety and comfort. It's dated April 27, 1992. And there's many
times that these people are really unsung heroes. They're the people that do
get out there and plow those streets for us first thing in the morning when we
need them. We've had a couple times where we've had a few, termed as blizzards.
They may not have been as efficient as they normally are on all other times but
11 because of the total amounts of snow, we have to take into consideration it just
takes a little longer time for them to get this accomplished. But all in all I
think they did a terrific job this past October and the one that we had
following that storm. I really sort of salute them for the jobs that they
performed.
Resolution 192 -52: Mayor Chmiel coved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve
the resolution establishing the week of May 17 -23, 1992 as National Public Works
Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
11
, City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY AS OLDER AMERICANS MONTH.
Mayor Chmiel: The second proclamation declaring the month of May as Olders -,
Americans Month. This is a resolution as I have indicated and it reads as such.
' Whereas, many of Minnesota's 700,000 older adults are at risk of losing the
independence they may have enjoyed during most of their adult lives because of
physical or mental impairments, abuse, neglect, malnutrition and a lack of
competent caregiver; and Whereas, an expanded commitment will be needed by these
organizations already involved in eldercare, and a new commitment from
organizations not traditionally involved with the older population to
incorporate eldercare on their agendas; and Whereas, for those struggling to
stay independent in their homes and their communities and for those with older
family members needing assistance for those balancing the needs of younger
family members and their jobs and older family members, eldercare can make a
' difference; and Whereas, all Minnesotans are encouraged to become aware of the
issues relating to aging and the needs of the at risk older population,
providing a challenge to each of us to commit ourselves to actions for their
behalf, thus proclaiming the theme "Eldercare - Independence for Older
' Minnesotans "; passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 27th day of
April, 1992. Oftentimes I guess we're all going to get there and I'm
approaching it quickly as well, as anybody else. But it is. It's something
that we do have to take care of our elderly.
Councilwoman Dialer: Do you want a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We don't need a motion. It's just, oh yes I think I will -
because it's by Council. I will have a motion.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution .92 -53: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
' approve the resolution proclaiming the month of May as Older Americans Month.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. The Summit at Near Mountain, Project 92 -4:
1) Approve Plans and Specifications
2) Approve Development Contract
f. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 7 (Building Code) and Chapter 19 (Water
Distribution and Sewage Disposal), Final Reading.
g. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2 -68(a) Public Safety Commission,
Changing the Membership from 5 to 7 Members for 3 Year Terms, Final Reading.
h. Wetland Alteration Permit to Create a Walker NURP Pond in a Class A Wetland
Located Adjacent to Silver Lake, Summit at Near Mountain, Lundgren Brothers
Construction.
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
i. Final Plat Approval, Oakwood Estates, Eugene Quinn.
j. Approval of Accounts.
k. Approval of Minutes. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO LAKE ANN PARK UTILITIES, PROJECT 91 - 15. 1
Councilwoman Dimier: Item 2(b) is basically a change order to the lake Ann Park
Utilities Project No. 91 -15. Basically it's asking for about $13,000.00 plus
more for the project to do an RTU. My question was, if the RTU is so important,
why wasn't it considered in the original cost? And then also you're proposing
to remove the emergency power generator and I'm wondering if that's going to
cause any problems.
Charles Folch: To answer your first question. I'm not sure why, there wasn't a
specific reason why it wasn't considered. I think it just may have been
overlooked as something that wasn't caught at the time that this was being
proposed. This improvement project as you're aware has been in discussion and
before you a number of times over the last couple of years and I think it's one
of those things that may have just slipped through the cracks. But now that we
have our telemetry system up and running with all our wells and lift stations,
and as each development project comes on line, if there's a lift station
proposed on the project, as a part of that improvement project we require then a
remote transmission unit also be construction with that lift station. It only
serves to make sense that we continue this practice and maintain an RTU at this
lift station at the park.
Councilwoman Dimier: I was wondering if it's so important, why was it
overlooked to begin with? And how about the emergency power generator? We
don't need it anymore or are we replacing it with something else?
Charles Folch: It's actually the connection plug which I understand. It's a
recommendation that both the contractor and the project engineer made to Todd
Hoffman, the Park Coordinator and it was his concurrence that this is something
that could be eliminated at any rate. The exact details I'm not aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we did get a deduct on that total removal as well. Which
shows as $364.00.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor on clarification for myself. When we watch the 1
dollars so close, especially lately, where do we get $13,000.00 from all of a
sudden?
Councilwoman Dimier. - Right.
Councilman Wing: Out of the '92 budget, where is this coming from? How are we
providing this?
Don Ashworth: Your sewer and water expansion fund and actually of all of your
funds where people have put away dollars for this purpose. To insure the
3 11
1
-City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
overall operations for sewer and water system. It's probably one of your
II healthier funds. Although it's being funded through sewer and water, and
rightly so, it's because we're basically monitoring the sewer system as it's
associated with Lake Ann Park. I think that it's, they're dollars wisely spent
I because you are so close to the lake at that location. If there were any type
of problems whatsoever. Any for of a spill and we didn't know about it for
quite a period of time, we could do a lot of damage to the lake. Secondarily,
this is associated with a facility similar to Lake Susan. We have sensors in
II there that basically provide an alert if there's been an intrusion into the
structure basically alarming the Sheriff's department. Where we have an
isolated structure like Lake Ann, I think that $13,000.00 as far as reduced
additional patrol costs, etc. will easily pay for itself over a period of years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's very true and that's one of the positions that.I
II supported about 2 1/2 years ago Richard. Because of the amount of time that we
would have our people patrol each of the respective sewage lift stations every
day, 365 days of the year. That is eliminated.
II Councilman Wing: Don, I guess what I'm saying here is that this isn't an
increase cost at Lake Ann. It's part of the city's overall project so that's
what I wasn't clear on.
II Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
II Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Oimler: And on the same vein, it's not going to affect our bonding
capacity?
11 Don Ashworth: No. This is cash in hand.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. With that exclamation I move approval of item 2(b).
Councilman Mason: Second.
I Councilman Workman: If I could add my discussion. I guess I can't argue with
the City Manager's concept that we need it and we're going to have it. It's
just that this expenditure I think represents probably over 10% of that actual
I project cost and I guess we shouldn't look likely at it. I know when we had the
Lundgren deal in here over off Lake Lucy, we kind of had to add it in there
after the fact too and that's where I was saying to Terry Forbord that I mean I
can understand where he gets a little touchy because all of a sudden you add
*13,000.00 in costs. Although we're going to have to pick that up anyway. But
when it's over 10% of the actual total cost of the project, I do get nervous
like the rest of everybody else here and I guess, while we're on that subject.
I guess I'd like to, we never really, we talked about putting this telemetry
system in and saving so much time. Maybe we need to find out exactly what else
is being done at the time or where are we shifting our time with that staff. I
can tell you where maybe you might say it but maybe Charles, you and I can sit
down. We can talk about it because it appears as though that's an awful lot of
time that people are saving from not having to drive around the city. Are we
laying people off because of that? Are we shifting them?
4
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Charles Folch: Maybe just in brief. That allows us more time to spend in
flushing hydrants, jet routing out city sewer system on a, instead of maybe
every 2 years, get the entire city completed, maybe we'll be able to get it
completed every year. We'll be able to go through the system. It affords us to
the opportunity to go into structures that we know are possibly have some
infiltration inflow in the manhole structures and doing some maintenance and
repairs to those things so there's plenty of work for the guys to do, believe
me. Hopefully now over the next 5 years we can catch up on it so. 1
Mayor Chmiel: And that too Tom is not a whole day. It's just a couple hours in
the morning that they do this. 1
Councilman Workman: I know Jerry Boucher used to spend overtime hours didn't
he?
Don Ashworth: No, he took Thursday afternoon and worked Saturday mornings as a 1
replacement.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to look into that a little closer. Maybe 1
we can talk about that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. 1
Resolution 892 -54: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve Change Order No. 1 to Lake Ann Park Utilities, Project 91 -15. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
E. APPROVE SIGNAL JUSTIFICATION REPORT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON WEST 78TH STREET
AT GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 92 -7.
Councilman Workman: Maybe I didn't read this memo correctly. What exactly are 1
we approving right now? We're approving the report that will really eventually
lead to these signals? I know we talked about all this. Is this not, where
does the HRA come in on this? Kicking in funds only? 1
Charles Folch: As I mentioned in the report, the central business district
traffic study which was completed in the Fall of 1990 by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch
basically outlined immediate problems with the downtown system that needed to be
improved and also forecasted future improvements that would be needed based on
projected increase in traffic flow and also increase in retail development in
the central business district. As I understand it, both the Council and the HRA
went through review processes of this. There's a traffic study and basically
adopted the traffic study plan. The next step then is to implement some of the
recommendations that came out of the study, one of which of course is dealing
immediately with the intersection of West 78th Street and Great Plains as it
relates to both improving the geometrics of that intersection by doing some
modifications to the medians. Improving truck turning radius and such and also
with the installation of a traffic signal which was basically outlined in the
original traffic study as being an immediate improvement needed. As far as it
relates to Market Square or the Market Blvd. intersection with West 78th Street,
that was also an intersection identified as probably needing a signal system in
the future pending both population growth and retail development, square footage
5 I
1
, City,Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
growth. They have performed, what the signal justification part has done is
basically gone through and evaluated these intersections based on the warrants.
There's 12 warrants basically or criteria that are evaluated for an intersection 1
to determine whether it would warrant the installation of a signal system. And I
what the report basically has stated is that both these intersections need
warrants for the installation at this point in time.
Councilman Workman: When I came on the Council I had the proud honor of saying
that road ain't mine because I didn't approve that road. And that road is the
single most irritating thing in the city next to the barricade on Teton Lane.
And when I approve this, that road now becomes mine too. And I'm still not
11 comfortable because we know the road is bad and the people who talk to me on a
weekly basis about that road being bad, never say throw up a bunch of signals.
Although that might be the way to do it and I know we've gone over with Strgar
and all the details. There's just something band -aid looking at these signals,
which isn't going to improve the aesthetics any. And I fear that once I approve
this that we're surely on our way to signals and I still don't feel that
comfortable about it and I guess I'd like to have the feelings of the rest of
the Council before they make it their own too.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had discussions today with Don as well in regard to
this. And some of my basic concerns, even with Strgar - Roscoe's determination
that the signalization is going to be needed in two locations. I don't disagree
probably with one of those locations and that we have to have an intermittent
stop inbetween so the other traffic on other streets that parallel or go out on
78th, have that stop time. My major concern with Great Plains and 78th Street
is that a lot of this was taken during the time still TH 101 is on our main
street. Secondly, with the changing of TH 101 which will be going directly out
to TH 5 at the intersection of McDonald's and the Sinclair, that will no longer
come through downtown. And yet I feel that there's something still missing. I'm
not sure whether that's the place we should have it. And I know that if we
signalize that particular intersection, we would then be having arrows pointing
and giving people direction as to which way to go. When you get people coming
into town and going to the Dinner Theatre, I know I just recently met one on the
wrong side of the road. They didn't know exactly where they were going. And
there was one concern that I've had and it isn't the first time I've seen that.
But it is with the total traffic flow that came through there and I guess that's
one of the real concerns I mentioned way back when as well. Because of TH 101
no longer being on Great Plains, that is going north. Just to me doesn't seem
that there's going to be that much traffic on there. And I know we have
somewhere in the neighborhood of how many vehicles in a 24 hour period there?
' The numbers were.
Councilman Workman: 12,000.
Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say 8. Is it 12? Okay. A lot of those were
people coming off of TH 5 and wanting to go on TH 101. And what numbers those
were, that's part of my concern. And how do we decipher what the total count is
and after once that's done, I think that should be looked at. Once the roadways
are done and changes are taken place and I know that we're going to have
probably more traffic at that intersection because of closing down TH 101 for a
period of time and having different directions. But I know that some of that is
going to be there. And it's probably going to increase at that time. My
1
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
thinking is once those two roads get completed with the connection to TH 5, I'd
like to see what happens after that before we move ahead and put a stop and go
system. Stop and go light system in that location. I guess I feel pretty much
like Tom does.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think with the expense of a light, especially at Great 11
Plains, I don't think at this it's warranted either because of we want to see
what TH 101 and TH 5 is going to be like. What the traffic is going to be like
after those are in. I'm questioning Market Blvd.. I do see people having
trouble getting into the flow during peak hours. But at Great Plains I'm
wondering, and I know we've probably discussed stop signs.
Mayor Chmiel: And you're looking at total cost, yeah.
Councilwoman Oimler: Cheaper. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Oh those, and I think I've mentioned it before. Roughly about
$120,000.00 to maybe $140,000.00. Somewhere in that neighborhood. But I want
to make sure then that this is what we have. I don't know what that does as far
as the balance of it.
Don Ashworth: Denny, did you want to address any of these issues at this point?
I think trying to put stop signs at Great Plains, given the size of that
intersection, would be very difficult to do. And I did mention to the Mayor
this morning that the engineers are really concerned because when we do take
down TH 101, so you no longer will be able to get through that intersection and
we're estimating probably 6 month build out time frame. That means all of the
traffic on TH 101 will come down to the Great Plains intersection. And with
that, there will be a lot more of that traffic that will be making left turn
movements, which is a difficult one. We're fortunate that most of the traffic
coming down TH 101 today is taking a right and coming into the heart of town.
But when that intersection goes down, a lot of that will be taking a left.
Maybe what we need to do is try to quantify these numbers a little bit more for
the Council. Did you again wish to speak on any of these issues?
Dennis Eyler: Yeah, I think there's two issues here. One is, I'm not real 1
familiar exactly with the numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you, so we have it on the record. '
Dennis Eyler: Sure. My name is Dennis Eyler. I'm a principle with the firm of
Strgar - Roscoe- Fausch. We're traffic engineering consultants of the city. One
of the concerns I have, and we haven't actually looked at what the diverted
traffic would be from TH 101 during that closure for construction. We can do an
analysis of a stop sign, all way stop sign control at Great Plains with those
numbers on. That's a concern. I guess the numbers that are there today
probably would work with an all way stop for some period of time. If one does
an economic analysis of delays and stops versus a traffic signal, typically an
intersection that meets signals warrants, also meets justification for an all
way stop. And the payback usually to the driver, now I realize there's no way
to capture that money out of the driver's pocketbook but his savings usually pay
for a traffic signal between 3 and 5 years and in some cases even earlier on
reduced delay, reduce stops of having to go through an all way stop versus a
7
,City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
traffic signal. We could take another look at the numbers. We did do a license
' plate check. We have some idea of what the through traffic is. We can fold
those numbers together. Look at what the detour volumes are and see what the
possibilities are during the detour phase. What the problems would be. In some
' cases, temporary traffic signals are used but in this case, the cost of one of
those is like S25,000.00 in itself and for 6 months use I guess I'd question
that when if you are eventually going to wind up with a traffic signal in any
case, that's S25,000.00 that most of it is just a throw away item. It's labor
to put the thing up and get it operating. So I think it's a fair question and I
remember saying once during one of our earlier presentations here that putting
that first traffic signal into town, it's a big step because you have a
11 maintenance problem. You have costs associated with it and it's not to be taken
lightly. I guess I can respond to any other questions.
' Councilman Workman: Does the Public Safety Director maybe have anything you
want to add? I mean, are the fatalities mounting up down there? I think people
are kind of getting used to that corner. You certainly see the ones who aren't.
' Scott Harr: I don't have anything other than what's been said. Charles and I
have discussed different perspectives. Different approaches. I think it's an
engineering issue. Accident stats aren't tremendous there. I think accidents
' that have occurred recently are more as a result of the detour. More a
convenience issue at this point.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm really pleased that Tom pulled this because it
' bothered me all day and the thing that really set me off here, because I got
into quality of life. This proposed signal system will be a permanent, full
traffic, actuated traffic signal system with 4 phases. South thru eastbound
left, a westbound right, northbound and I saw half my life coming to a halt at
this intersection. And I don't mean that to be, I mean I'm being sarcastic but
to me it's not a funny issue. It's a quality of life and I see stop signs as an
absolute last resort or stop lights. Especially at this intersection. And I've
been using it on a regular basis, morning, afternoon and night and I use it to
cut off of TH 5. I come whipping down by Jerry Schlenk's house, through that
intersection, back out to TH 5 and I'm way ahead of the game.
Councilman Mason: How fast were you going?
Councilman Wing: So the issue is, I have not seen disruptive traffic flow at
that intersection. At least to the point where I would justify a traffic light.
And geometrics is an issue but the geometrics, it's not our first try. It's our
' second, third. What is it? Our third try in geometrics. It's a progression
down there. We keep trying to come up with new shapes and we wind up with the
same intersection with the same problems. We still jump the curbs with the fire
trucks every time we go around and it's just poor. It was stupid to begin with.
It's stupid today but at least it's flowing and it's moving and I would really
oppose a stop light there at this point so I think we seem to be in agreement on
that point.
Councilman Workman: Well I think the intersection actually fits our lifestyle.
It's the slip and shoot.
8
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: I think Mike and I use that quite often as well and we normally
see each other either in front or back. And it is, and you watch all that
traffic going off onto TH 101. The same traffic is coming back from TH 101
going south is the same amount of traffic so I know there's a tremendous amount
of flow of cars that leave that particular area. Once they come in on Great
Plains and snake through TH 101.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Also, during the diversion when Dakota Avenue area
is closed, it may be necessary for us to in fact assign a CSO or even a County
car there to direct traffic during a peak time. To keep traffic flowing but I
would much rather do that than to go through the expense and perminence of a
traffic light that may wash out not being needed with the new road system. At
least not at this point. I'm opposed to this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if I could ask Mr. Eyler a question. We've
discussed Great Plains 81vd. quite a bit but would you address Market Blvd. now?
Because if we table one, we're going to table both.
Dennis Eyler: Well Market Blvd. is just into that threshhold where the volumes ,
are justified. One of the other discussions we had earlier was in trying to
create gaps at some of the other intersections along 78th Street. There were
some problems at Kerber and problems at Laredo and the suggestion was at one
time to install a stop sign. An all way stop sign at one of those intersections
and which one. One of them works pretty good for the morning and one of them
works pretty good for the afternoon but no one location works good for both peak
hours and you lose any platooning of traffic you have and gap selection.
Downstream of a 4 way stop gets to be a problem and that's one thing I caution
you about putting one in at 78th too...might degrade some intersections that are
away from that intersection. It's in there. The volumes have just crossed that
threshhold. I guess it's a matter of timing. It's in the eye of the beholder.
Signal warrants are not necessarily justification. That just means that you
have the numerical criteria that says that this is economically viable form of
traffic control for that intersection. The trade -off of doing some other kind
of traffic control have been crossed into the boundary where the signal is
deemed most efficient. That doesn't mean that if the intersection is thought to
be operating properly, that you're opening yourself up for some liability by not
installing one. It's just a matter of time that it's going to be inevitable.
I guess if tying it to some other work in the area or tying the two projects
together, there was some slight cost savings on that basis but that's your
decision on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And I realize that and every time you come to the
intersection of Market Blvd. now, cross 78th Street, that is if you're going
north on Market, then turning west on 78th, you sit there and you give yourself
a quick blessing because there's all between cars, they are a little congested
within that area. It's hard to come off of that. Now that CR 17 is closed.
Dennis Eyler: I'm sure with CR 17 closed, you're getting.
Mayor Chmiel: And so consequently, you have to be on your guard and I think
those are something that we're going to have to look at in a short period of
time. But I think really as far as the balance of this, I'd like to see us find
out what we are diverting off of TH 101 so we really know. As it comes time for
9
1
., City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
1
that light to go in at some time down the road, 2 years or a year or whatever it
might be, then to take that information and consider put in that light if the
need is really there.
Councilman Workman: Would tabling be the wrong thing? Are we not going to look
at it or just to not approve the justification report?
Mayor Chmiel: I think at this particular time, I think it would be best
' probably to table to get the additional information. And then we can move on it
accordingly after that.
Councilman Workman: I would move to table.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any discussion?
Additional discussion.
Councilman Wing: Are we kind of looking at maybe kind of a low priority table?
We don't need it back right away?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no. No, we don't. But whenever they get some time to do
what we need.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table item (e), signal
' justification report for traffic signals on West 78th Street at Great Plains
Blvd. and Market Blvd. for more study. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Bob Worthington, Opus
Corporation. 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, MN. I'm here as a follow -up to a
discussion that you had at your last Council meeting relative to the feasibility
report for the Upper Bluff Creek District. Subsequent to that meeting I sent a
letter to the City Manager with a copy to you Mayor requesting an opportunity to
appear on tonight's agenda to discuss the phasing aspect. I received no
response to my request and therefore feel that the only way that I could perhaps
get further discussion on this item is to appear as a visitor this evening to
state Opus' concerns as well as that of Gateway. Of the Chaska Gateway Partners
on the phasing aspect. If that is appropriate, I'd like to proceed with a
couple minute presentation.
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Bob Worthington: We discovered subsequent to our presentation at the last
Council meeting that the phasing proposal which the City, with it's consultants
had decided to phase the improvements on this project. That the phasing
' proposal did not contain the Chaska Gateway Partners property within the first
phase of development. It was our error. We kind of got the report late in the
day. That's no excuse for us having had ample opportunity to review it but we
didn't. We thought that the only response that that report contained, which we
reviewed was to comments that we had made at the previous hearing on the
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
feasibility report and that basically was concern with cost. And I think we
adequately stated our concerns with cost and I don't think we want to go into
that at this point. However, when it was discovered that we were not included
in the first phase of the feasibility report and recommendation of the Council,
we felt that we'd like to revisit that topic, which we have done. And now
understanding better what it is that the City has in mind in terms of phasing,
have no objections to be included in Phase 2, if indeed Phase 2 makes the
appropriate assumption that the Phase 2 improvements which perhaps will include
our property will authorize the extension of utilities in the spring of 1993 to
our property. If that is a correct assumption, then we have no objections to
proceeding as you have and I think I have a letter here which I'd like to pass
out to you which officially now states our position relative to the phasing of
your utilities. However, if we are incorrect in our assumption that this
phasing can have a opportunity for us to extend those utilities in 1993 to this
property, then I'd like to discuss that further at this time. So that basically
is our position Mr. Mayor and I'd like to answer any questions you may have and
if none, then thank you for your attention.
Mayor Chmiel: I think Don is reviewing your letter and maybe there may be some
response to this.
Don Ashworth: As a separate item in this packet, and I apologize to Mr.
Worthington. I did receive your letter. I'm not quite sure as to the timing of
that. Concern over some of the assessment portions and I must concentrated more
on your concerns with the level of assessment and how they're being applied more
so than the request to be placed onto an upcoming agenda. I honestly missed
that fact.
