Admin Section ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Letter to Tom Motherway dated June 21, 1989 .
Correspondence to and from Roger Zahn .
Letter from Charlie James dated June 15 , 1989 .
Information to Lake Lucy Road Residents Regarding Parking.
' Letter from Metropolitan Council dated June 16 , 1989 .
Several Letters Regarding TH 5 Improvement Schedule.
Memo from Jim Chaffee dated June 13 , 1989.
Memo from Jim Chaffee dated June 14 , 1989 .
Letter from Gloria Vierling dated May 30 , 1989 .
HRA Accounts Payable.
Memo and Attachments from Don Ashworth Regarding Greenwood Shores
Park dated June 26 , 1989 .
Park and Recreation Commission Agenda for June 27, 1989 .
' Letter to Dave Warzala dated June 16 , 1989 .
Memo from CHADDA re: Groundbreaking Ceremony for Heritage Park
' Apartments .
Letter and Attachments to Conrad Fiskness dated June 21, 1989.
' Public Safety Statistics for April and May, 1989 .
Letter from Roger Knutson dated June 13 , 1989 .
' Correspondence to and from Krass and Monroe dated June 21 , 1989 . -
, Memo and Attachments from Don Ashworth re : Boat Mooring dated
June 26 , 1989 .
I
tti A
I
1
CITY OF
NBAssrr _
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
June 21 . 1989
State of Minnesota
Attn : Mr. Thomas Motherwav
State Coordinating Officer
Department of Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
' B5-State Capitol
St. Paul , MN 55155
' Re: FEMA - Final Accounting
Request for Reimbursement
Dear Mr. Motherway:
Attached herewith are the City of Chanhassen ' s Project Listing
forms for our categorical grant for disaster No. 0797. All projects
' were actually completed before the February 2, 1989, deadline,
however, our Finance Department chose to complete the 1988 Annual
Audit and Financial Statement preparation before finalizing the
project costs.
If there are any questions on the attached material , please call .
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Yo/A)
Ga - Jarren , P.E.
' Ci . : ineer -
GGW:jm
' Attachments: Project Listing Forms and Certification
cc : Don Ashworth, City Manager
Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
Tom Chaffee, Data Processing Coordinator
City Council Administrative Packet (6-26-89)
FEDERAL CIE 'GE C; MANAGE: ^) 'ASE: : ,
itE:- I
p4LuLt !ice I5
v.__^• 4: 07R7
F.A. ID: 019-101B APPLICANT: CHANHASSEN, CITY II UNNESOTA C}
GRANT T`i"E: CATEOCRICAL
• WORK PROJECT °
OSR # SOP CAT A+:COMA SY Ct�MpL,O `,AphD,l ED ACT L!AL DT AMT. CLaINED .
---P S� AMOUNT COMPLETED BY APPLICANT COMMENTS
11109 0 A FORCE ACCT 02i 04%GB 3600.00 y!�,S�i y�7 3_ _�0_/- .6c /"4 e0 5/5 t� 1
O
Fire,-- FT,
PROJECT TITLE: SEDIMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY '
DAMAGE FACILITY: PUBLIC PROPERTY
DAMAGE LOCATION: SITES 40, 43 & 44
PROJ vt.L;*.IPT ION: ,; 6 2)12- - 2^
I
t.0u`� d X i; - t75. FLOOD DEBRIS 'RCM, SAND, GRAVEL
DEPOSITED �''-� , , LOGS: WAS
DEPOSITED ON ROADS, IN PARKS, BUILDINGS AND OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY.
REMOVE DEBRIS AND HAUL T^ DISPOSAL
SITE.
COMMEN S: DEBRIS AT SITES 35,40 °t 44 ARE MINOR DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO H'' LESS THAN
I
$25c: _AC4. ALLOW S TE 43 IN KLCWA PARK.
11110 0 A FOR ACCT ,:^, - - T
CE f 4;Bi $I._u0. f�t 76, s /:;�Z1 PUait Ie5 ./c-iv16-c.1
..F. :4 i ' •••'
PROJECT TITLE: DEBRIS AT RID:1�c5 E
'DAv
.E ^yl Il.Tf: DRAINAGE WAY
DAMAGE LOCATION; S OF E LAKE DR SITE #4I
PROj LC-SCRI-T:ON: 5B'
u Y DESRI= CCNSISTIN3 OF ROD', =04 0 T E E S, STUMPS
OTHER MATERIAL :3 EIGNIFICANTLf REDUCING THE WATERWAY!i1AY CPEPiING REMOVE
I
DEBRIS AND aw!L FR^m SF5.
11111 0 A FORCE ACC: 02/04/H ='. , ! �G' 7
I
PROJECT TITLE: MAN MADE CHANNEL CLEARANCE
DAMAGE FACILITY: DRAINAGE NAY
I
DAMAGE LOCATION: HORR - S LOTUS LAKE SITE 1442
PROJ DESCRIPTION: (337 X 6 1 2)127 = 150 CY. FLOODWATERS DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS IN 111E
CHANNEL WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES CHANNEL CAPACITY. EXCAVATE
SEDIMENTS AND DEPOSIT MATERIAL IN SPOI I
Si±N` y' SATE aNEnE Pf-aciBLE
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBRIS I. COMP TED 't1 COMPLETELY LETELY CLEAN CHA4NEL TO
D_::]N Rut. T'dE APPLICANT'S SHARE IS DEDUCTED FROM TnE TOTAL :THERE
APCLICAGLE. I
I
I
I
•
I , .. . .
