Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minnewashta Pkwy Plans & Specs
3 CITY OF cHANBAssEN :. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612)937-5739 110 0011 by Ct?} 1 MEMORANDUM 146jeted_.__._ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager S„bfa;ttAd to crxois i:,;DNA FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer (.>‘\ .s 1 DYte Submi;i DATE: July 17, 1991 ]- a-9 1 SUBJ: Approve Feasibility Study for Upgrade to Minnewashta Parkway; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Improvement Project No. 90-15 As you aware, I was unable to attend the July 8, 1991 City 1 Council meeting at which time the public hearing on the proposed Minnewashta Parkway project was held. In conferring with Bill Engelhardt and reviewing the City Council minutes it is obvious 1 there was a great deal of public discussion on the project. It is my understanding that the result of the hearing was an approved motion to table action on this issue until the July 22, 1 1991 City Council meeting in order to afford the City Council some additional time to review the minutes of this meeting, evaluate the testimony given and also allow any additional resident input to be given. I have attached a copy of the City 1 Council minutes on this item from the July 8 public hearing and additional resident letters that were received the night of the public hearing and during this past week. Bill Engelhardt, the project consultant engineer, will prepare a response to further address some *of the additional questions and concerns as requested by the Council at the previous meeting. 1 This response will not be completed in time to be included with this packet; however, Bill will hand out this information on the night of the meeting. 1 Through the two neighborhood meetings. held, the recent public hearing, and all of the phone calls and letters that have been 1 received by the City staff and Council, a great deal of discussion on the many issues and aspects of this rather sizeable project has occurred. The list of these issues, for the most part, has been narrowed down to a select few which I am not 1 certain can be addressed in a more elaborate fashion. One of the outstanding concerns involves the assessment amount. 1 It is quite clear that the financing of the project has been i t 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 17 , 1991 Page 2 ' developed in a manner which is most advantageous to the benefitted properties . Considering that three ( 3 ) years of - State-Aid funding is proposed to be encumbered and the use of a ' significant amount of general obligation bonds and trunk watermain funds, I do not believe that the assessment rate can realistically be reduced any further and still be able to construct the project in a complete fashion as proposed. Another lingering issue involves the idea that improving the road would entice increased speeds due to the better road surface condition. I am not aware of any study or method of investigation available that could prove or disprove this claim. It has been pointed out that vehicles may already be exceeding the posted 30 MPH speed limit. My only logical response to this concern is that the speed issue, both present and future, needs to be addressed from an enforcement standpoint, whether the road ' is improved or remains in its present status quo. From a thorough visual investigation of the existing roadway condition which is reaffirmed by the soils investigation report ' conducted by Braun Testing Company, it is rather evident that the bituminous overlay alternative is not a viable solution and a poor expenditure of valuable funding resources . In addition, an overlay would not improve any of the safety issues presented. The idea of just constructing the bituminous trail and leaving the road in its present condition also concerns me . First of all , it is very likely that this road will be improved sometime in the future, whether it be this year or 10 years from now. If only a trail is put in at this time, a future road reconstruction ' project would probably require that this trail be also reconstructed. Future boulevard and slope grading changes would likely render this trail to be at an incompatible elevation and location along the roadway. I would therefore foresee any money spent solely on a trail project to be economically an unwise choice for such a short-term service life. Probably the most important outstanding issue surrounding the present condition of the roadway involves safety. Safety in terms of pedestrian and bike use, vertical and horizontal curve ' alignment and intersection sight lines and geometrics . The question of how safe the roadway is for pedestrian and bike traffic has been highly debated. Testimony has been given by ' concerned residents, who currently make use of the roadway for walking , jogging, etc . , that the road is dangerous . Others have made mention to the fact that a serio:is accident on the roadway' ' has not occurred in recent time. Objectively evaluating this dilemma leads me to believe that with the increased demand on the roadway as pedestrians, bikes and vehicles compete for Don Ashworth July 17, 1991 Page 3 1 serviceable space, the potential for an accident in the near future will continue to statistically increase if the road is left in its present condition. In summary, it is the contention of this office that a complete road reconstruction improvement project for Minnewashta Parkway needs to be undertaken in order to fully address the safety concerns of the area residents and serve the overall long-term needs of the area. The feasibility report presents a project proposal that meets the important goals held by the City and area residents for an improvement project of this type. It is therefore recommended that the Council approve the upgrade of Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project No. 90-15 as a public improvement project (MSA 429 project ) and authorize the consulting engineering firm of Engelhardt and Associates to prepare the construction plans and specifications for the project. ktm Attachments: 1. July 8, 1991 City Council minutes . 2 . Resident correspondence . c: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates Miriam Porter, City of Victoria Manager ' s Comments: ' As noted by the City Engineer, Bill Engelhardt will be prepared to respond to each of the points presented at the hearing. This project has all of the factors that plagued the Bluff Creek roadway improvement project for over two years , i .e. adjoining owners saw it as more of a detriment than benefit, off-line owners objected to paying, and speeding would increase. The roadway became so impassable that the project finally occurred. Eventually this project will happen . It is only a question of how long the neighborhood will tolerate its continuing deterioration and/or what events trigger the inevitable. The passage of time could make additional State-Aid funds available or take funds away, i .e. the Bluff Creek project dollars set aside in 1986 were reallocated to Lake Lucy Road. Although the neighborhood had changed its mind by 1987, the project had to wait until 1989 when dollars would become available. A four-fifths vote , is required for this type of public improvement project. City Co. n:__. " sting - July 8, 1991 Resolution $91-63: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to Iauthorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the frontage road improvements along with a right turn lane for westbound traffic on Trunk Highway 5 at Lone Cedar Lane and that the methodology for spreading the special I assessments be modified to reflect the agreement arrived at between Mr. Gauer and Mr. Mitlyng. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. IVISITORS PRESENTATION: None. PUBLIC HEARING: MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF VI 4 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 90-15. • NJ Public Present: IName Address Betty Carlson 4020 Leslee Curve Petcr Moe 7141 Minnewashta Parkway Deborah & Lay Lockhart 3618 Red Cedar Point Drive Char:e�. - Reding 3631 South Cedar Drive Ch:'ir.. Rncing - 6601 Minnewashta Parkway I Greg Datillc 7201 Juniper Avenue Ed Gat hour 3940 Hawthorne Circle L .C. & Susan Proshek 3613 Red Cedar Point II Chris. Orakos 3900 Linden Circle ' Michael Tim. . . 3733 Hickory Road hike & Susan Morgan 3734 Hickory Road I TEn > & Lisa Rixe 7456 Minnewashta Parkway H ' ry A. Drano 3911 Linden Circle hitch ��_.�'_ 891 20th S.E. , Minneapolis PetE Siddeier 204 Ash Street , Chaska II Eve; r Atkins 9580 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie Blake Honor, 3711 South Cedar Drive Nancy Nelson 3891 Linden Circle I Robert & Patricia Josephs Greg Bohrer 6701 Minnewashta Parkway 3706 Hickory Road Lava Genz 7096 Red Cedar Cove Ddn s Earn Eittermann 7085 Red Cedar Cove • I Louis Guthmueller 7095 Red Cedar Cove Ivan & Mildred Underdahl 7502 West 77th Street W. Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve I Terry M. Forbord Lundgren Bros. Construction Jim W•�y 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Gordon Freeburg 3891 Lone Cedar Lane I James & Deborah Hofer 7098 Red Cedar Cove Arlene Herndon 3750 Red Cedar Point Drive Peggy Markham 6520 Kirkwood Circle II Kevin Cuddihy 3900 Stratford Ridge George Peters 4010 Leslee Curve Harvey Sobel 7024 Red Cedar Cove Vern Isham 4030 Leslee Curve Jo Ann Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway James & Ruth Boylan 6760 Minnewashta Parkway II 3 I City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 II Name Address Dave & Lori Free 3921 Maple Shores Drive f Lowell & Janet Carlson - 4141 Kings Road Rich Come- 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive Edvin & Leittia Seirr. 3616 Red Cedar Point Drive II Jean Larson 3609 Red Cedar Point Drive Peter Benjamin 7231 Minnewashta Parkway Lee Anderson 6651 Minnewashta Parkway II Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway Sukey Sobel 7024 Red Cedar Cove Jim & Andrea BEnnyhoff 3931 Leslee Curve II Carol Riddle 4000 Leslee Curve Suellyn Fritz 18464 Maple Leaf Drive • ' Steven Erickson 3850 Leslee Curve Ed Lucas 3941 Leslee Curve ' Vince & Bea Decker 3861 Leslee Curve Joan Skallman 6590 Joshua Circle Ric & Mariana Anding 3715 South Cedar Drive II Al & Carla Smith 3714 Hickory Road Linda Johnson 3629 Red Cedar Point Marsha Keuseman - 3622 Red Cedar Point Drive II Jeanette Boley 7414 Minnewashta Parkway Basil & Helen Bastian 3719 South Cedar Drive Jerry Johnson 3940 Glendale Drive Jim Connor 3901 Red Cedar Point Drive • II Gene & Carol Dahlin 3930 Glendale Drive B. Fuller 7075 Red Cedar Cove Tom Allenburg 6621 Minnewashta Parkway II Ken & Ruth Smith 3837 Red Cedar Point Bob Schneider 7501 West 77th Street - Ken Durr 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka II Ann Osborne 3815 Red Cedar Point Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'll open this public hearing at this particular time. I'd like staff to address this and those who also will I assist . Bill, are you going to do the formal presentation? Bill. Engelhardt : I'll make the presentation. II Mayor Chmiel: Alright, fine. With that if you'll start with that. Bill Engelhardt : Your honor, members of the Council, audience. My name is Bill , II Engelhardt . We're the consulting engineers that prepared the feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway. This feasibility study started some months ago. We've held two neighborhood meetings and I think most of you people have been in II attendance. I recognize quite a few faces. We had some good discussions. There was some good points that were brought out. We went back and modified the feasibility study based on some of the discussions that we had to the point that II we could modify it by working with MnDot. That's Minnesota Department of Transportation. Because of the amount of fundi-. that the State will be putting- into this project , we have to follow their stanci.rds. Their design criteria in order to reconstruct this roadway. They were somewhat flexible on their I Q I 1 City Council McPring - July 8, 1991 standards due to the terrain that we have out there. The environmental issues with the trees that were removed or would be removed and what we're able to do is brine dowr, the roadway width from what was originally proposed down to pretty close to a typical residential street in the city of Chanhassen. Some of the a ;,E: IP_'E addressed in the modified or revised feasibility study after those neighborhood meetings are addressed in the feasibility report and in the Executive summary. There's about 9 items, 11 items and I'll just read through those a little bit and we can discuss those or go on from there. Major ' considerations tb-t resulted from the homeowners meetings. Number one, the roadway was reduced from a 36 foot width to a 32 foot width. If I may, 1 troughs along a slide to give an example of how this. The existing right-of- way for Minnewashta Parkway is a 66 foot right-of-way. The existing road section is a 28 foot bituminous section with no curb or gutter. Very slight shoulders in .some areas and in some areas the -lawn is abutted right up to ' existing blacktop. In this type of section the drainage is carried in those gutter lines or in those grass areas down to low points and then it just runs helter skelter all through the area. So part of the project that 's being considered tonight is a storm sewer along with the road improvement. With the storm sever we're able to correct a number of different problems that some of the areas have out there and drainage through their yards. Getting back to the road section though, the proposal is to go with a 32 foot roadway from back of ' curb to back of curb. What that means is that they'll be adding about 6 inches, of additional blacktop to the edge of the road. . .and the gutterline is 18 inches. So about about a foot and a half to 2 feet from the existing road edge as it 'd be expanded out to each side. In some cases again because this is a ' State Aid Road, they do have to meet the State Aid standards. We will be trying to flat..n-, out and decrease the sharpness of the curves, improve sight distances on the roadway, both horizontally and vertically. Those are standards that we are reouired to make. The significance of this is that it substantially reduces the amount of work that has to be done on this road in the yard areas but still within the right-of-way. It also maintains somewhat the character of the road, ' although it will have some urban section which means curb and gutter versus the non-urban section or the rural section. With the curb and gutter it's much easier to control and provide more control in the drainage area. The second issue was the walkway alignment and originally the walkway, this map is a little ' hard. It 's more than a little hard. It's hard to see but the solid green line is the parkway and the trail section is the heavy dark line on both sides. Originally we had proposed that we would be on the west side of the road from ' Maple Drive north. The crossing would be along the east side of the roadway down to TH 5. Through the public meetings the discussion centered around trying to place the roadway all on one side. A lot of the residents felt that they did ' not want a crossover. At the last meeting on the feasibility study we did indicate that we'd be trying to maintain that walkway on the east side all the way along. The result of that is that through this area there's very steep grades going from the roadway down to the lake. A retaining wall would have to be built in order to accommodate the walkway. Since the last meeting I've met with a resident. One resident out there that specifically requested that I meet with him to address the walkway and point out the number of trees that would be taken. I think it was a very good meeting. What we arrived at by walking from up in the State Highway 7 area down to King's Point Road that probably a good compromise on the walkway, because some people wanted it on one side and some ' people wanted it on the other side. It 's kind of a confusing issue but a good compromise on all parts was that we bring it from State Highway 7 along the west ' 5 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 side as originally planned. Carry that down to Kings Point Road on the west side. Make our crossing at Kings Point Road and then carry it on the east side. That accomplishes a number of things. It accomplishes saving some of the tree work. Removal of trees along the lake side. It provides for a very good crossing area. Good sight distance both north and south. It also lends the opportunity that on this particular section of the roadway it 's about equal distance from TH 5 and TH 7 and if we construct the crossing at that point , Kings Point Road at some point in time could very well carry some of the interior traffic and we'd place a stop sign on Minnewashta Parkway so that would ' control the traffic going through from TH 7 to TH 5. Keep in mind that stop signs are not used for speeding or to control speed. We do have to meet the MnDot warrants in order to install that stop sign but simply the warrant of a crossing in all likelihood will allow us a stop sign and that will help in the concern that the neighborhood had of being a straight shot through. It helps. It probably doesn't completely take the issue away but it does help. The issue of the type of walkway came up at the last meeting whether it should be bituminous or concrete. The original proposal was for a concrete sidewalk. That was based on our conclusion that with a concrete sidewalk was more durable surface. Reduced the maintenance costs of the City in the long run and we felt that the price for bituminous and concrete was very comparable. We were asked to go back and evaluate the cost between the two types of trail systems. We've done that . The estimate for the concrete trail is $146,000.00 and the estimate for the bituminous trail1.