Bob Worthington: We both had the same selective attention grabbers that we paid
attention to during that report.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with the potential extension of sewer, I think that
the other report deals with the Near Mountain /Lundgren properties. Potential
extension of sewer where we had tabled that item to kind of look at our overall
financial position. It is really part of the question that Bob is asking. I
guess what I would like to do is have an opportunity, and we traded telephone
calls here today. Have an opportunity to meet with Bob to take a look at this
proposal and make a determination. Does it meet some of the financial tests
that I basically had outlined in the report to the City Council regarding the
• Lundgren Bros. proposal. So I would, as a Visitor Presentation you're not ready
to take action anyway. I would suggest that you instruct staff to work with Mr.
Worthington to prepare a report so it can be considered for your next City
Council agenda addressing the issues that he has presented as well as the fiscal
financial impact and the tests that I established under that separate
memorandum. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
1
11 1
City .Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Wing: The only question I've got also, relates to the fact that this
is part of a stretch that not too many weeks ago we discussed the moratorium on
and making that a formal moratorium on building until we get the corridor study.
We've elected not to do that and not charge the owners and developers with such
a move. But this does fall in our right kind of the middle of our TH 5 corridor
' study. Don, I'd like you to address that issue also because I think it's fair
that these people be fully aware of what we're trying and attempting to do out
there. How this might be affected by that, if at all.
Don Ashworth: As another item within your packet is a proposed work schedule
associated with our corridor plan. Hopefully what will be achieved through that
process, who potential players may be on the task force that would sit and
potentially look at what type of restrictions we say be placing on properties.
It may include setback. It may include density. It may include preservation of
wetlands, etc., etc.. That also is another report that Mr. Worthington should
take a look at and potentially their firm may be one of them that may even sit
on that group and they may want to consider that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. I don't know if you've seen this particular study that
we've gone through. If not, I'd like to give you this copy for you to take
along because I do have an additional copy.
Bob Worthington: To answer your question, yes. We have seen that study. Mr.
Krauss gave us a copy when we had an earlier meeting with him but I'll take
another copy. And the other request is, could we have, included in your meeting
' with Mr. Worthington portion of that proposal, arepresentative from the Chaska
Gateway Partnership.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. A motion was on the floor with a second.
Discussion that Don had indicated.
Councilwoman Dimler: Normally we don't approve...on Visitor presentations.
Mayor Chmiel: No we don't approve anything on this as a presentation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to suspend the rules?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we will. We'll need to suspend it. I would
suggest that we remove the first and second and just carry it through and Don
will take care of that.
PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH
OF TH 5. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT 90 -
Public Present:
' Name Address
' Julius Smith
Don Patton 7600 France Avenue So., Minneapolis
7600 Parklawn
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. From discussion at the March
23rd meeting when this report was received, you directed staff to investigate
1 12
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
the opportunity of whether a bituminous overlay option would be economically
feasible as compared to the proposed total reconstruction of this portion of
CR 17 south of TH 5. Staff has gone back and reviewed some of the very lengthy
files and the project history and it became evident that the bituminous overlay
option was investigated during the original feasibility process back in 1990.
At that time it was found that due to extensive pavement removals that would
occur on the project for storm sewer, hand hold electrical conduit, and removal
for installation of curb and gutter, that overlay would only be limited to
limited areas of the roadway section. It was also looked at the existing
condition of CR 17. That was found that there were numerous, both transverse
and lateral cracking on the roadway with also some portions of alligatoring
which would tend to limit the opportunity to overlay on these portions of the
roadway also. Discussions with Carver County, they have indicated that this
road has been very susceptible to frost heaving during the spring thaw due to
poor subgrade drainage problems. And they also mentioned that they had done
some significant patching to this portion of the roadway during the 1991, early
summer of 1991. So back at that time, the previous city engineer who considered
this also, estimated that an overlay option for this project would probably last
only about 4 to 5 years. And then what would happen, due to the subgrade
problems that are currently there, you would still continue to have the frost
action which would then just produce cracks to the new surface. Basically
cosmetic surface overlay that would be placed. So the previous engineering
consultant determined that it was not really a feasible option from a long term
standpoint to do the bituminous overlay. And from looking at the previous
history, I would tend to agree. I've also discussed this option with Roger
Gustafson, the Carver County Engineer. He had indicated that he would not
support an overlay option as a part of this improvement project. There's an
attached letter from our project consultant engineer which further describes
more of the history of these aspects in detail. The staff report also contains
a revised cost estimate and assessment roll for this project. Our project
consultant engineer is available here tonight to provide answers to any
questions that might come up during the public hearing. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. As I mentioned before, this is a public
hearing. Anyone wishing to approach us at this given time, please come
forward. State your name and your address and who, if you are representing
someone.
Julius Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Julius Smith. My
office is at 7600 France Avenue in Edina. I'm here representing Instant Webb,
United Mailing, Victory Envelope and the landowners that own all of Park Two 2nd
Addition and all of Park Two which essentially is 4 pieces of property. Two on
each side of the road. It's the Instant Webb property and Victory Envelope
property, United Mailing property and a vacant lot on the corner of TH 5 and
CR 17. There are two items we'd like to refer to on this. One is physical and
one is financial involving this project. The storm water plans as proposed
allow for the filling of that pond that was there. That was always going to be
temporary until sometime that that storm sewer was put in. The pond on Lot 2,
Block 3. And the plan as proposed does in fact drain that and allow us to fill
that pond and smooth that over and it will drain that pond. Unfortunately, it
doesn't take care of the storm water for the rest of the parking lot on Instant
Webb. The west half. We've already paid assessments on the east half and that
project was a different storm surface water project. On the rest of the Instant
13
1
•,City,Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Webb property, putting in the storm drain or the manholes as it currently is
designed is not low enough to drain our loading dock areas and our parking lots.
And so we did talk to this with one of the engineers from Chanhassen who said he
would refer this to the consultant in the hope of lowering that manhole where it 1
' crosses CR 17 at Park Drive or Park Road, so that's low enough that we can put
in a pipe that will drain those parking lots after our pond is covered up. So
I'd certainly like to see that looked at by the consulting engineer and we'd
like to be kept posted on that because we'd be totally unable to drain that
property unless that's done. The second one has to do with the financial side
of this. We looked at the costs on this project and needless to say we were a
little stunned but it's my understanding that because of the buildings that are
done in there and that we've created in there, that we qualify for an offset on
those assessments. The TIF credits are sufficient to pay those proposed
assessments and if that's the case, well it'd be pretty hard for us to object to
the proposal and it's my understanding that we would be amending these project
agreements to take care of that matter. If that's the case, we don't have an
objection to it. I mean, if it's not the case, well then we might.
Don Ashworth: If I may respond. The three properties that Mr. Smith referred
to did not participate, or only minorly in the KRA special assessment reduction
agreement recognizing the original roadway that was paid for by Carver County.
Accordingly, Todd has gone back. Relooked at the figures and has stated that
the three properties all qualify under the special assessment reduction
agreement if again Mr. Smith would make application for his clients. Sufficient
increment has been generated to pay off those assessments for each of the three
that he referred to.
Julius Smith: Now how do we follow through with the engineer? Will they
contact us about? I know they're going to look at some possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me get that addressed. Charles?
Charles Folch: Yeah, we are currently investigating. I made contact with our
consultant. We are investigating all the elements of that issue. Unfortunately
as of tonight we still don't have an answer to that but we are working on it.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words, we'll be getting back to you with some of the
answers. In the meantime, necessary paperwork that you have to do. Come in and
get that filled out.
Julius Smith: Alright. What does that require now? A letter on our part or
request.
Don Ashworth: For which of the two?
Roger Knutson: Special assessment reduction.
Don Ashworth: You can simply visit with Todd.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you have a total on your assessment amount?
Julius Smith: I'm sorry.
1
14
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you know the total on your assessment amount for your 3
or 4 parcels? '
Julius Smith: Within $500.00. $590,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. And TIF is going to pick that up? i
Mayor Chmiel: He gives some, and take some. Is that what you're saying Julius?
As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. If anyone else wishing to
approach this and discuss this, this is your opportunity.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Don Ashworth: Todd did get an opportunity to talk to the people from Empak. I '
think all of the abutting owners who I think with the Instant Webb, etc. will
benefit because having an urban section in there in comparison with the rural
section and that will allow for the typical street lights as they occur in the
other parts of the business park. That type of...literally get down to our park
area. The other property owner who does benefit potentially even more so is
Empak. The dollars in here remove that hump in the roadway. If you go down by
Lake Susan, that was a surcharge area that we have very poor soils. We knew
that you were going to take that out of there. It needed to come out but for
that 2 -3 year period of time it needed to be there to solidify those soils. See
you only have a temporary road section in there for that first 300 -400 feet.
this project takes care of that as well as again...the typical section that you
have elsewhere within the business park. Again I think Empak is one of the
•
benefactors and they do support the project. '
Councilman Workman: I was just going to ask the question, how old is the road?
Mayor Chmiel: The existing road? r
Don Ashworth: It was built in about 1976 to 1978. Right around 1978.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I noticed in here that you did check with the
County and they did indicate that they would not support the overlay
alternative. I'm just wondering who has jurisdiction over this? Is the County
above the City or the City? Since the City is paying, do we have more
jurisdiction or is the County helping to pay for some of this? Or how are we
interrelating with the County here?
Charles Folch: The County is, from a financial standpoint, is not participating 1
in the project. However, being that this roadway is under their jurisdiction,
in order to do this project they have review and approval process of the project
plans and specifications. In addition, being that it is on their CIP program,
the Carver County's program, to designate CR 17 as a State Aid Road, the project
plans and specifications will also go through State Aid review.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we likely to get some State Aid? j
15 '
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Charles Folch: County. It would actually be for County State Aid. Not
' municipal.
Councilwoman Dimler: The County would get the aid but not pass it on?
Charles Folch: Well in future years they would be able to draw needs on that
roadway system.
Councilwoman Dimler: So in effect you're saying, they're almost mandating that
we do it the expensive way because they won't support the overlay but there's no
financial assistance?
Charles Folch: Well, in a sense what they're saying is you're better off doing
nothing than spending the money to overlay the project. If you're going to do
11 the project, they're saying you're better off reconstructing it or not doing
anything at all. Is basically their position.
Councilwoman Dimler: What happens if we do nothing?
Charles Folch: Well the road will basically continue to worsen with time. The
County does not have this roadway scheduled for any improvements in the near
' future as a part of their capital improvement program. Their dollars of course
are like ours, limited to a certain extent. And so that roadway will continue
to exist the way it is for some time. It appears that right now, due to the tax
increment opportunity that we have a viable means of getting the road
11
improvement project done at this point in time. When we feel it's most needed
to integrate, interface with some of the trunk highway improvement projects
going on and improvements in the downtown area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you guarantee that there won't be any cracking after
we go through this expensive project?
Charles Folch: Well, what will happen is, instead of, it's the intent of the
project to do significant sub cutting of the poor soils throughout the roadway
and to also backfill and create a system to drain the sub grade more
efficiently. Over time the blacktop itself, you know over a 10 to 15 year
period, in a sense dries out and it will, with a little bit of movement, will
crack but here again you're starting with a roadway. With a reconstruction
project you're starting with a new roadway. New subgrade and you can expect a
design life of 20 -25 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, could we, is this project maybe premature? Should
we wait until we can get the County to help us? Is it absolutely necessary at
this time?
' Charles Folch: I guess maybe one of the keys is the unknown. At this point in
time it's not in their 5 year plan to expend any funds on that portion of CR 17.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the things you bring up the fact that the existing
or proposed construction with TH 5 and tying that intersection in will also be
different than what it presently would be now.
1 16
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: My concern is always, we think well TIE is going to take
care of it and it sounds so good but it's still the taxpayer that's paying for
it. I have a real problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Richard. '
Councilman Wing: I've got a question. It's a real dumb one.
Mayor Chmiel: It's never a dumb question if it's asked. '
Councilman Wing: If I had a little better feel for this I could have talked to
Charles. Don, on the TIF. We're going to put TIF money into this which seems
to be kind of a strange place to be putting TIF money into rebuilding a road
that was kind of just built that looks good to me to begin with. Why are we
putting TIF money into this and what's the total amount of dollars we're putting
into this out of TIF?
Mayor Chmiel: $1,380,000.00.
Councilman Wing: So the whole thing is really looked at out of TIF at this
point?
Don Ashworth: Well there are some parcels in there that have not developed. '
The Paul's property for example. I think that's the 9 acre parcel just south of
the railroad tracks. It's on the right hand side of the road as you're going
south. I know that the amount, the Instant Webb, United Mailing, Victory
properties in there is a high dollar amount. 5590,000.00 and I don't think we
looked at that lightly but I think it also, it should be remembered that those
property taxpayers are paying on an annual basis between, minimum, $600,000.00
to *700,000.00 just out of those three. Providing one year's increment back to
them to help benefit their properties I don't think is unreasonable. I did meet
with Mr. Carlson approximately 3 to 4 years ago and he was very much pushing for
it at that point in time. What I stated was, we can't really do this or even
consider it. A few things. Number one, you're doing, I just used the word.
The fill area. The surcharge so that Lake Drive had to be...and the surcharge
had to be down for a period of time. Number two, the State Highway Department
had to be in and they had to build the new intersection so you have someplace to
hook the curb and gutter too. We talked about the whole thing. He recognized
some of those issues and it's taken a little longer to get to this point. Using
TIF dollars for public improvements is probably one of the strongest ways you
can use those dollars.
Councilman Wing: But it's still a road and I don't see it being much different ,
than the road in front of my house and I'm paying less taxes but maybe dollar
for dollar, input for input, I may be paying more. I don't know how residential
and commercial taxes necessarily apply here but they have a lot more land, a lot 1
more building, a lot more assessed valuation. Am I paying more or less than
they are in reality we get in comparing apples and apples. I'm not arguing
because I don't want Mr. Smith to misconstrue my comments. I'm just a little
stunned that we're putting in a road that the neighborhood has to pay for
themselves. I don't see it as a necessary public improvement any more than a
public street in any neighborhood. I realize I can't talk intelligently about
this. This kind of helps clarify it a little bit. Thank you.
17 ,
11
.City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael?
Councilman Mason: This would be part of what's going on TH 5?
1
' Mayor Chmiel: A portion of it will.
Councilman Mason: So in that standpoint, assuming that it will be done sometime
in the future, I assume there would be some saving involved because there's
stuff happening at the same time? Is that a reasonable assumption?
Don Ashworth: I think we'd have to do more temporary sections at this point in
I time if it was going to be delayed for a longer period. Yes. I mean and all
those temporary type of connections would have to be torn out at some point in
the future.
1 Councilman Mason: Charles, when do you see that failing so badly that it has to
be replaced? What if we don't do anything now?
II Charles Folch: Well, if we don't do anything now, I guess it's up to the County
to continue to crack fill and overlay the bad sections that are alligatoring and
basically where the pavement is falling out, which there was 3 or 4 good sized
sections that they overlayed last summer. Also, if you look at the roadway,
walk the roadway, you can see where the tire tracks or where the vehicles would
normally drive. There's actually rutting occurring where you actually have the
1 dipping in the pavement and it's going to continue to worsen. It's not our
maintenance responsibility but our residents still drive it. These businesses
in the industrial park still have to use it. With some of the things that we're
doing with Lake Drive and Park Road and such, is it compatible to leave a rural
II section there which is in bad condition and with it's drainage problems there
when we have nice urban roadways that tie into it? That's more or less a
philosophy question or policy question but it will continue to worsen but it's
the County's responsibility to continue to maintain it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike? Richard.
' Councilman Wing: Don, could I ask for myself that we table this just to one
meeting only so that I can get myself educated. I'm kind of lost here and
I apologize for that but I really need to get up to date on what this is and
II the ramifications.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think is going to, this won't, this will be probably back
until May 18th. Does that make any difference as far as any of the construction
activities?
Charles Folch: Well, if we brought this back on the 18th, as you know this
II project plans have pretty well been designed. I think what we were hoping to do
is basically get approval and as a formality authorize the preparation of plans
and specs even though they have been pretty well completed from the previous
II stage. What we could do on the 18th, is if you felt comfortable with ordering
the project, we'd also do the next step which would be approving plans and specs
and with that we would basically then push back the completion schedule from
around the first of October to probably the third week in October. If we lose
18
11
City Council fleeting - April 27, 1992 1
any more ground than that, as you can see from this past winter, we could be
pushing our luck a little bit.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One other question that I had in conjunction with that.
How will this affect the industrial development area with traffic flow in and ,
out? How are we going to address that?
Charles Folch: Basically the portion of CR 17, south of TH 5 would be closed.
The industrial park, the area, Chan Lakes Business Park would have to take
access from either Park, I believe it's Park Drive which comes off of TH 5 and
then also Audubon. They'd have to come in that direction and the businesses
along.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking about the employees getting into United Mailing
and Victory Envelope? 1
Charles Folch: Yeah, they would be able to get in from Park Road. The two
other accesses off of TH 5. Park, Park Drive and Audubon. I believe there's
one property along on the east side that we would have to maintain access to
probably coming up from Lake Orive. We would try, either coming down south from
TH 5 we would have to maintain access to but basically the majority of the road
would be closed. But there are alternative routes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We had a suggestion. Does anyone want to make a motion?
Councilwoman Oimler: If I may say, I would recommend against tabling because
I'm ready to vote on it.
Councilman Wing: I'd be happy with that. It's just if there's going to be... 1
I'd like to extend it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? If there's no other discussion. And 1
I think I brought it up last time about the concerns I had with this and no
sense in reiterating my position as I did last time.
Councilman Workman: Well I think the Council's having a hard time trying to ,
understand why we're doing this at this time. I asked how old the road was. It
doesn't appear as though it's that old. Yeah, there's some alligatoring and
some other things. If Instant Webb and companies don't have to pay for it, see
we're using TIF, well then they don't have a problem with it. But TIF isn't
free either. The issue of this section of roadway has kind of popped up as a
really why. And alligatoring doesn't quite do it I think. And so we're trying
to figure out maybe the larger scope of what's, of where we were. You know we
talk about the history of the project but we started in 1990 and the road was
built in 1976. The Instant Webb Companies haven't been there that long. They
haven't been there since the early 80's right? So maybe we're using this corner
and the trucks are eating the road up harder than we imagined. Is this, are we
doing this right now because of really what major problems, and I know what
you're saying about the poor quality and how we have poor soil. Do we have a
further drainage problem? I guess you're sort of saying that too but we're not,
is it an emergency type situation? Or are we doing it so that we have every
intersection in town torn up? Or because we're working on the north side, we
may as well be working on the south side? The County, don't patch it up. Don't
19 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
do this. Don't do that but we're not going to give you any money to do it.
1 It's kind of one of those projects that's all of a sudden popped up. It's very
expensive and we don't really see, we really see why Minnewashta Parkway is
getting upgraded. That wasn't. But we don't quite, I'm speaking for the whole
II Council. I shouldn't be doing that. I don't quite understand the urgency and
maybe we have more costs if we don't do it now.
Charles Folch: I guess I would tend to agree. It's not an emergency situation
1 to do this improvement. I think as a whole, this community can see that the
main line arterial roadway system is being improved. As a part of that, the
city has undertaken a number of projects over the last couple years to improve
' what would be considered frontage road type service roads for this, for TH 5 so
people basically could, we don't need to actually get out onto TH 5. To make
use of other thoroughfares to traverse across the community. I think it becomes
II a question of, not an emergency so much as is this an opportune time to do it
based on what resources we have available? The Eastern Carver County Study,
which was recently completed, basically eludes to the fact that over the next,
well through the next 10 years, the next decade that that CR 17 will support and
1 have to support a greater and greater volume of traffic through the area. As
you mentioned, industrial parks make use of it. Certainly it may be argued that
the heavy truck traffic, combination of that and then the poor soils have tend
to decrease the life expectency of that roadway. Yes, it's technically not that
old but maybe it's original construction wasn't up to snuff. It's very
difficult to expect full life out of a roadway if you're not taking care of the
subsoils beneath the roadway. It's kind of like putting a bridge over a mud
1 hodge podge if you will. The problem lies underneath. It's not so much the age
or traffic per se as it is the problems underneath that weren't taken care of
initially. And part of that comes from being a rural section also. It's very,
1 very important to take care of drainage and get the runoff off the pavement as
quick as you can and get it into the storm collection systems. That does a
wonder to increase the life expectency of a roadway system when you go to an
urban section. So I think it's more of, it's just an opportune time to do this
with the resources we have available.
Councilwoman Dimler: One more question. I see that the subject here is a
II public hearing on the feasibility study so I assume that feasibility study has
been done.
Charles Folch: It was completed originally in 1990 and being that the project
was not initiated within 1 year of it's previous ordering, we basically have to
go through the formality of, what we've done is basically prepared an update
II which updates the elements of the improvement project and revised costs and
assessment rolls and presented that to you at the previous March 23rd Council
meeting and it's a formality that we need to go through to reinitiate it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay now. Have we had a public hearing?
Charles Folch: That was tonight basically.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: This is the public hearing. And no one came to your
informational meeting?
II Mayor Chmiel: No.
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Councilwoman Disler: It doesn't look like there's a whole lot of interest in
this. I would make a motion that we deny the authorization of preparation for
t plans and specifications for Project No. 90 -4.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1
Councilwoman Disler: It's your move.
Councilman Mason: I'll second it for just a little further discussion. 1
Councilman Workman: Ursula, do you want to kill it?
Councilwoman Dialer: Yeah, I think it's premature. I think the soil problems
existed 17 years ago when it was done. Somebody screwed up. I just don't see
putting that kind of money into it right now when it's not an emergency. We
have other roads, I mean like Minnewashta Parkway went for how many years?
Frontier Trail went for 25 years you know. I just don't see it as an emergency.
And like I said, the money is really, it's not free. We tend to think of it as
free when it's TIF but it's not free.
Mayor Chmiel: Oftentimes it is ways of us not taxing the residents within the
community. Utilizing that TIF.
Councilwoman Disler: That's right. I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: ...dollars are being moved from one point to another. Still 1
there is a taxing dollar. Mike.
Councilman Mason: For the sake of argument, the comment that Charles made about ,
other roads along TH 5 are being upgraded. They're all pretty nice. CR 17
isn't going to look nice and it does look kind of trashy down there.
Councilwoman Disler: A lot of it was done earlier right. How about Galpin?
Councilman Mason: Well that's coming. I mean that whole stretch at some point.
And maybe the issue is if we don't do it now, when? I'm throwing that out. I'm
not convinced.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, TH 5 will be growing and extending all the way to TH 41. 1
The balance of those intersections will be addressed and they'll have to. If
you look at CR 17 on the south portion or the south side of that, the curbing in
some areas are there and some of it isn't. Some that is there is already some
deterioration to them. But not saying that it can't be fixed accordingly but
yet what's the best way for us really to go. Proceed with this proposal as we
have it before us or, in our infinite wisdom is sitting up here and knowing all,
as we're supposed to, guess again. What's really the best way for us to move?
I think that's, Tom?