I EMERGENCY I
FEDE�AL EMERGENCY UANAG[H[NT 4��HCY PAGE:
'
PROJECT LISTING
I DISASTER 4: 0797
P.A.y,A. l]/ V1v-10Yl8 AFFLICANT: CHAq�A�SEN CITY CF
��
STATE: 4lN';E6C7A GRANT TYPE/ CATEGORICAL
I ' XURK PROJECT APPROVED ACTUAL DT AMT. CLAIMED
DSR # SUPP CAT ACCOMP BY C0HPL Or DSR AMOUNT COMPLETED BY APPLICANT COMMENTS
II11645 0 A FORCE ACCT 02/04/B8 $525^00 �� /V'r/g �y $ 5J� ---'42--- ^
DAMAGE FACILITY: BOAT LANDING AREA
��
DAMAGE LOCATION: S LOTUS PK - SECTION 12 SITE #I4
PROJ DESCRIPTION: 220CY. FLOOD WATER CAUSED DEBRIS (SILT) TO COVER BOAT LANDING AREA -
IREMOVE.
�---
12151 0 A FORCE ACCT 0B/23/87 a1:48.00 fi/ (f / s'T » .35/
~~ PROJECT TITLE: WIND GENERATED DEBRIS ON PUBEC PROPERTY
DAMAGE FACILITY: STORM SEWER DRAINAGE WAY
IDAMAGE LOCATIOU: E GF KE8B[R F0 #28 PROJ DESORPTION: SCATTERED 45 CY. WIND GEHEP4r[D DEBRIS CONSISTING OF BUILDING
�ATERlALS` 'REFS AND PERSONA; murtrlY WAS DE9DSlTEG ON PUBLIC
IIRRCPERT". iCAp AV2 xPL :EDRI; TO D{SFGE'AL BITE. •
11.-:: : E FJR2E ACC' �3/l707 11,J:::.0O 7 ,17 47 , /.33o-' '��'
IIPROJECT TITLE: PUMPING OPERATION
DAMAGE FACILITY: 14 RUMP STATIONS
DAMAGE .00ATIOW: THROUGHOUT Cl-y
I PROJ DESCR{PTlON: H/A DIMENSIONS. ATTENTION »ECU0EU DURING SrORN TO ANSWER HIGH WATER
ALARM CALLS - TO RESET TRIP OUT SWITCHES. RENT FLUSHER.
I �\io42 0 B FORCE ACCT OR/D/87 $2,0:1.00 � ` 2 �'� // / ~ � ' : �
CONTRACT
I PROJECT TITLE: PROTECTIVE MEASURES
DAMAGE FACILITY: CITY
DAMAGE LOCATION: CITY WIDE
IIPROJ DESCRIPTION: CITY WIDE. FRGTECT7YE MEASURES.
I
I .
.
N. - . - ' '
IN
;AGE: ` 1 re.yL � N
�� �RGEHCY � NAGEUE9T Aj[9CY
PROjECr LlSTM
01S4S7E7 I' 0797 ~~
P.A. ID: 019-19918 APPLI:ANT: CHAN4A532Y. CITY OF
STATE: M/NNEEOTA G;AN7 rY;E: C&TEE8R{CAL
• WORK PRDJECT AF9ROVED ACTUAL 0T AMT. CLAIMED 0 SUPP CAT ACCO4f BY COMPL DT DER AMOUNT COMPLETED BY APPLICANT COMMENTS
== -
11647 0 B FORCE ACCT 08/23197 $J43.0O «y / / m� $ "��'
- --
PROJECT TITLE: EMERGENCY PUMPING
DAMAGE FACILITY: LIFT STATION 411
DAMAGE LOCATION: 7110 UTICA LANE SITE 429
PROJ CESCRlPT}OH: ONE STA7lUN, FLOOD WATER'S ENTERED STATION PIT - EMERGENCY PUMPING
R[QUIR[U TO N0TE3 FACli{Tv.
�-*,
11104 0 C FORCE ACCT V2/O3/89 $462.00 /1.1.3e• /�`� � 4(��' /�0 /�r' �L Cos / �
CONTRACT — ~-^ '=^ ' '
- e55/''wv^� /��
DAMAGE FACILITY: STREET
DAYAGE LOCATION: KING RD - SW SEC 5 SITE 41 ^ ��
PROJ u66v*t'/,JN: '735' X 20')/9 = 1/67 i 12' i 4">/:7 = 9 [Y WASHOUT. FLOOD
WATERS WASHED OFF 16 TONE: CF SURFACE MATERIAL. otz/uxt AG6EESA7[.
REE*,IDE - APPLY CALC:'il CHLDKlD[.
116.:4 V C AZT oS/17'ST $299.v4 ��/_/7/ y71_2,1_111_
DAMAGE FACILITY: CITY ROAD
DAMAGE iOCATlCNr NEAR 43900 HWY CO 17 EITE #3}
PROJ DESCRIPTION: (:,2' J Y' X .13'1/27 = 16.12 CY. )iASHED OUT - PEFLACE WITH 3/4^
.
AGGREGATE.
11631 0 C FORCE ACCT 02/03/89 $1'558^00 17 /7 9 7� a e /�/�/��'/^p� '�*-/
_ I�a*« +/ �'c^r—
PROJECT TITLE: BITUMINOUS SURFACE AND [MDANYmEXT P4ILURE
DAMAGE FACILITY: CITY RD
DAMAGE LOCATION: YOSEMITE RD 4AP SITE 42 - ~~
F.7UJ DES:?lRTl[W: '( :5 X 41/27 ` 222 CY PILL 94 v 6 @ ^" = :24. :7AxEyENT HAS
W43HED OUT AND [AILED, SUEGRADE AND DITCHES SCOURED. ;[MOVE AND
REPLACE DAMAGED PAY[UEKT AND BASE C:SURSE 4ND REPLACE LOST EMBANKMENT.
WHERE APPLICABLE, KESBADE DITCH SECTIONS.
•
. '
MI
.
I
. .