„ $136,000.00 so the bituminous is a little bit less. Keep in mind though that with bituminous we do have to sealcoat it and we do have some ongoing maintenance. Although on concrete if we have any cracks we'll have to repair those too. Bituminous seems to be very appropriate material. It 11 lends itself to the character of the trail system probably better than the concrete does. It's not necessarily a defined residential area. It 's more of a trail, natural and specifically a parkway. Keeping with the nature of the area. So I think in the modifications of the trail, if we stick to the west side up to Kings Point Road. Again we have excellent sight distance both north and south at that point and then shift it over. We'll be able to save quite a few trees and reduce the number of trees that we'd be taking. We're still planning on, even though we'd be taking some trees, we still plan on keeping the level of tree planting up to where we originally proposed and the proposal was to plant 187 new trees. The third item was additional storm drainage problems identified ' and those came out through the neighborhood meetings. There was one up in the Linden Circle area. Leslee Curve. The, I'll call it Minnewashta Highlands. Maple Shore Drive area. And all through the parkway alingment we have low points that are uncontrolled and we'd be able to control those low points and direct the runoff to specific ponding areas. That's an issue, ponding areas and the environmental control and the storm water runoff was addressed in the original report. It probably will be addressed all through the design phase. We have to work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources. Our original proposal was to take the storm water in this particular area. Let me start from the north at the high point at about Stratford right in this area the storm sewer. From verything north from that high point we go to the wetland area right behind the fire station which then has an outlet to the north. From the high point going south we bring that down to the Lake St . Joe area. At about this location you can see, if you watch the monitor, right at this location by Red Cedar Cove townhouses is a connection - between St . Joe and Minnewashta. We would be dumping storm water at that point and then from about oh, right at 77th Street there's a high point that goes to 6 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 II the north. We'd be collecting and taking that again to St . Joe. The very II southerly portion of the parkway would drain into the wetland through just the southern catch basin. The issue that needs to be addressed is the Lake St . Joe dca.ira^_e . What will the DNR allow. How do they want it constructed and is it tEtter to cc directly to Lake Minnewashta or to Lake St . Joe? Lake Minnewashta I is classified as a recreational lake which means it 's about a medium type lake _ accoroing to the DNR standards. Lake St . Joe has a higher quality or higher - degree of environmental issues and concerns according to the DNR. The DNR would I prefer us to go directly to Lake Minnewashta if a ponding area could be cons tructed prior to Lake Minnewashta at the discharge points. Specifically we're really only talking about this area, this part of the drainage area right I in here of the roadway. The balance again is going to other wetlands and the vc_'ume has not been increased that much because one benefit we did see by reducing the width of the roadway is we reduce the amount of runoff that we . would see with a 36 foot road. We're 'still going to have a slight increase but IInot as much. Getting back to the DNR. Their comments are is they want to be involved in the design. Both the DNR and the watershed will not give you a specific answers at this time how they want it done but as you design the II project we'll be working very closely with their Fish and Wildlife experts and the water quality people to determine which method and which alternative is the most appropriate use. If for example we cannot get a ponding area on the east II side: of Minnewashta Parkway to take the storm sewer into Lake Minnewashta, then they would prefer us to construct a ponding area on the west side utilizing the existing wetland areas or portion. You know, not all of them, just a portion of them. Provide some ponding before it goes to Lake St. Joe and then from St . Joe I it goes into Minnewashta. But those options, they won't look at until we specifically sit down and design the system with both the DNR and the Watershed. Both agencies have a permitting process that we have to follow. The design II would be cent to them. It 's reviewed by their engineers and reviewed by their boards prior to issuance of the permits. We still feel that probably the best option at this time is to utilize the Lake St. Joe area. * Construct some type of I ponding and holding area before it discharges into St. Joe and then letting that water flow into Lake Minewashta. But it may be according to the DNR that that is not the option and we'll have to search for a site. I think it will be very difficult to find a site for ponding on this site. That 's the biggest problem. I The fourth item that was addressed was the assessment rate. Originally the assessment rate was based on $2,340.00 per unit . Per household. Per single family unit . The assessment area is based again on an area basis where the I residential properties, both raw land and developed land, utilizing Minnewashta Parkway as a major egress and ingress points from TH 7 and TH 5 would be assessed on a unit basis. The basis for the $2,340.00 was the State Aid Road project that was constructed about 2 years ago on Bluff Creek Drive. We took I their assessment rate and updated it for construction cost index. We updated it for inflation for the increase in construction costs. I think their assessment was around $2,200.00 and we arrived at $2,340.00. In analyzing the project II again after the neighborhood meetings, again very good input from the neighborhoods. The concern was that 'the Minnewashta Parkway area has much smaller lots than the Bluff Creek Drive area. That's very true so what we did I is we looked at what they could develop their lots into and the way their houses were situated even though they have a large lot, they still could only get maybe one more unit at the most on their particular. lot. So the unit cost was reduced from the $2,340.00 down to $1,250.00. It's $1,250:00 is the proposed _ I .assessment . That assessment would be spread, or proposed to be spread over 8 1 7 C zy Co rci1 Meeting - July 8, 1991 IIYears and the interest rate in all likelihood would be around 8% depending on what the bond was sold at . So this translates into about an annual payment in II the first year of about $250.00 and in the eighth year, sixth, seventh, eighth year of about $165.00. So the assessment goes down. The interest is not compounded. And as the principal is reduced, the payment is reduced over those 8 years. When it comes to assessment we needed to consider raw land. There's a II subctar,tial number of acres where it 's developed at this time and we needed to, we felt it very appropriate that that raw land area also share in the cost of upgrading Minnewashta Parkway. At some point in time it will be developed. In' fact in the area north of Kings Road, we have sketches of just proposed II developments. They have not been brought to the City but proposed developments of how many units could be constructed in those areas. We utilized that and showed the dashed lines for potential units in that area. For other areas where II we have raw land, we originally looked at 3 units per acre but the that a substantial portion of the raw land area had wetlands. Thereowerets were •• increased requirements of setbacks and lot sizes that the DNR and the City had placed on these particular pieces of property. And in order to follow the II guidelines a more appropriate assessment per raw land area would be 1.8 units. That 1.8 unit is developed by taking out any"wetland area that would be on a IIparcel of land. Subtracting that out and the base raw land area and then subtracting out another 15% of the remaining raw land area for roadways that would have to be built if it 's developed and the result was that we could get about 1.8 units. 1.8 units per acre would be about 24,200 square feet in that I particular area. The DNR requirements for shoreland, for lot size is 20,000 square feet . So I think we're very close to being in the ballpark in what those raw land areas could be assessed. Keeping in mind that they are raw land areas and that they may be developed anyway, a I units or may not be able to particular developer may want larger get as many units. I think we have to be sensitive to that fact and there would have to be adjustments made if they could not get that many units on their land. However, if they could II et land, they come in with proposals that show that 2 units more per r units eve their the 3 units per acre, they should be appropriately assessed forthose unitspand to that would go into the debt service fund of this particular II three parcels that have a classification of enoacre. There's acre classification does not allow us to parcels green until they're developed. The City can levy those a;sessments and the assessment would be deferred to such time as when the parcels are developed. They would II incur interest on the amount that they would be assessed and again at such time as they would be developed, the assessment would be levied and they'd be paying their fair share just as every other parcel. The advantage is that they would II not be levied at this time unless the property owner so desired that they be levied. One of the other complicated portions of this project was part of the roadway along TH 5 for about 1,300 feet is in the city of Victoria. This dark green line on the map indicates the corporate limits. The 1,300 feet runs up to II • about Hawthorne Circle. We've met with the Victoria City Council. The City Council passed a resolution that the City was to work with Victoria to undertake IIa land swap which would allow the City of Chanhassen to annex Minnewashta Parkway and seven parcels to the east. The parcels to the west at this time would be allowed to stay in Victoria until such time as they may desire to II annex. That 's their perogative. The seventh item that we needed to address was how to finance the project and we originally started out with a 2.2 million dollar project. That's a total cost and the total cost has been reduced, not by a large amount but it has been reduced $2.1 million. And of that, we're • 8 1 II City Council Nesting - July 8, 1991 proFcring 532 assessment units which will generate roughly $665,000.00 worth of financing for the project . State Aid funds would pay $944,000.00 worth of funds and the City would use general obligation bonds for roughly $477,000.00 to pay for portions of the storm sewer and walkway that in past projects they have participated in a like manner. That would be keeping with past policy on v-a-ious projects like this particular one. The balance of the project cost is about $26,000.00. That 's for some watermain construction and that $26,000.00 would come from City trunk funds. Trunk water funds because it is a ' reconstruction cf existing watermain that would allow for future expansion. Again the project , because of the reduced width of the roadway has significantly reduced the number of trees that would be taken along the parkway. There are ' particular- areas along the lake side that it 's very difficult without specific cross sections to tell whether the trees would go or not go. Our general opinion is they probably could be saved. They're the type of trees that they ' may be able to even handle small retaining walls and we may be able to shift the roadway just enough in some of those areas and it isn't going to take much. It's like a foot or two to save the trees. So again a significant number of trees that we thought would originally have to be removed we would keep those in place ' but still maintain the amount of tree planting that we originally proposed. Second to the last item that I'd like to address is comments during the neighborhood meetings just about placing an overlay on the roadway and what the ' cost of that overlay would be and would that not be satisfactory as a replacement for the Minnewashta Parkway system without completely redoing it. The estimated cost for the overlay and leveling course is $120,000.00. That'd ' be for a 3 inch overlay. The basic problem with an overlay is that when you raise that surface up you can put gravel in the shoulders to match the lawn areas but you have a very difficult time matching those lawn areas and you create more drainage problems by doing that than, you're going to solve some of II your road problems but you're going to create many drainage problems behind the curb . I think the most significant factor on not proposing an overlay on this particular roadway is the subsoils in this area. We did some borings in it and subsoils are very marginal. So in order to reconstruct the roadway we'll have to excavate some of those subsoils and replace that with gradual material and build the section up to meet design standards. But the overlay and the bad soils and subsoils, you're going to see a continual problem just as you see ' today in some of those areas where they continually break off. You can't just keep putting an overlay on a roadway. It just doesn't work. Basically what you'd be doing, I guess in my opinion is wasting the $120,000.00. It's not an appropriate fix for this particular type of roadway. Again summarizing, just to conclude here, to summarize a little bit on the financing options of it. The State Aid Funds would be $944,088.00. That would utilize the monies that the ' City receives yearly from the State. It'd be a 2 to 3 year process and what the City does is designate certain roadways that will qualify for State Aid roads. In this particular case it's connecting two State Highways. They could connect County Road to County Road or County Road to State Highway. In this case it's ' classified as State Aid because it does connect the two highways. Therefore it qualifies for the funding. Many roads in Chanhassen would not qualify for this funding. The City receives or has in their State Aid fund roughly $450,000.00 ' which means that we'll use this year's, next year's and probably a portion of the third year's funding for this particular roadway in order to make the financing. At that point you would schedule your financing for the other State Aid roads that would have to be upgraded in other parts of town. So you want to use your State Aid road money to upgrade your State Aid roads and you set up a 5 1 9 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 year schedule where these roadways would get improved on a 5 year schedule. Special assessments again would be at $1,250.00 per unit. We're suggesting that the special assessments would generate $665,000.00. General Obligation Bonds of $447,000.00 would be utilized as on past projects to pay for 50; of the storm sewer. The other 50% would be paid by State Aid to pay for portions of the walkL:ay. Trunk watermain funds of roughly $26,000.00 would make up the balance II of the project . So with that your honor I'd be happy to answer any questions or take testimony or comments from the public and we'll try to address any questions they may have. , Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to set just a couple parameters. I know I sat in on most of these meetings and those that I didn't sit , we have had a chance to review the Minutes of that meeting. So what I would like to ask is that there not be repetition. If there's any individual representing a number of people to speak for them and I'd like them to also address that. One clarifying thing I'd like to do. I'm happy that you're all here this evening, is to address a letter that was sent out to all the residents within the area by an unknown person indicating what this Council does. Ramrodding things through. That's the first thing I'd like to address. This Council has worked for the people of the City of Chanhassen. This Council has not ramrodded one item through as long as we've been in office in this city. There was some untruths within that particular letter and hopefully clarification has been done this evening by the presentation that Bill Engelhardt has done. So with that I would like to open ' the meeting for the public hearing and I'd like to have whoever'd like to start . Please come forward and I'd like to try to limit this because there's a lot of people I know that would like to talk and I'd like to limit this to a minimum of at least 5 minutes or less. Yes ma'am. Oh, one other thing I might add. I've received approximately about 14 letters regarding this project and each of those letters too are contained in our packets. I Arlene Herndon: I'm Arlene Herndon. I reside at 3750 Red Cedar Point Drive. I'd like to just read this letter I've written if I may. Please public servants. This letter is to voice my concern and opposition to the proposed upgrading and improvements of Minnewashta Parkway on the western shoreline of Lake Minnewashta between State Highways 5 and 7. With the right to assess being based on a benefit to the property being assessed, it is clear to me as an individual with years of real estate experience that the properties would not benefit from such a proposal with increased value but would undeniably lose value. The quiet lifestyle we currently enjoy would not be just interrupted but rather pre-empted. I, as a parent of 3 young children would be greatly concerned for the safety of my children. Property taxes have just gone up a tremendous amount for those of us living in the affected area of Chanhassen. The cost for living in the area must be weighed and analyzed according to the benefits thereof. Following this enormous tax hike, a special assessment is being considered in addition to it which will increase cost even more and cause a decrease in value. Any elementary study of real estate values as it. pertains to comparable homes. One on a quiet residential street and one on a busy thoroughfare clearly demonstrates the effect of heavy traffic. Marketability is lessen as well as property values itself. Those who live right on Minnewashta Parkway are going to suffer the loss of peace end quiet as well as significant dollars in real estate value. Are the now hic_% r taxes going to be lowered to--- reflect that decrease and are those homeowners ;oing to be given credit for loss of property values which will compensate them accordingly? Not with such a ' 10 ' City Ccurcil Meeting - July 8, 1991 11 proposal . The exact opposite is going to be the end result. As public servants of cu- cor,cunify I call upon your integrity as individuals elected to your positions to serve our community. Turning your backs on those who are so directly affected will constitute nothing less than a disservice. Does anyone have a hid:en agenda? What is our overall purpose in our community? To make it the hest place we can live or to close our .eyes to very real individual rights and needs for the purposes of advancement. The price tag is being handed to those very individuals who will suffer the very real consequences to lifestyle, ' pocketbookE and peace of mind. I hereby am requesting that the affects of such a proposal on property values and homes on Minnewashta Parkway be done so that the real truth will be known. Your position on this issue will clearly I/ demonstrate your level of commitment to your community. Mayor Chniel : Is there anyone else who would like to address it? Jim Boylan: Mr. Mayor and the City Council. My name is Jim Boylan and I live at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. I don't really have a letter tonight but I'd kind of like to go through your cover letter on this memorandum if I may and address ' some of the things that are mentioned on here. I guess' I don't really speak for a group but i may in some respects of people and neighbors that I've talked to befcre . But I'm concerned as a property owner on this project. It is hoped ' that the two previously held neighborhood meetings and corresponding follow-up investigations have answered many of the questions and concerns of the area residents. The following are some of the key project revisions directly resultir0 from the discussions of the neighborhood meetings. Okay? This lends ' me to t_liece that these are things that have been dealt with and I don't think they have been. At least not to my satisfaction 'and I'm sure not to some of the other people that are here. For example, MnDot approval of reducing the ' proposing roadway width from 36 to 32 feet. Well, what does this really mean? Is this really doing the job that we want to do here? Part of the new proposal for ter jogging path has created a situation now where instead of going along my lakes': __ on the east side, on the lake side, and causing the construction of maybe a 12-14 foot retaining wall and a jogging path. Cutting down. my trees and making my view of the lake a jogging path with an iron railing of some kind to keep people from falling off into my lakeshore and suing me. Now is going over ' to the other side of the road and taking the last 6 trees out of my front yard. About 4 years ago as all of us had suffered through the dutch elm situation, I removed 16 trees from my wooded lot. This is one of the reasons I bought that lot . It turned my front yard into a baseball diamond and the only thing that was left was 6 old maple trees. Now these maple trees I can show you on a surveyor's plot that was done on my land when Minnewashta Parkway was known as Glencoe Road. At that time the right-of-way, those trees were not