Councilman Workman: Well, if the so called, or the alleged assessed properties 1
have the tax advantage, the tax increment advantage now, they'll have it down
the road also. I'm assuming.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Workman: And so it does sort of become a matter of, are we going to
II build a more expensive road down in the future? I was one, I know I was one
that was hoping that the County would build a whole jail and justice center
because down the road you knew it was going to be sore expensive. This is maybe
' something like that. I guess your motion is a little strong for me. I guess
I'd like maybe to give staff a better opportunity to sell this to me. This
project for some reason, since the very beginning kind of popped up and it's not
your fault Charles. Kind of popped up and we didn't know where it popped up
II from or why and we still aren't sure why and maybe we can get a better idea on
the Wednesday night meeting we've coming up or something because I don't want to
make a wrong decision and just put it off into the future.
II Councilwoman Dialer: Well see I also don't like to assume, although most costs
go up, there are times when the bidding climate is better than in the past so
you know, I don't really like to count on. Sometimes it's better in the future.
Sometimes it's better and if it's not an emergency, let's hope for a better
time. An option.
11 Councilman Workman: And I can go along with your motion and still be sold by
staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Let me just interject something here. If we don't put
this in now and we do look at this maybe 5 years down the road, costs escalation
on that project is probably going to go up anywhere 10% per year.
II Councilwoman Oimler: It could go down.
Mayor Chmiel: It's highly unlikely. I'd love to see it but there again, you'd
be adding another $500,000.00 over and above what's existing. I too would like
to see us re- review this and to come back with additional kinds of information
so it would be, so I'd really feel comfortable making my motion in relationship
' to this just exactly what Tom is saying. I think that by delaying this, it
could be a benefit to it and as you all know, I'm not all the keen on spending
too much money where it shouldn't be spent but in this particular case, with
that intersection, I would like to try to do that to see how it could fit into
II the total project.
Councilwoman Dimler: To me there's not any safety problems that I'm aware of at
II that intersection.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dialler: See so that's another.
Mayor Chmiel: It's signalized so there's not that problem.
II Councilwoman Disler: Those are all reasons why I think we could wait.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other
discussions? You look like you want to say something Michael.
Councilman Mason: I seconded the motion for discussion. I don't want to get a
rib if I go against my seconding of the motion.
22
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh you can do that. '
{ Mayor Chmiel: You can vote against your motion even if you seconded it.
Whatever your pleasure.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to den y the authorization
for preparation of plans and specifications for the County Road 17 Improvements
South of TH 5, Project 90 -4. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed
and Councilman Wing who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of ' to 4.
Mayor Chmiel: It still has to have 4/5. Either to kill it or proceed. 1
Roger Knutson: It take 4/5 vote to approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: What does it take to kill it? A simple majority? '
Don Ashworth: But then what is an abstention?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a no vote.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a no vote. Well no, if he abstains. ,
Roger Knutson: You need 3 positive votes to kill it.
Mayor Chmiel: If you abstain that means it's. '
Councilwoman Dimler: A no vote.
Councilman Wing: Well, how do I get out from under that? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't. ,
Mayor Chmiel: We had a motion on the floor and we had, can I have a hand signal
indicating those who voted aye. We have one, two three., Okay.
Don Ashworth: That's sufficient.
Mayor Chmiel: That's all we need. 1
Don Ashworth: Is there any instruction to staff as to when this would come
back? I've heard some Council members say, well this can either way it can be
brought back.
Mayor Chmiel: It would have to be brought back by the majority vote if it
wanted to be brought back for discussion. ,
Don Ashworth: Treating it as a reconsideration which means that someone who is
voting on the prevailing side will have to request it. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Roger Knutson: You'd have to have the public hearing.
23 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: You'd have to have one more public hearing and redo it all over
II again. Right.
Councilman Mason: So I can make a motion now to ask them to study this further?
1 Councilwoman Gisler: You don't have to make a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: No. You'd have to ask that it be brought back and be discussed
II further.
Councilwoman Dimler: But staff can go ahead and study it without a motion and
then ask one of us to bring it back.
Councilman Wing: But they've already studied it.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess one of the confusing points was where did
this proposal come from? Who's the initiator? Who's behind it? We're not real
sure. Before we spend this kind of money I'd like to know who's initiating it.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Julius?
1 Julius Smith: Historically, as I understand it, this project was initially
proposed 2 years ago and at that time it was more or less just kind of died
because TH 5 construction. It was always thought of as tying it into the TH 5
construction as I recall Don. And so I think that's why it came up at this
1 time. I think everybody's sort of, certainly my clients expected it to come up
at this time when TH 5 was going in. I might just add, see it's easy for me to
talk because I have some TIF credits. But it's far more than a road project. I
mean you're building trailways and sewer and water and storm sewer and you're
taking care of some drainage problems that sooner or later have got to, you know
they've got half of Instant Webb taken care of and not the other half. I mean
1 it was always assumed that when TH 5 came through, this project would be
II completed. So the roadway is a big part of it but it's certainly not all of it.
And of course it's interesting to note in the updated study that there's about a
35% to 40% increase in cost in 2 years. I mean it went from a million dollars
1 to almost a million four. So it's a significant jump. But I think from a
historical perspective, that's why the project kind of died in 1990 because the
highway was delayed. We all thought the highway would be long finished by this
I time. But I think that was the reason. It sort of died. When the highway was
going to be signalized, and the Highway Department builds 100 feet on each side
of TH 5 so they're going to be building 100 feet down CR 17. The Highway
I Department will. This is just carrying that on through the bridge to get down
to Lake Avenue. That's how I think it was.
Councilwoman Dimler: So was MnDot behind the proposal to begin with?
1 Julius Smith: Well, MnOot I suppose doesn't care whether you build it or not.
They are going to build 100 feet on each side of TH 5...and as I understood it,
1 the City project just takes it from that 100 feet south under the bridge to take
Avenue. Lake Street or whatever that is.
Mayor Chmiel: Lake Drive.
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Don Ashworth: If I may. Mr. Smith is correct. I did meet with both Mr. Beddor
and Mr. Carlson. They talked about some of the problems they were having. We
talked about, we really couldn't do this thing until we could tie in with TH 5
and it just simple made sense for them to be able to get the signals in the full 11 width and then we could carry it from there. The other part of course was down
by Lake Drive where again you have that big hump in the road and that needed to
be in place for a 2 to 3 year period of time to solidify those soils. I won't
tell you that it couldn't do for another few years. The other road that I would
look at is Audubon. When McGlynn came in, that road I'm sure has had some
additional years in it but if people will remember back, in terms of driving it,
it was not the best image of Chanhassen. You drive that roadway today, and by
the way there's still trees that need to be planted along that roadway and that
project is still open. But I mean it's a nice asset for our community. Putting
this to an urban section means that those ditches can be filled. The landowners
can have a typical abutting property. You can put trees in there. You can take
and have a walkway area. They can have street lighting that they don't have.
You go anywhere else in the business park, this is nice. People can see where
they're going. You go into that section, you can't see where you are at night
because there's no street lights. You can't put them anywhere because you can't
put them into a ditch. So there is.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand what you're saying but you know I still have
last Monday's meeting in my mind. When the taxpayers were all here and I
thought I don't want to forget that. And I can just hear the uproar out there
saying, why are we spending this money? Why are we spending this money? And I
can't justify this project, I'm sorry.
Councilman Workman: See I'm confused because in 1990 we did get some resistance
from those property owners if I remember. That's when they thought it was their
money.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. ,
Councilman Workman: Now it's our money. Easy for the city to spend other
people's money but when it comes to be our money and it's $1.4 million, and I
don't quite have the feeling for the project that I should, that's when I want
to be a little bit cautious. I did vote, I was part of the prevailing so I can
perhaps bring it back up but I'd like to sit down with Charles. I've got a list
of things with you Charles but sit down and get a little better handle on all
that.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT BOATS MOORED IN
FRONT OF LAKE FRONT PARCELS BE OWNED AND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE LAKE
FRONT-PROPERTY OWNER.
Public Present:
•
Name Address '
Jacie Hurd President, Lotus Lake Homeowners Assn.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in January you passed an ordinance that affected where ,
a boat can be dock, moored and where the dock can be placed. At that time you
25 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
11
had reconsidered a provision in the ordinance that didn't specifically address
' that but pertained to ownership of boats docked on those piers. The original
ordinance limit the boat dockage to the owners' boats. The owners of the
properties. The change that you adopted at the last minute, or the Council
inserted at the second reading I guess it was, would have opened that to other
' people docking on those piers with the written permission of the property owner.
That ordinance is now in place and in effect. There was some concern raised
that that has the potential for opening the door for abuse. That there may be
situations where people start renting dock space with commensurate impacts on
lake frontages and public streets. And staff was asked to bring back an
amendment that kind of turned back the clock on that session. To bring back the
' requirement that those boats be owned by the property owner. we've done that.
This is not a portion of the Zoning Ordinance per se. It's the watercraft
ordinance thus the public hearing and adoption together are held at the City
Council. We hope that this does what you were looking for and we'd recommend
11 that you take action on it.
Mayor Chmiei: Yeah it is and I think that my main concern was being that if
there is anything that is, any watercraft that's moored or dock in the name of a
blood relative of the owner, that be at that particular location rather than
doing what you just recently said. Renting out dockage to anyone that'd like to
put their boat there. Before I go any further, let's open this up for
discussions and then we can come back. Please come forward. State your name
and your address.
Jacie Hurd: My name is Jacie Hurd. I live at 6695 Horseshoe Curve and I'm -
President of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. I've been before you before
about this and I just want to reiterate my support of the proposed change in the
language of this ordinan. I think that limitin mooring rights to iparian
I owners is consistent with ce the goal of keeping of improving the safety r and }
quality of the city's lakes and I'd like to thank you.
Mayor Chmiei: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one else, can I have
a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimmer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiei: Can I have a motion, or is there discussion? Do you want to
discuss something Tom?
Councilman Workman: I want to ask the attorney if he has a problem with the
word blood relative. If I'm an adopted son or something, do we have a problem?
Roger Knutson: By operation of law, you're then considered a blood relative if
you're adopted. You have the same rights.
Councilman Wing: I'm on the fire department and blood relative doesn't scare
me. Why blood versus family member. Why was that a choice? I'm just curious.
Roger Knutson: Primarily because that's a term that was used here and it is a
term of our's that's defineabie. It you can look it up in any dictionary and
1 26
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
I did just to make sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. '
Councilwoman Dialer: Second.
Councilman Workman coved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first 1
reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 6 -27(b) of the Chanhassen City
Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: MARKET SQUARE 72' STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90 -13.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Where'd Charles go? 1
Councilman Mason: I'd move, can you just move approval?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet. ,
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: We've gone through this. Thank you Charles. We appreciate that.
Resolution 992 -55: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman 'limier seconded to
award the Market Square Storm Sewer and Road Improvement Project No. 90 -13
contract to Ryan Contracting Company, Inc. in the amount of $149,759.70. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
AWARD OF BIDS: MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90 -15
(CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13. 1992).
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Wayne Brown, Brown & Cris 19740 Kenrick, Lakeville
Von Bergstrom, Imperial Developers 9001 Grand Avenue South
Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Kevin Cudahy 3900 Stratford Ridge
Greg Datiilo Red Cedar Point Road
Charles Folch: Basically, as you recall, this award of bids was tabled at the
cast meeting to allow staff and the Council an opportunity to take a closer look
at the issues and elements involved in deciding between a 6 foot and an 8 foot
trail. What I tried to do in ay staff report is just outline some of the pros
and cons that staff is aware of. I'm going with both the 6 foot and an 8 foot
trail. I guess the bottom line is we can construct either width trail. We can
construct a 6 foot trail. We can construct an 8 foot trail. The only thing to
be aware of or issue to be aware of is the additional cost that would be
involved in doing the wider trail and potentially environmental impacts as far
as tree loss, etc.. Basically we'll leave it up for Council discussion and ,
27 11
1
II City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
decisions. We can certainly build either one. It's a matter of what apparently
appears to be most appropriate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think one of the concerns were of some
' discussion having pedestrians and bicycles on that walkway. That would allow
that much more space for them but I'm not sure that I'd like to see bicycles on
that walkway with people walking at the same time. Especially the numbers I've
seen walking on that street in years past. I guess bicycles could use it.
Probably maybe when no one else is walking, I don't know. But it bothers me a
little bit in having bikes on that same path at the same time people are
walking. Not that people aren't cautious but sometimes when you do get people
' driving their kids or whatever, it could cause a problem. But I guess I'm not
in opposition to either or as long as it doesn't take out more trees and cost us
justifiably more dollars to accommodate this. And my understanding is it's not
going to do that. So with that, is there anyone wishing to address this from
' the Minnewashta Parkway? Is there anybody here? This isn't a public hearing
but just to get sort of a feel. If there's someone who has an objection or not
an objection. I'd like to hear that. Please state your name and your address.
Wayne Brown: Wayne Brown. I'm with Brown & Cris. Mr. Mayor and Council, I
have kind of a selfish interest. I happen to be the low bidder if we have an 8
foot path and my friend, Von Bergstrom back here is low bidder if it goes to 6
foot path. And so I wanted to point out just a few things if I could here.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you caned him your friend yet.
Wayne Brown: We are friends and we'll be friends no matter who gets the job
here and that's part of it. I would like to, number one was cost. What I've
done is gone through in kind of a hurriedly way but these figures are pretty
accurate. I have the cost laid out as to what it would cost to go the b foot
path, an 8 foot path and I've got what I call an 8 foot path by saving the
11 trees. I'll try to explain this very quickly because I don't want to take a lot
of time here on this but the base bid is the number shown there and the cost is
the original estimate for this project was $1.6 million. Fortunately the bids
came in a lot cheaper as competition is pretty tough these days and we're way
under the estimate and so the actual cost on the base bid originally was like
$875.00. Now these are numbers that I've got kind of second hand but I think
they're pretty accurate. Based on this project, 80% is paid by the State Aid
and 20% is assessed back to the homeowners. So the cost figures out on the base
bid of, let's see does someone else want a copy here? A cost on the base bid
would be $731.00 for round numbers. The State Aid pays for a 5 foot path. They
1 don't pay for a full 6 or 8 or whatever and so the additional portion of that
path has to be paid for fully by the homeowners. So on the base bid there's an
additional $33.18 and the total then is $764.00. With the alternate bid, the
cost as you can see is $753.00. The original path of 2209, taking Brown & Cris'
bid which was bid at a $1.00 instead of a $1.50 a square foot makes that
cheaper. And then the additional 2 feet is like $28.76. These numbers are
based on 366 homes in the area there and as you can see, that cost comes out to
11 $804.00. That's if the bid were awarded as bid on the alternate. And I have
another cost laid out here because I think there's a better way without taking
trees and I call it the save the trees cost. And anyway, the bottom line come
out the same way. It's $794.00 which is $30.00 more per household for an 8 foot
path over a 6 foot path or to take the trees out, you could be at $804.00. Now
1 28
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
I've got another pass out here because I'm not the best talker in the world but
I can give you some pictures. This is a typical section of the plans showing
the 6 foot path as shown on the plans. I've shown where the roadway. Then
there's an area between the roadway and the path which is 4 feet of green area.
That green is a path by the way but closer to the road there's a 4 foot green
area. Then there's a 1 foot area between the retaining wall and then you have
the retaining wall. And the reason, this is typical. This is about 348 feet of
wall which is the longest section we have out there. Totally there is about 866
feet of retaining wall to be put in. This is the only critical areas of the
pathway system. The rest of the, it's about an 7,000 foot path and so about 13%
of the path,is in a .critical area where the room is just very small because of
the retaining wall and trying to save the trees. So what I'm suggesting to do,
because there's a 1 foot area between the retaining wall, to move the path. To
put an 8 foot path in. Don't take out any sore trees. Don't build any more
retaining walls. Put it in the same right -of -way and move it 1 foot closer to
the retaining wall and 1 foot closer to the blacktop which would give you a 3
foot green area on 866 feet. The rest of the area, the 87% of the path would be
a full 4 feet from the roadway and still have the same green area. And so that
explains why I think you can do one of two things. Either you can put an 8 foot
path, move the retaining walls back, take out the trees or you can save the
trees and make the path fit into this area here. So that explains the size of
the path that I think an 8 foot will fit in there. The other factor is the
State of Minnesota, this is a State Aid project and the State of Minnesota has a
MnOot bikeway design manual showing the dimensions of a bike path. Now this is
strictly a bike path and let me pass this out to you here. If you would turn to
the back sheet, I've circled it in red. This is the section that applies to the I/
dimensions of an off road bikeway approaching roadway sections. It shows the
minimum bike path width is 8 feet. They show, they prefer a 10 foot path but
the minimum includes the provision for pedestrians but you can have two bikes
meeting 4 feet, each taking 4 feet of the path. Two bikes can meet on this
roadway so it's a 2 way path for both pedestrians and bikes. I called the State
of Minnesota, talked to Greg Padis who is the head of the bikeway design and his
comment to me was the absolute minimum width for a bike path is 8 feet.
Anything less is a sidewalk. You need 4 feet on each side for a bike to go two
ways. That was his statement to me and from what I've learned is that Hennepin
County has adopted that bikeway design manual. Host municipalities have done
so. I know you haven't done that out here but this is a typical design for a
bikeway. I have one more handout here I'd like to give you. This happens to be
from the City of Eden Prairie. Doug Ernst is the foreman for parks and trails
I/
and he's in charge of the snowplowing and maintenance. To go through this
briefly, Eden Prairie has well over 50 miles of 8 foot trails and they have a
few 6 foot paths. They use a pick -up truck with a Western Plow that measures 7
1/2 feet. When it angles it's 7 feet. And it works great not only for plowing
but it also does intersections and driveways, which is very important because it
just doesn't push the snow back out into the roadway where the cars, where the
streets have already been plowed. And on a 6 foot path, they have purchased a
548,000.00, he called it a German machine with a V plow. I don't know what the
name was but it's a German machine. It's 4 feet wide. It does not work to
clean intersections or driveways and it just dumps the snow on the street and
the Street Department's unhappy with it. In the report, which I'd like to refer
to too, it says that there's sod that is torn up. I have drive several miles of
bikeways in Eden Prairie in the last few days. I found very, very few areas
where actually the snow plowing had torn up the sod but it does happen and it's
29 1
11
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
• .1
something that would happen with either machine. The other problem is
' maintenance. Sealcoat is required to maintain paths just like your streets. If
you don't seal them, pretty soon they're going to deteriorate. Wone of the
equipment is available and Eden Prairie has never patched or seal coated any of 1
their paths because the regular equipment that fits on the streets cannot be
I used for this. They do it to the 8 footpath and this is something that will
have to be done. Another comment from Doug Ernst said that a 6 foot path is not
safe. This was just thrown out, because the bikes will use it anyway. Walkers
II with Walkman radios can't hear them coming from behind. In other words he just
said that they would never have another 6 foot path out there. Are there any
questions on what I've covered and then the only thing I have left to do is
' maybe go through the pros and cons a little bit on the report that was given to
the Council members.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Ursula.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes Mr. Brown, I'm looking at your assessment cost per
home and I want to make absolutely sure I understand it. The original cost per
home was $875.00.
Wayne Brown: That was an estimated cost, right.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And you're saying that you can put in the 8 foot
trail for $794.74?
II Wayne Brown: That's correct, without putting in more retaining walls or taking
out more trees. Now that option is still maybe a viable one and that would only
cost another $10.00 more.
II Councilwoman Dimler: So the homeowner will not be charged any extra. They'll
actually be paying less than they originally were estimated.
II Wayne Brown: No, it's going to be less. It will be, you know it's $75.00 or
more less than what the original.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Because I don't want to be, you know cost more to the
homeowner. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Wayne Brown: No. If anything I'm high on these numbers because when I backed
in the trail cost there, I left some stuff in there so if anything it's a couple
three dollars high.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Also, can you assure me that the entire 8 foot path
will fit completely into the right -of -way plus save the trees plus allow for the
retaining wall?
Wayne Brown: That's right. Absolutely. There are a couple areas that you may
have to maybe infringe over 2 1/2 feet from the roadway instead of the 3 feet.
1 Depending on how it stakes out in the field.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, but it will be in the right -of -way? You won't
require the purchase of extra right -of -way?
1 30
1
City Council fleeting - April 27, 1992 1
Wayne Brown: No. The 6 foot or the 8 foot path will fit in the same easement
or shoulder together. Either one will fit in there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Don Ashworth: May I ask a question? In your cost estimates, did you include,
did you just divide then what would be the base bid by the number of homes or
did you add in? I mean typically we have administration, bonding, costs of
undergrounding electrical. Typically you're up to 30 -35% as an add on to a base
bid. Does this number?
Wayne Brown: This number includes only the amount of the bids. 20% of the
total bid is assessed against it you know plus the additional path. I think, 1
may I ask the question? The original estimate, that must have been done the
same thing. That's what I based it on because the original estimate, if it was
$875.00 and the estimate was a $1.6 million, it would have come out the same
number so.
Don Ashworth: Well Charles can respond but I'm sure that's not the case.
Charles Folch: No, that's not the case. The original estimate was correct, a
construction estimate but as Don had pointed out, the additional costs
associated with the project, administration, electrical type things, add on
about 30 -35% to the construction costs which yielded a total project cost which
divided by, well basically 20% of that divided by the number of units deriving
benefit from the improvement determine the previous assessment number that was
given. This is just based on a construction cost. This doesn't incorporate any
of the additional administration costs.
Don Ashworth: But my point though is, we don't know if adding, going with the 8
foot is going to produce a higher cost to the homeowners. We do know that the
bids were very favorable but we've also taken some other hits that were higher.
Cost of burying electrical for example. So I can't tell you that it's going to
be more or less and I don't think the representative from Brown & Cris can
either. We won't know until all of the numbers are in but we do know that there
is a higher cost associated with the 8 foot bikeway.
I/
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, Don are you saying that the extra cost though are
going to be in the 80% that the city pays or are you talking about adding those
costs onto what the residents have to pay? 1
Don Ashworth: Well as I understand it Bill is, since the State is only paying
for 5 feet, any additional costs are going to go solely to the property owners.
So I mean, he's going to pay 100% of those additional costs.
Wayne Brown: And I've shown those on here. Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: And you're still coming in at least than what was
originally estimated.
31 1
1
1 'City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Wayne Brown: Oh absolutely. I don't know what the administrative costs are and
that would not change. This is based strictly on the amount of the contract and
I don't know what the City adds onto that. I wouldn't know what that would be.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was going to ask Bill. There were a couple statements
that Mr. Brown had made and I just wanted some clarification. Areas where we'd
infringe on another half foot or so. Can all this 8 foot trail be accommodated
in that right -of -way without bothering or cutting additional trees? Maybe you
could come up to the sic there.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor. The reason the 8 foot trail was bid was because
' the Public Works Department had requested an alternate bid because they felt
that it'd be easier to maintain. That they could reduce their maintenance
costs. We accommodated that request and as such we provided the alternate bid.