I
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY . :=,/aE: a
PGUJE[r LISTING'�� DlSAS-EK �� 079`
IP. . ID: 01 -10912 APPL}�NT: C;4NHASSEX. CITi O Sr4rE: MINNESOTA GRANT TYPE: CATEGORICAL
I
I . WORK PRCECT
DER i P ACC3MP BY C0MPi OT APPROVED
DER AMOUNT ACTUAL DT AMT. CLAIMED
COMPLETED BY PPLlCANT
COMMENTS
==
II �16J9 0 C FORCE ACCT �8/23/87 $2,657.00 ? /%7Y/ V7 $ 3 ^-�7 ^��~
I PRDJECT T}TLE: GPAVEL 8OAD WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY; GRAVEL ROAD
DAMAGE LOCATION: LOTUS TRAIL - W 1/2 SEC II SITE 437
PKOJ DRSCRIPT}ON: 1440' X I2' X 6~)/27 = 98 CY. FLOOD WATERS WASHED OUT ROAD SURFACE -
I RESTORE. APPLY CALCIUM CKOR{:E. .
��,
Iii4O 0 C FORCE ACCT 02/03/89
1'624.00 /1 /3 ?/�7 $ 646 '
'
PROJECT TITLE: ROAD SURFACE TREATMENT
IIDAMAGE FACILITY: GRAVEL ROAD -
DAMAGE LOCATION: SUNSET TRAIL - NW SEC 2: GITE g2:
FKOJ DESCRIPTION: iI7OV FT x 2Y`/9 = 3,7`8 S�. r.38O WATERS W*S14ED ROAD SURFACE
3�z//DYIiG REC�HTLT APPLICD CALCIUM 2HLCRIDE. OFA3E AND RESTORE./� .
Il:44 0 C r:`Lt ACC' V8/2:/3r �619.''v /e) ' 5�/ � u' / ��~
CON7R4C7 -- '--
'
�� PROJECT TITLE/ BITUMINOUS WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY: SlT0vIN0US ROAD
DAMAGE LOCATIJK. DAKOTA LN - E 1/2 SECTION 13 SITE 29
I PBOJ DE6[RlPTlON: 120 Y 10 X .25. FLOOD DESTROYED BITUMINOUS SURFACE - r.,-.z,cr--.
11646 0 C FORCE ACCT 08/23/87 $276'�O /4 //� .�{'7 � ~17^ �»�
I
DAMAGE FACILITY: GRAVEL ROAD
DAMAGE LOCATION: TUNADDOXA DR - NW SECTION 49 SITE
�� PRUJ DESCRIPTION: 78' X 12' X 4' = 12 CY. FLOOD WASMEO OFF SURFACE - CEz'Lnt -I4T[FlAL - -
GRADE SURFACE
—' 4-5 -^
�
I 11674 0 C FORCE ACCT 08/17,57 $4,072.1,D, 5 4/7 - 7 � ~CUN`RACT
N� DAMAGE FACILITY: GRAVEL ROAD
��
DAMAGE LOCATION: BLUFF [FEEK DR SITE A26
FROJ DEECRIPTI3N; <260' X 12' X 6`1/27 = 8 CY. FLOOD WATERS MASI-ED JUT ROAD 3UFFA[E.
IRES7RESTORE 9O4D - APPLY CALCIUM CHLORIDE.
I
• . — '
mm
.'
rtutKAi EMEFDENCY MANAGEMENT 4'GEWiCY may~ . ,
PROJECT LISTING
OiS STEF !; 0747
F.4. 0t9-1ii413 _ICANT: CHAN1!?S EN. CITY OF
STti F: MINNESIITA GRANT TYPE: CA-E&CFICPL
. WORK PRf E"T AFFROVED ACTUAL DT AMT. CLAIMED '
CS, 4 SUPP CAT ACCB 1P BY
CO1PL DSR AMOUNT COMPL ETED BY APPLICANT
IAIT CG"SEkt
11655 0 C 08/23/87 $8.552.00 ./47/T7 $
DAMAGE FACILITY: CITY STREET
DAMAGE LOCATION: SITE 2 C _ N 36
� 4 bcr.w4OD DR NW =E"TtC; ;.
PROJ DESCRIPTION: (4200 X 12 X 1 1/2 7 = 1S66CY - (28' X 1 ' X 3'1/27 = 7 CY BITUMINOUS.
FOOD WASHED OUT SHOULDER AND ROAD SURFACE. RESTORE.
11686 0 C FORCE ACCT 68/1 7:87 $797.0 1/7 i g?
PROJECT TITLE: CITY ROAD WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY: CITY ROAD
DAMAGE LOCATION: 7051 CARVER LEACH RD SITE Y:2
=POD DEECRIFT CN: (110' X 11 x 4 ) '27 = 14.73 -
.,= L ..=SAC' __'PEACE '*ASH OUT ?E:'_nE.
12132 0 C 02/C3,79 iV Y $ 5 o /Net,e,/es %i c'i✓1" I
P�
Lr4 'i
PROJECT TITLE: RESTORE WALL ;RET,ININS ,...:,. '
DAMAGE FACILIT;. RETAINING WALL
DAMAGE LOCATION: PLEASANT VIEW COVE SITE 436
PROD :'E:.R:. _3N: WALL 72 X 6 f G . 31I CE AREA ,_ " TERS. CAUSED
EMSANiMFNT TO SLIDE DESTROYING RETAININ8 4AL_ - '
11105 0 D FORCE ACCT 02/03/Si $1, ,c;, //L , U$ 1/3 ,9-
- --- a .�'�n
PROJECT TITLE: LEVEE DAMAGE
DAMAGE FACILITY: DRAINAGE WAY
DAMAGE LOCATION: HUSHE'S DRAINAGE WAY 7343 WILDWOOD SITE
PROJ unu IPTI'ON: (210 X 5 1 21/27 = 78 CV. HIGHWATER DAMAGED LEVEE. RESTORE LEVEE
ORIGGINAL CROSS SECTION WITH C3MPACTED FILL. GRADE AND RESEED
DISTURBED AREA 1F APPLICABLE,
I ' ' •
I FEDERAL EmERSE4CY MANAGEENT AGE'ICY 34--
,-.