on the ' right-of-way. They were in the property of which I now own. Since that time the right-of-way has expanded to encompass these trees. Now these are trees that my wife grew up on that property and climbed in as a child. These trees are almost 100 years old and yet we're going to mow those trees down and put in a jogging path in front of the house. Well, maybe some of you think that might be alright . I don't particularly. I have a neighbor that lives next door to me ' who's even going to be worse off because he has a house that's right up within probably 6 or 8 feet of the jogging path and is going to have a problem. The second item. The location of the walkway and trail system has been modified to meet the needs of the residents. Who? Not me. I don't know about the rest of ' you. I don't feel that 's a modification that meets my needs. In fact it's even ' 11 City Council Mee' ing - July 8, 1991 worst . It devaluates my property. I'm paying over $3,000.00 in taxes on that piece of land, which by the way I've been in front of the City Council before and heard you people say to me that the lake belongs to the City. Yeah, I'd like to believe that except that when the tax assessor comes along, he doesn't quite believe the same way that you people do so I pay a little more because I've got land on the lake. I feel that it 's my right and priviledge to husband that and to voice my opinion about this. I think the presentation of the recently completed Eastern Carver County Transportation Study related to the predicted future tr ffic demands is bogus. It 's absolutely bogus. I was in the traffic control business for a number of years and I've sat down and figured this out . The traffic that was proposed at those meetings is really only an indication of probably 10; of the people that live there. If you figure that the people that we are talking about paying for this project each having two cars and multiplying that out , you'll find that the traffic proposal, that only covers like less than 10% of that as far as driving. Where are these other 95% coming from to drive down Minnewashta Parkway? Why do we need this kind of a road based on those figures? I think the reduction of land assessment is necessary in a lot of these cases. Yes, there are some people who have moved in. Picked up a property and are looking to develop it. They ought to pay for that . If they want to sell lots and make money, then they ought to pay for the assessments that go along with putting in storm sewers, drainage systems and the rest of that just like I did when I moved in here. There was no storm or drain sewer or anything. We had a well in the front yard and a septic tank. Then they came along and said well you have to hook up and we have to comply. We have and we paid for that . Somebody else coming into the neighborhood, I know it costs a lot more nowadays but I'm sorry, developers should have to pay that cost and pass it onto their people and not expect the people in the neighborhood to have to pay again for something they've already paid for once. I think also the reduction of the assessment is not really, I've never felt comforable with this because when we started out about the State matching funds my wife contacted the Governor's office about the State matching fund situation and found out that that was being phased out by the State government. And that there were no plans or had there been any proposals sent to them about this project and they were very interested in finding out more about it. Now I hear • tonight that there's some proposal where you take regular State budgeting money that you've got over the next 3 years and use this to help fund this project. What else are you going to do in this city then? You've got no projects for the next 3 years except this one to fund? I can't see where that's really going to be a good deal. I guess in summation I have to say that I'm a little bit distraught about the fact that I've looked through this number 3. Chanhassen cover letter and all of the attached letters. I see a lot of no's here. I see a lot of people that have come here saying we don't want this. Why are you doing this to us? Why are you making us pay for it and who are the yes people that are saying so? I haven't seen them. Thank you. Leittia Seim: My name is Leittia Seim and I'm a resident of 3616 Red Cedar 1 Point Drive. We own the property for the last 33 years. Now we live in California and we know what means to urbanize. It's terrible. I am very disappointed that a proposal of the kind I have listened to tonight is even considered. It seems to me that the good engineer that present it has given reason and have found reason for doing something' In other words, at first he wanted large. Then he want to reduce. Then he says that will help the drainage but now it will not help the drainage. Then we'll have to send the water to 12 , i City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 II il Minnewashta again. Then to Little Joe again. Seems to me just making water. I want to register my strong opposition to enlarge even one inch of that parkway. It 's large enough. I am also concerned that somebody wants a jogging path. Well I have been not jogging. I cannot jog any longer. but I walk a lot and I II have courted in ore hour and a half 22 cars. 22 cars is not traffic. It 's just very little traffic so I don't know why we need to enlarge anything. .So I simply want to say don't do it . IHarvey Sobel : Mr. Mayor? Councilwoman? Councilmen? I'd like to know first if you all are fully familiar with our Minnewashta Parkway? I live on Red Cedar Cove. Harvey Sobel. Are you all personally familiar? Each of you have walked I a piece of it? Understand it is a country road. By no means could it be converted into a 41 type of highway. My second short question is, is there a . way that the Council, that you' rr: Mayor, can poll the 530 taxpayers? What if I 75% of us for example voted for the time being let's gamble $150,000.00 on an overlay? What would the results be of such a poll? Thank you. Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. IIPeter eenjar: in: My name is Peter Benjamin and I'm a new resident on Minnewashta Parkway. I live at 7231 Minnewashta and I just had a question about the Eastern I Carver County Traffic survey that was done in 1990. In October and it recommends that Minnewashta be 4 lanes and I just want to have some response about that proposal. IMayor Chmiel : Okay. Maybe we can have, Gary? Gary Warren: .If I understood the question is why the Eastern Carver County I study report showed Minnewashta Parkway to be 4 lanes. Actually the report , as I recall it , showed it to be a collector roadway system which can be 4 or 2 lanes depending on the width of the roadway. That is based on the computer I modeling that was done with the best input of the MnDot Transportation model that was used on the TH 212 corridor and input as far as the Crosstown projections are for feeding into TH 7 and also on TH 5. It's with that in mind that discussion here, I remember from some of the earlier hearings that the I7,000 average daily traffic count was in question and such. Actually the road section would stay the same whether you're talking 1,000 or 7,000 based on the State standards. There's a lot of room for I guess changes in traffic impacts ISO you could cut the traffic projections in half and you would still be looking to build the same road section out there under the State standards. IMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does that answer your question? - Bill Engelhardt: I'll give it a try. The way I understand the question is, your concern is that it's going to a 4 lane? IPeter Benjamin: Yes. • I Bill Engelhardt : Okay. When they do their traffic modeling and they put together the numbers that tell you or the guec<'.imate of how many vehicles they would anticipate would travel on that roadway 7,, the future, in 2010. In the II year 2010, that model says it will carry so many vehicles. I think it was like 9,500 vehicles per day. I personally felt that when we looked at those numbers II 13 I City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 that that particular don't ocular model probably was accelerated a little bit. I don t think it 's going to get that high. So what we did is we went back to MnDot and we said, what road section could we, or what road width could we put in there to meet your design standards and still receive the funding? They said a 36 •foot roadway. That would meet their traffic projections. It was classified as a, I'll SEX a high density collector. That's the maximum width it was ever proposed. It was never proposed for 4 lanes.- It never would be 4 lanes because it doesn't carry that volume of traffic. After the neighborhood meetings I asked and it was very apparent that the 36 foot width was very objectionable. And from tonight the 32 is even objectionable. Keep in mind that right now you have a 28 foot roadway. So what we're doing expanding to 32, to the back of the curb, is adding 2 feet on both sides of the road which means we're utilizing those shoulders. We went back to MnDot and we said, if you look at your design standards, the traffic projections for a modified section would fall in what's called a low density collector and we could reduce that street width down to 32. They agreed with that and when this gentleman asked is that approved by MnDot, that is approved by MnDot. They have given us their blessing on that to go down to 32 foot wide. Back of curb to back of curb. Which results in about a 29 foot driving surface where today you have about a 28 foot driving surface. So you're talking about 6 inches of driving surface on each side plus the curb and gutter. The question was through all of the hearings, the meetings was that you're going to increase the speed. The speed is going to increase. You're going to construct an unsafe road and that's not true. Studies have shown that with curb and gutter on a roadway that the speeds are reduced. Now you can believe that if you want. Those are the facts. That's what the study shows and it 's been shown all through the country that if you have a wide open road with no control. With no curb and gutter, that you will see higher speeds. By installing your curb and gutters, you will see lower speeds. That's a proven fact . So the next thing to do on the roadway for both the pedestrians that utilize that road and for the cars that utilize that road and the way you do that is through smoothing out the curves. Taking out the horizontal vertical curves. Correct sight distances. Still staying within MnDot guideline standards and still keeping within the character of the parkway as best you can and you can do it. It can be done. Peter Benjamin: 'I was concerned that down the road that this would be 4 lanes. Bill Engelhardt: No. It isn't going to happen. Ed Oathour: My name is Ed Oathour. I live at 3940 Hawthorne Circle. Because we have an engineer speaking tonight I'd like to say that I'm a registered architect and I worked for Target for most of the last 4 years and I've done 37 times more asphalt work in that time working for Target than this road amounts to. I've walked the road for 5 years maybe 200-300 times. I drive it at minimum twice a day. There are some, areas on there that have some foundation problems. They're not very many. They're far apart. One of the things that Bill just got done saying was that the addition of a curb and gutter on the side of the road is going to slow people down. I don't know. Okay, if this is true in other parts of the world, when you take that road that you have to travel 30 mph on whether it 's the speed limit or not because you can't go any faster than that and make it into a smooth, rolling thing with no trees on either side, I think you're going to see the traffic speed go up to 40-45 mph. I have serious doubts about the safety of our children and that goes on. But the reason that 14 1 City CcJncil Meeting - July 8, 1991 I came here today was not to talk necessarily about those things. Obviously I'm oppose'' to this road and the reasons that I oppose it, first of all is the cost is tc: high. Or maybe safety is the first reason but let 's go into cost first beca.js: that 's what has been discussed by Bill quite often. We have a road to ' the east of us. We have a road to the west of us. TH 41 and Rolling Acres. Both of those are fine roads. They go between TH 5 and TH 7. The road that we have here eoes through a neighborhood. It's a different kind of a road. It 's a different kind of a feeling in that particular area than these other two roads are which by the -ay quite a bit faster roads. In case you have been out there, there 's just as many joggers and bikers and kids on this road as there are cars. You can't drive it in the morning or at night without seeing at least 2 or 3 ' joggers or walkers or kids on bikes. My suggestion is that even though I'll get booed out for this, I do believe that we do need to put a parkway walkway system in there. We have no park in the area. The kids need it. The adults need it but we don't need the road to be upgraded the way we're talking about . Yes, we need to have the catch basins. They have to be raised in some cases. There are great potholes but where in Minnesota aren't there potholes. But we need to keep the road at 30 mph and I believe the way to do that is not to turn it into ' a speed..:a;'. I know that there's nobody in this room that really believes Mr. Englehardt 's contention that this road is going to stay 30 mph. The signs will say mph and it will be a big revenue producer for the city but I'm afraid we might lose a kid or two out there or an adult because I've seen 15 or 20 times a gentleman walking down that road with a long white cane with a red tip on the end of it . I know that a situation exists that needs to be corrected and I ' believe that that 's the situation. The next item is the traffic study was talked about at the meeting that Mr. Wing attended. The public meeting Mr. Wing attended. I believe that somebody said that the average residence in there was going to generate 10 trips a day but the traffic study didn't bear that out. As ' a matter of fact it was about 3 trips a day. So what we're dealing with here is figures that are taken completely out of context by an engineer who I have a great deal of faith in but I know that he's just using numbers that have no ' basis in fact . At least in our area. The reason that they don't is because these numbers were generated during the time when gasoline was 17 cents a gallon and people didn't live 20 miles from the grocery store. We don't do business like that . When we go to the grocery store we spend time at the grocery store, ' the supermarket , the Target and everyplace else we go to. Then we take the whole thing in one trip instead of doing it like people who live in the city do in 10 trips. Last item I guess is, that's why I oppose construction. Thank you very much. Lamar Proshek: My name is Lamar Proshek. I live on Red Cedar Point Drive and I have some concerns that have been voiced by many others before me tonight. My main concerns are that we are going to be addressed with a lot of new traffic in the area and we can avoid that. The other concern is that we're going to be addressed by a lot of additional taxes, money that we don't need. Now I ' appreciate the fact that you say that you're going to float some bonds and going to increase the taxes and you're going to limit those taxes to 8 years. Then you're going to get State help. State Aid.. Where does that money come from? ' From the State? Is anybody here in doubt? Now I appreciate the fact that you have put a lot of time and thought and effort on this project and I feel that this road which we're talking about has been there for many, many decades. It has served the local area very well and I personally .don't think that we should look that it should serve other people in this State or this city more than it • ' 15 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 serves us. Now I wrote you a letter and I would like to just read it because I think this kind of outlines my thoughts. I would hearby like to register my pronounced opposition to the proposal to improve Minnewashta Parkway from TH 7 to TH 5 at a cost of 3 million dollars. Now I appreciate the fact that it 's . been 12.1 million and. . .and I would suggest that by the time it 's built , it probably could be much higher. In fact I would register my disapproval to II improve this road at all except for maintenance only of irregular surfaces such as potholes. Curb, water, sewer and gutter and improved surfaces costing 3 million dollars is a matter for city living, not country living. I live on Red Cedar Point and before me my father had a cabin on Red Cedar Point since 1935. We'd like to maintain for as long as possible the feeling of country living. We feel that if you straighten out, widen and smooth off Minnewashta Parkway, you will vastly increase the amount of speed of traffic on this road and bring the city to the country. In addition to this I realize that $3 million is quite a • ' bit of money and all people who live in this area would be assessed a portion of this money. I would like to bring to your attention that our taxes have just been raised 30%. The additional taxes which we would be required to pay I consider unconscionable. Please leave our community adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway countrified and not citified. Thank you. , Dave Headla: My name is Dave Headla. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I guess I'm one of the yes man. This may be the first one but I ask you do not look at the idea of what we were in 1970 but look ahead to the year 2000 and where we're going to be. Now the reason I support what you're doing and Bill and I certainly aren't in agreement on all the issues but I think the concept I've got to support. Safety is the ultimate point . And one of the things was, about a week ago we had a rain. I went down my driveway and looked across the road and here was a kid, 9 year old boy sitting in the gutter playing in the rain. The water was coming down. He was having a good time. Now that's a narrow section and cars haul through there. That kid could have been picked off so easy. I think if we put in that road and I have a hard time accepting 32 feet but if we argue about that we're going to be wringing our hands and never get anything resolved. So it's kind of can hang you with a new rope and we go 32 feet. I think we've got to have that safety and where Bill has looked at it again, now I'd like to compliment the Mayor on the letter. He responded to me. He gave me some facts. That $24,000.00 that we donated to the trail fund, in my ' own mind I thought it was about 4 times that much. And then Bill was very helpful and the staff in giving me numbers so I appreciate their cooperation. Now we walked down the trail and trees are going to come out from either side so that didn't make a point. But he was willing to listen that out of 265 units on the north side of Kings Road, only about 10 are on the east side of the road. He listened to that and then he looked at the trees and what it meant and he said well maybe that does make sense to do that so I think he is putting forth a real effort to do the right thing to satisfy a lot of people. So many homes on that side, picking up a school bus or anything, I think it's by far the safest thing to do. As far as the road speed, I've got two comments. I talked to somebody on Birch Bluff Road and I asked them does the speeed, did the speed increase, decrease or stay the same after they put in the 9 ton road. They said that's not a fair question. I go out there at 40 mph, I'm holding up traffic. So we may have that problem. So okay, we've got a problem. I think the issue is how do we work that problem. Now as you come of of TH 5 or TH 7, if you . come off of TH 7 onto TH 5, you see a speed limit 30 but you also see two signs. Other signs on that post. What I really would like to do is have you work the ' 16 ' City Council Meet ng - July 8, 1991 ' issue. Put up one sign and say speed limit reduced, 30 mph. Do the same thing at the other end but then inbetween, at Kings Road or someplace put two more. 30 mph signs. Now all the way inbetween, you come out Red Cedar Point Road and you come out of Stratford Ridge, you don't see anything so I think we need more ' warnir_ on that . And as far as the traffic count , I was really in disagreement with Bill on that but I started in front of my place looking at Stratford Ridge. Oh there was traffic coming out of there all the time and that's not against ' him. That 's the way it is. Then I look at when our place goes and our neighbor's place g. >s and I look at , I assume the same home count will have the same traffic. There's going to be a lot of traffic on that road. So here again ' I hate to do it but rather than wringing our hands I think we've got to support that . Okay now the two issues that I'm really concerned about, outside of safety is one is determination of the number of units. I .don't think there's a consistent rule across the overall path. And Bill and I talked about it. What I would really like to see you do is if I plot my land,. then I get assessed for every single unit that goes in there. My neighbors have to do that. They get assessed at that time. Likewise neighbors to the north. If they squeak in ' another lot , and that can be done in some places, they ought to get hit with the same assessment . I really would like to see you address that issue. Whoever plots it , whatever goes in, that's when they get assessed. Now if I get hit and the estimate right now is for 17 units, let me address the 17 units first . In ' front of my place it isn't realistic to build another home. In the back of my place I've got many oak trees, many old maple trees and determination of that number of units wasn't taken into consideration. When a building, a builder's ' looked at our place and he's kind of given an estimate of what he's done. They never talk about trashing your home. They say hey, that's too valuable. We can't trash that . They also want to save all those trees. Supposedly he wants ' to save trees. Well, we're not going to save trees and come up with 17 units. It isn't bare prairie land where it's rows and columns. My neighbor has a ravine behind her place. That's just unbuildable but she gets hit for that spot there so I'd like to see your decision making based on the number of units that ' get plotted. Now the last point is that right now I'm assessed one unit and I have no problem at all with that assessment. You know remember safety. One kid gets picked off, then you think about your $1,250.00 bucks and I think we ' need it . There's that much traffic. If I get hit for one lot now or one assessment , I would like to see this one assessment and not have to pay interest on the other 16. Now what happens if I had to pay interest on that 16, although nobody in my place is using it. Just our family's there. You're costing me over $200.00 a month and I just don't think that's right that I would have to pay $200.00 a month when nobody's using it and hopefully they won't be using it for quite a while in the future. That's all I have to say. You've got a tough, very tough decision to make. Good luck. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Terry Forbord: Your honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Brothers. 935 East Wayzata Blvd. . Prior to any informal or formal public hearings we have gone on record opposing this project for a number of reasons. Since that time the formulas for assessments have been . changed. Lundgren Bros. controls approximately 50-55 acres of land contiguous to Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of that property is in the city of Victoria. The reason that we have opposed this project primarily is number one, there's no benefit to us as far as it 's marketability as a neighborhood community. People ' 17 City Council Mer--' ing - July 8, 1991 1 will want to live there whether that road is the way that it is now or if you do something different with it . Secondly is because we've had little difficulty making the assessment formula, the proposed assessment formulas work within the city's own zoning ordinance. The piece of property that we have right at this present time could not be platted at more than 1.4839 dwelling units per acre II because of this city's shoreland overlay districts, zoning code and because of the constraints the DNR, etc. . And from a legal standpoint, I would challenge whether we could be assessed something for what the ordinance would prohibit us from doing. And t -re was discussion by Mr. Engelhardt that some adjustments may be needed in certain areas. In that area north of, excuse me, west of Minnewashta Parkway there are a number of pieces of property that I don't think would meet that test. I don't know how you would put together an adjustment but at some point in time that 's something we would need to investigate. The last item that I would like to mention is that we have not been contacted by either Victoria or the City of Chanhassen regarding any land swap on property that we control and if there is discussion regarding that, we would like to be a party to that and would welcome it . Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Why don't you come on up. ' Tom Allenburg: Mr. Mayor, Council people. My name is Tom Allenburg. I live at 6621 Minnewashta Parkway -and some of the presentations were quite good and quite ' formal and people had prepared. I really haven't. I would chastise one thing that occurred tonight. I think Mr. Bill Engelhardt is it? I think his verbal presentation was excellent . I think his audio visuals were extremely poor and I don't think that anybody here has any idea really what he was talking about. Maybe you're not aware that this cannot be seen on the screen and I don't think it's fair to us who have some legitimate concerns as to what's going on here. I am a jogger. I've lived on that parkway now for 9 years and a couple things that I enjoy are early in the morning I can jog from my place, 1.2 miles down to TH 5 and back and often not see another car. I do not quite understand why we want to upgrade this from a rural road to an urban road to make it a collector road so that I can now maybe jog along a pathway next to additional cars that are coming from other areas. I thought one other issue that he raised concerned me, or maybe he didn't raise. The one gentleman who was going to lose his 6 trees in his front yard. One thing that I really enjoy in walking the parkway is that there are these nice trees that overhang the road both on Minnewashta lakeshore side and on his side of the road there. It was brought out that the road's going to be expanded 6 inches on each side. Gee in front of my house the road is 25 feet so it's going to be considerably more than that. Plus I think we have to, and my understanding at the last meeting is that there's an additional 11 feet with the walkway. Is that not right? So there's a boulevard and then the walkway? Bill Engelhardt: Right . Tom Altenburg: So it's not a 32 foot swath. So when I jog down this road it's not that I went from a 28 foot to a 32 foot. I am now going on a what, 44 foot? Bill Engelhardt: No. That's not correct. You still have a roadway of 32 feet , plus the additional 6 feet of walkway on the outside of the curb. Tom Allenburg: Plus a boulevard though? 18 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt : About a 3 foot boulevard, yeah. Tom Allenburg: Well now wait a minute now. You told us last time 5 foot so I 'vE got 32 feet , I've 5 feet and I've got 6 feet . - IIBill Engelhardt : That 's right . Tom Allenburg: So I've got 11 feet outside of my 33 feet so that 's 44 feet . Now if we want real safety you know we could make it 66 feet or something. I really think that living on the parkway, gee whiz the reason we bought there it that it was rural and it was not a major thoroughfare and yeah, I think the road needs ' to be improved. I don't understand why it has to be wider and I don't understand taking this giant swath out of the entire neighborhood. In summary I . guess I'm really opposed to this plan. . I really think there should be additional information that could be gathered and maybe additional plans that ' would be presented to the people. I was at the last meeting and it was my understanding that a survey was going to be sent to the residents asking them various questions. I don't think anything like that showed up. The only thing ' that showed up is this meeting notice saying that this was going to take place tonight . So I guess I would really like to see you reconsider this and at this point not approve the proposal as presented to you. Thank you. Rich Comer: I'm Rich Comer and I live at 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive. We've been ther-.e for about 40 years. My wife was born on the place and her family got . I it from the original indians from the Civil War and they've been there.ever since. There are a few little points here. Mr. Allenburg said that it was 28 feet wide in front of his house? Mayor Chmiel: There are two different variations on that road. Some 28 feet and some at 25. ' Rich Comer: True. When you take a measuring stick and you go from the middle of the road to the edge you get 26 feet most of the way and on occasion you get to 27 so if he goes to 35 or 32, we'll have the 6 feet that Dave Headla wants as a walkway right next to the road. And with this sufficient speed limit, you won't have to worry about little kid playing in the rain if he's in that walkway. If he's not in the walkway heaven help him because there's no way we're going to protect him. I'm the one who sort of developed the idea of II having an overlay. I think it's a grand idea and you hear things about Goodyear has developed a mat that goes on top of the roadway and you just put the asphalt on top and it lasts for a million years. Where are we with that? What happened ' to that? I'd like to ask you Bill. Bill Engelhardt: It's good advertising. From what we've seen, the mats or the fabrics that they've used work the best underneath the base or underneath the ' rock material to separate the fines from getting up in the base. To just put the fabric as you see in the Phillips 66 commercial, they're laying down the fabric and they're putting a bituminous overlay on the top. It works very good ' in the south where they don't have any freeze/thaw cycles. Rich Comer: We happened to see it being done Rn TH 7 for the last 18 years. They went from St. Louis Park all the way out. 19 1 - City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 I Bill Engelhardt : They just put an overlay on that though. • Rich Comer: Exactly. And it's holding up beautifully. • Bill Engelhardt : And they mill it off and then they put their overlay on and I the reason they mill it is to keep it at the- same elevation. . . Rich Comer: And the relative cost of doing that scoring and putting on the overlay is way out of sight on the $3 million right? Bill Engelhardt : No. Rich Comer: It 's within reach? Bill Engelhardt : The problem is that the subsoils in that particular area. I Rich Comer: Whoops. Whoops. We have a stable road base. Bill Engelhardt : No. , Rich Comer: It 's been there for over 100 years and you find a place in there where it 's 14 inches of bituminous that makes it irregular? Wouldn't it be justifiable to go down that road and where it is not standard, replace it. Leave the rest of it alone because we all know if you lift it up and start over, you're going to have a crown that's going to drop 14 inches over the next 15 years. An inch a year. That's the way it goes. So you're going to have an unstable road base if you put the 3 million dollars in. If you put an overlay on, you'll have a stable base with the exception of where you have the drainage problems. And I like this letter from Don Ashworth where it says he doesn't like the idea of an overlay because bituminous overlay would not improve intersections, sight lines and storm drainage problems currently being experienced. I think the ideal for a storm drainage is wherever that drop of rain hits, it gets to an absorbing soil as quickly as it possibly can. That is crown the road so it gets to the gutter and is off in 13 feet and forget about the storm. Now you say DOT requires it. We could finance this thing without DOT if we simply have an overlay and eliminate the storm sewer and the gutters. We've got ditches. That picture you had up there was ridiculous. A roadway in the gutter? We've got ditches all the way along that road. It's going to drain off just as soon as it leaves that hard surface and I think that we should eliminate the gutters and the storm sewers. As far as this package, you've got $600,000.00. $665,000.00 from us. $994,000.00 from the State. Let's let the State, forget about that. We'll try to carry it ourselves. How did we get in this mess huh? You know what happened? We didn't do the maintenance on a regular scheduled basis. We didn't put down the sand and the tar that's occasionally put on. It used to be before the Village took over. In fact just before they put in the sewer, they had a sealcoat put on and then proceed to tear it up. But if we had had a maintenance schedule all this period that would be absorbed, there wouldn't be this problem. I think that the thing should be corrected on a maintenance basis without having any additional assessment. Thanks for your trouble. Court MacFarlane: Mr. Mayor, my name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 II Leslee Curve and I have just three points that I wanted to raise. The current 20 ' 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 drainage off of the road is basically by sheet drainage and rather than going into specific areas. I know there's one area off of Leslee Curve that drains down across the road but that was upgraded just I think last year and they improved the whole drainage through that area down into Minnewashta. But basically the rest of it is a sheet drainage system that just goes off the road at a point that the rain hits and it 's off the crown and most of it goes toward the lake side. Now you have a very mature slope along there and when I was involved with the environmental committee that wrote the wetland ordinance for the City of Chanh"ssen in 1984 we looked into the various types of wetlands in Chanhassen. One of the things that came out at that time is along the Minnesota River there is what they call an environmental slope easement along there because it 's a steep slope. It's a very mature growth area with a lot of old growth trees. If you go along Minnewashta Parkway you're going to see those old growth trees on the lake side. Most of them are oaks and oaks are notorious for • when their roots are disturbed or compacted that they die within a year or two. I know some of those trees have got to be 200 years old. All you have to do is look at them from the size. They created that slope easement along the Minnesota River to preserve that slope so no building could be done and no ' excavation could be done into it . I think something like that is certainly warranted along there too because of the age. The other thing is that I live in the Pleasant Acres Association and we basically have a circular drive and in the middle of our development there and I don't know how many homes altogether there are. There's got to be 50 to 70 plus another 30 that are coming in from the new development that 's in there. The lots have already been platted. I think there's only been two homes built in there at this point but I don't know who's ' going to be using this trail. I don't think people from our area are going to be using it . I know it 's used. Not from our area. People in our area walk around Leslee Curve. They walk around in there. Some go down to the lake. Certainly. We have a lake lot down there. It 's a crossing point but very few, if any walk the entire parkway. I think the whole project is unwarranted and I think that something could be done just with upgrading the road. I don't know that we need the trail at all. I'm opposed to it and I'm opposed to completely new road surface. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? ' Arnie Head: Mayor. Councilmen. My name is Arnie Head. I live at 3860 Lone Cedar Circle and Court who was up here just before me, we were on the access to ' Lake Minnewashta. I chaired that committee and I think we probably provided more safety on Minnewashta Parkway with the decisions that we worked out with the DNR when we eliminated the parking of boats and trailers on Minnewashta Parkway about 5 years ago. There are ways to protect safety without building this new road. I think there's another item that the Director of the Arboretum has been in negotiations with your people to determine what they can do to protect the environment of the Arboretum. I think that might be taken into ' consideration. There's a third thing that I've noticed in the Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, other cities on the west side. There's always access to the city on east/west highways. Every city seems to want north/south egress. Well in Chanhassen we have TH 101, CR 17, CR 117 and TH 41 and we also have Rolling Acres Road. That 's five north/south so we don't need Minnewashta Parkway to - carry more traffic. My wife would shoot me I guess but I got a letter Friday that I'm being requested to go to the Soviet Union to explain democracy to the collective farms in Istonia. Maybe we can use democracy here and have a vote as ' 21 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 i to how many property owners out of the 532 approve this enhancement of Minnewashta Parkway. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? • Resident : I just have a question. How many of you have really been on Minnewashta Parkway to look at all the homes that are going to be affected by this? Mayor Chmiel: I've been there many times. Councilman Workman: All my life. I Mayor Chmiel: No question. Yes sir. • Kevin Cuddihy: Kevin Cuddihy, 3900 Stratford Ridge. I guess the people that ' drive a lot . I don't know. It 's my neighbors believe me. Just a couple of quick questions before I comment. Bill, MnDot, correct me if I'm wrong, has approved a light going in on TH 7 and Minnewashta Parkway? , Bill Engelhardt : That 's correct. Kevin Cuddihy: And what year will that be going in? Bill Engelhardt : I think 1995 is scheduled for TH 7 and 1994 is scheduled for TH 5. Kevin Cuddihy: Yeah, I think that was talked about at our previous meetings. At that point I see it being very unrealistic that if nothing's been done with Minnewashta Parkway that something will be done at that point. At that point is it possible that MnDot may have more to say than it does currently? Bill Engelhardt : It 's possible, yeah. 1 Kevin Cuddihy: So I would think that we look at that only in the sense that if there is an inevitability about this, that we look at it now. I moved here from Minnetonka. Before that moved out from closer into the city. I continue to move out so I certainly can understand country versus urban. Unfortunately, if you look at the plans being involved right now for the City of Victoria, you can see that that 's becoming extremely suburbanized right now itself. Something even further west than where we're at. I appreciate the fact that everyone would like to keep it more countrified. I guess I would like to add that there seems to be some concern certainly, my concern that Minnewashta is a parkway. We'd like to keep it a parkway. That we're dealing with the 32 foot curb to curb road on a 66 foot right-of-way which would leave us somewhere in the neighborhood, if my math is correct, which probably isn't, about 34 feet to work with in developing a jogging path or walking path. Whatever you'd like to call it. And the particular area that would remain grass between the road and the walkway could at any point be up to 18 feet apart from the road. That's only 18 feet to avoid any major trees along the parkway particularly on the furthest' west part of the road. I think that way at sore.Doint your walkway may be a minimum of 5 feet away. Could it not also be as much as 12 to 16 feet away and leaveing trees inbetween? 