The alternate bid lays out the additional trees that we felt in all likelihood
would be taken. We felt that you would have to have additional walls to
accommodate that 8 foot trail and we felt that you'd have to naturally have more
blacktop and more rock and more excavation and we said those out in the
alternate bid. That's what the alternate bid was comprised of. The amount that
Brown & Cris, for example bid on tha alternate bid was roughly $35,000.00. Now
that is the amount I think that you have to look at. Whether we save trees or
' not, if we save the trees, that's going to be a plus on our side later down the
road. But I think your decision has to be based on the actual bid and based on
the quantities that were bid and what we think the contractor's going to take
' out. If we can save the wall, if we don't put as much wall in, it's by the unit
so we don't pay for it and we would save that money. But up front we have to
look at what the actual bid was. Now we wouldn't have put in, Charles and I
discussed this numerous times during the design and we wouldn't have put the 8
1 foot in if we felt it couldn't be built. We would have said no, we can't build
the 8 foot trail and we would have left it out of the bid but we felt it could
be built. We felt it could be built within the confines of the right -of -way and
any easements that we are requesting to take up there and so that's why the
alternate bid was included. But there will be additional costs. Just for
clarification too, on the assessment costs per home so that nobody gets the
wrong idea here. You have to take your bid amount, whether it's the base bid or
the alternate bid and multiply that by 1.3 -1.35. That gives you total project
cost. Then you take that total project cost and multiply that by 20 %. 20% has
to be assessed. A minimum of 20 %. We have 536 units up there. Not 366. And
so the estimate based on the $1.6 million construction costs per unit was
roughly $751.00 I think is what we ultimately came out at. If you're going to
build the 8 foot trail, I think what Mr. Brown here has demonstrated is that
1 you're going to have an increase in costs. That increase in cost is going to be
$19.00 to $20.00 to $25.00 additional on there but because we have very
favorable bids and we're way below the estimate, you're not going to see all of
that. But we want to bury the power now and do some things to get the whole
II project complete up there so we're probably still Looking at about the $751.00
when we get all done.
Councilwoman Dimler: The burying of the power was not in the original plan?
Bill Engelhardt: No, because that's strictly NSP or the power companies thing
' and they will move the poles at no cost to us. And we felt that in looking at
the dollar amount for that kind of money to bury the power, at that time it was
' 32
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
just out of the ballpark.
Councilman Wing: Bill, is it a clear issue at this point then that if we choose
an 8 foot trail that Brown is the low bidder?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes. There's no question about that. And if you go with the 1
base bid, Imperial Developers would be the low bidder. That's not an uncommon
thing. I've had any bids that way and it's simply because the types of
quantities that were bid as the alternate, blacktop, retaining walls, crushed
rock, if you look at Brown & Cris' bid versus Imperial's bid, those unit prices
for those particular items were a little bit lower. They'd pull back and forth
and so when the alternate came in, Imperial had $42,000.00 increase in cost for
the 8 foot. Brown & Cris had $35,000.00 and on a $1.3 million we had a
$1,300.00 difference which is pretty tight bidding. I think we got, it makes no
difference as far as the contractor goes. Either contractor, we've worked with
them both. The City has had both of them as contractors in the community and
both of them have done excellent work. So from the contractor's standpoint,
there's no problem with either contractor.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other comments?
Wayne Brown: One comment on my end here and I guess I'll be open for more
questions but, the real issue gets down to whether you want a 6 foot or an 8
foot path. And the 6 foot is a walking path and an 8 foot is a bike path. And
you can't tell me there aren't going to be bicycles out on that path, whether
it's called a walking path, a sidewalk or whether it's a bike path. I think
that's the issue, thanks.
Von Bergstrom: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Von Bergstrom. I'm with 1
Imperial Developers. I was impressed by Mr. Brown and the homework that he had
done. If we came to you to bid a job with an alternate and a base bid, and it
being laid out as so many trees would be taken under one, so many under another
and not come up and change it in the middle of the game. You know I could have
gone out to the homeowner and said hey, the City's going to start taking more
trees, which is proposed under the alternate. But I didn't choose to do that.
I just came to you right now. Now we've enjoyed a great working relationship,
as Mr. Brown has and I appreciate consideration of the bids that were turned in
and we just want an answer. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate it.
Dave Headia: My name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I
got a call Friday night from a gentleman who wanted to talk about the 6 foot
versus 8 foot trail system. I didn't realize it was coming up before the
Council tonight and we spent quite a bit of time talking about the width. Being
a trusting person, I went out the next day and started measuring trails. I find
that, like Eden Prairie has 8 foot trails. Almost predominantly, 8 and 10 foot
trails. If we plan to hook up with them, I'd like to see all 8 foot trails. I
called MnOot today and their position, if you have a two way bike trail, they
want to see 8 foot minimum. Let's see. And then I'm under the impression,
and I talked to Bill about it. Now they can put in the system, the 8 foot
trails but we do not have to move the retaining wall back and lose any more
trees. The gentleman was pretty firm on that. I did talk to a third party who
33
1
*City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
didn't get the bid but he spoke very well of the gentlemen who did beat hi* out
I and thought if they said they could do something, they'd have every reason to
believe they could do it. And today I talked to a mother over at Eden Prairie
that she does quite a bit of biking. She has a 7 year old son and even on an 8
II foot trail, when the two of them meet someone else coming against them, somebody
gives way and goes on the boulevard or goes off it. An 8 foot just isn't that
wide. On snow removal, I guess I'd kind of like to, that was interesting what
Mr. Brown had to say. I didn't realize there was other equipment and there
I
might be a cost advantage on going to an 8 foot where you could get the Jeep in
there or a blade. And another comment is, if I can't let my 7 year old grandson
ride on the trail over to like Stratford Ridge where they've got kids that are
II young, why in the heck do we even want the trail? Forget the trail. Let's just
leave Minnewashta Parkway the same way it is. So I really want to see an 8 foot
trail and I don't understand these 10 %, 80 %. I understand that if it's going to
' cost me less than $50.00 more. I understand it's less than $50.00 more. I'm
for it and I've talked to some of the neighbors. Some are here and I haven't
found anybody who would prefer the 6 foot over the 8 foot or who is really
fighting the extra assessment. Thank you.
II Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, I think one thing needs to be clarified on these.
Everybody's referring to MnOot trails. MnOot trails, if you were going to build
II a bikeway. That's a separate department or separate unit in MnOot. They
• require an 8 foot. We're talking about something completely different here.
We're talking about a pedestrian walkway. Basically a sidewalk that's going to
I accommodate both. I've got plans signed by 14 people at MnOot so obviously it
was done correctly. Is an 8 foot safer than a 6 foot? I'd have to say yes
because obviously you've got 2 feet additional blacktop but just for
clarification, that MnDot is something completely different.
II Kevin Cudahy: Kevin Cudahy from 3900 Stratford Ridge. A few things to cover.
First of all I think we have to realize that, as mentioned, we're dealing with a
I concern generally stemming from about 13% of the total length of the way. I
think that as we sit here and I'm sure that anyone here can tell you they don't
know exactly what that width is going to be. Once it goes to 8 feet, if they
II have 6 inches to the wall. If they have 18 inches to the wall or if it's a true
4 feet to the road. I think that's something that the 2 of them will have to
work out at the time. If that means that it's 3 1/2 feet instead of 4. If it
means that it's 7 1/2 feet instead of 8 feet on this bikeway /walkway, I think
I those are comprimises that may be able to be made out on location. But overall
I know that we sat out here and had a really heated discussions last Fall and I
can tell you as a homeowner that I think there was expectations of safety and
I expectations of, you know this is a bike path. It's more than a walking path
and come to find out we'd all be disappointed if in fact it was 6 feet and we
weren't successful at really getting what we wanted to get which was some safety
for the kids. I haven't found a lot of people that I've talked to that cost is
II a big deal. And I think that I speak for some of the people in our neighborhood
association that are for the extra, whatever extra assessment this would be
based off of the bids that came in lower than originally projected. Personally
II I'd only say that if on a bid of $1.3 million that there was a $1,500.00
difference which is some number far less than 1 %, that he possibly and maybe
it's just the law of the city, to step back and look at who you can work best
with because it's a statistically insignificant difference on a bid. And who's
the one who are going to get it done the best or the fastest. So that's it.
34
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Greg Datillo: Your Honor and the rest of the Board. I'm Greg Datillo at Lake
Minnewashta on Red Cedar Point Road. The one thing I just want to stress is if
{ we go to a 6 foot and we find out 6 months from now or 2 years from now or 5
years from now that we should have gone to an 8 foot because the children are
going to be the ones that are going to have to go in the street. Because right
now when a car comes by you can at least drive off in the weeds. When you've
got an 8 inch curb, the children are going to be the ones that are going to do
to the street because we're not going to get the walkers and the elderly out in
the street again. It's going to be the children in the street. And that is the
hope I have that you'll go to an 8 foot because it's the children that's going
to be the ones out on the street before anybody else and that was the whole
intention of me getting this whole thing started was to get the kids off the
street. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else. If not, we'll start at your end
Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think having a 7 year old that learned out to ride a two
wheeler without training wheels last year, I don't want her on Minnewashta
Parkway. I would just as soon see an 8 foot section there. I think while I
hear what you're saying about the bikes Don, I personally with the way I ride,
wouldn't ride on the bike path but I think kids and purely recreational cyclists
will be using that and I think yeah, I'm certainly in favor of an 8 foot path.
Councilman Workman: I have to agree with Mike. I'm glad that we have two very
good and highly respectable developers that because the cost is insignificant,
we don't have to choose one or the other. I think we have to go with the low
bidder because, in whichever case we choose, because they're both good. I
wouldn't want to get into a picking and choosing. I think it sounds like the '
{ assessment is going to remain at or below the $751.00 and I think they're going
to be getting an awful lot more. I'm about 6 feet 2 and that might seem kind of
tall to some people but if I were to lay out and that were the length of the
path, that is not very wide. If you're going 10 mph and you're... If we might
be able to maintain some decorum here. 8 foot sure makes the difference. You
• know if I were laying out, I couldn't, unless I was reaching out my arms. I
just think we're getting an awful lot more for the buck and we ought to go for
it.
Councilman Wing: It's all been said Don. My only concern was the discussion
• was always a 6 foot and it was a very sensitive project. I would sure hate to
throw an 8 foot in and have the majority say, what are you doing to us now. Has
it been publicized? Has the area been notified? Do they know we're going from
a 6 to an 8? I don't see any opposition whatsoever. I support an 8 foot. It'd
be nice if the public's notified of this change somehow and I'm sure Mr. Lapic
would intend to do that but that's not our responsibility. Is it an issue that
the public should be notified? The area assessment should be notified or is it
just too?
Mayor Chmiel: I think between the differences in cost are so minute. '
Councilman Wing: At least I'm on record of having been concerned about it.
Thank you. ,
35 1
'City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: For all the same reasons, 8 feet and it's already been
stated plus I like the idea that it's lower maintenance cost to us in the long
run. And also I did go out and measure the path on Kerber Blvd. and I have to
tell you that that is 8 feet and I think that's precedent setting in our city
' for all the main roads like TK 101 and Minnewashta Parkway and Kerber. We want
it to be consistent so 8 feet would really have to be the one that I would go
with.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question.
Councilman Workman: In the cons, the question that Ursula asked, that
everything would fit within the right -of -way but in the cons on the 8 foot
trail, I know Bill Engelhardt said that it was going to be within the right -of-
way but Charles is saying it's not. Where do we get the additional right-of-
way?
Charles Folch: Well, if you want to maintain, that statement was based on
trying to maintain a 4 foot boulevard behind the curb. If you compri *ise that
boulevard space, you wouldn't need the right -of -way.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's been compromised on Kerber too in certain
areas.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor of having an 8
I foot trail and award the bids to Brown. Wayne Brown.
Councilman Wing: That's your motion?
' Mayor Chmiel: I've thrown things all around here and go back to it. I think
the motion would be as such. I'm looking for that motion. f
Councilman Mason: I'll make that motion. I'll make a motion to approve the 8
foot path with the bid going to Brown & Cris.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: And the balance of what we have to the other successful bidder
for the road.
Charles Folch: The low bid, if you're using the alternate with 8 foot trail is
$1,379,285.05 as submitted by Brown & Cris.
' Councilman Mason: And this is the one that saves the trees?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: Wait a minute. This is split now?
1 Councilman Mason: Mo.
Councilman Wing: The bid goes to Brown?
II Mayor Chmiel: The bid goes to Brown on the total project? Clarify that Sill.
36
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Bill Engelhardt: Total project is Brown & Cris with an 8 foot trail.
Resolution 492 -56: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
award the bid for the Minnewashta Parkway Street and Storm Drainage Improvement
Project No 90 -15 with an 8 foot wide path, be awarded to Brown & Cris in the
amount of $1,379,285.05 contingent upon acquiring a signed cooperative agreement
with the City of Victoria and MnOot State Aid concurrence. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE NW1 /4 OF SECTION 10 AND THE NE1 /4 OF SECTION 9. LUNDGREN BROTHERS.
PROJECT 92 -5 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13, 1992). 1
Don Ashworth: The item was tabled at the recommendation of City staff. What I
wanted to do was just put together really a listing of everything that had been
approved by the City Council with the idea that we're trying to stay under the
$10 million arbitrage limitation that would be in effect for 1992 and 1993. 15
million per year. We are at that point by the way. We are at the point of
literally having approved close to $10 million in projects so far this year that
are underway or one stage or another. That's not necessarily bad. I mean if
Moody's wants to know that the projects are realistic and to the extent that
when we went in with bonding the actual, to obtain the proceeds for this year's
bonding, Dave will take them out and actually show them work in progress and
again that does say a good factor. As it then dealt with the Lundgren proposal,
one of the things was of concern to se was the fact that potentially the city
would be acquiring probably through condemnation approximately one -half of the
distance of the roadway and that condemnation and the associated assessments for
that part of the property would be against property that currently is within
green acres. Meaning that we would not be able to...assessments off of that
portion of the project. In light of that, it would not meet what I would refer
to as financial test which basically is to insure that we're protecting the city
in case of, we're protecting the city. An alternate to that, I did meet with
Terry Forbord and we discussed some of the alternatives. Those alternatives
included the ability of the city to continue with the public improvement in
terms of the sewer and water and those extensions going through other
properties. In other words, they could not take on those portions themselves
because they would not have the ability to take and sake the extension across
somebody else's property. We looked then at the total number of units that
would be assessed back against their property and basically again that portion i
of the project would meet the financial test that I would put in my report. As
it would deal with the roadway, what I suggested was, in fact maybe it was used
by them, as it dealt with the primary road that went through the Near Mountain
section. That is that they built 200 to 300 feet of what I'll call the primary
road.adjacent cul -de -sac which allows whatever number of homes to be constructed
in that particular year or part of the year. 30 - 40 - 50 and then the next section
of roadway was built and that recommendation were acceptable to the Planning
Commission, City Council, eventually the roadway would in fact be built over to
the Song property. We would not incur that significant expense of condemning
the Song's property, building a roadway which apparently they don't really care
to take and have and quite truthfully provide an opportunity for them to
potentially speculate at our expense... Anyway the recommendation as I've laid
them out, I believe are acceptable to Near Mountain. One of the issues that
Terry knew that I was exploring was the requirement for a letter of credit
37
1
, City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
guaranteeing the sewer and water assessments and one of the issues that we did
not talk about was what timeframe that that may exist. I think he'll tell you
you can't get letters of credit for more than a one year period of time. So
therefore a requirement until 25% of the property was built out really doesn't
' work. But we've had letters of credits before and they have gone for a longer
period of time. It's simply a matter that they have to renew it... The
requirement there was to have it set. Letter of credit stayed in place
guaranteeing assessments until at least 25% of the project were built out and
again the rationale for doing that is the fact, assuming the worst of all
economic conditions and you had to, there was actually a foreclosure on the
project itself, the City would need to know the value of those vacant lots is at
least equal to the amount of money that potentially is due to the city. Once
you start getting houses out into a project, it pretty well assures that those
land values will be higher than any level of assessments. But I would be a
little more leery if the project area were, there were no homes out there at all
' and you were kind of the first one going in so that's where that 25 %. Again I'm
not sure as to whether Mr. Forbord supports the positions I presented. I think
most of them he does. I'm sure he has comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Terry, do you have anything to address
basically what Don has said?
Terry Forbord: Pardon me Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any comments to make to basically what Don has said
in relationship to the letter of credit and any other reasonings as to what he
looked at?
I Terry Forbord: Your Honor, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros., 935 East
Wayzata Blvd Point of interest. You cannot heard hardly any comments that
the Council or staff is making from the back of the room here so a lot of us are
kind of going like this and I'm not sure if the volume can be turned up but I
was doing the best I could to read Don's lips and I think I did a pretty good
job. In theory I think we support what I believe Don said. The part that got
real unclear was the letter of credit. But I believe, I'm sure there's a way
' that we can work something out with the City to give the City the satisfaction
that they need or the security they need where they feel comfortable. There's a
number of ways that have been done before. Whether it's that particular way or
not, I think that's open for discussion. I think the issue tonight is whether
we should order the feasibility study or not and then the assessment hearings
and subsequent things like that would commence and all of those fine details
would be worked out at that time.
' Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion from Council? Tom.
Councilman Workman: So Terry, you're in favor of us doing that?
Terry Forbord: Of doing what?
1 38
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: Ordering the feasibility study. 1
•
Terry Forbord: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess as I was reading through this report I thought to
myself, oh Don oust be against this because you were giving me all the reasons
why we shouldn't go ahead at this time. And then at the end I was real surprised
to see that you were recommending it. I guess my concern is, and I've talked to
some of the other property owners out there and they wanted to be here this
evening but couldn't, and their comment was this project is going to force some
assessments on us. Is that correct? I said I don't know, I'll check. Will it
force assessments on these people out there?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: No? Okay. I have no problem with it then.
Don Ashworth: If I may clarify. That is a true statement as it deals with
Song's. Were there, and of course until you have the feasibility study in hand
you haven't identified all of the potential properties that may benefit and what
is the best way of charging the costs back. But the primary cost element is
with the road, is basically being eliminated as far as the potential cost back
over to these people. Whether or not there might be a sewer or water
assessment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. The utilities I think is what they were concerned
about.
Don Ashworth: And I, have we done preliminary analysis to the point where we'd
be comfortable? Are all of the other properties under green acres as well? I
think there's like three in total.
Charles Folch: I don't think that we've looked at that in total yet. I don't
think we've defined exactly the service area which would be the first step
before we take a look at it but I'll have an answer for that tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so essentially don't know. We could go ahead and
approve the feasibility study and then if the details come in, we can deny the
project?
Charles Folch: Yeah, that would definitely be addressed as a part of the
feasibility study. '
Mayor Chmiel: You don't know until you once get a feasibility study.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution B92-57: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for street and utility
improvements for Project No. 92 -5 for Lundgren Brothers. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
39 1
1
‘,City.Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 9 ACRES, AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION. RELOCATION AND MITIGATION OF A CLASS S
WETLAND. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF LILAC LANE AND TETON LANE, ITHILIEN
ADDITION. HILLOWAY CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Richard Bloom Representative for Applicant
Jim Fenning Applicant
Naomi Carlson 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood
Florence & Frank Natoli 6251 Teton Lane
•
Donna Pickerd Lilac Lane and Teton Lane
II _ Paul Krauss: As you indicated, the proposal calls for subdividing a 9 acre site
into 17 single family lots. It will be served by a new cul -de -sac extended from
Teton Lane. The site is zoned for single family development and is consistent
' with the use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Average lot size on this
proposal exceeds 16,000 square feet. The subdivision itself is a relatively
simple one. It's fairly well prepared. There are realty very few minor detail
changes that are necessary. Essentially all lots meet or exceed ordinance
requirements. The history of this project though is probably the more
interesting aspect. This came up as you recall during the Curry Farms
subdivision. At that time there was an ascertain by the then property owner of
this lot and others in the neighborhood that this would never develop and it had
implications from a Teton Lane upgrading. The property's gone through some
changes in ownership and now of course it is being developed. This is actually
' the second phase of development on this one. If you recall last year the
corner, the upper right hand corner, one acre lot was split off from the Donovan
property and that's since been sold and it had an existing home on it. We
really don't have any questions at all of a serious nature with the plat itself.
There is a wetland alteration permit with this proposal. There's a small Class 8
wetland located in this area. Down here at the intersection of Teton and
Ashton. It realty is a very poor quality wetland. I think the applicant's to
be commended. They worked up a very well conceived wetland enhancement and
relocation plan. The wetland shifted a little bit further to the southeast to
support the development but the wetland's being upgraded from a Class 8 to
basically a Class A. It also includes the NURP pond that we've been requiring
for the last year so that the quality of water flowing through this is going to
be the highest possible quality and it really meets, it's meeting all the
guidelines that we have yet to establish with the Surface Water Management
Committee. But it's basically the current standard in the city. Access to this
site is likely to be a primary concern given the history to this. The
applicants have petitioned for a feasibility study for improvements and that's
' nearing completion and really your decisions concerning access upgrading are
going to come at that time. What we're anticipating is an improvement to Teton
Lane and to that stretch of Lilac east of Teton Lane where the intersection is
down at CR 17. In the past some residents from Curry Farms. The barricade was
put in as a concern that Curry Farms traffic would impact an existing
neighborhood. Over the past 2 years we've heard once or twice I believe from
Curry Farms residents in that vicinity who at that time were asking that the
barricade come down. We've also had an incident where our fire department got
1 40
i
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 '
stuck on the wrong side of the barricade trying to respond to a call. Staff and
the Planning Commission discussing the matter, would recommend that you consider
removal of the barricade with the improvement of the street. We think it's
warranted from an access and a safety standpoint. However, again you're not
acting on that at this point in time. That will come with the feasibility
study. In fact the Planning Commission wanted to convey my thoughts to you, or
their thoughts to you on the removal of the barricade but they specifically
removed the condition that would have attached that to the subdivision on the '
premise that the developer can't remove the barricade. Only the City Council
can. With those comments, again we think this plat itself is relatively
straight forward. It meets or exceeds all ordinance requirements and we're
recommending that you approve it without variances along with the wetland
alteration permit. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. Is the developer here? Oo they have any
comments to Paul's review? As to what he just recently said.
Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is
Richard Bloom and I'm the planning consultant representing Hilloway Corporation.
I just might note, we have carefully gone over the staff report. The numerous
stipulations that you have in here. We don't really have a problem with any of
the conditions imposed upon the approval of the plat. I might also note, since
the report was originally drafted, there was a number of recommendations in your
staff report about shifting lot lines to eliminate variances and that sort of
thing. We actually have done that already and resubmitted that plat back to the
staff for their review so I think a lot of these issues that are raised in here
are more of the minor nature. I think we've been able to adjust that out. I
guess the only comment that we would make, and I guess the objection that we
would like to make is in fact the stipulation number 8 and we talked at length
about this at the Planning Commission meeting. I might also add at the
neighborhood meeting which we also held. Basically the stipulation now reads
that the final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the
feasibility update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, the public hearing
is held and the Council then orders the improvement project in. I guess I just
might say, we've done everything that was asked of us by your engineering staff.