.-. a
• PPO2E:T LISTING
DISASTER 4: ,)797
F ID: 01R-10712 APFL:CAN': SSEN. C:TY OF
•
SAE: MINNESOTA GRANT TYPR: :ATESICRICL
I . WORK PROJECT
L2P 4 SUPP CAT AC:0MP SY COMPI DT
I APPROVED
DSR AMOUNT ACTUAL DT AMT. CLAIMED
COMPETED BY APPLICANT COMMENTS
----
II :1107 0 0 FORCE ACCT ,52/0:1239
$1,4:2.00 lli t( 1,cc? i /)- 7 02-- /A-Ae L qc(425 ee'A- / J
II PROJECT TITLE: STORM DRAINAGE WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY: STORM. DRAINAGE
DAMAGE LOCATION: FRONTIER TRAIL DRAINAGE W47
II PRO3 LKIPTIU: (12? I IT X 0127 = 51 CY TOTAL, FLOOD WATERS WASHED OUT A CITY
;MANAGE WAY, RESTORE.
..-e
116:E 0 0 riot ACCT vE1:7'67 t2E2.00 // //51
PROJECT TITLE: RESTORE SA ELIDE
,
• DAMAGE FACILITY: POND FYEANfmENT
OW:a LOC4THN: S :::: t'EFERR PD SITE #:5
PPOJ HS:RIFiON: ,fc: Y 12 X 1)::7 . 22 2,. FLHD WATER'S WASHED :::T EMBANHIOT -
II RESTORE.
:.,75 0 D ....TLI-.. ACCT 02/03GR ;=-Y.Y:' /0 & V $ 97 3
IfnelECT TITLE: WATER WAY WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY: PAWNEE DRAINAGE
I DAYAGE LOCATION: PAWN-7 DRAINAGE WAY NE SECTION OF CITY MAF SITE i7P.
PROJ .12t.-..LqIFTION: 120 X 10 I 41127 = 70 CY & 70 I 15A . 500 SY. FLOOD WATERS WASHED GUT
CLAY AREA WIN GRASS SURFACE - RESTORE.
I11676 0 D FORCE ACCT 02100/G9
12,E:6.00 -, `-c-
II PROJECT TITLE: EROSION REPAIR AT DRAINAGE AND CUTLET STRUCT,FES
DAMAGE RACILITY: MWCC DRAINAGE WAY
DAMAGE LOCATION: S OF E LANE D5 MAP SITE 441
II PROJ DESCRIPTION: ,.)0 X 14 X 5 = 156 CY ■TOTAL). HIGH VELOCITY PLOW SC:LRED MATERIAL
FROM SPIND DFAINAGF OF CUTIFT STRUCTURES. GA:vFILL ETICED AREA TO
OPIGIAL CROSS SECTION.
II
II
II
_..
so
•
;:;1E:' 7 I
FEDERAL E�EKGEhCY ;ANAGEKF9, AGENCY
YROJE[T LISTI^IS
DISASTER t/ 0797 ~~
r.4. :G: 0:9-10918 W"P' lCAXT� "����ASS[K Cl-Y CF
' ~ .
E-ATE: °11hES2rA
GRANT TfpE: CATEG0RICAL
' 4031 PROJECT APpVOVED ACTUAL DT AMT. CLAIMED
DSK 4 SUP� CAT ACCOMP BY COMPL OT OSK AMOUNT COMPLETED BY APPLICANT COmrEN7S
1157' 0 D FORCE ACCT 02103/89 0.260^0O //I vet $ -�v����
__
P»DJECT TITLE: EROSION REPAIR AT DRAINAGE AND OUTLET STRUCT%KES
DAHAGE FACILITY: HOPR DRAINAGE WAY
DAMAGE LOCATION: HORR - S LOTUS LN SITE 442
FVCJ DEEC8lPTIOQ: /26C' X B 21/27 = 154 [Y. HIGH VELOCITY FLOW SCOURED MATERIAL FROM
BEHIND DRAINAGE OR OUTLET STRUCTURES. 2ACkF{LL ERODED AREA TO
ORIGINAL CROSS SECTION.
11:09 0 F FORCE .1CCT 08/17/27 ��q�' /V 'f/ /7 . C7
CONTRACT -- -.- --
-
PROJECT TITLE: LIGHTNING DAMAGE ' II
DAm4GE FACILITY: ELECT9{C CUNT*OL PANEL
2ANAG[ LOCATION: LIFT STATION 418 - Lf Rl:EE iYi8
pnOJ DESCR{RTIOM: 4' X J' ; IO". LlGHTNM S79UCy CONTROL PANEL - ;[PAIR :TARTER
C3NTROL - nLmF WATER DUT 2F ET4rl2N. -
1b72 0 r 7O6CE ACCT $1.4V8.'/c, //3 $ /3/5"��-
pRO:EC? TITLE: STORM SEWER OUTLET WASHOUT
34MA8E FACILITY: STORM SEWER OUTLET
BA.MAGE LGCATl0N: HIDDEN VALLEY POND - SITE 421
pRUJ DBCP!PT0N/ (4: x 'O 7)/27 = 207 CY TOTAL. FLOOD WATERS *ASr;ED COT FILL AT SASE
OF SEYFR OUTLET.
11677 0 F FORCE ACCT 02103/29 $2,578.,O AO Ff $ 5-7s'
Pk0J[:T TITLE: BASIN WASHOUT
DAMAGE FAClL{T': STORM DRAINAGE E0SlN
JANGE LOCATION: TRIPLE C»OuN POND SITE �?