22 ' I City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt : Right. With the type of walkway we're proposing, we can go around large trees. As I mentioned earlier, in cases where we might have to build a small retaining wall, that can be done to save the tree. Depending on the type of trey. You have a lot of flexibility on where to put that walkway ' and hoc it can work. Kevin Cuddihy: I guess finally if, and I personally believe in inevitability because I've seen it in the State of Minnesota in my 35 years here. I also believe that Governor Carlson in his many fine ways probably will not be giving us as much State Aid 5 years from now as he is today and I can guarandamtee you it 's going to cost you more 5 years from now than it is today and it may not be your choice. So I may not be popular but I think it's something to think about . Thank you. Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address us? This is your opportunity. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, 4141 Kings Road. On these walking paths, for ' instance the curb and gutter, are they going to sweep that? Get a sweeper to sweep that or Bobcat to clean up the walking path instead of making it one level and when they plow the road they plow the one time and it 's all done? What 's I the status on that particular case? I mean have they got to buy extra equipment to maintain this thing or whatever's going to happen with this? If it's one level , they plow her and sweep her or whatever and fix the road and whatever to make it a little wider. Whatever form but the maintenance cost on that thing is ' going to look somebody in the eye pretty soon. Thank you. Oh, one other thing was on per acre lots, what did he say 1.8 now assessed for this road? Does Chanhassen have a 2 acre minimal building lot deal right now do they? You've got to be at least 2 acres per home. Or is it now down to 1.8? Mayor Chmiel: Depending upon specific areas. Paul, maybe you can address that. Paul Krauss: That entire area is guided for single family development and while it 's not all zoned RSF I don't believe at this time, it all could be and it all could be developed in 15,000 square foot lots. Lowell Carlson: Okay. So it still is a 2 acre per unit? So it 's 1.8 now? ' Bill Engelhardt: 3 per acre. Paul Krauss: It 's actually more than that if you figure it on a gross basis. I mean if you just take an acre you can almost get 3 lots out of it technically. When you figure out what you're really going to get out of it when you subtract roads and wetlands and whatever else, effectively you come out with a number that 's a lot closer to the 1.8 that's being used.. ' Lowell Carlson: Say you ain't got no wet area and you ain't got no sewer and water and you ain't got whatever. You've just got bare land. What are you ' saying at that particular point what anybody's going to be assessed on this property? Like for the 6 acres or whatever. What do you say the assessments are going to be on that particular unit? As a single family? Is this a single family one shot deal or what do say on that now? • 23 I City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt : What we're saying is that if you have 6 acres of developable property where you'd be served with municipal sanitary sewer and water, that you ' would be assessed 1.8 units per acre which would give you roughly two 24,000 square foot lots per acre. The zoning standard for that particular area is at 15,000 square feet so you're basically getting a break. We're saying that you can only develop 20,000 square foot lots when in reality you can probably get 15,000 or up to 3 units per acre. That's why we originally started at the 3 - units or 3 lots. Three single family lots per acre and then after we looked at it, realising the a-ount of wetlands that we have up there, subtracting out for roads that you have to build to serve the property, it's closer to about 1.8. Lowell Carlson: Well how many times is this thing really going to be changed by the time I get done? I was at the last meeting and I recall talking to you that it was, and you saying that it was going to be strictly a single dwelling, per person regardless of acreage. Am I right? I Bill Engelhardt : I don't think I ever made that statement. I said that if you have a dwelling on let's say 6 acres, you would be assessed the single family unit plus the number of units you could get on the balance of that lot. On the balance of that land. Lowell Carlson: Well I munt have got hard hearing on the tail end because I didn't hear plus. The plus is what's kind of getting me a little. . .and I'm sure the pluses are getting a few other ones. But thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Harvey Sobel: Mr. Mayor, it 's been commented by various of us that perhaps you or the City Attorney can tell us within the City Charter, is there a possibility that we can, we 532 unit holders, can we vote to influence the decision of the- Council? Councilwoman Dimler: It 'd be a referendum. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, not really. Councilman Mason: You can at election time. Mayor Chmiel: During election you'd have your opportunity to oust those who are in office at that particular time by voting for the other person. That would probably be. Harvey Sobel: Could you just conduct a survey though rather than an official , election? • Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well, I suppose we could put a survey but we have right ' now, if I remember correctly of the total numbers that I had seen on the back end of here, it was 303, 307 total people. Harvey Sobel: So it's 530 some units but it may not be that many people? • Mayor Chmiel: That 's correct. I went over each of these names just to. 24 1 I City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Harvey Sobel: Are all of these units being affected equally regardless of proxir.ity to Minnewashta Parkway? Mayor Chmiel : That 's correct . I Harvey Sobel : Some people who live on the far end of Leslee Curve right before TH 7 which probably use TH 7 than Minnewashta Parkway, they still have- to pay • the same? Mayor Chmiel : Bill , is that what you've taken into consideration on that? Bill Engelhardt: We discussed whether we should assess the people close to TH 7 the full unit and the conclusion that we came up with is that they will use Minnewashta Parkway just as readily as anybody else in the neighborhood. The • possibility exists, and' I'll say it as a possibility, that -access at I think it 's Leslee might be closed and the reason the possibility exists is because it 's MnDot ' policy when they improve their corridors, their highway corridors, the major- corridors like TH 7, that they try to close as many of those accesses as possible. Now I'm not saying that it will be closed. I'm saying that it 's their policy to try and close them. And if that's the case, then again Minnewashta Parkway would be their only ingress and egress. I don't know when that would happen. It would probably be way in the future. We felt that the assessing everyone equally up in that area was the correct way to do it. Was the most fair and equitable way for all parties and that 's the way we proposed it . I think one thing you have to keep in mind is that the assessments that ' you 're seeing we probably won't get around to assessing it until 1992, .payable in 1993. So we're talking about 2 to 3 years down the road. The project schedule, if the project were to go ahead tonight, we would not see a bidding on ' the project until late fall. You might see a minor amount of construction late fall with completion of the project in 1992 and it may even go into 1993. I doubt it . I think we'd be able to get it done in 1992. Assessment then in 1993. Payable in 1993. So your first payment on that $1,200.00 would not be I due until 1993. The schedule for the lights on TH 7 and TH 5 is 1994-1995 so what we're doing is getting ready to accommodate some of the traffic that may be using that road based on the lights. ' Resident : I guess I was also thinking of Lone Cedar Circle and West 77th Street where I think the bulk of this project would. . .directly out onto TH 5 and occasionally out to Minnewashta Parkway. Bill Engelhardt : Again we felt that because of the amount of the assessment being at $1,250.00. Nobody likes to be assessed. I've been in this business long enough to know that and been through enough of these projects that nobody likes assessments but if you can make them fair and equitable so that all parties are being treated equally, that's about the best job you can do. ' Resident : How about the utility lines. Will they be buried along with this? Bill Engelhardt: That question came up. A resident along the parkway asked ' about the utility lines. Usually in cases like this we encourage NSA to bury their power lines. We certainly would be in :;.4ch with them. In most cases - when they see a major improvement like this t' :_; will undertake the policy to go ahead and bury those lines. The difficulty that you run up against is if you're I25 1 • City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 being served off of these power lines by overhead power, then your home itself has to be converted on the outside to underground and that can run from $400.00 to $300.00. Usually what happens is after that gets explained to the property owner, they really don't want the power lines buried. But NSP may choose on this particular roadway, this is a very good opportunity for them to take care of their utilities. We will have to have poles moved and they may elect to bury the power lines. We would be working with them-and it would be part of the design phase of the project . Resident : That all applies to the gas and the phone and water too? 11 Bill Engelhardt : Well the phone would be buried along with NSP.. That's usually the general practice. Gas I'm assuming is buried at this point. I hope so anyhow. Sewer and water I guess they're underground at this point too. Resident : When you straighten out your curb, you may be bumping into gas lines. ' Bill Engelhardt : That 's all part of the project cost and generally, in all cases those utility companies are required to move because they're in the right-of-way by permit. We basically demand that they relocate their lines to accommodate the roadway at their expense. JoAnn Hallgren: I'm here again. JoAnn Hallgren, 6860 Minnewashta Parkway. 1 I know I've bombarded you with letters. I've sat here for almost 2 hours. I really haven't heard a lot of approval of the project but listening to Mr. Engelhardt , it 's going through. That 's the way it seems to me and I don't know, do we have any voice at all. All of us here. Mayor Chmiel: Well, that 's what we're trying to determine this evening. Where are we going to go from where we're at right now. JoAnn Hallgren: I didn't understand the purpose of this meeting. Was it for you to decide if we will go ahead with this project or just to accept Mr. Engelhardt 's study? Mayor Chmiel: Well, if we were to accept his study, then we would proceed then ' with the project . JoAnn Hallgren: I did read the study. I feel that it's not valid. It's inconsistent with itself in a number of areas and that's what I did say in my letter for the Council to review it carefully. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I Ed Hasek: My name is Ed Hasek. I live at 6570 Kirkwood Circle. I'll be living there for about 22 more days and then I'm moving to Shorewood. There's a couple 1 of reasons for that . I'm going to start with a question and then I'll continue. What is the assessment area for this project? Bill Engelhardt : What is the assessment area? , Ed Hasek: Yes. 26 1 11 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Bill Engelhardt : Right behind you. ' Ed Hasek: It 's just the area in blue? IIBill Engelhardt : That 's right . ' Ed Hasek: Does that mean that there won't be anybody else besides those people who's going to use this trail? Is that the presumption that's being made? Bill Engelhardt : No. ' Ed Hasek: I didn't think so. I moved here in 1982 and was at that time able to job. I'm no longer able to do that but I used Minnewashta Parkway a lot. And the thing that scared me about Minnewashta Parkway is I used to push my daughter and my son down the road with me' and my wife has had a friend killed on ' Minnewashta Parkway when she was in high school. She's lived in this area all of her life. Her father was Roy Beherle of Roy's Live Bait and a lot of her high school friends used to use Minnewashta Parkway as a raceway to and from Leech's and the beer parties and so forth that used to happen out there. That's since gone and the traffic still has a tendency to drive much too quickly down that road. The only thing that seems to deter traffic from speeding past Linden Circle which is about a block and a half off of TH 7 is if occasionally there's a cop parked up at the fire barn. It's very easy to try and sneak between cars, take that corner and continue driving 50 mph until you get to a point where you have to make a decision. If you'll look at some of the yards down there you'll ' see that there are some people who haven't been able, to make that decision quite quickly enough. So I guess I've got a concern for those who are going to remain about the traffic. Moved here in 1982. Saw a concern. Got involved. I was appointed to the Park and Trail commission in 1987? In 1987 just before Todd started I think, in an effort to do something about this. Within one year we adopted a new trail plan that laid out for the city a citywide trail system. and ' it talked about the main corridors that should be addressed by the city for city use. Not for Minnewashta Parkway use. Not for TH 101. Not for TH 5 but for the whole city. And the anticipation was that the brunt of that construction and that system would be paid for by the City. Over the course of the next year ' or so we tried a couple of referendums which failed. One narrowly. The last one a little more narrowly than the first I believe if I recollect correctly. People felt all along that we were voting against the trail system when in fact ' the trail system was in place. It's part of the comprehensive plan and as long as I've lived here, I've lived here without the services of any kind of a park system whatsoever. We have no trail. We have no local park. We're told ' Cathcart Park is our park. That's bull. You can't get there. Part of what your comprehensive plan says is parks are supposed to be accessible to the people. No one can tell me that anybody that lives south of TH 5- can get to either the Arboretum or Freeman Field, Cathcart Park, Minnewashta Park, any of those parks safely. It can't be done. There is just no way to accommodate those people. This was all along anticipated to be part of a plan that would connect the Arboretum to perhaps Cathcart if a signal went in. That would help ' a lot . Eventually, hopefully to some of the other parks that are south of the road around Minnewashta Parkway. Part of the whole city system. What I don't understand is why 500 some units are being assessed for something that's really in place as a part of a city wide system like Lake An.n. It just seems ' unrealistic. We've paid park dedication fees. The newer homes since the trail 11 27 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 , dedication fee went in have paid that . We have seen nothing. All of our money has gone into either parks that existed in other parts of the city or into newer areas of town. It just seems to me like it 's about time that those of you who live in the center part of town begin to serve those of. us who happen to live on the other side of the lake. Thank you. ' Resident : . . .the sense of what people are for in this group. I have an .idea - that , well you told us that we can't vote on it . That's why we hired or elected you folks to vote for us on items like this. I don't want to put you on the well whatever for tonight by asking how you lean. You know how we feel but I would like when you do make up your minds, send us a letter how you voted on this item please. I . Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure you're going to see how we vote, if we vote on this particular item. , Resident : We'd like to know. Mayor Chmiel: I'd just as soon take someone who's not had an opportunity. , Would you like to come forward. Greg Datillo: Hi, I'm Greg Datillo of 7201 Juniper Avenue. I've got a question for Bill. Bill, will the children be more safe with the proposed plan than they are now on.that road? • Bill Engelhardt : I have to say yes. Yes. Definitely. Anytime you provide pedestrian walkways, take the pedestrians off the roadway, the answer is yes. Greg Datillo: We're missing a very important group of individuals at this I meeting. You know what group I'm talking about? Councilwoman Dimler: Kids. I Greg Datillo: Yeah that's right . I've got 3 kids and I don't let them go on Minnewashta Parkway. ' You ask why? Because I love them. You've got to be insane to think that that road is safe for kids. Or your grandkids. I mean this is why I got this thing started in 1986 with all my neighbors. I went around and got a petition and come to the City Council and say hey guys, tell us what it 's going to cost us to make it safe for the people on that roadway. I've asked the children already. Not only mine but other kids because I'm one of those fathers that plays with the kids in the neighborhood. I tell them that we've got a good chance of getting you off that road and they don't believe it. They ask well when is it going to happen because they can't go to another neighborhood because of that road. There's no way of getting from Red Cedar Point Road down to another subdivision without getting on Suicide Road. There's • no way and you're not going to let little kids, I mean little being under 12 okay because it only takes two kids, two boys, two girls riding their bikes side by side and what's going to happen. There's going to be a car that's going to hit one of them. We just heard one a few years ago that got killed but here, that is what I believe the whole issue has been is a basic safety issue. I understand we've got the joggers here that jog e!rly in the morning at 6:00 when there's no cars out there. But look at the kids. They're not up at 6:00. My kids aren't up at 6:00. They're out at 9:00, 10:00 you know. They're out at 28 1• • City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 5:00 when everybody's coming home and that 's the problem is to get the kids off ' the road. Not the adults. Fine, if the adults want to get killed, that 's their problem but the kids, that's where the problem is. So the kids, I tell them hopefully it 's going to happen soon but we have a few people who are worried about sore trees, and I understand. I love trees but I love the kids more than sore trees. I hate to say that but. that 's _the way I feel. We have some people that just don't want change because well that's the way it used to be. Well, we could still be throwing rocks at dinosaurs if we kept that. Right, or some ' people. And some people don't want to pay anything even though for every dollar we're paying, the Lily's giving us back $3.00. How many times have we heard in our neighborhoods, the City's not doing nothing for us. All we do is pay all ' these high taxes. They're not giving us anything in return. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Open your eyes. It's 30! is what we have to pay and that 's a 70% discount . I buy things at a 70% discount if I don't even need it. Okay? Mayor Chmiel: If we could give him the same attention that everyone else gave you please. Greg Datillo: I have two lots that I have to pay on so with most of you I've got to pay double and I know there's some that have more but what I tell the children is that your moms and dads or grampas and grampas have to realize, it's ' going to change. The road's going to be upgraded and the question is, why don't we enjoy it now and let the kids enjoy it now than 5 years from now when it's going to cost a lot more money because the City here, now Dave who's also been ' working with the City. Everyone who's been working with the City here, is kind of going more towards saying well let's do this because they're doing everything they can to listen to what we're saying and everything we've asked for they have given to us. 36 down to 32 foot and the assessment down to half. I just want ' to thank the Mayor and the Council and Bill, I can't say anything wrong in how they treated me or they haven't done anything against us. Believe me guys, they're on our side. They're not working against us and here, I'm sorry, but I ' want the kids off that road. Thank you. Laurie Gauer: I'm Laurie Gauer. I live at 3220 Lone Cedar and I agree with the previous gentleman. I have two young children and I've tried pushing strollers down the parkway and I just won't do it anymore. I know that there are plans for a playground or park north of Lake St. Joe in the future and people are going to have to get from those neighborhoods down there somehow. Even if they ' don't use the parkway now, their kids are going to have to use it so I don't know about the road but I'm definitely in favor of the trail. ' Kevin Cuddihy: I just wanted to add that at the community meetings that we had, there was a possibility that because that park has not yet been built that we could get some support from the park people for possibly reducing this $1,250.00. I don't know, did you go back and talk to them? When I talked to him he said he didn't know what he could give us but he might be able to give us some cash for just the walking path part of the construction. ' Bill Engelhardt: I think what they found is that there was a $24,000.00 park dedication out of that area which would basically be used to construct the park. What we did is we went back and we were proposing that $477,000.00 worth of the project be general obligation bonds which will go towards the cost of the trail. So that's what we're proposing. That's how we brought it down. 1 29 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Is there anyone else? Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502 West 77th Street. I guess the question I had was there ever any consideration given just to providing a walking trail without upgrading the highway itself to the extent that you've been talking II about? Mayor Chmiel : Basically not to my knowledge. This was combined project with the road as well as with the trail. Anyone else? 1 Resident : Would you elaborate on that question sir? Why not allow us to consider just the walkway? ' Mayor Chmiel: Because we're looking at the State Aid addition to this which would offset some of those costs and that's what we had looked at at that particular time. Anyone else? If not , can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just start out tonight a little bit on this. I'm feeling a little less comfortable in seeing some of the opposition that's here. Although I'm not seeing totally 307 people here this evening. I think what I'd really like to do is to table this at this particular time to review the entirety of the Minutes and also to look and see some of the things that were discussed that can be addressed and to come up with a final conclusion. There might be a few loose ends and I'd just as soon tighten it up to see exactly where this is going to go and what the bottom dollar is going to be. With that I would like to make, I'd like to table this at this particular time but I will open this for additional comments from the Council. And I'll start with Michael. Councilman Mason: Well thank you Mr. Mayor. Councilman Workman: Would you like a second for discussion? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well we're still in discussion. I had the table on the floor. We don't have to have a motion. Mike. Councilman Mason: First of all, I live in Carver Beach which has had it's own problems and I know Minnewashta has problems. I was standing up there 11 expressing displeasure 2 years ago when some lots were opened up that when I bought where I bought was told that oh, they could never be built on. That it would never happen. Well, lo and behold they were built on. So please I've been on both sides here. I want to comment, I've heard integrity a couple of times and I'm really disturbed by that. Only that I hope people don't think I lack integrity if I happen to disagree with you. I couldn't help but get the feeling by some of the comments that if I chose to disagree with the members of - that particular community of Chanhassen, I therefore no longer had integrity. If there are some people that feel that way, I guess I feel kind of sorry for them. I don't think integrity is an issue of agreeing or disagreeing. I guess I see integrity as an honest opinion based on all the information that we have I 30 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 received. Now I understand that there are 500 some units, 370 people involved. ' I received about a dozen letters on this. Not all in disagreement but certainly the vast majority. There have not been 372 people here tonight . Certainly the people that are here, the majority of them are in disagreement with the project but it 's by no means unanimous. I've heard speed mentioned, I've heard safety I mentioned. I have driven on Minnewashta Parkway prior to all this bruhaha. I've driven on it even more since. I have gone 30 mph on it and I have had people giving me the one finger salute behind me because of it. I've had people ' blinking lights at me. I've had people 5 feet off the tail of my car so I'm not convinced that fixing up the road will increase the speed. I think the increase is already there and I think if anything else we need to work more on enforcement of that issue. In terms of safety, putting a white line on the side of the road and telling the kids you stay on that side and the cars will stay on the other side is at best specious. I do a lot of bike riding and it's been too close too many times and I think I'm fairly responsible. A 9 year old walking ' along the side of a road is potentially a very dangerous thing. I heard mentioned earlier we need to address the needs of the community. I agree with that . I agree with that 100%. We certainly need to look at the needs of the residents of the Minnewashta area. We're also, all of us are in charge here of running the city in the best way we think we can and unfortunately sometimes there are major disagreements and we have public hearings to hopefully work ' those things out . I guess I'd like, well that's pretty much all I had to say on that . In terms of tabling Mr. Mayor, I guess I'd like to, before we reach a decision on that I hope we have some more discussion on that. IIMayor Chmiel: Sure. Tom? Councilman Workman: I guess to piggyback a little bit what Mike was saying. A ' couple of things that struck me very early, the idea of some sort of hidden agenda by the Council. And then the gentleman who spoke very early pleaded, why are we doing this to you. I don't quite understand that statement. This is a difficult decision for everybody. These issues are about as difficult for this Council as a now built church in this town and when the cards are stacked against you and you've got a tough decision to make, it 's not pleasant and a lot of the comments that were made are kind of tough to swallow when I could be home ' watching the Simpsons or something. I don't understand how we associate country living with a cruddy road. It's a cruddy road and it was eloquently summed up by the gentleman over here who said you're getting 70% off. I could not and will not support an overlay and a trail. It's a waste of money. I'.ve been on this Council long enough to see enough highway construction and highway coalitions and transit boards and everything else to know that that is a waste of money and it's a band-aid and it won't work. Mr. Hasek explained that we have neglected that side of the lake. I think Richard Wing's election is testimonial that they want some representation out there. Since I've been on the Council people have been asking me those same questions. When are you going to get a park? When are you going to get a trail out here? When are you going to spend some money out here? This roadway has been on the top of the State Aid list. Because of State Aid and because of those monies, ever since, since ' before I've been on the Council, it couldn't come quick enough for the 6 dozen people that I've talked to that have wanted this. And now here it is and I really think that a lot of the people who really want it probably stayed home. - But if we say, and living in the middle of town, and I don't use the road regularly. I do get out there. If we say to this roadway okay, let's take the ' 31 1 . • City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 1 State Aid and move it somewhere else. What kind of a precedence do we set? What 's the next , Dave Hempel, maybe you know. What 's the second road on the list? Gary Larren: Lyman Blvd. 1 Bill Engelhardt : Lyman Blvd. Councilman Workman- Lyman Blvd. If that 's the second worst road. 1 Resident : What road is that? We couldn't hear the number. Councilman Workman: 18. Lyman Blvd. . Gary Warren: Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. to the east city limits. Councilman Workman: If that's second worst road, we will not need State Aid funding for 5 years because that road is in good shape. But I go back to the question, what does it matter to this Council whether get that road fixed or not? I don't prefer to assess people. It's the worse decision you can make or ever have to make as a city councilmember so I guess I don't appreciate being accused of some sort of a.r,l of vengence against a large group of people because it 's fun or it 's something I prefer to do because I don't. We do have to look at the entire city and if decide to do this or we don't decide to do this, what are the repercussions and for that reason I think it's a good idea that we table it some more and talk about it some more until we all feel comfortable. Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I of course live out in the area and I came on this Council with good faith and I think open and honest and sincere in my intent to serve and to listen to the public. I respect the locals right to determine what 1 direction it's going to go and what we're going to do in their neighborhood and not to have something rammed down their throat but as I've sat here tonight I've felt like I'm suddenly not one of you. I felt like I'm suddenly not a neighbor and a resident of the community. I've felt like I've been lectured and one comment that particularly offended me was somebody to tell me that Pleasant Acres doesn't use Minnewashta Parkway. I just so wholeheartedly disagree with that because I live in Minnewashta Heights and we use it a lot and if our neighborhood's coming over there to use it, I just don't agree with you. Issues of speed are opinion and not fact. Issue of traffic increase. They're opinions and not fact and I'm not denying that it may happen but I think we deal with those at the time. I think it's a good proposal. On the other hand, I wouldn't sit here and push this on you if a majority clearly doesn't want it. What does concern me tonight, the reason this hearing was originated. Council didn't originate the hearing. It was originated from neighbors who got together and said we're concerned about our children. hr. Headla expressed his concern and • Greg Datillo and certainly myself. And others. And this was 2 and 4 years ago. Safety was the issue. Safety was the reason that the Council asked for the feasibility study in the first place. I'm concerned that this evening the issue of safety has not been discussed in depth. The co-use of the road by recreational and traffic use hasn't been discussed and I guess I support the II Mayor's proposal and his request that we table this. I'd further like to 32 1 • 11 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 request that we continue the public hearing to specifically discuss safety related issues and options to resolve those same issues. I'd also like to address the question that 's been brought up by several to discuss the trail specific request . I think it deserves to be addressed. I think if the area is supportive of a trail or feels there's a need for a trail and specifically a ' trail only, I'm not opposed to that . I think it 's unfair that we don't address that one specifically so I support your request to table this but I also request that you discuss as part of the tabling process specifically the safety related issues on this road. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I wasn't in favor of closing the public hearing but I didn't have any say so we have to call another public hearing obviously. Isn't . that the correct procedure? Mayor Chmiel: We can still have people supply input if we so choose. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I'd like to ask Dave Hempel here on the second page of the report . One of my concerns is safety and I agree with all the comments that have been made about the walkways and the children but I also ' have a concern on that intersection as it goes onto TH 5. If you're turning towards the east , it 's a =low intersection. It 's a very, very difficult turn to make, especially in times of heavy traffic to get in between the cars. And I see on that page 2 of the report , in the third paragraph, the very last statement refers to MnOot 's roadway schedule for November of 1994 and February of 1995. It talks about reconstruction. Now does that mean that they're going to reconstruct those intersections on TH 7 and TH 5 regardless of what we do with this project? Bill Engelhardt : Maybe I should. On the TH 5 intersection we will be doing most of the work to bring that intersection up to grade under this project to ' correct a lot of the sight distance problems. To correct the grade. To correct alignment . When MnDot comes in and puts in their signals, they'll finish it off. On the TH 7 side, there the original proposal was to construct the roadway ' in such a manner to build it to MnDot's future proposal with a cooperative agreement and cost sharing between the State and the City of Chanhassen. Because it 's a State Aid road, they will not do a cooperative cost sharing ' agreement and the funds for State Aid could only be used to start the realignment process and again get it to a point where MnDot could then take it over and expend their own money. Not City money to fully improve the intersection. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so TH 5, that intersection will not be done unless we implement the project. Is that what you're saying? ' Bill Engelhardt: No. They're going to do their project no matter what. Councilwoman Dimler: They will elevate that? Bill Engelhardt: Yeah. • 33 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That 's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay, I guess I have a lot of thoughts on this project and I think a lot of the points that have been raised both by the neighbors and by the engineers are valid and I think some of them are invalid. I think the neighborhood has done it's homework and I really compliment the engineer for having taken into consideration all of the neighborhood's concern. I think they did an excellent job. I think the point that many of you have received a huge Increase in property valuations which will translate into higher taxes, property taxes unless we cut our budget and services which we are not likely to do. So I think at that point a special assessment may impose some unfair financial burdens at this time for some families. I also have to say that I was a little bit offended by some of the statements or the assumptions that I've already made up my mind because I haven't . I do listen to the neighborhood's concerns. I always have and have ' taken that heavily into consideration. I received a letter from the Bower family and I think in their letter they eloquently expressed a statement that I believe to be true and I quote. It says I feel it would be a grave and certainly inaccurate assumption on anyone's part that silence means agreement and I think that is true. He of course was against the upgrade and he wants to keep the peaceful serene pulse of the area and he indicates that there are many others who believe as he does and I believe that's true seeing all of you here tonight . Also I've heard from many who are walkers and joggers and they do not favor the trail. I guess I was a little surprised about that. They feel that everything is okay the way it is and also against the bituminous overlay because of the fact , as Councilman Workman said, that it's a waste of money. I believe that 's true. Given those facts, and I have to say I appreciate Mr. Headla's and Greg and Laurie's courage to get up here and speak in favor of the project when there was obviously so many against it, but I still do feel that there is probably a majority. Not a majority but there's a silent sector out there that has not yet been heard and for that reason going along with the tabling, but I would propose that we would continue the public hearing or open another one, whichever is the proper procedure at this time and that inbetween this hearing and that particular one in the future, that we as a staff and Council would survey the silent sector that has not been heard and we can do this through a written survey and maybe even some door to door canvasing because I understand some people will not answer a survey. I for one would like' to get an accurate assessment of where this neighborhood stands. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. The only thing that I would like to just quickly address is, I think everyone has said pretty much what I would have said. The City Council takes particular jobs as we do. We have to really determine what the needs of the people are and we're not going to say this road is needed but I'm saying in other types of services that we have to provide for you within the city. Whether it be shopping or whatever. But I look at the aspect of safety and safety is the number one project with me. I've driven that road dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. At different times of the day. Different times of the evening. On weekends. I've looked at that road and I think I can tell you every crack and cranny that's on that particular road. I've watched people walk with mothers, fathers, children, grandparents. All in bunches of 6 or 7 people. Taking up parts of that road. To me I have a concern with that. There is a safety problem there. For those people because it is a more traveled road. isn't going through some of the other residentia; areas where you don't get the quite amout of traffic. You may get it going ir.D it but when you spur off on the other roads you're not using it. Out here it is used constantly. You get 34 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 I up in the morning and it's probably very true. You start jogging. It probably, I or there are not as many cars as there normally would be. Try it at maybe 4:00 in the afternoon when the kids are still out . Up from their naps playing. Or early morning when they're out, probably about 9:00-10:00. There's still a lot ' of traffic coming in and out just because of the people working there. Going to and from work. Going to and from'-the stores. Or wherever they're going. So safety really is a given problem. To save one life is worth something in itself. Hopefully that's never going to happen within the area but there's ' always that potential. Potentials are things that always make me sit back and really think about it. I would like to table this for 2 weeks and also for us to review the Minutes of this meeting. Digest what everyone has said and pull together as I said before. The total dollars. What we're talking about and the different concerns that have been brought up this evening. And each of those items addressed. And then I would like to see.this back on the 22nd of this month and we will have it bright and early on the agenda so we can at least address those specifics. And if at that time there are some questions that some people have, I will open the floor for that at that particular time. ' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: We could have it back on the 22nd. We would be in a position to respond to some of the questions. We would also have the Minutes available for distribution to the Council on the July 19th which is our normal packet day but between now and the 19th, to be able to do a survey and get it back, we would not be able to do it . So if you wanted to follow through with the survey aspect , the first time we could consider this would be August 13th. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: As a resident of that community I use that road a lot and Rome wasn't built in a day. The present Minnewashta Parkway is not impassable. I ' don't believe there's an emergency existing. The concern that the locals have a right to control their destiny and their decision for that roadway and I would have moved that we reject this proposal if it hadn't been for the safety issues which I don't feel have been addressed. For that reason I would like to support Ursula's request that we formally do this survey. If there is a silent majority, perhaps there isn't, and I think that that would be worthwhile postponing the meeting until the end of August accordingly. I don't think this ' is a critic. 1 issue but I think those are questions that need answering so I would move that we table. Also instruct staff to survey the community. The 300 when we were just looking at the 300 units or 300 residents? 1 • Mayor Chmiel: 307. ' Councilman Wing: And delay the public hearing until such date as that's completed. _ • Mayor Chmiel: Until August the 12th, rather than the 13th. ' 35 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 Councilman Mason: I'm going to be out of town. Mayor Chmiel: You're going to be lucky. Councilmen Mason: Well no. No. Councilwoman Dimler: Could we have some input as to the questions that would be on the survey? Mayer Chmiel: Well I think that would be something that we would have to develop and make sure that it 's not one sided as to the survey because you can always develop a survey to make it do what you want it to do but we'll make sure that doesn't happen. Councilman Mason: I have some concerns about this survey thing and getting it done in a month. Who's going to put the questions up? How's the survey, I mean if this survey is going to have any validity at all, it's not just somebody sitting down and writing 5 or 6 questions. Do you want the parkway or not. Why or why not . And I think are we opening up a can of worms here? I mean if we clearly have I think certainly a representation of the community here tonight and I'm not sure that going door to door is going to give us any different indication of what 's been represented here tonight. And I just wonder if we're not doing the old waving `swords at windmills here by doing a survey. Mayor Chmiel: I'll bring it back up for discussion. • Councilman Mason: I guess I'd just like to reiterate. We had a number of people here expressing some very legitimate concerns and to drag this out another 5 weeks, another month, another 6 weeks, I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. I'll say more later I'm sure. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, do we have a safety issue, a matter of life and death on this roadway? And as such I would like to somehow be able to identify them and if that exists, how do we resolve that safety issue? Councilman Mason: I'd like to, if there are people walking on a 25 foot road in groups of 6 or 7, we have a safety issue. There is no question in my mind that there's a safety issue there. Councilman Wing: But how do you resolve the safety issue? You may not 1 necessitate a 32 foot State MnDot mandated roadway. Councilman Mason: It may not. You know I think we're coming, this is surely 1 but slowly sifting down to two or three different issues here. There's the trail. We can do that separately. If we want the State Aid money, we can't do it separately. Am I correct in assuming that? 1 Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Mason: So if we just put the trail in now, 5 years from now as some 1 gentleman said previously, MnDot comes in and says, 32 foot? Baloney. We're putting in a 36 foot roadway and you can't do a doggone thing about it. Now I 36 , 11 11 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 ' think there's something to be said for that . If we do wait 5 more years, it will be more expensive and perhaps we won't have the say that we have now. Mayor Chmiel : Well on an average you're looking at a .5 year period at 10% per year. So it would raise that project 50% more than what it exists now. Councilman Mason: And with the possibility of not having any State Aid money at ' that point . Is that an assumption that could be made or not? Bill Engelhardt : You would have some I'm sure. What the amount would be is difficult to say. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm not, I think I know what the result _ - of a survey is. I don't think' we need to spend good money after bad. ' Councilman Mason: Yeah, I agree with that . II Councilwoman Dimler: . . .go door to door. I guess you know, in comment if we're not going to go ahead with the survey, my bottom line here today is that I say those that pay have the say and these people have spoken so I would have to vote against it . So if that 's the feeling. ' Councilman Mason: So the safety issue is a moot point then? • .I Mayor Chmiel: Safety is an issue, there's no question. . . Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I've expressed my concerns over that but they're the people that are going to pay. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Councilman Mason: They're the people, who's going to pay when a kid gets killed? I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's sensationalizing. We had the same thing with Frontier Trail. Councilman Mason: You're right. I apologize. Mayor Chmiel: Everybody goes through an assessment. when I moved into my home they put in curb, gutter, sewer, water. My assessment I wish was $1,250.00. My assessment at that time was $10,000.00 and thank God this is the last year I'm paying for it but , those are some of the things that we have to look at unfortunately. And assessments are assessments are assessments. No one likes them. No one wants it. I don't want it. I don't even want to impose it on you nor does the rest of the Council but we have to look at some of these issues. I still suggest that we proceed with the July 22nd meeting as I said to review what 's here and address the issues that have been discussed this evening and come up with a conclusion. Either yes or no. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I think that 1-:'ve done an adequate job in answering each of their questions here today. ' 37 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 11 Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone here that feels there's still something, besides the safety issue, that 's still. Mayer Chmiel: There's still some issues that. were brought up in regard to some 1 of the. Councilman Mason: he assessment issue. And you're right, I sensationalized. 1 Sorry. Councilman Wing: There hasn't been an accident on the parkway for the 25 years that I've lived there. Personal injury accident. Mayor Chmiel : But there was mention one was. Yes sir. Resident : When you mentioned July 22nd, are you speaking a hearing type again or just the Council? Mayor Chmiel: We'll have discussion back at Council. Answer any questions and after that if we so choose, and I will choose, to open the floor to get additional comments. Not .the same comments we discussed this evening but any additional comments that could be added to it. Resident : Speaking of safety, I'd just like to offer accommodation and I don't know if. . .but I think within the past year or so as a result of some discussion, there was a street light put out at the intersection of Lone Cedar Circle and TM 5 and that was the greatest improvement towards safety that I could imagine because that was really a dangerous corner. That street light has really been great . Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess being that there's a little bit of thought here, I would like to table this and I would like to get a motion on that. • Councilman Workman: I'd move if it hasn't presently been moved. Mayor Chmiel: For the 22nd? Councilman Workman: Yeah unless the neighborhood feels a survey of some sort. They're very difficult to scientifically put together and unless we hire a professional to do so, I don't think it would be very fair. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I Councilwoman Dimler: I think going door to door, talking to people. They're honest with you. I Councilman Workman: I do not have the time to go to 300 doors. Not this week. Sunday I'm free. But no, don't get that idea. Mayor Chmiel: Everyone knows that our phone numbers are in the phone book and I might suggest that if you so choose, you want to talk to your neighbors. Tell them to give us a call: I 38 ' - 1 City Council Meeting - July 8, 1991 11 Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, one morning on Cheyenne me and Dave Hempel and some of the city crew went out and met about 7:00 a.m. . Dave came early and there's a drainage problem there so we kind of all went out there and slapped the bugs and we looked at it . It was kind of nice and we talked to the neighbors and looked at the problem. The problem got taken care of. Maybe we should all go out 'and have donuts out there at about 8:00 or something. Mayor Chmiel: I'd be willing to do it. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I'm talking about. Just get out there and talk to them. ' Councilman Workman: I don't want to knock on people's doors and get bit my dogs. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the Minnewashta Parkway Project 90-15 until July 22, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: We'll see you on the 22nd. Thank you for coming. AWARD OF BIDS: CITY CENTER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. RA-131. Todd Hoffman: As noted, on June 24, 1991 the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids on the City Center Park Improvement Project . As the Council's aware, this project entails the improvement and revitalization of the two existing play areas at the school and City Center Park and the four existing tennis courts. As authorized, advertisments for bids were placed and the resulting three bids were opened last Tuesday morning. As shown, in the bid tabulation the bids ranged from a high of $86,167.00 to a low of $62,465.00. The estimate for the completion of the work was $54,467.00. This difference of $7,997.00 can be accommodated in the project 's budget and it is felt that the low bid is acceptable. Alternate #3 is also desireable to facilitate replacement of the bent tennis poles on two of the ' courts. The contractor is available to begin work early next week if the go ahead is given. The cumulation of much effort has brought the City to this position of being able to move forward with construction on this project. Representing the work groups which contributed towards this project, I'm pleased to recommend the City Council award the City Center Park Improvement Project No. RA-131 base bid and alternate bid number 3 to Finley Brothers Enterprises in the amount of $62,465.00 and $1,000.00 respectively. If there are any questions, either myself or Scott Hari from Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings will be available to answer those. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I've got a lot of questions. First question I have, should we reject the bids and send out again for a better dollar figure? I ' 39 1 • July 13 1991 11 RE: Minnewashta Pkwy. Project # 90-15 Chanhassen City Council • Don Ashworth and Bill Engelhardt We must remember that the first two meetings regarding this project • ' were very heavily attended and consisted of many questions that were raised, but unanswered, awaiting further investigation. At the July 8th hearing we were given all of the particulars for the very first , time. 'Jhile listening to the pleas of those who spoke that evening, I heard only four who spoke in favor of the plat, as presented and each 1 dealt primarily with the aspect of safety. Can we do Two things NOW? 1 . Please look through the city warehouse and find at least four signsthat relate to "Slow-Down-Children." If there is any possible danger,(and the feelings were expressed by many others) we should do all we can to address the problem immediately: Place one at #5, one at #7 and 2 in the middle near the beach areas. 2. If the fear of harm to the children is genuine, we should consider the invoking of a twenty-five mile per hour speed zone along this parkway. Even if it were in effect for the entire length, it would add only 37 seconds to the drive. When MnDOT says we can't do this, ask them to place a value on the life of one child. We should insist: ' While attending to this , our maintenance people could easily remove any tall weeds and tree branches that are on the 66 foot right-of-way that currently impair our 'line-of-sight' along the curves. Thank you. You refer to an appendix B in the June 5th letter, yet we did not get ' a copy of this study by Braun Eng. about the testing of the sub-soil . Is there any reason to construct a road that carries more than the 4000 pound per axel as the parkway now is? Is the data from Braun concerned with a marginal bed in only a limited area? 1 . 1 I (2) One key feature that is missing from the parkway as it now sits , is the fact that the 'crown ' has compacted. (Naturally, over 20 years:) My point ' is that it may be best to get MnDot, _State Aid, Gen Bonds and the Trunk Fund out of the picture. If we are really thinking about long term storm drain solution, our aim should be to get any water off the hard surface ' at the very nearest point. In the dirt at the road's edge. With the proper crown this distance is no more than 13 to 16 feet. Why send it thru a lift station over to Savage at cost to Chanhassen when nature has been doing a perfect job for hundreds of years? No need for curbing, but we must attend to our gutters where needed with a back-hoe, on a regular basis. With these ' few suggestions, I would submit that the study of the application of a mat and an asphalt surface be thoroughly explored. I rather delight in the fact that this suggestion has had rough treatment. !,Ie ;lad been exposed to a brief time on the world scene where just about ' every expert, many politicians, most TV personalities and even some neigh- bors had found that their opinions needed to be re-examined. This had ' been with regard to the Gulf use of force. I 'm suggesting that we should all step back a moment and take another look. Maybe the puzzle is not as difficult as we make it to be. I will place my confidence in reason. We all have it; let's listen to one another and resolve the differences. ',Iorse than an abused environment, we are also leaving our children the accumulated debt that we choose pass on,to pile up. ' Sincerely, Richard H. Comer, ' 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive. Excelsior, Minn. 55331 474-8105 .vl_ :1 • tl I 4 t , 145 Mission Hill Way I Colorado Springs, CO 80921 30 March 1991 1 Mr . Don Ashworth , City Manager City of Chanhassen P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen , MN 55317 Dear Don : It has been several years since we met and had an opportunity to talk over matters concerning the City of Chanhassen . For that I apologize , but my work. has brought me to Colorado. At the same time--we continue to be property owners in the western part of the city , namely on Minnewashta Parkway . A week ago I called you while you were busy--with no return call . Now I am writing you , hopeful that someone else will both hear and see of our concerns . Obviously , my letter is in connection with the meeting held last Wednesday re : "Proposed Roadway Improvements to . . . " I wish to raise the following questions and do hope that you . or one of your city personnel will respond! :.;,�.. 1 . I recall the "walkway/trail " was twice defeated in local referenda , yet it now appears the City is planning to do it anyway . For this I am curious! ! Please inform us. 2. Should this questionable action take place , who 11 will pay for it--everyone in the community who may use it? or only the folks who happen to own property on Minnewashta Parkway? 3. It is my concern for the property in the area that many owners MAY NOT WANT the improvements you seemingly . wish to make ! Besides, I , for one , do not want a RACEWAY ON THE PARKWAY between highways 5 and 7 because people are seeking to avoid Hwy 41 . And don' t tell me you will POLICE the Parkway--we believed that before to little avail ! 4. Finally , should this action be taken , I would be hard-pressed to believe that you can/will expect owners on the Prakway to pay " lake front" property taxes due to their little use of the , lake and others maximal use RECEIVED APR021991 I C11 Y or I IT 1 of its facilities. What say you? • Thank you for your time . I will await a response . Sincerely yours, f pi ' CR v . ) ,.of-ct.