We posted the money to authorize the feasibility study update. We have
cooperated with your engineers and your consulting engineers relative to the
study. I guess our concern is, we are in fact anxious to proceed with the final
plat but now we're actually, there was a political decision that obviously you
folks are going to have to make here in the near future that is really beyong
our control. The barricade was also beyond our control but as far as ordering
in the project itself, that is something else that's also beyond our control and '
I guess with that we would object to that one item. But the other items that
are in the staff report, we are in concurrence with that. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask a question? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Certainty. Mr. Bloom, is it your feeling that you would want to
go ahead with the project even if the barricade were not removed?
Richard Bloom: Perhaps so, yeah. The barricade I guess as we perceived it, was
something that was obviously in place well before we came along. I think the
last go around, or at least from the reading of the Minutes the last time this
41 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
II
issue was raised was as a result or in conjunction with the Curry Farms
' development. I think at that time it was felt, and frankly a lot of the
neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, many of them were from Curry Farms and
they did come and express the desire to have that barricade removed. I guess
from our standpoint and the way our plat is laid out, we don't see a need for
I our residents to want to turn right and go south on Teton and wind through their
neighborhood. I do think however though, especially the emergency concerns. I
was a former Planning Oirector at Minnetonka. I can certainly understand where
II your staff is coming from as far as the concerns of the access to the Curry
Farms neighborhood. 8ut as far as our plat is concerned, I don't think the
barricade really affects us that much one way or the other.
II Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have one specific question. In looking at this,
I at the purchase agreement. It indicates that it was signed Oecember 16, 1991
and in looking at that, being that we're in April, 90 days has lapsed from what
the standard purchase agreement indicates. Is there an extension that you've
provided for this?
Jim Fenning: We have a minor title objection...
Richard Bloom: The other thing I might also add. Not all the purchase
agreements were given to you. There was actually two different agreements on
the property. Only one appeared in your packet. There is another one beyond
that.
Mayor Chmiel: The one that we have here shows that and I guess my concerns are,
I am assuming that you did extend that or have another purchase agreement with
them and I'd like for us to be able to at least see that at that time or at the
time staff can have it.
II Jim Fenning: At the time of final platting we will own the property in fee.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what I'm saying right now, from what it shows here,
II technically you're not really the purchasee of that property. The time
limitation has lapsed and I was concerned as to making sure that you're going
through proper application showing that you are that individual and do have
rights to that property.
Jim Fenning: The purchase agreement, first of all my name is Jim Fenning. I'm
...Hilloway Corporation. The purchase agreement, in the fine print, says that
I closing will be delayed pending resolving any title objections and that's, we
have a minor title objection that is being resolved right now. So we can close
anywhere from a week to two weeks. Something like that.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of Paul. Paul, did you have a chance to
look over their proposal for the mitigation of the Class 8 wetland?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
' 42
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you find that its in accordance with everything that
we're trying to do?
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dialer, yes we did. In fact we thought it was one of
the better mitigation plans we've seen to date. '
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, one other thing that I had flagged here too. The City of
Shorewood is going to review the proposed subdivision. Have they done that and
have they commented?
Paul Krauss: I'm honestly not sure Mr. Mayor. To the best of my knowledge we
did send a copy to them for review. I haven't heard from Jo Ann that we had any
response. We've also been contacted by the city relative to the street
improvements. Charles has been in contact with them.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the only other thing that we have to come to and reach a
conclusion. Maybe you can, somebody can correct me on this. If I remembered
right, we discussed this at the time back when we did put the barricade and the
discussion at that time was when and if this specific property were to be
platted for residential development, that that barricade would then at that time
come down. Does anybody recall that?
Councilwoman Dimler: My memory's not that good. We'd have to look at the
Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to see if we could pull that out at that time
but I'm sure that was some of our anguish at that particular time and making
sure that that protection was there for the Natoli's and the other people there
because of their concerns of the amount of traffic and speeds that entailed on
that particular road. I should say cartway at that particular time because it
was not a full street. Yes.
Florence Natoli: ...when we were here. Florence Natoli. You should know me by
now. I think I'm going to run for office because I seem to me here almost as
much as you guys are. Anyway, when we were at the Planning Commission, Paul
Krauss didn't give us a real good answer on whether we, that's the three of us
on Teton are going to be charged for the sewer and stuff put in on the other
side of the road. Inasmuch as we all have sewer and water, we don't see why we
would have to pay assessments but Paul wasn't too sure.
Paul Krauss: Mrs. Natoli raised the question and I had the opportunity in fact
this afternoon to bounce that off of Bill Engelhardt who's the consulting '
engineer on that and Charles, correct me if I'm wrong but the answer was no.
You're not going to be charged. That you've already paid for your sewer and
water. The only assessments that are possible were related to the street and
that has yet to be determined.
Florence Natoli: Okay. Then just one little thing. This is all this junk I've
had around for years and I got it out yesterday and it said, we estimate that
approximately 21 new homes in the Curry Farms development would tend to use
Teton Lane for ingress and egress. Using standard traffic guideline of 10 trips
per day per household, the households will generate 200 and trips per day. This '
includes service vehicles and the like. Not necessarily just the vehicles owned
43 ,
11 'City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
by each household. And this is the part that you were talking about. If the
Donovan property was subdivided at a future date, several of the larger lots in
this area, divided the number of trips per day could more than double. So that
would not be solved. We'd still have then 420. So that's the thing. And
' inasmuch as they were saying that their outlet to Teton is closer to the other
road, it seems like there's no need for them to go all through the Curry Farms
but another thing in all this. It was agreed by Centex to put up a break away
' and they have never put up the break away. We have had 3 or 4 or 5 pilings and
so I don't know if you can get back at Centex but it would seem to me they were
supposed to put a break away and that's what should be there. Then there
wouldn't be that problem because everybody's hollering about the looks of this
blockade. So if you put that in, something like the ones that are over there in
Shorewood around the lake, Christmas Lake. They've got them there so.
' Mayor Chmiel: The reason why I'm thinking it does look like the Berlin Wall, as
you say.
' Florence Natoli: Yeah, it looks bad and we don't like it anymore than anybody
else but it was supposed to be a break away and that's not our problem. We
haven't approved of this. That's what was put up and someone at the same time,
that same meeting made a statement about those two great big cement. I found
out in here they're called 3- something or other, cement. They're still there
and they don't need to be there either. Except that when they first put just
the blockade, people would try to go around either on our side or on Donovan's
' side so they bought those cement J- blockades in there so it is a mess. I'll
admit that. Okay, that's all. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Donna Pickerd: My name is Donna Pickerd and I live on Lilac Lane and Teton
Lane. I guess my main concern would be what Frank brought up, and Florence.
I What the cost would be to the people already living in the neighborhood to
street improvement and the addition of new utilities. I guess I's really
worried that in trying to decide the right -of -way for Lilac Lane, which might be
really tricky, we might lose quite a bit of our land. We're right on the corner
there and I don't know how you're going to resolve this with Shorewood. I think
it's going to be real tricky because I think the residents on the Shorewood side
' are going to say well, why should we have to give us the right -of -way if it's a
development that's happening in Chasnhassen. And then we're going to be dealing
with an issue where we'll be losing trees off of our lot. We have trees that go
real close up to Lilac. So you know, this is obviously not this particular
issue. This should be discussed at the public hearing and when they start doing
the feasibility study on the street upgrade but I want to make sure that
condition 8 that he was talking about, it makes sense to take the barricade
' issue out of there. That doesn't sake sense. But I think that in order to
approve this plat, I think you have to keep the stipulation that that
feasibility study needs to be studied first because to se I think there might be
' some costs that should be incurred by the development or by the people who are
going to benefit directly from making the road wider. Which is not us but
people who live up in Curry Farms and people who are going to live in this new
Hiiioway development. So I would keep, I don't know. I forgot what you were
calling it. Whatever it is. One of the things that they had to, one of the
requirements that they had to do. I would keep it the way it's worded now. I's
r 44
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
trying to think if there was anything else. Also, I think read somewhere that
they were talking about only having to improve Lilac Lane from Teton Lane down
to Powers Blvd. but if they're talking about dumping sewer from Lots 1 thru 5
into Lilac Lane, you're going to have to pull up the whole street anyway so
Shorewood's going to want to do the whole street anyway. So that was something
that I was just kind of working through in my mind. But anyway, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Florence Natoli: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Florence Natoli: Shorewood does not know anything about this. I called them...
They didn't know there was anything going on with Lilac Lane. At least that's
what I was told.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Al Larsen, a representative
of Engelhardt and Associates and myself met with Mr. Herms, the City
Adminstrator, their Public Works Director and also their Planning Director last
Thursday to go over the elements of this proposed project and discuss some of
the specific elements and also potential cost sharing of the improvements
between Shorewood and Chanhassen. So at least the department management level
there is aware of this potential project.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Councilman Workman: Do we need to make a decision on the barricade tonight? '
Mayor Chmiel: No. Basically all you're doing is looking at a preliminary plat
to subdivide those 9 acres. To also look at the wetland alteration permit to
alter a Class 8 wetland as well.
Councilman Workman: We've already done the feasibility study and we know what
it's going to cost everybody down there, don't we? 1
Mayor Chmiel: This is what will be done now.
Councilman Workman: I'd be curious. ,
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. A feasibility study looking
at three options for improving Teton Lane was looked at back in late 1988 into '
1989. What you have done recently is authorize an update to be prepared to that
feasibility study to re- evaluate the needed improvements and associated costs so
it was prepared once at one other time. ,
Councilman Workman: It's not being prepared again?
Charles Folch: It's currently being worked on and our schedule is to bring that
back to you for receipt on the next Council meeting which would be in May and
call a public hearing for the first meeting in June.
45 1
1
II City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Basically with the, from when they did it to now. I'm sure
there's going to be some cost differences and that's why they're redoing it. If
we can get it done for that price, it'd be fine but I don't think it's going to
happen. Okay, any other discussion? Seeing none, did someone raise their hand
' there?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of preliminary plat to subdivide 9 acres
into 17 single family lots, Ithilien and Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a
Class B wetland.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that with the comment that I too was, I thought
' what they're doing with the wetlands is really good. Nice to see that. It
definitely will be a nicer looking spot.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat
192 -4 as shown on the plans dated March 14, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit
192 -2 as shown on the plans submitted by Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992
subject to the following conditions:
1. The following easements shall be added to the plat:
a. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of
' Lots 2 and 3.
b. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of
Lots 14 and 15.
' c. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of
Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole.
d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14.
' e. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 thru 17
and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer.
f. A drainage easement for the wetland pond for the boundary at the 1004'
' contour.
g. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1001' contour.
h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated.
2. A 12 inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 inch orifice plate shall be constructed
as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom
shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil.
' 3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an
erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall
not exceed 3:1.
1
1 46
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new
street right -of -way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 1
5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot
line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shalt be provided from the new
street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16.
6. A 60 foot wide street right -of -way shall be provided for the new street
proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right -of -way shall be granted
along the east plat line to provide a 50 foot wide road right -of -way for
Teton Lane as consistent with right -of -way dedications along Teton Lane
north and south of this area. '
7. Lots 1 thru 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street.
8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the '
feasibility study update for improvements to Teton lane are known, a public
hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered.
9. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary securities associated with the development.
10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot ,
frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, Block 1. Lot 10 be
adjusted to provide a more suitable building pad area. '
11. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication.
12. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the '
sub- surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend
corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary.
13. The location of proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest '
floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan.
Dwelling type designations should be:
R Rambler
TU Tuck Under
WO Walk Out
SE Split Entry
• SEWO Split Entry Walk Out
14. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed in the Barr
Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992 including the two pond system,
interspersed with open water and subaergent plant species, and landscaping
of a mixture of emergent plant species and wetland shrubs.
15. Oisposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area.
16. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours prior to commencing the
alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 48 hours
after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and approval.
1
47
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
17. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall include
financial sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, including
landscaping and as -built plans.
' All voted in favor and the potion carried unanimously.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR AN 11 FOOT REAR YARD
' VARIANCE REQUEST. 1840 PHEASANT DRIVE, DAVID SCHISSEL.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is an after the fact variance. The applicant built a
deck that has dimensions of 24 x 14 feet. It requires an 11 foot rear yard
I setback variance. The Zoning Ordinance requires all decks to maintain a
distance of 25 feet from the rear property line. The subject deck is set back
14 feet from the rear property line. We surveyed the area within 500 feet. All
I the structures meet the required setbacks. We determined that the difficulty is
self created. Had the applicant followed procedure and applied for a building
permit before building the deck, we would have pointed out where the buildable
area is. We believe that there are other alternatives for the deck to be built
and maintain the required setbacks. On April 13 the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals denied this application due to the fact that approval would set a
precedent, staff is recommending denial of this proposal. Thank you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
I David Schissel: Good evening Mayor. Council. I'm Oavid Schissel and I thought
it would be advantagous if I showed up tonight. I do strongly disagree that it
was a self created hardship. I'd like to talk a little bit about the fact that
yes, I didn't get a permit. I didn't think I needed one. The house was fairly
I new. I intended to build a deck when the house was built and funds were an
issue so I delayed that. As far as, I didn't hide anything when I was building
the deck. They were building a house right across the street. So given that
' fact, when Steve tagged my door. Said I checked on file down at City Hall. You
. didn't pull a permit. 1 called him the next day. Said I didn't think I needed
one. He said you do. Once you close on your home, that's it. You have to
I apply for a new permit. So that's when I came down to City Hall and applied for
a permit. That's when Sharmin got involved and notified we that I've got a
slight problem here and I guess that's what I'd like to talk about tonight. I
think given the fact that the permit thing, that's said and done. You know I
I apologize and I think it was an honest mistake. Now I just want to see what I
can do to keep the deck, given the fact that I think it isnt' a self created
hardship that given the topography of the lot. I don't have a front yard for
use. We have a 6 year old. I don't have a back yard for use. Mayor, did you
happen to go out and look at it?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes I did. Those are your evergreens on the far side?
David Schissel: Yeah. When we built we cut down 3 evergreens just like that
and I'm not going to cut down those trees and I don't anybody wants me to do
II that. I'd like to talk about the dimensions of the deck. It is out 14 feet
from that door. I'm 11 feet into the 25 foot setback. I'm 14 feet from the
rear property line. 14 and 14 is 28. If I follow, no matter what we cut back,
I if I was to follow that 25 foot variance on this piece of property, I'd have a 3
foot deck. And to go around the side of that house, right now currently those •
48
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
•
dimensions are 7 feet by 8 feet. So it wouldn't be a deck. If I have to take
the deck down, I'm going to have a deck there period. I don't know what I'm '
going to do. And as I said, our 6 year old plays there and as I left tonight,
that's where she's playing. I mean she isn't going to play and the neighbor
kids that come over with the lay of the land, there's over 20 feet of vertical
drop from the rear property line to the street. Yeah, I knew that when I bought
the house. There's only so much you can do when you're looking at a piece of
land to know how the house is going to turn out. Initially the house had a
front loading garage on it. As I got into this piece of land, I had to change
the plans to a side loading garage. That's the way it worked. And with the
hill falling down to the street, I had to set the house back even further into
the lot. Now it's .33 of an acre. That's not a small lot but it doesn't have
any depth to it. And if you really want to get down to it, what are the
developers doing? What is the city doing for I guess monitoring that? The back
of the house is at it's minimum, 30 feet from the rear property line. The City
at the time we built didn't say anything and I guess I understand policy has
changed. The City now requires homeowners, after their survey is sent into the
city, the planning, that they sign off so they understand in 2 years when you
want to build a three season porch or a deck, you understand what the setbacks
are to try to avoid these problems. The City didn't say to me at that time,
there's no way you're going to have a deck on this house. And I don't fault the
city. I mean I'm not going after saying, but it would have been nice to know 11 and quite honestly at the time I felt the setbacks were 10 feet all the way
around and that's not true. It's 25 from the rear, 10 from the sides. I don't
think I'm setting precedent. I checked all the people on this list currently
have decks in this development. It's a complete development. Completed
development other than one lot now. The two neighbors that face this deck are
in support of me. Esther Steller, who has been around longer than any of us is
quite disturbed by the fact that I might have to tear the deck down. She likes
it the way it is. It fits in. I think you saw it. It blends. This isn't an
off the ground deck. I think you can look at other decks, if you want to get to
it in the neighborhood and they're within Code but take a look at how some of
them look. I didn't ask Esther to come down here. She wrote a nice letter. I
think you've read that. She's in full support of it, as are the Lee's who also
face the deck. I'm here hoping, bottom line here is that I don't have to remove
that deck. Yeah, I'm sorry I built the thing without a permit. Had I known, I
would have applied for a variance at that point anyway. I mean I think it's a
good cause to create somewhat of a flat back yard. I don't know what else to
say to try to convince that given besides the fact that I didn't get a permit,
that it isn't a self created hardship. I think it's value added aesthetically
• to the neighborhood. You say you went down and looked at it. For what it's
worth, I did bring some pictures. '
Mayor Chmiel: Did that on Sunday. Looked at the deck. The dogs were in their
kennel there.
David Schissel: Barking at you?
Mayor Chmiei: Just a tad.
David Schissel: They just wanted to get out. Mayor, Esther said she'd come
down without any hesitation but she doesn't drive at night.
49
'City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I thought it was rather unique to see a tree in the center of
your deck anyway.
David Schissel: Well it's one we saved. They wanted to tear it down during
excavation but we saved it.
Mayor Chmiel: And the back yard is not flat. It is rolling. I think
' everybody has probably seen that as they've gone. There is not a back yard
basically.
' David Schissel: And I guess I read through this, Sharmin had added a similar
circumstance or what she viewed as a similar circumstance in that development 2
years prior. I read through that several times. To me the only thing that's
identical is reading through that is that person also didn't get a permit. I
' don't see the situation the same. I violated the 25 foot setback quite a bit
more than the person before and that person was dealing with a two tier deck. I
guess that's irrelevant but I have the neighbor's support of me.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and we see that.
David Schissel: Even the ones across the street and the ones down the road have
' come and looked at it and are in support of me. I don't know what that's worth
but. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Schissel? I'd like to ask you a couple questions okay.
In the report here it says that staff sent you a letter on the 15th. Well,
II -first of all on July 34th you were notified by the Building Department right?
David Schissel: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: And then on the 15th and on the 8th you were notified that
you needed a variance. And then on the 27th of February you got a certified
letter.
David Schissel: To my surprise, yes.
1 Councilman Mason: So you're saying you didn't know about the 15, '91 or the
October 8, 1991?
' David Schissel: No, I dropped off a packet of the same thing I dropped off the
second time. I applied for the variance.
Councilman Mason: When did you apply for the variance? I'm confused now.
Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin, do you have that information there by chance?
' David Schissel: Yeah, I just found it. I applied for the variance the first
time in October of 1991.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We never received the application. We don't have a check that
we had cashed.
50
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
David Schissel: I have no cancelled check back.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: He left the application at the front desk but staff never
received it.
David Schissel: I did all my homework. I had everything on my computer and just '
reprinted everything off that I had applied, or put in the packet on the first
time.
Councilman Mason: Have we ever lost a variance request before that you're aware
of?
David Schissel: Believe me I want to solve this as bad as anybody. I mean
there's no question about it.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't know that that's the only issue here but I think
it's certainly one of the bigger ones.
Paul Krauss: Well, I'm not going to say it's never happened. I don't know if
it's ever happened but it's conceiveable that it did. But one would think that
if you made application to us and don't hear anything back for 2 or 3 months,
you might call and find out where it is. ,
David Schissel: Let me state just what I stated to Sharmin the first time. If
you remember the snowfall we got the 31st, or there abouts. The end of October.
I personally didn't think we'd deal with this until the snow was gone. Take
that however you want to but that's the way I looked at it.
Councilman Mason: It sounds like some things are changing pretty quickly here '
and I.
David Schissel: Well I don't understand. '
Councilman Mason: Personally I have a concern about you were notified on the
30th of July, 1991 and according to the City's records at any rate, we didn't
hear anything again until March 9 of 1992 and that's quite a bump in time.
David Schissel: I was in more than once visiting with her about this thing.
Councilman Mason: Well, okay. We don't have on file any variance application.
David Schissel: That's true. She just got it. But it's the second time I
submitted it.
Councilman Mason: In March of this month?
David Schissel: That's correct. It was the second time I submitted the same
packet of information.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
David Schissel: I mean I don't know what you're driving at here.
51 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Mason: Well what I'm driving at is, I'm a little surprised that
staff would have lost something like that is what I'm driving at. Now maybe
that did happen. Maybe it didn't. That's an issue that we'll have to grapple
with. I think building something, I mean you know, you put a deck up here
' without knowing what all the conditions were and I understand your feeling on
that and the thought of having to tear that down would certainly be very
upsetting to me. It is precedent setting in that it would be the only deck in
the neighborhood that goes beyond the setback lines and my personal feeling on
1 that is, that's a major red flag. Because if one deck can go in on that
grounds, then what is to say anyone else comes in and wants to change their deck
and what do we tell them?
David Schissel: I understand and I agree with you. Okay? And I'm in full
support of the 25 foot setback. It's good for all of us but don't we have to
look at these as individual? I mean what's the process of getting a variance
II then? I mean why is that even here?
Councilman Mason: Well for one thing, it's generally done before the deck is
' put up. And frequently, when they're precedent setting variances, we do tend to
deny them just because we don't want the whole neighborhood to come up like
that.
David Schissel: Do you really think someone's going to go out? I mean given
the fact that the way this lot is, I'm in a tough situation. If I can't have a
deck, I mean at this point, 20/20, I wish I didn't buy the lot now but I happen
' to like the neighborhood. I don't have a choice. I mean if you went out and
looked at it.
' Councilman Mason: Well I live on at least as steep a hill as you do so I'm
familiar with the problem.
David Schissel: My problem is the depth though. Yeah, I understand. Fully
understand. I just don't think in that development that I would be setting
precedent. I don't think anybody's going to change their deck and you're going
to have a problem of.
' Councilman Mason: Well I think you need to understand from the City's
standpoint, what you're saying may be true now but it may not be true in the
' future and things like this have a way of coming back to haunt us and then we
have to deal with that too.
David Schissel: I mean I'm here. If I didn't think I, I wouldn't have applied
for the variance. I mean I'm trying. I'm trying to deal with this in the best
way and I think, I'm telling the truth. I think it was an honest mistake. I'll
say it again, I wasn't trying to fool anybody. They were building a house right
across the street. I mean call me an idiot but.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Just to clarify a point. Did I hear you say you do have a
cancelled check from October?
David Schissel: No, I didn't.
1 52
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you too are wondering where that check is?
David Schissel: We had a lengthy discussion about it. I mean I was shocked
when I got this certified letter. But before I opened the.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the check...