P6OJ DESCRIPTION: 112) /Z Y 0/27 = %<: CY - TOTAL. 171.008 'ilASnED :UT 5«rES{ALS
OF LEVEES AT DRAINAGE BASIN - IN SrGRM C'Ek[R 3iETER - 9ESrCR[^
. ' -
mm
II
rtLcNAL EmEHENCY 1.1NAGEMENT .-OENCY
II PO,FrT _IETING
DISASTER ,c; 0797
ID: ::1;-1.*.IR1S ArFL:2AN-: C.-I.NPAESEN, 2IT, 2r
II
i'ATF: YI'mrS7A GRANT TYPE: CA.ttr.2rICAI
I * WORK PROJECT APPROVED ACTUAL DT AMT. CtAI
Supp CAT ACCOMP BY COMPL DT
DER AMOUNT mED
HR *
COMPLETED BY APPLICANT COMMENTS
----
II11632 0 F FORCE ACCT ..19117127
$9,960.0 71/7/04 $
CONTRACT
II PROJECT TITLE: BROKEN WATER NAIN
DAMASE FACILITY: SANITARY SEWAGE LAE
DAMARE LOCATION: 7305 SHORE DRIVE - LIFT STATION 45
• F":. .3 vt-:..AIPT:ON: FLOOD WATERS CAUSED 4 BROKEN FORCE MAIN AT LIFT STATEN - REPAIR.
11627 0 F CONTRACT 0612137
II
PRIIE:- TITLE: CONTROLLER DAMAGE
J,- 141-t FACILITY: LIFT STATION 421
II DAMAGE LOCATION: TRA;PER'S =AFF. - SITE i7
PRO] CESCqlri.uN: ONE UNIT. LIGHTNING STRUC 2ONT;DLLER UNIT ON 7;2.7'27, RESTORE.
..,'-
r - ...: ,=. 0 , " $4 :., 7 .'/7 'S'7 .v /,S--,7
• 1:i C n CCT S;172 57.)
-24 cc..N7 .7.
.........—
II PROJECT TITLE: SIRDEN POWER LIVE
CA3AGE FACILI-Y: LIrT STATION
DAMAGE LOCATION: SEC 12 - CITY SITE 412
"2,7 DESCRIPTION: ONE ELECTRIC LINE. WINDS FELL THE ACROSS LINE - SRDE WIRES.
il - RES-CRE =LEC7ICAL POWER - RFm0;,17 WATER FROM STATION.
12150 0 F FORCE ACCT 02/03/39 ;7,07M0 1/ /.20.' 7 3 7.5— (A,c•L
ICONTRACT
PROJECT TITLE: STORM DRAii4EE WASHOUT
DAMAGE FACILITY: FORM SEWER ORA:NAGE WAY
II DAMAGE LOCATION: E OF KEFBER RD SITE 423
RROj DESCRIPTION: 11200 Y 6 Y 41'27 = 1067 CV TOTAL. lB'' STORM SEER :',1ADErUATE TO
207rwY LO2D 'oi4TrRS. '04TEFS WASHED RUT MATERIALS AGOJE TwE SEWER LINE.
IIR.:2...JFE - SEWER 1AS NOT RLUESED.
GRAND T2-AL: $ 0 VY '
I32 -OTAL OSRiS) i60,523.:0 .
I
I
.•
MI
eePc-c(
lA � '`°F� if NnAILKSlI U UUUNUANY tn
1
SHED Vi‘C° t,� ti hi I I A I-3 it C �I t $_ L ,( /�/'�1 f
r f LAKE MINNETONKA
' P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 mIr„r,I,IA ma)?
BOARD OF MANAGER& Camille D.Andre,Pres. • Albert L.Lehman • John E.Thomas
James pe ..y • Richard R.Miller • Robert D.Erickson • C.Woodrow Love
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
IJune 14, 1989 ,
1 t Mr. Roger Zahn
741 Partnership
123 No. Third Street, #808
IIMinneapolis, MN 55401
RE: Violation of the terms of MCWD Permit' No. 88-100
IDear Mr. Zahn:
A site inspection of the commercial site development project at the
I intersection of Highway 7 and County Rd. 41 was conducted June 9, 1989. The
inspection indicated that the project is not being constructed in accordance
with plans submitted and approved under MCWD Permit No. 88-100 with the permit
I application. Accordingly, you are hereby notified that you are in violation
of District Rule B.
The site inspection revealed that the proposed pond on the south end of the
1 site does not appear to have been constructed according to the plans
submitted to the District. The storm sewer pipe on the east end of this pond
has also been relocated, and the outlet of this pipe discharges onto a steep
I (3: 1) slope and is causing extensive erosion. Several slope failures have
occurred into the pond and the erosion control along the west side of the site
has fallen into disrepair, apparently due to a lack of maintenance.
Information recently received from the City indicates that this site has been
1 idle for some time and that no effort has been made to establish vegetation.
Based upon this site visit and conversations with the City of Chanhassen,
1 District staff will recommend to the Board of Managers at the June 15, 1989
meeting that the following items be submitted by the applicant:
II 1. Revised plan showing all changes to the original permit reviewed by the
Board including grading changes and pipeline system changes.
2. Revised hydrologic calculations for the site including off site drainage
1 demonstrating that these changes conform with District standards for a
project of this type.
II
II
1
Mr. Roger Zahn
Page Two
June 14, 1989
3. A schedule indicating when construction will progress and when vegetative '
cover will be re-established.
4. A survey to be conducted by a land surveyor registered in the State of
Minnesota upon project completion to verify that the project is
constructed as proposed.
5. Receipt of Rule J fees for the cost of inspection and monitoring this '
project.
Additionally, staff recommends that the Board direct the applicant to
immediately repair the erosion control and establish vegetative cover if work
is not to progress further at this time.