( J . iegler 1 cc : To all City officials 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 r 6--/d tet 1a/k; li Oi ifitt '1 t'CM aid gieiNt, Aire /`C� ls/et ev ilde 7i/ /(j7/, 1 tic Aid id 41 Is h'ifh 4 *7*Iva,/ (6 / t 74. a1/�//v J q/717 ti‘/ca If 4/1/1 a/Ii M //1Z2a • {IBC G�i?7` ��ti i1` d�10 ve/tf It seems city representatives /Imagine the Pleasant Acres area of are avoiding the issue of property some 110 homes, each with l� /j/i assessments and the principal on approximately two cars per household which they are based. For your having current two access/egress • information, the right to assess is streets to the state highways always based on a benefit to the reduced to one - can you fathom an(%/ property being assessed. This ambulance, school bus, fire trucks translates into an increase in value or church parishoners having to deal • of the assessed property equal to with this in an emergency? A II the amount being assessed. When an carefull check into the issue of assessment is contested, it is public safety along with environment always on the basis whereby the impacts should be made! II improvement does not increase the value of the assessed property by a Your attention is directed to the like amount. We are certain an April 25, 1991 "Weekly News" article actual property appraisal for most, appearing on Page 5; "Proposed II if not all, would be hardpressed to Parkway Improvement Project Stirs show a $2400.00 value increase for Victoria." approximately 200 the property and homeowners in the residents were present at a prior II area! Minnetonka Intermediate School meeting to voice their concerns No survey of property owners in the project proved controversial II affected area for the assessment has when discussed at the Victoria City been conducted for their reactions Council April 18 Victoria's to this project. The costs, if not portion (for their 1300 feet of the the actual needs, have not been street) of the costs projected at II fully disclosed to everyone. $331,115.00 possibility of Unfortunately, many missed the first Minnewashta Pkwy near Hwy 5 to be two neighborhood information annexed by Chanhassen to relieve II meetings held in the Minnetonka Victoria of these costs. Intermediate School cafeteria on March 27, 1991 and April 17, 1991. We have not had a concise, clearly defined description of the property I The impacts of the increased traffic owners to be affected for from the current 700-900 vehicles "assessment" to accomplish what per day (arrived at by a meter count appears to be a needless expenditure II study) to projected 7000 vehicles of monies. We suggest this can be of per day would seem beyond reason and some importance for , each of you to desire of most of the community! further investigate this project and make your views known to your Mayor, I Imagine the environmental impacts of Councilmen, county and state the proposed improvements, representatives before it is steam realignments and upgrading of this rollered through and we find our I beautiful little roadway as it Minnewashta Parkway torn up! currently exists! Without extensive, ******************************** very costly "modernization" MAKE YOUR POSITION KNOWN THROUGH II involving more asphalt and cement YOUR LETTERS AND ATTENDANCE AT over and through stable -soil, HEARINGS AND MEETINGSt/Ill' Ilti vegetation and old growth trees; ******************************** this project forebodes yet another The Minnewashta Committee of II ecological disaster. Concerned Citizens & Neighbors 474-4727 1 II I MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AREA HOMEOWNERS - . I Many of the area homeowners are June 24, 1991 7:30 PM - Public somewhat in the dark regarding Hearing to be held on the proposals emanating from the Minnewashta Pkwy Improvements. I Chanhassen City Council proposed extensive upgrading and improvements Call City Hall 937-1900 to confirm to Minnewashta Parkway (#15 ) on the the date, time and the Pkwy adgenda. western shoreline of Lake IIMinnewashta between State Hwys #5 BACKGROUND: and #7, a total distance of 2.2 Minnewashta Parkway is a 18-20 year miles. Everyone should immediately old former county road (#15 ). It was I send letters expressing their views deeded to the City of Chanhassen either for, or against this proposal about ten years ago to become a city to turn this present idyllic, quiet, street. The roadway was originally I meandering road into a heavy traffic, high speed street. built to conform to county road standards and has never been WRITE YOUR LETTER TO EACH: upgraded or improved beyond doing Mayor Don Chmiel patch repair work when necessary. I 7100 Techumseh Road It has never been resurfaced other Chanhassen, Mn 55317 than poorly done patching with Council Member Ursula Dimler traffic compaction of the patched I 7203 Kiowa Circle Chanhassen, Mn 55317 area instead of hot rollering to produce a better and more durable Council Member Mike Mason surface. 833 Woodhill Road Chanhassen, Mn 55317 The roadway is a low speed, low Council Member Richard Wing traffic volume, ambling one with 3481 Shore Drive delightful scenic views and old I Excelsior, Mn 55331 mature trees to entice the traveler Council Member Tom Workman to enjoy this short 2.2 mile trip. 7233 Pontiac Circle Lake shore access is restricted to I Chanhassen, Mn 55317 homeowners since the closure of an WATCH LOCAL COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS FOR old resort in the early 80's and the ARTICLES REPORTING ON THE building of condos on that property. MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY PROPOSALS. WRITE II TO THE NEWSPAPER EDITORS! It is being proposed to widen the TALK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS! street from its present width, to ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR upgrade the shoulders, to make I FIRST HAND COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS: realignments, do tree and ground growth removal, provide improved May 6, 1991 7:30 PM - This drainage, shore up steep slopes with I proposal is currently not on the retaining walls and install a agenda but it could be "slipped in." bicycle/walkway trail. Costs for June 10, 1991 7:30 PM - the . improvements currently are - Consulting Engineer, Bill Engelhardt approaching an estimated figure of I (retained by Chanhassen City) will close to $3,000,000 ! THREE MILLION present and read the report covering DOLLARS! ! -- With proposed special this project to the council. assessments to each area property IIowner of some $2400.00 each! II 1 . 1 I•:ay 4, 1991 • Council :ember Richard ring 3!31 2'-ore Drive Excelsior, :' 55331 Dear Council :-;ember i•-ing: I am writing t is letter as a concerned homeowner in regard to the proposed u- .ad`_ng of :"inne- ashta :'arkway-. I an against the upgrading prop:sal for the follot'in: reasons. (1) '';innc-oashta P•ark;ay is a scenic residential street with bea•„fi_1.1 mat= trees which would -^--e to be removed. (2) It is unecesary to snel_d that much money t- make another snecth ay between highway 7 and ri;;h;*ay r. !!_t -resent time there is -ounty road �1 about 1 mile to th e east a_ 1 Palling 'ores road ebo-;t 1 mile to t'-he rest which serve the sane pursose. -f it is olt t-at . innewas'hta Parkway has to be re-surfaced that is one thing but to send all of that none-7- on an upgrading is unnecessary. C .t that - ha7e, this: If the upgrading of -.-.rT�,may �:-' re "�C� 4'�)E.:.•..1Jn l• .....� ... ._.... � is V_"LJ: If t_"E li'�- ra.d-i.� of the 1 ,..�C.l....J ill increase ase `-e, from 7)D-5'3D vehicles per day toJa projected 7)D) vehicles per day why ^re only 532 o ncrs of rronerty ex:c • cted to pay for it? is iy not the entire city ._ for that natter t'-e eatre county. In C'' of--sion = t"'?i ii this is an expense that can and should be av led. I don't think t•""- ev•cry honeo--ner should expect to -..ave a fancy walk ?path along the . ar:^•ay. Thc.re is plenty of room to walk within each neign.orhood. Thank You for your cons_deration. , Sincerely / OOP - ha y A.:' ru s 3911 Li• den Circle Excelsior, MN 55331-7725 ' May 3, 1991 Dear Mr. Wing, I would like to share a few of my thoughts with you about the ' proposed improvements to Minnewashta Parkway. I thought the information meeting at MIS on the 17th was very worthwhile. I appreciated getting some "real" information instead of just the neighborhood rumors. I thought the highway engineer conducted himself well despite the poor behavior of some of the residents. In the • beginning of the meeting you talked about looking for options. Some of ' the options as I see it are: * DO NOTHING ' * RESURFACE THE ROAD AS IT IS * ADD CURBS, GUTTERS, WIDTH AT 29' * ADD CURBS, GUTTERS, WIDTH AT 32' ' * ADD CURBS, GUTTERS, WIDTH AT 36' * ADD A BIKE / WALK TRAIL * ADD CUBS, GUTTERS, TRAIL, WIDTH AT 29' * ADD CUBS, GUTTERS, TRAIL, WIDTH AT 32' * ADD CUBS, GUTTERS, TRAIL, WIDTH AT 36' Before we can choose one of the options we have to figure out what is our objective. Some of these objectives are: * INCREASE SAFETY ON THE PARKWAY ' * IMPROVE THE ROAD * MINIMIZE COST * IMPROVE THE LOOKS OF THE PARKWAY ' * PROTECT THE LAKE FROM CHEMICALS IN THE RUNOFF * IMPROVE DRAINAGE WHERE NEEDED It is my opinion that what the people are saying when they complain ' about the road and safety is that the road, as it is now, can not handle its current volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The safety issue is far less concerned about pedestrians crossing the street than it is with pedestrians using the street with the cars and trucks. The answer for this is a trail, not a wider road. The time for a trail is now, not in 4 ' years. The trail is needed now because of the number of children that are starting to use the parkway. When most of the Linden / Kirkwood / Joshua Circles were developed 5-8 years ago those houses had no ' children or only toddlers. Now those children are old enough that they. WILL BE on the parkway with their bikes but they are not old enough to ' always be careful. In my neighborhood we have 30+ of these children. If the city is concerned about a child being killed on that road the time of greatest potential danger is in the next few years until this group of children becomes older. As far as the road itself is concerned it should be upgraded to at least 32 feet at the time when the signals are installed ('94-'95). The engineer is right in that the road should be sized to handle the loads. A 29 foot road is too small. If the driving surface is constrained by curbs and the snow starts to fall a 29' road could only handle its current load and is not any !here near able to handle the load 10 to 20 years from now. I hope the decision includes a trail because that is the biggest current need. Better water runoff control and a smooth surface are nice but I don't think that anyone is asking for that at the current time. I do not like the idea of doing nothing because of the problem of bike traffic and cars on that road at the same time. I know you are busy so you do not have to respond to this letter but I hope you will help us protect our walkers/ bikers with a trail . , Thank-you for your fine. ' David & Julie Terpstra 6581 Joshua Circle ' Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-5092 1 1 1 1 • ' June 18, 1991 - ' RE: MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE ' The great majority of people, who liv.e along and close to Minnewashta Parkway, for years have wanted a safe walkway for pedestrians, which ,would consist of a simple widening of the road with a stripe painted on the side for pedestrians. ' Why have we made this into a gigantic, expensive, citified, unwanted, undertaking? Especially in these times of deficet spending. We' re all telling our representatives to CUT SPENDING. We do not need high curbing, or 5' grass strip and then a 6' ' cement sidewalk. This is not Edina: This is a beautiful ' country residential parkway - not Lake Harriet. We have 41 and 13 to connect Highway 7 and 5 (two miles apart from each ' other) . All we need and want is a larger road bed in order to stripe a line for pedestrian safety. i a This IS the silent majority' s views ' Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, IJill Hempel Board Representative Red Cedar Point Homeowners Association 1 1 i - 7--7-72 7]'}-7 `tiPuaau;'S ' • -y6n,o p-41raralid s'vm. -r cv hvmRuvd V VOIVAu,ryy WY 1027d aya -uoddnc' am gyp mow) o non +vm am Pm) `1961 aauyg anOD 7i7210a3 Pad n puv ;14-,rod uvp ) pad 140 panr7 anvy am :1077V11147210 go 7rauno) hzn puv uohvyy a X11 o 1 ' 1661 8 7"L - l££SS uW uor77aax3 ano) uvpa) pad 0901 uvcuv"Trud •) P rnva uvuirrind •W ap rna-aPY ' July 13 1991 RE: Minnewashta Pkwy. Project # 90-15 Chanhassen City Council Don Ashworth and Bill Engelhardt ' We must remember that the first two meetings regarding this project were very heavily attended and consisted of many questions that were ' raised, but unanswered, awaiting further investigation. At the July 8th hearing we were given all of the particulars for the very first • time. 'Mile listening to the pleas of those who spoke that evening, ' I heard only four who spoke in favor of the plan as presented and each dealt primarily with the aspect of safety. Can we do Two things NOW? ' 1 . Please look through the city warehouse and find at least four signgthat relate to "Slow-Down-Children." ' , If there is any possible danger,(and the feelings were expressed by many others) we should do all we can to address the problem immediately: Place one at #5, one at #7 and 2 in the middle near the beach areas. 2. If the fear of harm to the children is genuine, we should consider the invoking of a twenty-five mile per hour speed ' zone along this parkway. Even if it were in .effect for the . entire length, it would add only 37 seconds to the drive. When MnDOT says we can't do this, ask them to place a value on the life of one child. We should insist: While attending to this, our maintenance people could easily remove any tall weeds and tree branches that are on the 66 foot right-of-way that currently impair our 'line-of-sight' along the curves. Thank you. ' You refer to an appendix B in the June 5th letter, yet we did not get a copy of this study by Braun Eng. about the testing of the sub-soil. ' Is there any reason to construct a road that carries more than the 4000 ' pound per axel as the parkway now is? Is the data from Braun concerned with a marginal bed in only a limited area? oF JUL 17 10'1 .....d'i6EnE nib J T. 1 (2) 1 One key feature that is missing from the parkway as it now sits , is the fact that the 'crown' has compacted. (Naturally, over 20 years:) My point is that it may be best to get MnDot, State Aid, Gen Bonds and the Trunk Fund out of the picture. If we are really thinking long about lon term storm - drain solution, our aim should be to get any water off the hard surface ' at the very nearest point. In the dirt at the road's edge. With the proper crown this distance is no more than 13 to 16 feet. Why send it thru a lift ' station over to Savage at cost to Chanhassen when nature has been doing a perfect job for hundreds of years? No need for curbing, but we must attend to our gutters where needed with a back-hoe, on a regular basis. With these few suggestions, I would submit that the study of the application of a mat and an asphalt surface be thoroughly explored. , I rather delight in the fact that this suggestion has had rough treatment. We had been exposed to a brief time on the world scene where just about every expert, many politicians, most TV personalities and even some neigh- _ , bors had found that their opinions needed to be re-examined. This had been with regard to the Gulf use of force. I 'm suggesting that we should 1 all step back a moment and take another look. Maybe the puzzle is not as difficult as we make it to be. Iwill place my confidence in reason. We all have it; let's listen to one another and resolve the differences. , Worse than an abused environment, we are also leaving our children the accumulated debt that we choose pass on,to pile up. ' Sincerely, Richard H. Comer, 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive. Excelsior, Minn. 55331 474-8105 RECEIVED JUL 151991 CITY Or c:riHNHASSEf 1 JL-\_7 i J ■.%C".L yr-, clop--' S.\-\.c ti --\v Cs , ,-, ,___5, -----=L---- i1 c- c1 c1,1 n C Q._ -:'r ".'r i--k-- I --). \-\c`-s- �,,.,t- _ c-CT .a G l E -- 'S.. , -f .L \\ 4 e--c----� .a r. -4-^Q- 1-*-c-V-t_L ,,', C L.L.A. II ,..,. \.L.S f1� T�k. 1�Ctr�{ CJ�C1 C� ' Sc> cam.. l c'c ..._)Cy c._ 3-21-- cam. c....-.CL ^ Cs-1-t-Cr-cl h-. '4--,,- ,f; C '`"(C"cl C l.*E ■-`_)c --\-1-'-1c't- ` e c., , s't' 0t. K '.'''- \Gay 7 ``' �'c...- TcS c`h \L_`''' \c U c Lc.- _.-i`.A_ C ''..".1\-1'--).c J G .-..i■S -� ----- ._.`.-(.._. C\G ci-L3- �'1�c" � �L�Cr_ CC-∎.-v.� g*C.-t C tv.,. \-$--1&—. I c EN Jc C-L.r&.\ ��.S ©�yr' c._�c,c , \ems ■• ■;\ ` O .��' 1 - 172. \'�_C --C, \-4-' ---71-•czt' I C.2.. ..c.; \ Ic:"13C:: G i ,c:c,,s2...4... .`2 I I 1 June 14 , 1991 Mayor Donald Chmiel Chanhassen City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' RE: Minnewashta Parkway Improvements Dear Chanhassen Council Memebers, We are writing to you in regards to the proposed improvements to the Minnewashta Parkway. To state it simply we are against any improvements that are going to cost us any more money. This year alone our pperty taxes went up over 70__$ This in- crease has put us in a situation tha they g uo again we may have to sell our home. This is not fair. We should not be forced out our home because of taxes. The request by people in this area was to put in a simple walk 1 way. As indicated by your traffic study -the speed on the parkway is at 30 MPH as an average. Should the proposed improve- ment take place I can assure you that the speeds will be in- creased. Why should the City improve a road for outside traffic to use to cut across to the highways on. At the present time there are two trunk highways that can be used, Highway 41 and County Road 13. These two roads are designed to carry the heavy traffic. We request of you to be frugal with the tax payer' s money and do not waist it on Minnewashta Parkway improvement which is not needed or wanted by the people living in the area. Respectfully, i v C;47)7 Richard and Marianne Anding I 1 . � * ~I 4- 5"-A : ' � ^^Jf ^-- � ' ` y N� O /. 6( 1991 / ' _�� / / -�,. | / ~~ Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Techumseh Road N� Chanhassen, Mn 55717 'CounCil Member Ursula Dimler ' 7203 Kiowa Circle N� Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Council Member Mike Mason N� 833 WoodhilI Road 7shannassen, Mn 55317 Council Member Richard Wing N� 3481 Shore Drive Excelsior; Mn 55331 N� Council Member Tom Workman • 7277 Pontiac Circle ChanhasSen, frn 55317 rear Puhlic Servants: This letter is to voice my concern for and opposition to the proposed upgrading and improvements of Minnewashta Parkway on the western shoreline of Lake Minnewashta between State Hwys #5 and #7. With the right to assess being based on a benefit to the N� property being assessed, it is clear to me as an individual with years of real estate experience, that the properties involved would not benefit from such a proposal with increased value but would undeniably lose value. The quiet lifestyle we currently �.. m� enjoy would not just be interrupted but rather preempted. %, as a parent of three young children, would be greatly concerned for the safety of my children. Property taxes have just gone up a tremendous amount for those of us living in the affected area of Chanhassen. The cost for living in the area must be weighed and analyzed according to the benefits thereof. Following this enormous tax hike, a special assessment is being considered in addition to it which will Iincrease cost even more and cause a decrease in value. Any elementary study of residential real estate values as it pertains to compa-able homes, one on a quiet residential street and one on a busy thoroughfare, clearly demonstrates the. effect of heavy • . traffic. Marketability is lessened as well as property value itself. Those who live right on Minnewashta Parkway are going to suffer the loss of peace and quiet, as well as significant N� dollars in real estate value. Are the now higher taxes going to be lowered to reflect that decrease? And are those homeowners I ' ~ . ° going to be given credit for loss of property values which will compensate them accordingly? Not with_ such a proposal . The exact opposite is going to be the end result. N� As public servants of our community, I call upon your integrity as individuals elected to your positions to serve our community. Turning your backs on those who are so directly affected will constitute nothing less than a disservice. Does anyone have a hidden agenda? What is our overall purpose in our community? To make it the best place we can to live, or to close our eyes to N� ° very real individual rights and needs for—the purpose of "advancement"? The price tag is being handed to those very individuals who will suffer the very real consequences to life N� style, pocket books, and peace of mind. -- ' I am hereby requesting that the affects of such a proposal on N� property values of homes on Minnewashta Parkway be done so that the real truth will be known. Your position on this issue will clearly demonstrate your level of commitment to your community. Sincerely, Arlene Hernc:on 3750 Red Cedar Point Drive N� E:celsior, Mn. 55331 ~� • . -- ~ �� I