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I never saw a check or an application. '
Councilman Workman: Most people are scared out of their wits when they get
certified mail from Sharmin. I know I would be. This whole process is kind of
a cruel and unusual punishment thing for you and for us and we hate it too and '
I know, I guess Mike was on when we had to order two decks torn down that back
up to each other. Were you here?
Councilman Mason: Yes. '
Councilman Workman: I don't know if they're torn down yet. Are they?
Sharmin Al - Jaff: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Wait a minute. They did something. '
Sharmin Al -Jaff: They exchanged land with a neighbor.
David Schissel: We checked into it. I think her house is grandfathered in -
there. I don't think she's 30 feet from the line. She might be.
Councilman Workman: So you don't have any land you can buy? ,
David Schissel: No.
Councilman Workman: You know it is a different set up. It's always difficult
to tell somebody to do, to tear down something that they've done. However,
there's very few people that are aware what the parameters are for building
decks, etc.. We've seen that 100 times if we've seen it once. I just built a
home and I know that I have ample room for a deck. I'll also probably get a
certified letter. I guess I'm having a hard time, is it going to set a
precedence? I don't know if I can even address that in this neighborhood. It's
a nice neighborhood. I don't see this deck as degrading the neighborhood. If I
stand on the principle of the variances, it's a rather lengthy variance
obviously. But the terrain does kind of lend itself to the deck and so the deck
doesn't appear as obvious maybe as something else would have. You don't really
have many choices for a deck here if you don't have this deck.
David Schissel: Well, simple math. You're looking at 3 feet. '
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not trying to be bad guy or good guy. I
guess I'm indifferent. I don't see it being a problem staying. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you abstaining?
53
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
' Councilman Workman: No, but I'm 6 feet tall. And we're dumber you know. I
guess I would be in favor of allowing it to stand. I don't know what we could
do to minimize what's already been done. The terrain, to me the terrain kind of
does that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
' Councilman Wing: Well, I'd like to speak Mr. Mayor just because we've spent
more time on this deck tonight than multi - million dollar projects and I'd like
to draw it out just to see how long we can. We might set a record. Decks are
my favorite. I voted in favor of this. I found that this deck, this house had
no front yard. It had no back yard. It had no place to play. The deck is
created, it's not visible from the front or back. The neighbors don't seem to
' care. I think it's massive but so was the one on Lotus Lake that had 3 layers
of decks going down to the lake and we approved that one so each one kind of is
unique in itself. I support my colleagues decision to disprove this. I think
they had just cause and I think it was a good decision. But when I first saw
' this and as I stood and looked at it, I really thought it was part of the hose.
I thought it was actually structure because it was so massive. What Mr.
Schissel did here, as I see it, is just simply create a back yard that didn't
' exist. So given that. The fact that it's not visible and I think the fact that
it's not visible almost doesn't set a precedent because nobody knows it's there
other than the neighbor behind. I tended to be more lenient on this one. Set a
precedent? I suppose. But I'm on record as having voted for it and I'll have
to hold that position I believe.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wow. Okay. I want it made absolutely clear that I don't
hold staff responsible in this case whatsoever. I do think that you faulted and
even without a variance, you need a permit for a deck. Is that correct? Now
had you come in and even come in for the permit, which is not that expensive.
David Schissel: Oh absolutely. I mean I spent $2,000.00 or $1,800.00 for the
house. I mean I wouldn't have an issue with a $50.00 permit, okay.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But, you're still saying you didn't know you would need a
permit to put a deck on?
David Schissel: I simply said the house was new.
Councilwoman Dimler: And a variance would have come to light and probably you
1 know you would have been told you couldn't do it.
David Schissel: Right.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
David Schissel: No, I don't disagree.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: So I think that staff is not responsible in this case.
Absolutely. I do have a real difficult time in setting a precedent. I think
' this does. And I want to make it absolutely clear that we won't tolerate
anything in the future and I had asked, and I don't remember if we ever got it
54
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
done but I thought that there should be a stiff penalty for people building
things without permits. Did we ever get anything on the books?
Mayor Chmiel: Normally it's double permit fee isn't it?
ti Paul Krauss: Yeah. There's a standing double permit fee in the building code
for a situation like this. Especially if...
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes it is and that's why I'm saying, I think I asked for
that earlier that we should really have something on the books where we can
really slap a $500.00 fine on you know and that will prevent other people from
saying, hey. He got away with it you know but yeah, it cost him $500.00. I
really think we need something like that to stop that from happening in the
future and I'd like to ask Mr. Schissel if the deck is worth $500.00 to you?
David Schissel: I tell you what. Slap a $500.00 fine on me and publish it in '
the paper. Do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why are you threatening? '
David Schissel: I'm not threatening. I'm begging.
Councilwoman Dimler: That would be precedent setting. Shall we do it?
Councilman Wing: I'm aware of a fellow that put a beach in out on the lake I
live on and got fined $3,500.00. Same thing. He got his beach and it cost him
$3,500.00. What do we gain here? I think if we can enforce the laws is a
priority.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I'll approve it with a $500.00 fine.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I looked at it from the same standpoint that some of you
have already indicated. The lot is a problem. Of course you build a house on
there and of course the necessary setback requirements are in jeopardy of the
setback, 14 feet from the rear property line. I see this as really sort of a
problem with variances are made for respective reviews. You know we do it on
one and we allow this to go through as we did with a triple and because of the
topography of the land, was the reason that we basically had gone on it. Then
to have children within the area, there's no place to play except in the steep
driveway. Just a minute. You had your say. My turn. And I don't disagree
with that but there is the back yard, there's nothing there and it is steep and
that deck really doesn't look to me that bad. But I know it's causing a setback
and here too I probably am becoming, I don't disagree with staff's
recommendation. I think that's what variances are here for. For us to review
to see whether or not we really are setting a precedent or is it a lot in itself
that we look at? I guess I know where I'm sort of still coming from.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to say that it's a beautiful deck. I think it
fits the topography. I'd love to have your daughter have a place to play. That
is all very good but the other factors remain as well so.
Councilman Wing: Well I'll move approval of this Mr. Mayor, if I could call it
at this point and see what happens from there maybe.
55 '
"City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
' Councilwoman Dimler: Are you adding the $500.00?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Quick comment.
Mayor Chmiel: I knew we had one.
Councilman Mason: I'm not even going to talk about playing on a steep hill. My
7 year old loves it. Had the variance come in before this was all put up, my
guess is I would say,... I don't particularly care for variances but I see the
issue. With what I know about how this city operates, I strongly suspect that
' nothing got lost here, which means it got lost somewhere else. I have a real
problem with letting people build things without a permit, without a variance
because I think if we go ahead and approve this now, I think we're sending a
' message out to people. Ah, you can go ahead and build it because even if you
don't have a permit or even if you don't have a variance for it, the City's
going to let it stand. Had all of this happened the way it was supposed to, I
know I would be looking at it in a different way than I am now.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just interject one more thing. As far as checks are
concerned. I sent a check in December for purchase of a magazine. A clothing
' magazine for my wife. That check has never come in. Just last week from the
postal department in St. Paul, they sent that check back to me.
Councilman Mason: Anything's possible.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's exactly what happened. And I can't call anyone a liar
because I know there are situations that do occur.
' Councilman Mason: Oh, I have no intentions of.
' Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not saying you are. No. I'm just saying that but it was
a unique situation that just happened to be just recently. So I just wanted to
bring that part up as well. So with that we have a motion on the floor with a
second.
• Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, would that include the double permit fee or has
the permit fee been?
' Mayor Chmiel: That's just automatic from my understanding. The double permit
fee. Which is, permit fee for a deck is what? I think mine ran me about
' $140.00 or somewhere in that neighborhood.
Councilman Wing: Before this is lost totally. Paul, what's the reality of
coming up with a significant fine so that if we allow these things, the
' applicant has the option to say well okay, we'll let this by because Mike's
wrong. Mike's right. You know I agree with Mike. I mean his comments almost
make me want to sway the other direction because he's clearly right I think.
But what can we do to allow us to penalize the person for our decision if you
will? In other words, we'll make the decision in your favor but you're so wrong
' 56
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 • II'
and out of line, rather than make you rip it down, here's what it's going to
cost you to keep it. It's a penalty. It's a penalty clause. It's not being a
nice guy. What would be a penalty?
Paul Krauss: It sounds like more of a legal question. '
Mayor Chmiel: Good to see you back Roger. Earn your money.
Roger Knutson: Right now we have in place, we have adopted the UBC standard
permit fee. Double permit fee requirements. We can look at bringing that back
on an amended schedule for double permit fees and use double permit fee with a
minimum of x: If the deck's your major problem, then maybe it's $500.00. If
that's what you think is appropriate. You can do that by ordinance.
Councilman Wing: Mike, where would you stand on an issue like that? For
instance on this one, if there was a sizeable penalty on this, would you tend to
be more flexible or still just?
Councilman Mason: I'd certainly look at it. Off the top I don't. I mean I
think it's something to look into.
Councilwoman Dimler: I definitely favor it. I think it's a way for future
Councils to handle you know. I would like to see that implemented.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we do have a motion on the floor with a second. Is there
anything in addition to that second with any friendly amendment that people are
discussing now?
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to say I appreciate his willingness to pay the
*500.00. He really wants that deck.
Mayor Chmiel: I can understand that. I really do.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do too.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request
492 -3 for a 11 foot rear yard setback variance for David Schissel at 1840
Pheasant Drive. All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 141 SINGLE '
FAMILY LOTS, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND 8.2 ACRES OF PARK AREA LOCATED NORTH
OF LYMAN AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, STONE
CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address '
Richard ? 8011 Acorn Lane
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
57
II City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Karen Olsson 8020 Acorn Lane
Mitchel H. Krause 2380 Timberwood Drive
Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Court
Bruce & Kris Johnson 2051 Oakwood Ridge
1 Hans Hagen
Brad Foley 941 N.E. Hillwind Road, Mpls.
2061 Timberwood Drive
Robert Lawson 2041 Renaissance Court
' Greg & Julie Sorenson 8121 Maplewood Terrace
Jim Andrews 151 Fox Hollow
Jim & Colleen Oockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
Dave Menke 2041 Timberwood Drive
Debra Lano 2060 Oakwood Ridge
Kate Aanenson: I think everybody else in the room is here on this issue and I
' think you want to move up so you can hear. This item was heard before the
Planning Commission on April 1st and the plat that you have before you tonight
is different than the plat that went to the Planning Commission. This plat has
been revised by the applicant to meet some of the concerns that were addressed
' by the staff and the residents at that meeting. I might just briefly go over a
summary of some of those items. The first being that we requested that Stone
Creek Road not go through onto Galpin. That was a request of the County and our
engineering department. That has been put in a cul- de- sac...more desireable.
Adds a continuity to the berm plus it adds a little trail on that side...
I Councilman Wing: Back up a minute. What happened?
Kate Aanenson: This street, on the original plat had gone through and we asked
that, we just think the lots are more desireable. They're not corner lots plus
the berm and the trail that will go along that road. In addition the other
major issue was the park location. The Park Commission did hold a special
meeting on this issue on April 15th to look at the alternatives. The original
recommendation by the applicant was up in this area right here and the Park
Commission felt like they wanted a flat area. 5.6 acre which would be required
based on the number of lots in the development. The Planning Commission and the
staff felt strongly about the preservation of the bluff. We feel that's a
unique area. Based on that, the Parks and Recreation Committee did have another
meeting and looked at, Mr. Hagen came back with another proposal. One showing
down in this area here and the other one back up in here. He has shown how he
can get a ballfield up in here, a play area plus a sliding hill which is now 8.7
acres. As I mentioned earlier, the requirement would be 5.6 acres so he is
dedicating more land than would be the requirement. There's some other issues
that were raised by the residents that we have addressed. There was strong
concern about the typing up of these two neighborhoods. The staff, engineering
department felt strongly about tying these two neighborhoods together. There
was concerns from residents of Timberwoods about the traffic impact. As we
raised in the meeting, we didn't feel like a lot of people would be cutting
through Timberwood. We felt it would be significantly faster to cut through up
onto Galpin but based on those comments, we're recommending that a stop sign be
placed as you're coming out of Timberwood in this area. These lots, you'd
realign and that this road would then remain a thoroughfare. This road
eventually would tie back up to the residential area up to TH 5 as that's
developed residentially. Therefore, I think the concern that the residents had
about Timberwood and being the same name, we could change this name of the
f
58
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
street here to Boulder Drive so the Timberwood segment would stop here at the
stop sign and then this would then be called Boulder Drive. The other issues
that were raised in the staff report, again as I mentioned, had been addressed
by the applicant and the redesign. We did change the compliance tables because
the lots had changed. One issue that still needs to be addressed is the
wetlands. There are two wetlands on this site. The large one being up in this
area. It falls in the conservation easement. That conservation easement,
because of the site be wooded, we're recommending that we have a 20 foot front
yard setback to all these. So what we're looking at is having a 20 foot front
yard setback with a home of 40 or SO foot in depth and then a 20 to 30 foot rear
yard and everything beyond that would fall into what we're calling a tree
conservation easement. And the intent is that as the people buying into these
neighborhoods would be made known that the intent is to save these trees and if
they were to come back and put in a swimming pool or whatever, we would say no
and the intent is that these are wooded lots. This wetland does fall into the
tree conservation easement so these lots do meet the 75 foot wetland setback
requirement. In addition, we're having a substantial buffering of that wetland
so as far as any mitigation, there's no intrusion into that wetland at all. On
Lot 5 of Block 5, this wetland here, we're saying at this point is unbuildable.
It cannot meet the 75 foot setback but as you know, we're working through our
wetland ordinance and we haven't come up with that criteria yet so what we said
is when he comes in for final plat is we've asked Frank Svoboda, our consultant 1
on these wetland issues, to look at this specific site and we know what
direction we're going with setbacks and buffering. We may look at that one
later but at this time we have determined that it is unbuildable. Other than
that, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision, the
rezoning, and the wetland alteration.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We're looking at three different things. One being
preliminary plat as was indicated. Rezoning of the property from A2,
agricultural to RSF. And wetland alteration permit. Does the developer have
any discussion on this? Do you agree basically with what staf has indicated or
do you disagree?
Hans Hagen: Your Honor, members of the Council and staff. We are in
concurrence with the recommendations that staff has made in the report on
wetlands and rezoning and the preliminary plat. I'll be glad to answer any
questions you have regarding the development.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We'll start from this end. We'll give Mike a
reprieve. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimier: Oh, how sweet. Basically from everything I saw, I don't 1
have any problems with it. I like the idea of the conservation district for the
trees. I think they're high quality trees and I'd like to see them preserved.
I was wondering about the wetland alteration permit until just now and you know
again, you said that the parameters are going to change here and we'll probably
be able to do that, what they're asking for. I don't have any problem with the
rezoning either. I can't see that that would make any problems for us in the
future. And this is just a preliminary plat so I'm sure we'll have further
input as the process develops. Did you want to comment on the road going
through or anything? 1
59 11
1
II City Cduncil Meeting - April 27, 1992
I Mayor Chmiel: Anything you'd like to say.
Councilwoman Dialer: I like the idea of the park being, you know getting more
for the 8.7. Especially if you can still get the ballfield and the playground
II in. The sliding hill there, does it go away from the road ?...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Paul Krauss: It was never submitted in PUD. Hans and I sat down and worked out
a couple alternative plans for this before Christmas and his original proposal
was to come in as a PUD. The premise was he would put 10,000 square foot lots
' in the soybean field and larger lots up on the hill. I agreed with him that I
saw the merit in that proposal. But having worked with the Planning Commission
for 8 months already at that point in trying to get the PUD through, I couldn't
in good conscience encourage him to spend a whole lot of money and time trying
I to work that issue through so I think what we've done is we've come up with a
pretty good plat under normal subdivisions... It probably would have been a
good candidate for it but at this point it is a good subdivision.
II Councilman Wing: Up at Trapper's Pass. I was driving through the other day and
I noticed corridor after corridor of maple hardwoods laying in piles all over
the place and it was sort of disheartening you know when we have so few trees
II left and we made such an issue to talk about them and then cutting the down for
any reason seems to be really... Are the trees basically, in looking at all of
this, what are we losing?
II Kate Aanenson: Well Mr. Hagen has agreed that obviously we're putting the
conservation and at a minimum those have to be protected. But he's gone in and
' his objective is to try to save as many, whether it's digging the foundation and
even those in the side yard. The intent is to have a rear yard. You're buying
into that subdivision and the wooded area with the knowledge that your back yard
can have a 20 to 30 foot rear yard. Then the remaining portion of that will be
II a wooded lot.
Councilman Wing: Just two real quick comments then. Number one, I guess I
II disagree with Park and Rec on their need for this elaborate park for this area.
It's one of the last areas where there's some natural amenities we can save and
I would have liked to have seen the park designed to save the trees. Save the
I natural amenities and have a passive nature park in this area. I think short
term thinking to put their play park ahead of the preservation of some of these
areas.
1 Kate Aanenson: In the areas that they've got the play equipment. This
originally, in the original proposal we had this plotted out and there were two
lots on here. So actually what he's done is taken those lots out and put it
' here. There's still quite a bit of wooded area right up here through the creek
and we feel that that's a nice natural area. As opposed to that being a lot and
knowing that it would be enjoyed by those homes that abut the creek. We felt it
was more desireable to have it open for everyone.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, before we go onto item 12, could I just make one
comment on this? It's kind of irrelevant. I'd either like to make it now or
II after we're done with this.
60
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Probably wait until after. ,
Councilman Wing: I would prefer that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom. '
Councilman Workman: How are we, or what is the buffer between the back of the
lots and the tracks?
Kate Aanenson: The trees.
Councilman Workman: That is a row of trees there?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: How does that slope? It's difficult. 1
Kate Aanenson: It goes down to the tracks. There's kind of a drainage swale
that runs along the back. 1
Councilman Workman: When I grew up the best playground was the tracks. I still
enjoy it. If my mom only knew what I was doing there.
Kate Aanenson: That issue was raised at the last meeting as far as fencing but
the city hasn't placed that requirement before on subdivisions.
Councilman Workman: You know, because of the contour and the way the whole plat
lays out, I don't know you know. I guess I'm not so sure I understand how
important it is that the road go through. I guess I don't understand why it
couldn't be designed onto itself and have two entrances and exits other than in
a general sense it looks rather narrow. Why do we have to have it come out
through Timberwood?
Paul Krauss: You want to have the encapsulated version of this?
Mayor Chmiel: Short. i
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, real short.
Councilman workman: My attention span is waning. 1
Paul Krauss: Well, I'll skip all the normal stuff that Councilman Wing has
heard a number of times. It is the reasonable thing to do for traffic and for
safety and for emergency vehicle access. For maintenance of city streets.
Kate Aanneson: Garbage, busing. '
Paul Krauss: All of those. It's much more efficient. Secondly, originally
this plat had 3 entrances onto Galpin and Lyman and we, with the County Engineer
raised some serious questions about that. It gets down on some pretty busy
street and determined that it was most appropriate that a single curb cut, major
curb cut instead of multiple access points up and down that. Timberwood was
always designed to be extended. That way it was terminated in the woods just
for that purpose. It's an extremely long street as it is. We don't think that
61 1
1
II '• City.Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
there's much chance of traffic coming up that way in any significant amount,
' particularly with the redesign. We just have to recommend that that connection
remain.
' Councilman Workman: But if, and I agree. I don't know that a lot of people
would go up and out that way. But you're really asking for an awful lot of cars
' to go out one cut, aren't you? Out of here.
Kate Aanenson: What we're showing is that eventually this will tie up to, tie
it back up into TH 5. That will also carry some of the traffic.
' Councilman Workman: Through an industrial zone?
Kate Aanenson: Well if the school doesn't go there, it's.
Paul Krauss: That's open to question. That area is guided residential right
' now.
Councilman Workman: But that's going to be next to some commercial.
' Paul Krauss: Well, the creek borders the commercial.
Councilman Workman: Well that would be, okay. Okay, that's then. This is now.
Let me, any way you look at it, you're going to have a lot of traffic. I mean
these things are really, there's a lot of houses in here. And for now, it's
certainly a lot going out the one side. And however, whatever it's going to
take for the next neighborhood and for people to slide out there, TH 5 isn't
really that close. I would think that.
Paul Krauss: Well actually, if that road was extended up on the east side, what
it would tie into is that parallel frontage road. One of the ones that we've
had on the plan and Bill Morrish was talking about.
Councilman Wing: The ghost drawing?
Paul Krauss: I guess, yeah.
Councilman Workman: I prefer that a subdivision kind of stands on it's own a
little bit. I mean I understand why you want to connect them but it is, in a
sense I do understand the neighborhood to the north saying, we have our
neighborhood and now we have a neighborhood with quite a bit of different nature
to it funneling through it and it definitely impacts.
Kate Aanenson: That was one of the reasons why the Park Commission was so
adamant about Mr. Hagen wanted to dedicate money but they requested that he have
property because of the need for a park in this area. Timberwood doesn't have a
park. Also, when Mr. Gram develops his property, this will be the park for that
area so we're trying to tie these neighborhoods together and this would be the
park serving that kind of super block area.
' Councilman Workman: But Timberwood, do they need a park? I wean they're so
wide open.
62
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I could make, we live off of Frontier Trail and the
development that came in that used to be a cul -de -sac. The development that
came in behind us is of a different nature than the neighborhood that we live
in. There were many residents in our neighborhood that did not want that to go
through and I can tell you now, it's what? 2 years later, maybe 3 years later,
most of us are so happy to have that other way out to Kerber rather than going
all the way Frontier. And I can see that same thing happening. When the people
want to go down to Lyman, they're going to not go out. They're going to go the
short way through.
Councilman Workman: But that isn't the short way through.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is shorter than going.
Councilman Workman: Going north?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, no, no. The other people coming south.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but I'm just saying that connection into Timberwood 1
really, you know I understand the garbage truck and the bus and all the other.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would almost see the Timberwood people being more coming
out this way than the others going that way because most of the businesses.
Councilman Wing: Well Tom's right because had I bought a large 2 1/2 acre lot
on a cul -de -sac in an isolated area, I want us to keep it that way. In terms
of.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that. We went through the same process and
we fought like cats and dogs to keep that closed and now everyone's really happy
that it's open.
Councilman Workman: The two neighborhoods are very much a contrast. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So is ours. '
Councilman Workman: But you have small lots. I mean you don't have huge lots.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other points Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't get all fuzzy about parks but I guess I do want to
look a little closer at that connection. And I understand and we all understand '
why people are anxious.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand their concern. We went through it.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think it's too bad this didn't come in as a PUD. I think
it would made a lot of sense to put the smaller lots on the open areas and I
think that would have maybe solved some of the other problems with the
Timberwood folks too but it wasn't done that way and this looks okay to me. I
find it interesting that from time to time we hear because some of our
63 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
requirements are fairly stringent for developing but yet we have a developer
' come in that says, he wants to save 8 acres of trees. So I think that says
something about the kind of developments that we're attracting to Chanhassen
right now. I think that's very good or whatever you say that he did that. As
an RSF, I think it looks fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I guess I just have a couple things and maybe
' reiterate some of the things some of the other Council people have said. One of
the things that I have in that second plotting of emergency overflow through the
rear yards of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4. That's where you'll be eventually
' draining out to Boulder Road. How are we going to make sure that the swales are
going to be maintained and left in place without people doing anything to their
contours within their yards or building something?