Please note further that under Rule J of the District Rules, any person who '
performs any work in violation of any terms or conditions of the permit issued
by the District, shall pay to the District a fee equal to the District's
actual costs of field inspection of the work including investigation of the
area affected by the work, analysis of the work, and any subsequent monitoring
of the work.
The Board will review this matter at the regularly scheduled meeting held on 1
June 15, 1989 at 7:30 PM at the Wayzata City Hall. If you require any
additonal information or clarification, please contact me at 473-4224.
Sincerely,
JMM/HICKOK, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Engineers for the District
J QLz �
1
Ronald S. Quanbeck, P. E.
bt
cc: Board
L. Smith
D. Hempel , City of Chanhassen
r
I
11
m.
I
r4 ++ CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
June 21 , 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL
' Mr. Roger Zahn
Seven Forty-One Partnership
' 123 North Third Street
Suite #808
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Re: Erosion Control Problems
Seven Forty-One Crossing Development
File No. 88-17 (pvt)
Dear Mr. Zahn:
' This letter serves as a formal follow-up to our conversations at
our June 15 , 1989 meeting regarding erosion control problems over
the Seven Forty-One development. At the meeting we discussed
several erosion control problems occuring over the site. The
following is a specific list of erosion problems you agreed to
correct beginning on Monday, June 19 , 1989:
' 1 . Hay bales will be placed and staked around storm sewer
inlets .
' 2 . Replace damaged or buried silt fence along the perimeter of
the site. In addition , add silt fence across 64th Street
around the south end of the pond.
' 3 . Construct earth berms as discussed to contain storm water
runoff on site and channel the runoff to catch basins .
' 4 . Spread topsoil and seed area where strom sewer was installed
adjacent to the west line of the Reed Addition.
' Our discussions pertaining to erosion control around the pond
were left somewhat unresolved. Your response to stabilizing the
pond was that Mr. Reed' s proposed plat improvements would alter
the pond configuration , therefore any work done now would be
' wasted. At the time I concurred with your comments; however,
something still needed to be done to control erosion which is
occuring around the pond. During our recent telephone conver-
sation, you agreed to stabilize the north and east slopes of the
.. Mr. Roger Zahn
June 21, 1989
Page 3
Should you have any questions is this matter, please feel free to
contact me or City Engineer Gary Warren.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,
4-:"°‘1/4-
David C. Hempel ,
Sr. Engineering Technician
DCH:ktm '
Attachments
1 . Grading Plan. '
2 . Minnehaha Creek Watershed District letter dated June 14, 1989 .
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager '
Gary Warren, City Engineer
Ronald Quanbeck , Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Scott Harr , Code Enforcement Officer f
Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Wayne Hibbard, Park National Bank (Letter of Credit No. 1389 )
1
1
JAMES
' June 15, 1989
' Mr. Don Ashworth
City of Chanhassen
690 Coniter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Mr. Ashworth:
I had the opportunity to attend the City Council meeting on Monday
June 12 and I noticed many new faces. Congratulations to all new
members of the City Council!
The T.F. James Company has enjoyed an excellent relationship with
' previous members of the city staff, City Planning Commission, and
the past City Council. We have made every attempt to cooperate
with the City of Chanhassen in the pursuit of our mutual goals and
aspirations for the future of Chanhassen.
' Since I did not have the chance to speak at the June 12th meeting,
I did not therefore have an opportunity to provide those new
' members of the Council and staff with an overview of the history
of the West Village Heights subdivision.
It was particularly distressing to me to hear various council
' members question the R-12 zoning which has been given to a portion
of West Village Heights.
When Bill Monk was the City Engineer and Barb Dacy the city
Planner, I held several meetings with the staff about the zoning
of tho 50 acre tract I purchased from the Brose estate.
' The T.F. James Co. has never been involved in residential
development but we have developed nearly 100 retail properties
located in 15 states. Therefore, I initially sought to zone the
' entire parcel to commercial. This proposal was strongly resisted
by staff because:
' 1. The Comprehensive Plan had determined that
the north half of the property should be high
density residential.
JUN161989
t;►";'Y CF CHANHASSEN
' T F James Company PO. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612)828-9000
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
1
JAMES
1
1
2 . Given the proximity to downtown and the
industrial park, staff felt strongly that
this was a excellent location for life-cycle
housing (for singles, newlyweds, and then
retired couples and widowed singles) .
Affordable housing would be part of the
downtown area.
When our firm donated the land and prepared the subgrading for
the new West 78th Street, this also was consistent with the 1990
Land Use Plan.
We had a previous buyer of the residential parcel who encountered 1
a lengthy delay due to the difficulty of getting county
permission for an access to County Road 17 as required by the
city. This delay caused available tax credits to expire and the
developer quit the project after 5 months of work. At that
point in time, the DNR addressed the issue of the oak trees in
the letter which was part of the staff report. Apparently the
new council members have not been aware of this memo from the DNR
in which the DNR was not adverse to the removal of certain trees
since there would be considerable replacement mitigation.
Therefore, it was with considerable chagrin that I watched the
council enact an impromptu (if not quite legal) moratorium.
In any event, I wanted you and the new council members to have
some of the history of this site. I want to assure you that we
are working in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and that I
pledge my continued cooperation with the City of Chanhassen.
Sin erely,
4;
C arles Wm. Jame-
Vice President
CWJ:j kf
1
1
1
1
1
CITY 4F
CHANHASSEN'
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 _�T (612) 937-1900
1
June 13, 1989
Dear Resident:
1 Please find enclosed a copy of a parking permit that has
been developed for vehicles to park in the no parking area of
Lake Lucy Road. At your convenience, please look it over and
contact me with any comments or suggestions .