Kate Aanenson: We just talked about that. Maybe Charles might want to address
it more specifically but we talked about maybe a different alternative than he's
proposing here and that's including piping going down the street.
Mayor Chmiel: I've seen situations occur in cities where it's caused problems
for other residences.
Charles Folch: Yeah, as Kate mentioned, that's something that had come up when
we talked about it today as it relates to policies that we'd like to adopt and
adhere to with our Surface Water Management program. It certainly doesn't
appear to be very prudent design to funnel discharge into a detention pond and
then outlet that pond into a swale which then would have the potential of
eroding soil for a couple hundred feet before it's picked back up into another
' storm sewer system. I'm seeing if that that's the appropriate way to go so
we're taking a look at an option to possibly having the whole thing kept
enclosed internally without discharging to the railroad ditch.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. The other thing that I also picked up on is, I
would like to see that permanent ponding in place. Having a location for that
to go to rather than having, and also having appropriate drainage easements that
would be provided with that final plat.
Kate Aanenson: With the final phase you're talking about?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Hopefully we have that resolved as part of the storm
study management program and we know when that would be.
Mayor Chmiel: Water supplies seems to be a concern of mine as I look at this
too. Within that particular area, are we going to have sufficient water
supplies once that area completely develops? And what would our needs be at
that particular time? In other words, how many more towers are we going to have
to have? Or tower.
Charles Folch: Well Bonestroo is still working on completing that comprehensive
policy plan from which we will try and establish the time table for a
' comprehensive capital improvement program. But maybe Bob can address this a
64
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1,
little further but the overall plan for ultimate development, and that includes
both this area and the entire Upper Bluff Creek area, I think will require the
` installation of one more tower to serve this area and another tower to serve the
area just east of Lake Minnewashta. But at this point in time I don't believe
that construction of the water tower is warranted based on just this development
alone.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How do we pick up those costs with the additional develops
coming in? Are we getting any dollar appropriations for some of those things in
consideration that we're going to have to put that in at a later time?
Charles Folch: Based on the study that was completed by Bonstroo on the trunk ,
sewer and water facility needs of the entire Bluff Creek area including lift
stations, water towers and such, from that then we also determined the number of
expected units we could generate out of the area as far as development so the
rates that were approved, trunk utility rates of $970. and $1275. that were
approved about 2 months ago, basically take into account those other needs.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the only other thing that I really liked too is that 8.2
acres that we're getting for that park within that particular area. I think
that's a necessary thing. '
Councilwoman Dimler- I do have one more question and maybe Kate, you can answer
this. Did I read something in this report about a 20 foot easement between the
northern most lot? 1
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's on here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we considering that yet or has that been? '
Kate Aanenson: We had taken that out but then the Parks Commission went back
and put it back in...
Councilwoman Dimler: And is that so that Timberwood people can use the park?
Okay. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If we, is there anyone that wants to
say something at this particular time? And I'd really like to limit it for a
few minutes. Please come forward. Time is fleeting and we close Council
Chambers rather quickly.
Stan Rud: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Stan Rud. I'm from Timberwood. ,
2030 Renaissance Court. I have 4 or 5 overheads that I'd like to briefly show
you stating some of the concerns that the residents of Timberwood. There are
four main points that I would like to bring up. One is the safety of Timberwood
residents due to the increased traffic on Timberwood Drive and the addition of
many cars on the intersection of TH 5 and CR 117. The second one is the abrupt
transition from rural lots to urban lots. The third one is the lack of public
discussion after the many changes that were made to this proposal. It was not
discussed at the Planning Commission after all these major changes were made so
this is our first, the first time any of us have seen this. And lastly I've got
some safety and zoning concerns with a preliminary plat that was shown, some of
which have been addressed tonight. This first overhead, the question was, what
65 ,
1
1 .City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
is the safety affect of significant increase in traffic on Timberwood Drive and
' on CR 117 and TH 5? At the Planning Commission meeting there was no
consideration, no significant consideration anyway given to the impact of the,
figure used earlier tonight was 10 trips per day per household which would be
' 1,400 trips per day. If all those cars went out onto TH 5, we would have a
major traffic jam there. And if a large number of those were to drive on
Timberwood, that would be an issue there too. The second point is, due to this
' anticipated high volume of traffic, the staff report recommended request
defining Timberwood Drive to a minor collector type street. I don't know what
that means in terms of how much traffic increase is projected onto.
' Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that? That was, normally we have
a 33 foot asphalt width. I think we just recommended a 36 foot just so there's
room for parking cars and that sort of thing.
Stan Rud: The next point is traffic safety concerns of existing residents. As
evidenced by nearly all of the Timberwood's residents speaking at the one
Planning Commission meeting opposing the increased traffic volume on Timberwood,
' and I believe there will be a petition, if it hasn't already been presented it
will be presented tonight. And lastly, the staff's recommendation to connect
neighborhoods and provide dual access to all streets has not been uniformally
enforced in the past and I listed 9 different roads there that were relatively
long that end in cul -de -sac type roads in other neighborhoods. So it's not
always enforced. The neighborhoods have to be connected. Okay the second
' overhead. Abrupt transition from large rural lots to small lots and the impact
this has on the environment. This particular area. I think the City Council
should give strong consideration to the staff's recommendation which the
Planning Commission did not agree with, to use the planned unit development with
larger lot sizes in the wooded areas. Roughly the 31 acres that are platted in
the wooded areas to preserve a major portion of those trees. Currently it's a
pretty abrupt transition from the 2 1/2 acre lots in Timberwood to the .4 acre
lots in this area. In addition with the map that Kathy showed of the tree
easements, roughly 16 of the 31 acres that were platted in the wooded are being
developed. Would be basically clear cut. With the 20 foot setback from the
road, you cannot preserve those trees because most of them have crowns that are
30 -40 feet across and there would be so much root damage there that none of the
trees would survive in the front yards. And with 90 foot lots and houses up to
10 feet away from the edges of lots, very few trees inbetween would survive
' either. So it would be basically devastated except for the back yards. And
clear cutting 55% of the trees is, in my opinion anyway, not in line with the
tree preservation ordinance. Using minimum size lots, basically maximizes the
trees being cut down. Not minimizes them. The third overhead. Just concerns
to the way the issue was handled at the Planning Commission meeting. There were
major changes to the plan. The staff strongly recommended in their staff report
that the issue be continued until these changes were made so they could be
' discussed with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission basically
passed it as is and this is the first time We've seen most of these changes.
There were major disagreements at the time, especially concerning the parks. The
' Park Commission was recommending large, flat active parks. Not wooded, hilly
areas. Although those might be desireable, you have 300 or more children
looking for a place to play and no sidewalks or paths or ballparks and things
like that. That was an issue. As I mentioned, some of those have been
addressed tonight. The next overhead, the last one. There are some safety
' 66
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
considerations that I'd like to have the Council consider. The ones I mentioned
are trails for the bicycles. If there are 300 children out of 141 homes, there
will be a lot of bicycles. I think there should be bike paths. 8 foot wide
along all the streets. Not just the main one. We have to keep the kids off the
streets. They need ways to get to the park. They needs paths that go all the
way to the park. Over 20 of the lots have back yards adjacent to the Twin City
and Western Railroad. Some consideration should be given for their safety too,
such as requiring continuous fencing along the railroad tracks. Tall child
proof fencing all the way from Galpin Road all the way to it. Even past the
bridge on the railroad tracks east of Stone Creek. Possibly going over the
bridge because children will be climbing the bridge and there are no rails of
any kind on that bridge. Several lots look down onto the railroad tracks and
there are, it's basically an easily climbable slope up to the track and the
picture I passed around earlier showed telephone wires that you can reach up and
hang onto. Roughly 6 to 8 feet off the ground so they should be restricted from
that area. In talking to the general manager of the railroad yesterday, he said
there are, or Friday, he said there are currently 5 to 8 trains per day there
except in the winter months when there's 3 or 4 trains per day. He said they
plan on increasing the traffic in that area so this is not a problem that's
going to go away due to decreased use. He recommended at least 150 feet to any
inhabited structure from the railroad tracks. I don't know if that's an issue
or not and again the City should require fencing. In walking through the flats
last week, there are several wetland areas. I don't know if you officially
classify them as wetlands but they are low, swampy areas that you can't walk
through when it rains. And they are not shown on these plats. There's some
drainage areas that are not shown. It basically makes several, maybe 3 or 4 or
5 lots unbuildable unless there's considerable excavation done, which is
prohibited in this plan. I think those things should be considered and shown on
the plats and adjustments made on the lots in that area. I would strongly
recommend at least one acre lots in the wooded area so we don't lose over 55% of
our trees. Thank you. '
Councilman Wing: Can I just follow up? Are we looking at a 55% loss of trees
in that area? Is that possible?
Paul Krauss: To be honest, I don't know. We didn't make that calculation.
When you look at the site plan, you can see where the tree loss occurs. It's
where the roads are and I mean I think it over states it because of the
developer's intent to save trees inbetween homes but the only ones that we can
guarantee are those that will be protected by that conservation easement.
Stan Rud: Where I calculated goes in this area that's wooded right here. This
area will be clear cut basically for the house and trees.
Kate Aanenson: Well he's said that he's not going to clear cut. He's trying to
do it on an individual basis for each housing pad. His value is saving the
trees.
Councilman Wing: So it's not a clear cut area? '
Stan Rud: Well, a 90 foot lot with a house 20 feet from the road and the houses
that I think they showed at the Planning Commission were 70 feet wide. So there
wasn't much room on either side... -
67 ,
II '' City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to have that marked down as being reviewed in
more depth. If we're the tree city and we have no trees left and we're going to
cut down half the trees every time we put in a project, something's got to give.
Either we're going to have no trees. They're not planting any more trees. We're
' not requiring these open lots to have trees. We're just stripping what we've
got. This really troubles me. Just as an issue to look at further, that's all.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think too though, from a developer's standpoint when
they do develop areas with wooded lots, they try to preserve as much as they can
because they do get better prices for those lots.
' Councilman Wing: Oh I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: So I think from that standpoint.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too. I'm a little bit confused because
it was my understanding that normally when we go with a PUD, that we're allowing
' smaller lot sizes and getting something else so we would be increasing density
here in a PUD and that is exactly, it seems to me that Timberwood is asking for
a PUO. Is that correct?
' Paul Krauss: Well I think what Timberwood is asking for was never considered by
anybody actually in laying this thing out. I mean Timberwood, we heard 1 acre
lots and whatever else. City Code says 15,000 square foot lots. In the past,
' the city has allowed PUD's to occur with average densities below 15,000 square
feet. And some of them cause a lot of problems. Frankly you saw one of those
problems just an hour ago with that variance. That was one of those cases.
What Hans Hagen and I have discussed is a PUD that met the 15,000 square foot
lot average but put 10,000 square foot lots in the soybean field and 20 or
25,000 square foot lots in the trees so they were somewhat, they're half again
bigger. But again, I'm concerned about a developer who probably wanted to do it
that way initially but having tried to get this resolved by the Planning
Commission since last August, I didn't feel in good conscience I could throw a
developer into that argument and say, you figure it out because I haven't been
able to.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying the Planning Commission hasn't been in
favor of a PUD?
Paul Krauss: The Planning Commission has not been in favor, in favor of PUD's.
They like the concept. What they're unsure about is how small should the
smaller lots...
Mayor Chmiel: I think to go through the lot areas for each of these, you have
' some with 15,000. You have some with 17,000, 23,000, some with 33,000. Or
32,000- 33,000. 19. There's a whole host of different sizes going in here.
There's just not 15,000. There are several of those.
' Councilwoman Dimler: There's none below 15,000?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Nothing. Nothing below 15,000 square feet.
Hans Hagen: I think the average was 15,200.
' 68
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 '
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I was going to ask that. ,
Julie Sorenson: My name is Julie Sorenson and I live at 8121 Maplewood Terrace
in Timberwood Estates. I do have a copy of that petition from the residents of
Timberwood about their concern about keeping Timberwood a dead end. I'd like to
pass that out to you. First of all I'd like to say that I appreciate the effort
as far as making that an intersection with a different name. I think that is a
step in the right direction. And I think that would be a second best choice but
after passing, going around and talking with the neighbors and everything,
safety really. is a concern as far as the nature of Timberwood as a speed zone.
If any of you have driven out on it, it starts out as a hill that goes up.
Comes down around a curve and if you're lucky you'll keep it at 40. And with
the increased amount of traffic, these numbers that people throw out as far as
how many trips per day and I'm not expert at that but I know if there's 140 new
houses, even if there's 20% of the people that go through there plus the
delivery trucks and visitors, that's a lot more traffic than 40 or 45 mph
through Timberwood. Many of the driveways are hills right down to the road.
Two neighbors just to the right of me have such lots with, and they have small
children. Whether it's a ball rolling or a bicycle out of control or a sled, no
matter how careful of parents you are, if that becomes a feeder street for 140
new houses, that's very much a safety problem. From my experience going through
speed zones in other communities, they're not followed. I mean you follow
behind people, how fast do they go if it's posted 30? Especially Timberwood
lots are larger lots. They're far apart. The potential danger isn't seen by
someone who's visiting on an infrequent basis. I just think it is unique in
that way. That it's a residential neighborhood without sidewalks or bicycle
paths with many small children. Many people chose to live in such an area
because they thought it was a good place to raise kids and all of a sudden it's
•
a busy street and there's no way to get around it. It also, in Timberwood
because of the cul -de -sacs that come out into large lots, there's only a few
houses per cul-de-sac which is nice you might say but say there's this busy
street that goes through it and cuts it right in half. My kids aren't going to
go across that street to play with the kids across the cul -de -sac if there's x
number of cars going that fast on that road. They're so far, there's one speed
zone sign. There's no safety bumps. No stop signs. Nothing to protect the
residents in Timberwood if that goes through. I can see the fire safety
argument. Of course you're going to want to get to those homes if there is a
fire. I would suggest a one lane gravel fire lane connecting that. If a break
away gate doesn't work, if it's something that's been found that doesn't work,
then don't put a gate up. Just put the gravel road and post a sign. That sign
is going to be more effective than a speed zone sign because I tell you, people
aren't going to pay attention to a speed zone sign. There's going to be kids
that want to ride bikes. Kids have to wait for the bus. I don't know, I think
that would be very much a safety concern. And for those that don't have
children, they have pets that they enjoy walking. There's a lot of joggers. If
that road becomes that busy, there's definitely going to have to be some major
investment in paths and other safety concerns. So I think as far as the fire
safety and the snowplows, they could use that gravel path between. Residents
could get to the park either by going back out onto CR 117 and driving over to
it or else just take a walking path into it that would be along that gravel
connection. I think that's about all I really have to say except that I know
that this petition demonstrates that most of the residents in this area feel
69 i
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
this way. Whether they will in 2 years, who's to say. Maybe people with
II
children will move out because it will no longer be a good place to raise their
kids or it will be too noisy because of the traffic, whatever. But I, myself
and two others went around to I think there's approximately 29 houses. We found
II 27 residents at home and, let's see where did I write this down. 25 of the 27
households signed this petition. They wanted to keep it a dead end so I think
that is telling you that far the majority of the residents who live in
I Timberwood don't value that other exit. Most, I don't know where people commute
but I would assume that many have to go east onto TM 5 and out that way. I
don't see why they'd want to back track. Those people that are on this end,
closest to Stone Creek would like to keep their cul -de -sacs quiet. So I don't
I see a need to open that up. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor? Could I ask a question? I remember we .
I discussed that argument and it was in the Kurvers subdivision where we also,
they wanted access for fire and emergency vehicles. Didn't we approve a, not a
full road but a, remember that?
Paul Krauss: In Kurvers. Yeah, the project, I think it's typical of the case.
99% of the time when we have a project that's approved in phases with a future
connecting street, the future connector street runs into a brick wall every
.' time. Kurvers was one of those. Kurvers was not as long as this nor did it
have, I think it had a total of 40 homes? Does that ring a bell?
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and do we have any evidence, has that been done? Is
it working out or isn't it even completed yet?
Paul Krauss: Well, these things are accumulative Ursula. I mean if the only
way to plow a city that's full of cul -de -sacs is to go up and down every street,
by the time the city's finished developing, there's going to be a significant
factor. You're paying for that. Same with school buses. Same with everything
I else. Emergency vehicles won't be able to get through. Individually where does
the straw break the camel's back? I don't know. On Kurvers with 40 lots, you
can probably get away with it. It wasn't nearly as long. In this particular
I case, we have two questions. We have Timberwood which is an exceedingly long
dead end street, which was designed to be extended. Timberwood is fortunate I
suppose to the extent that you only have I think it's 29 or 30 homesites in the
entire project. But in the Stone Creek one, we'll have 140. And I can't tell
I you that we can provide two good curb cuts out of that project because of the
street that it bounds on. Connecting to Lyman is out of the question. Lyman is
an extremely busy street and the two places to come out on Gaipin, there was
I some sight, well this originally did have two curb cuts on Gaipin and after
talking to the County Engineer, we eliminated one of them because sight
distances were not that great. So we've got that question. You know in the
I information that you've given tonight, there's 9 streets that were sighted as
long cul -de -sacs and I bet if you took another 15 -20 minutes, you could probably
find 20 -30 more. It doesn't mean that it was good planning. It doesn't mean
that it was the right thing to do or that it was even thought of because some of
11 these things are quite old. However, of the 9 that were cited, I note that
Tanadoona/Oogwood, you spent a lot of time a year ago figuring out how that
street's going to ultimately be looped back when that area's developed. Lake
Susan Hills Drive is a connecting street. Tiuga Lane only has 4 or 5 houses on
70
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 1
it and we would extend it if 212 wasn't coming through. It runs into a wetland.
And Hesse Farm Road, which is quite long, runs over a 100 foot bluff so I mean.
Councilwoman Dimier: There's no addition coming that way.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. I'm not going to tell you that these things don't happen.
They certainly do.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks for that clarification Paul. ,
Jim Andrews: Hi, I'm Jim Andrews from the Chanhassen City Park Board. I came
here to speak in support of the plat as it's now shown as far as it relates to
the park. We did go back and forth with the developer and the Planning
Commission about making some changes to the initial design of the park and we
felt as a commission unanimously that the developer presented us with an
excellent compromise. Giving us preservation of the natural areas around the
creek and providing some additional space for some active play area. And I do
feel it's important that we maintain that active play area for a plan of this
size. I come from the Fox Hollow development which is about the same size.
About 140 houses and it's definitely necessary to at least have the option in
the future of having a ballfield or a tennis court and we've been able to
accomplish that with the help of the developer who I think's been very positive.
Just for the record, my address is 151 Fox Hollow and I'll speak now, not as the
Park Commissioner but just as a citizen. I really feel that from hearing the
discussion here that the appropriate way to handle this would be a PUD and I
think that you get much more value out of the land and the city would be better
served to preserve the forested areas through the use of a PUD. And to take the
attitude that we don't have time to reconsider that I think might not be
appropriate at this time. So thanks.
Colleen Dockendorf: Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge in Timberwood
Estates. I have three points and I'll try to keep them brief. The first is to
piggyback on an issue that Councilman Workman brought up about the volume of
traffic. Particularly, first to speak to people getting, which road they're
going to take. We've heard again and again that no one's going to take
Timberwood Drive out. I vehemently disagree with that due to the fact that most
people go onto TH 5 and the quickest way is to shoot through that nice, clean
• Timberwood Drive and hook up real quick. We saw last year a bus accident at
CR 117 and TH 5. We saw this past winter a women being killed at the same
intersection and today we had another accident about 4:30. I don't know if
we've taken into consideration the volume that TH 5 is going to receive from
this. The fact that it's being proposed that most people will use the other
access onto Lyman Blvd. and CR 19, not many people take that route to work.
Believe me. Most people head west on TH 5. Excuse me, east on TH 5. The
second issue is an addendum to my letter of April 10 to you which dealt with the
lot sizes. We spent an hour tonight discussing variances because of people
building decks. I think you're going to run into many, many more hours
discussing that with the setbacks proposed in this. People are going to want a
back yard. They're going to want space and whether we say you can't build
there, people are going to build there and they're going to rip down trees and
they come up in front of the City Council later and ask for a variance. My
71 11
1
'Citytouncil Meeting - April 27, 1992
third issue I completely forgot so. Oh no, I shouldn't have forgotten this one.
It's cutting to the quick of the issue which is, I purchased a 2 1/2 acre lot in
a rural area. I feel that if this goes through, particularly the road, but even
the development itself. Even if the neighborhood were not joined, my property
' value and my market value of my house would decrease significantly. And whether
it's a salient point or not, my realtor, a realtor in town told me that that
road would never go through. So thank you.
' Jim Oockendorf: I'm Jim Oockendorf. 2061 Oakwood Ridge and I'd just like to
add a couple things. Yeah, it's true that that road was zoned to continue but
' to continue into an agricultural estated district for 7 -10 acre estate lots. I
also have the concerns about the intersections that haven't been, there's been
no mention of upgrading them. CR 117 and TH 5 where a motorcyclist was killed
this afternoon. We had the school bus accident that everybody's familiar with.
' The other accidents have been well documented. I think substantial improvements
have got to be made to that hill. To that road at TH 5 before you can consider
another 141 homes going into this area. It's a substantial amount of people
' trying to make a left turn off of TH 5 onto CR 117, or CR 19. I don't know. I
haven't found a map yet that says it's County Road 19. Or a sign that says
County Road 19. I'd also like to voice the concern that Stan had. It just
' didn't seem like the Planning Commission realty cared about what the people had
to say. They pretty much had their mind made up and they didn't even listen to
any of the people. Any of the concerns that we had. I would like to see if they
have the concern that you have to have a secondary access to Timberwood for
' emergency vehicles, to go ahead with the bike path or emergency vehicles only
path between the two neighborhoods. That can certainly be done. It's been shown
that we've got it in several different areas in Chanhassen. Noteably off of
TH 101 near Lotus Lake. If we need that kind of emergency access, it can be
done that way. But people on the eastern side of this development are
definitely going to be using Timberwood and if that means 10 times the amount of
traffic volume, that's just nuts. That's ridiculous. I didn't move out here to
more to Eden Prairie. I wanted to move into Chanhassen. A nice rural
community. I think it would be a real shame if this road goes through. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. One other things too that, of course you may and
probably are aware, that TH 5 is going to be 4 lanes all the way to TH 41. So
' hopefully some of those problems we have are going to be corrected.
Jim Oockendorf: When is that scheduled for?
Councilman Mason: Hopefully within our lifetime.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully they're looking by 1996.