1 It is the intent of this department to take parking permit appli-
cations by phone. It should not be necessary to come to City
1 Hall and pick up the application permit. __
Sincerely,
1
im Chaffe
ublic Safety Director
JC:ks
1 cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
City Council
1
1
1
1
1
1
.. ,.., .
CITYOF
1 � L I
...‘s‘ C 1
4.„ :.- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
_',:,3 (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: May 8, 1989
I
SUBJ: Lake Lucy Park Permits
Please find attached a proposed parking permit for the purpose of
parking in the no parking zone on Lake Lucy Road. I have tried I
to incorporate the thoughts generated at the staff meeting
and your recent memo and hopefully this design will cover all
those points.
If we agree that this permit meets all the requirements
discussed, I will then send a copy of it to all the residences
along Lake Ludy Road with a letter explaining the process.
I
I
I
_ I
I
I
II
I
1m
I ' .•
LAKE LUCY PARKING PERMIT
Conditions of Permit
This permit is provided to residents of Lake Lucy Road for the
' purpose of parking in the NO PARKING zone on Lake Lucy Road. It
is not valid for any other purpose or roadway. It is only valid
for a maximum of three days and only for the north side of the
' road. There can be no overnight parking and no parking between
2 :00 a.m. and 6 : 00 a.m. from November 1 to April 1 or when
snowfall necessitates removal.
' NAME TODAY'S DATE:
LAST: First: MIDDLE:
' ADDRESS
STREET NUMBER: STREET NAME: CITY:
PHONE NUMBER WORK: HOME:
FIRST VEHICLE SECOND VEHICLE
LICENSE PLATE NUMBER:
ADDITIONAL VEHICLES
1
I
VALID DATES :
•
I
I
City Counc i L Meeting - March 27, 1989
LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION.
Gary War_r_en: Again we advertised for bids for the Lake Ann Park expansion
project. The results are attached in the bid tabulation and we, again had very
competitive situation. The engineer's estimate }
again being Imperial Developers. I think because 2they6 eOworkin the the area
here they've sharpen their pencils. They're about $59,800.00 under nour� area
engineer's estimate. We had shown two alternates in the
project.
is for the construction of concrete barrier curbing on the parking areasnwhich
we believe is good for the parking areas and the park. Also, Alternate 2 which
recognizing that the existing road sections in the Lake Ann Park are going to be
encountering further construction traffic and they're already in a state needing
some sealcoating. We had bid an alternate for sealcoating which also is in
this. It's my recommendation that we award this contract to Impe
including Alternates 1 and 2 and that the total award be $239,393.00. Developers
Resolution #89-45: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award
the bid for the Lake Ann Park Expansion Project No. 88-13 including Alternates 1
and 2 to Lmperial Developers, Inc. in the amount of $239,393.09. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
REVIE4 LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL ISSUE.
Councilman Johnson: I've spent quite a bit of time '
I drive Lake Lucy a lot and over this weekend, only on one trip across Lucy
did I not find anypody walking on that trail. The maximum number I saw at any 4
one time was 3 people. Besides the one time I went through, no so obviously that was the minimum but usually there was between�3�and s3 people l�
walking in there. Sunday I went over it quite a few times because I was looking
at flooded areas and watching the snow run off and looking for problem areas
there. It's a well used area by a lot of people. People come down Yosemite.
Some joggers come up Powers and hit the trail. I think the least expansive
option is to go with similar to what we've done in Greenwood Shores over the
years. Is when somebody needs to have a party or whatever and they know taey're
going to have some guests coming over, they make the phone call and the Sheriff
will be instructed not to tag the porkers at that time. Just leave everything
as is.
ng
Councilwoman Dimler: I wanted to make a correction here in Gary Warren's letter
to Don Ashworth. It starts out with at the February 27, 1989 City Council
meeting, 2ounci.l tabled action concerning the Lake Lucy trail issue and directed
that the issue be taken up by the Park and Rec Commission for review. I
remember specifically saying, we voted that it would not be taken to Park and
Rec because it did not originate with the Park and Rec and that it was merely. . .
Councilman Johnson: We sent it back while you were on vacation.
Councilwoman Dimler: But not at the February --27th meeting.
c._ting.
Councilman Johnson: Yes it was. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Uo it wasn't.
14
Es `�iYVgs ouncil. Meeting - 'iarcn 27, 1989 r L
i ounc Lran Johnson: You ware on vacation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was here.
Councilman Boyt: You missed two meetings.
Councilman Johnson: You were in Colorado.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry, but still, the time before that then.
Councilman Johnson: We said it wasn't going back. We changed our minds while
you were in Colorado.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why?
Councilman Boyt: We wanted an open discussion of the issue.
Councilman Johnson: tce wanted to give some more i.nou
the Park and Rec. _ t from the citizens through
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the point was that it didn' t originate with them
and what could they do with it and what did they do with it? I just didn't want
it to be a time waster. That was my point. Now I do have a recommendation and
it parallels kind of to what Jay is saying but it's a little bit different in
that I've checked with the Carver County Sheriff's Department today and they
indicated that the City can issue parking permits. Is that correct Don?
1.!
Don Ashworth: I've heard that term. I don' t know of an that we have e issued.
The note that Counci
Lran Johnson brought up where citizens have called, ..were
they've mad parties and I know that the Sheriff has honored that. As far as
there being an actual form that says parking permit, I don't recall seeinq it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but we can get them. Waconi.a dispenses them. They
told me that other cities do have that and that the City has the authority_ to
dispense tnem. So I would recommend that we do that to the citizens that live
on Lake Lucy Road that have a parking problem and that want parking on Lake Lucy
Road. That they would come to the City and would apply for that permit for each
one of their vehicles. Then when they have guests, that they would have an x
number of, maybe 6 would be an arbitrary number, for their guests as :,cell. And
these would be permits that they would have in their possession at all times and
then they can just dispense them and they would recollect them after their
company is gone. That probably they should be renewable every year but t •e
permit would be good for one year. Then that way, it gives them a little bit
more to stand on rather than just saving, hay I called the sheriff on this
because if the guy that's on duty may not have gotten the message and then
there's a problem. This way there's a permit there and it tells everyone that's
informed. Then we would also send a letter to the sheriff's department
indicating that this is what we're doing and that these permits have been issued
and that they' re legal at all times.