Dave Menke: My name is Dave Menke and I live at 2041 Timberwood Drive and
I just have a couple points here so we can get out of here. There seems to be a
lot of concern about this cul -de -sac at the end of Timberwood Drive and getting
that connected to something. I'm a little confused because right now Timberwood
Drive, which we just put in 4 years ago, has 6 cul -de -sacs right now and I'm not
sure that fixing one of them really is suddenly going to solve all the problems
with cul -de -sacs. So it seems like there's still going to be all the concerns
about buses turning around and snowplows and all that and I'm not sure by
72
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992 '
connecting that with this Stone Creek development that it really solves many of
the problems. I mean hindsight is always 20/20. Maybe we shouldn't have put 6
cul -de -sacs in there 4 years ago when we built the development but the fact is
that we did and I'm not sure that eliminating one of those right now is really
going to make a lot of difference. So of course I'd like to not have the '
Timberwood Drive connect to the Stone Creek development. As Julie said, and I
think my second choice is just what's recommended right now which is T'ing off
Timberwood Drive so it at least doesn't continue out onto Galpin in sort of a
horseshoe shape. I guess the last point I have is, I was here through all the
Comprehensive Plan talks and now through the Planning Commission and I'm sure
you guys are getting tired of hearing from Timberwood residents. And one way
I guess to get us to shut up would be just to not connect that road.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: Dr. Bruce Johnson, 2051 Oakwood Ridge. I guess I'm a
neighbor to everybody left in the room. I wasn't going to speak tonight but now
I am. We wasted, we didn't waste time. We had a good discussion on decks and
we worried about our time on decks. Maybe we can find someplace to order
breakfast. Comments like good enough, okay, I couldn't send them back in good
conscience. That is of no concern. You have to do what's right. You have to
do what's consistent. You have to do what's best. Time is not an essence. We
didn't do CR 17 because Minnesota Department of Transportation was going to do
100 foot on each side. We're going to wait. We put a temporary road in for a
few years to do what's right. If it needs to be a PUD, bigger lots, smaller
lots, less lots, more lots, take the time and do it right. That's what's going
to add value to my house. Not doing something quick that's good enough right '
now. You've got to do what's right. Safety has always got to be an issue.
Comment was made, I'm tired of hearing about safety. Safety had better be an
issue all the time. We went to 8 foot bike paths because of safety. We've done
a lot of things because of safety. Safety had always better be an issue. One
of the things I'm concerned about on your overlay is you've got like a triple
cul -de -sac dead end with one entrance and a lot of homes and no fire entrance
where you come through Timberwood Drive or any other way. That would be a
concern for me. The word precedence. I love the word precedence. You set a
precedence, you're talking about our break down or some other things earlier
today on a road up by Trappers Pass and that area. If that's an option, let's
consider it but there is a precedent set. You can't come to these, I'm going to
back up. We're going to make it midnight, why not. I had the pleasure of just
moving here from Colorado. I had the pleasure of moving here from Colorado on
November 2nd. I had the pleasure of paying $50.00 to get a backhoe, get a skid
loader get the snow out of my driveway so I could back a moving van in there.
I'm having a hard time finding this quality of life everybody talks about. I
paid $2,000.00 taxes on a $250,000.00 home in Colorado. I'm paying $7,004.00 on
a $250,000.00 home in Timberwood Estates. I'm being told I'm being taxed at
that rate because I live in a seclusive subdivision. Now I'm being told I'm the
same as the subdivision with 141 lots. Are my taxes going to go down? I don't
think so. I don't think so. So I am not the same as them. You have to be
consistent. If I'm the same as them, do'I get sewer, water, gas and cable? I'm
not right now. So I'm concerned about consistency. 20 foot setbacks. That's
only 2 1/2 Tom's. 2 1/3 Tom's. You know we've got 25 foot setbacks. We've got
20 foot setbacks. We've got to be consistent. I'm being flippant and I
apologize but I've paid my dues for 5 hours. I'm concerned about doing what's
right. I'm concerned about being consistent. Community growth in a positive
sense, urban sprawl in the negative sense. We've got to be consistent and make
73
,City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
it positive. And that's the job of the Council. My wife and I are opposed,
1 one for and one against Timberwood going through because of the different issues
involved. So we've kind of said, okay. We're just going to go for what's
right. If it's done right, it will hold value. If it's done wrong, it will
' detract value and I think that's what all the residents of Timberwood want is
something that's done right and it's going to be consistent with the growth of
Chanhassen. Thank you.
1 Brad Foley: Hi. I'm Brad Foley from 2061 Timberwood Drive. To keep it very
brief. I think safety is the number one issue here in regards to the children
and the pedestrians on Timberwood Drive. I would only ask your consideration in
' taking that. I think as the number one issue and I agree with all my neighbors
that there's going to be a tremendous increase in traffic here and hopefully you
will see your way through to preventing that from happening.
Mitch Krause: Hi. My name is Mitch Krause. I also live on Timberwood Drive. I
don't remember my address anymore. I'd like to say I agree with all my
neighbors. I don't think Timberwood Drive should be extended. The traffic
1 level there now is relatively safe. We take walks every night along the street,
my children and I. A 4 year old and a 2 year old. You have to watch them
careful but the road isn't over used. There is a lot of cars going excessively
' fast but they're all neighbors and they do take care at evenings and times when
they feel people are going to be around. I think adding the large amount of
traffic, and I don't think you can probably quite comprehend yet how much
traffic is going to go on that road. Out 17 on that would just make it a very
dangerous street. I have a question maybe somebody can answer about the
snowplows and why they're so concerned about going in and out of cul-de-sacs.
The road I'm used to are 30 foot wide and the snowplows are usually half as wide
as the road. You have to go in or out or make two trips anyway. I can see a
little bit of your worries I guess about the emergency access to those areas. A
gravel road as the very most would be what I'd want to see connecting that area.
When I moved out to, or when I was looking for lots and did look for an
extremely long time, chose to live in Timberwood Estates. It is 35 miles from
my house to my work. I chose to live there because I didn't see a big yellow
sign at the end of Timberwood Drive that said, this road is going to be extended
so 5,000 more cars a day can drive here. Maybe I didn't take the time to look
into it that it was zoned to be extended further but to me it looked like a
cul -de -sac that was going to stay a cul -de -sac. The very worst I could have
1 imagined was extending into another development very similar to what it is,
which would have produced relatively few cars that would have been on the road.
' Greg Sorenson: Greg Sorenson, 8121 Maplewood. I guess the whole problem of
extending, when we say that it was always intended to go through Timberwood and
it was there. Last fall or spring, whenever we went through the comprehensive
plan, had that been light industrial, I can't imagine if we would have opened
Timberwood up to the manufacturing plant and facilities. So to say it was
always planned to go through. Had that been light industrial, I don't think
that would have happened. As far as people driving, the closest, I mean I am
' one of the few that drive into Shakopee to work. I'll take the further way out
and I'll go out to, rather than go through Lyman. I mean it's not an issue for
me to have to drive an extra half mile to work. As far as crossing Timberwood.
I mean my wife is right. I don't know if she'd like me saying this. She was in
8th grade before she was allowed to cross the street as busy as that may become
74
1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
and that seriously turns our subdivision into two separate communities because
so many people have kids and pets. As far as garbage, using utilities, that's a
( private thing. Not a public service. We have to pay contractors ourselves.
There are multiple service people in there. I don't think that's an issue.
What the garbage has to do with it. We pay for that our service ourself.
That's our problem and that's the service company's problem. As far as
Timberwood needing a park, I mean we all have large lots. My back yard is 3
acres. I mean if kids want to play softball in my back yard, they're more than
welcome to play it in my back yard. So I mean I have no trees. I have one. So
I mean, needing a park, and my park is half the size almost of what they're
proposing for this new development. So I'll put the jungle gym up. I planned
on doing it any ways. And those are my comments. '
Debra Lano: My name is Debra Lano. I live at 2060 Oakwood Ridge. We'•re on a
corner lot on Timberwood Drive. I'm too tired to give a long speech but I also
would like to voice my support to what my neighbors have said and I really would
support having a small service road to connect the two neighborhoods. My
husband and I looked for over 2 years to find a lot and neighborhood like this.
We want a place where our children could play without worry of being run over by
a car. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: One more time.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom. '
Councilman Workman: Just two very quick things. Two of the speakers, Mr. Rud I
believe. I don't disagree with an awful lot of these. I do get concerned when
you talk about whether or not democracy is being served or not. I think this
Council anyway is attempting to do that. I don't think the Planning Commission
is guilty of not trying to follow some sort of a democratic process. In fact,
the opposite is maybe true of Timberwood because you guys have an awful lot of
vacant land around you and you choose to want that vacant land to remain vacant.
I'm heard those comments since the Comp Plan. But somebody else owns it and
what we want to do and what people want the City Council to do is to do with
other people's property what we don't have the power to do. And when you tell
somebody that no, you can't develop or do this or do that, it has to be within
inside some sort of parameters. Our laws say that if you have 15,000 square
foot lots, you can do those. Within certain boundaries so they can do this but
we have to try and help them decide with an overall plan of the city. I think
connecting your two neighborhoods is a terrible idea. For property values, for
safety, for others but other people are using the fact that we need that road to
go through there for safety so we have different opinions but I stand by my
original idea that we need to find ways to get out of this neighborhood other
than through your neighborhood. I think that makes common sense to me. This
could be light industrial or heavy industrial down here. I mean that's not
necessarily for us, I mean it is sort of for us to try and guide but we, I have
a real hard time telling people how they should do things. I mean we have to
keep our fingers in there enough to make sure that the public safety is
maintained but I like to be a little more careful about what is not mine and
somebody else owns. But I agree. We should take the time to make sure that it
is done properly and not at the expense of the neighborhood to the north. That
75' 1
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
makes perfect sense. Dr. Johnson. It's really difficult to be consistent with
1 or to try to keep track of what is consistent because what is consistent in
Timberwood maybe isn't consistent down here. There's so many different things
going on. In fact, every planning book that you guys read would probably say
I you need to have mixes. Mix uses. If all Chanhassen had in this neighborhood
were 2 1/2 acre lot sizes, I may not be living here and there's an awful lot of
people that couldn't live here and who knows where the taxes would be. So we do
have mixes. In fact there are those who criticize that we don't have enough
I mixes for people who want to be first time home buyers in this community. So
maybe I'm taking your consistency out of.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I think you are. When I say consistent, I think things like
our developer, Wally Otto. I had the pleasure of meeting him. It seems like I'm
getting awful involved living here for 5 months. He basically said he was told
sewer, water, gas wouldn't be there for 20 years. Now we're bringing it south
of us. Is there going to be water offered to us? No. You're by- passing. I
guess we have to be consistent in our growth plan and when we say something, if
we're going to change it, we're going to have to back up and it is going to get
' more expensive as we continue to change the line of thought. As we continue to
change the two things. No, I don't think it has to be consistent that every
house has to be so many square feet with a cedar roof and so many acres, etc,
' etc, etc.. I think we have to be consistent in our thinking and consistent in
our planning and then consistent in our decisions in terms of if we are going to
by -pass one subdivision for certain utilities, by -pass one subdivision for
certain other options, what are we going to do inbetween? Now consistent is the
II growth in the city going to be?
Mayor Chmiel: Part of Timberwood's request was to leave them as they are
' without providing any utilities to that location.
Or. Bruce Johnson: I think that depended on the cost. At one time we were told
II that the total cost of that project would be bore by the participants that
received the service. But then on Audubon Road, did they not receive
compensation where they only had *5,000.00 per house?
II Mayor Chmiel: Each has to pay their own basically.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: Yeah, but that's not what was told to Timberwood. They
would pay the entire cost of the entire project.
Mayor Chmiel: I put in my own utilities into my own home and I had my septic
system and my own water and after we got all done it was about *10,000.00 that
II it still cost me to put that in. So everybody goes through the process.
Or. Bruce Johnson: I understand that but we were not told it would be $5,000.00
II per household. We were told we would bear the entire cost of that project,
whatever it was.
' Mayor Chmiel: And that's true.
Or. Bruce Johnson: Well, but apparently we were also told that Audubon Road
paid *5,000.00 per household regardless of the cost.
76
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Paul Krauss: I think there's a confusion on issues here and Charles, correct me
if I'm wrong but on Audubon Road it had to do with buildings, homes that are not
hooked up to the sewer but are paying one unit for trunk charges. If they want
to hook up to that, they're going to have to pay lateral charges, additional
charges to use it. And if they want to subdivide..., they also have to pay. '
Or. Bruce Johnson: they had to pay a $5,000.00 hook -up and subdivide was
something different.
Paul Krauss: What they're paying is a trunk charge though that does not entitle
them to hook into the line. It's the cost of running it past their home.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: It allows them one hook -up does it not? It allows them one
hook -up? They're under the impression it allows them one hook -up.
Charles Folch: They're being assessed as Paul had mentioned, for one trunk unit
at this point in time. If at some point in time in the future that they mould
request to have actual service to the property via lateral, via connection to
the trunk line, there would be the local lateral charge at that point in time ,
too. Similar to Timberwood. I mean basically if we were to run utilities
through that project, they would have the same uniform rate of trunk assessment
through that whole Upper Bluff Creek area. But the people in Timberwood could
expect that they would bear the cost of all the local lateral lines through
their development.
Councilman Workman: Which would be heavy. '
Charles Folch: Which would be heavy.
Councilman Workman: I mean it wouldn't be reasonable.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Right. '
Dr. Bruce Johnson: So I think there's some issues that come to bear that
consistency of what we hear. Consistency of what's going on.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're probably looking at a Council that's very
consistent in what they do in their decision making as well. But it is. It's
something that we looked at even with the PUD. And we're looking at potentially
our requirements as far as square footage for a lot within this city is 15,000
square feet. If they were to go to a PUD, you could have gone to lots that are
10,000 and lots that are 7,000 or even 8,000. 1
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I won't argue that. I guess my argument is, if everybody
says a PUD is a better route to go, take the time.
Mayor Chmiel: We look at that. We certainly do.
Or. Bruce Johnson: Well I heard comments tonight that said, ah. I can't send
them back or looks good enough for now. You know those comments bother me
greatly. Because it's late, what the hell you know.
Mayor Chmiel: We don't work that way. '
77
II , -City. Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
Dr. Bruce Johnson: Well, we had those comments tonight and I heard them so, I'm
1 not in favor of PUD's either but if that's what serves the community best, then
take the time to do it right.
' Mayor Chmiel: That was our discussion that they had at Planning Commission that
that was not the appropriate way to go with this particular proposal and I think
it's basically the Council's position that we support that particular position
' as well.
Dr. Bruce Johnson: I got the impression we did not have those discussions.
That those discussions were kind of, we did not take time.
Councilman Workman: We've kind of been discussing that for years and we're kind
of up to our ears in PUD's and reverberations from each PUO today. Pheasant
' Hill was a PUD wasn't it?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, regrettably so.
' Councilman Workman: And I mean this lovingly. And I have some friends in
Timberwood, I think. But Timberwood is an anomaly. I mean it kind of came
before everything else in a window of opportunity when they could do the 2 1/2
' acre and now the Met Council changed their mind. They can take the 80 acres and
put 8 of them in little lots over here and then save the rest so that people
could afford to put sewer and water and everything else in. But that's not what
people wanted. I think...me to try and continue to try to protect that
neighborhood because it's there and there's nothing else we can do about it so
we have to try and protect them and work with it around it. But the development
is coming. People own the property and they want to make some money too just
' like the guy who sold you your lots. He cashed out maybe early. So with that
in mind, that's where I am sensitive to this thing and I'll be sensitive to the
east and to the north.
' Resident: Can I make a comment? You spoke about the vacant land issue. I
think almost every resident of Timberwood here has said that we're delighted
that a residential neighborhood is going in that area. We do not expect that
land to be farmland forever. We don't expect it to be not used. We are happy
with that. But like Dr. Johnson said, we want some time and some thought put
into, does it make sense to join these two neighborhoods. Does it make sense to
have 1,000 cars a day going down Timberwood Drive where right now you have
families that are going for walks and things like that and people are going 45
mph. That's all we're trying to say. We realize that developers are out there
' to make money and we appreciate that. That's great. That's the American Way
but take the time to do things right and that's what your jobs are.
' Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have you got a solution? Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well my solution is not a solution but I think it's sort of a
deliberation point that we have. Being that normally our Council time is where
we cut off at 11:00, we have gone beyond this particular time. One of my
suggestions is that we're going to be meeting on Wednesday of this week, which
today is Tuesday. Tomorrow. And this will give us an opportunity to at least
' 78
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
rethink some of these things that were brought up. My suggestion would be, and
recommend to table this item and the balance of the items on the agenda until ,
Wednesday. And I think we're going to be meeting at 6:00?
Oon Ashworth: Right. We should be able to conclude the work session I would
hope by 8:00 so if we had everyone, those who would like to attend, come in at
8:00. As soon as we've finished that work session upstairs, we can come back
down here and hopefully conclude this agenda and potentially be home earlier
than 12:00 Wednesday night.
Mayor Chmiel: So that would be my recommendation at this particular time.
Councilman Wing: But that's to address item number 10?
Mayor Chmiel: That's to address item number 10 and 12. And 13. '
Councilman Wing: Alright, but we still have spent most of tonight on
Timberwood. I guess I'm going to state that Timberwood is fighting for their
autonomy. They're their own separate community. They're not asking for a lot.
Everytime something happens we hear from Timberwood. I'm ready to leave them
alone. They bought their homes on large lots. They have their own little
community. They're not an integral part of the success of Chanhassen. They're
an island within themselves and I'm tired of arguing about it. I think if the
community, their community is set on this issue. I don't care to discuss it any
more. I'm going to support Tom's position that we don't connect them. They're
not compatible and I don't think it's fair. If I'm going to buy a 5 acre lot
and put a $350,000.00 house on it... I'd like to get Timberwood out of this
discussion. It would sure move this along.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I think that that would probably be, rather than saying
table this. I'd like to rephrase that as continue this until Wednesday.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just make one more comment? You know I know '
people in Timberwood too and I like them and I feel that, and maybe the Planning
Commission didn't treat you fairly but I think the Council really has. When the
Comprehensive Plan came up, we listened to you. We didn't make it light
industrial or office complex, we made it residential. And when this Bluff Creek
improvement came up, you wanted to be left out and we left you out. So I really
would like you to consider that we are fair and that we are trying to help you
and that we will listen to you. We may not always go your way but then there's
a give and take.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, not on that but a point on Wednesday's meeting. I 1
understood from Karen Engelhardt that we were meeting in the fire station. Is
that because there's a conflict here?
Oon Ashworth: That's true. There is, that was the reason we couldn't come here
because there was a conflict with this room for that night.
Councilman Wing: Is the fire station available? I can check that schedule.
Don Ashworth: Yes. I did check and verified it for our meeting. For the work
session. I'm not sure if it's very conducive for continuing this agenda item.
79
I I City Council Meeting - April 27, 1992
' Paul Krauss: Unless we did it for old time sake in the training room.
Don Ashworth: Well I'll tell you. I do recall. Jay Johnson has some form of
' CAA whatever and our policy position is, if we've got public meetings scheduled,
even if those occur, what I'll call as a last minute format, whoever is the non
city one goes out. So I will inform Mr. Johnson tomorrow that they'll have to
look for another facility for Wednesday night. Or finish up by 8:00. So we can
plan on being here.
Mayor Chmiel: Back here at 8:00 on Wednesday evening to further do what we've
got going now. I'd like to make that as a motion.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
1 Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to continue the remainder of
the City Council meeting until Wednesday night, April 29, 1992 at 8 :00 p.m..
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
This portion of the meeting was concluded at 12:20 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 80
1
: 11 A 7,
.___,,...
, .
11 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
•
II 4/16/92
II COMMISSION PRESENT:
Dave Dummer, Craig Blechta, Dave Johnson, Eldon Berkland, Bill
II Bernhjelm
Public Safety Director Scott Harr, Mechanical Inspector Carl Barke,
II Building Inspector Steve Torell, CSO Bob Zydowsky
ABSENT:
II Brian Beniek, Mayor Don Chmiel
1 Chairperson Dave Dummer opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. Dave
Johnson motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the 3/12/92
minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
II
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1 Director Harr reported to the Commission that the new fire truck
will arrive on 4/17/92.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1 Inspectors Steve Torell and Carl Barke were present to discuss the
HVAC seminar that was given by the Inspections Division.
Approximately 40 heating contractors attended the workshop, and the
Inspectors received a great deal of positive feedback from the
1 evaluations. Director Harr stated that the seminar was another
step taken for enhancing the relationship between the Inspections
Department and the contractors and the public.
, II .
GUEST SPEAKER •
II
1 Former Public Safety Commissioner Barb Klick was present as a
representative from the North /HCMC Air Care Division to discuss the
operation /function of the air ambulance unit. Barb covered such
II areas as the history of the program and the procedures and criteria
requirements for "scene runs ". Discussion was had on safety
concerns when a helicopter is responding to an emergency scene.
1
1
_� I
1
OLD BUSINESS
' Director Harr reported that he met with the city insurance
representative regarding insurance coverage for firefighters. A
questionnaire will be distributed to the firefighters to aid in the
study.
1 At the 4/13/92 Council meeting, the first reading took place
regarding Public Safety Commission terms.
Director Harr has received approval from City Manager Don Ashworth
on the changes for the shooting boundaries, which will be presented
to the Council.
NEW BUSINESS
1 Director Harr reported on the local events that took place during
the week of April 5 - 11 for tornado awareness. In conjunction
' with a State -wide simulated severe weather watch and warning,
Director Harr coordinated a City Hall severe weather drill;
activated the Emergency Operations Center; and, presented a class
to city employees on severe weather.
' The 4th Annual Public Safety Open House has been officially
scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 1992, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
1 The Commission discussed issues regarding public policy for on and
off sale liquor. The City Council has directed the Public Safety
Commission to hold a public hearing on these issues. It was
decided that the public hearing will take place on Thursday, May
14, 1992, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Issues to be
discussed that evening will be on the age requirement for selling
' liquor, licensing and zoning concerns. Dave Dummer, Eldon
Berkland, Richard Wing and Scott Harr have been appointed as the
members of a special committee that will be coordinating details
' for the hearing.
Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Craig Blechta seconded to adjourn the
meeting at 8:30 p.m.
1
A special meeting took place at
P g p 6 p.m. regarding severe weather
warning systems for the City of Chanhassen. Carver County
Emergency Management Director Gregg Davies met with the Public
Safety Commission to discuss methods for severe weather
notification for the City of Chanhassen.
Gregg Davies briefed the Commission on the history and the cost of
warning sirens. Mr. Davies talked about alternatives to the
traditional warning sirens, such as installing loudspeakers in the
parks and distributing weather alert monitors to the public. 1
A committee was created for the purpose of researching and
developing local warning systems. The committee members are Scott
Harr, Dave Dummer, Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Johnson, Gregg Davies.
They will be meeting with Mr. Jim Franklin, State Director of
Emergency Management, to discuss options to consider in this area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1