Councilman Johnson: I thouant about that Ind actually came up with the number 5
myself for probably the same reason you cane up with the number 6. It sounded
like a loaicaL number. Che only thing that I had, and when I discussed teat
within my own was abuse oe it in that Somebody decides, it's an easy thi na to
15
City Council :'Oeti ng - ''.ar:.n 27, 1T89
abuse if you have it, to continue it all the time.
still not want to, none of the I would think that we'd
vehicles. residents say they need it for their own
t;
The Tichy's have said they've got 4 wheel drive
get up and out of their parking place oka vehicles. o,
As such, I would make sure it's okay. It's just when guests come overan
overnight, it would have sure i ssnot overnight and if they want to do something
couldn't do tt overnight anyway something different. Plus in the winter you
it's a workable solution. because of the snowplowing Y
g problem but I think
Councilman Wor_lman:
I guess I would say that we mock with it in that 1
we work, and maybe we put some time on it to monitor. the situation.
monitored that road about a half a dozen times now as far as sense that
look at it and that's the thing that I mentioned to the Tichy's earl •e is
I can tell but we
we look at maybe boxing it in and earlier is that
II
then an open permit to park trying to figure out what would be
them an
everything else. We any time of the day above and to esva
ever they els just looking do that obviousl beyond ordinances and
Y• I think they realize that. And I
drive by there � for the occasional use but I think we monitor it.
II
Y all the time and I think somehow we set up s I
it. Hopefully we won't monitor it the P °Valley to monitor
But to monitor it and look at it way we're doing Moon Valley down there.
But got to monitor
an it. that way. _ If there's abuses, II
through there. There's There are some concerns about the ability to get
and so, get s some trucks and the snow kind of makes the road smaller
you et a little claustrophobic in there with that but I think it's
II
som°t:thzing that w� should monitor..
or em greaed to tear I don't think the City is in any wa
ar up or put a trail on the no side and spend
Y' shape
$83.000.00 or whatever it is at this point. In Greenwood, he said they do do this all the time and that i.talking to
i t works.
t or
o III
Councilwoman Dimler: They do it in Waconi.a and it works there.
4
Councilman Johnson: 11 Ore thing, our sheriff is pretty good. As you note, right
now you can' t get at that one house that's under r_ construction
and everything so the construction vehicles are parked out there and the sheriff
II
drives by and he's not tagging o because of the mud
construction workers e' can possibly they're reasonable.
get off the road, and it's He knows
way. That's perhaps something we might want to look at.
II
Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jim Chaffee about this earlier today
said he could live with it.
of he could re His choice, first choice would be Ursula and he
Y quest at the time of need. T `� JaY'i suggestion c at
if we do this, we need to make sure I Tom, I agree with ,
this shouldn't be need way make that the permit is for special ase.�oT chat
II
parking on that street compromises permitting continual parking on the street because
safety so we don' t want to compromise safety.
At the same time, we've been trying to balance this out all along
neighbors have been working to balance this out and it and the
II
special card or something they could put in the window w,�iendth.ey to me, if a
there will meet everybody's needs, it window � `
There's the meet eve they need, t'allows us to maintain the Ytrail to gives park
like a good compromise,y don't spend a Lot of money es ��e I
y to do i t, it sounds
Councilwoman Dimler: But I do
Cou the o aide want to t_mphasi.ze ' kl:
al _-_h -- nts along Lake Lucy Road that need rt.s not only the `Ci.chy's but
Councilman Bovt: It wouldn' t be ,a matt ar of i t ust '�J erng .lvai lab L` to thz,n.
16 I
Ili
El.
7
jncil Meeting - March 27, 1989
anci.lwoman Dimler: It would be available to everybody on Lake Lucy Road that
• rants it.
Councilman Boyt: I would think that we would have, we could tell if this was a
problem if we have continual parking on Lake Lucy Road. Then it's not a special
event.
Mayor Chmi.el: Let me just say something. In our area, as you all know, we have
no parking. For situations of a party that we had at one time, the other my
daughter getting married and those were the two particular times that we
had to use that probably in the last 14 years. But I'm sure, and of courseaIly
can put enough cars in my driveway where there's really not that much problem,
but I think with this kind of useage and with the neighbors there, I would think
that that probably would be the most acceptable. As we've looked at it, with
the dollar costs as Tom has indicated. I think too there's a lot of concerns.
I just can't see expediting those x number of dollars at this particular time.
We don't have those dollars and I'm not about to allocate or say we're going to
spend those either. So I think this is a reasonable solution and maybe if any
of you would like to address the issue and see if your concurrences are with
ours because this is basically where we're coming from. Brian, do you have any?
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as Brian's coming up, there's also the
possibility of combining the two. Giving the people the passes and say call
into the Sheriff's office when you plan on using than so the sheriff's aware
that they're going to have a pass in the car.
Mayor Chni.el: Once the sheriff drives by and he sees those in there, that would
just eliminate the need of calling.
Brian Tichy: I'm cne half of he '
t. Tichys. I m Brian Tichy. .. .something that
we could live with. I think we've known all along that the money's not
necessarily available for a lot of the projects that we discussed along the
road. We did have an informational meeting with quite a few of the nezanbors
from Pheasant Hill and people that have abutting property and we cent through,
as you've probably seen, a myriad of options. This solution appears to be the
' least expensive and if not abused, maybe a very good option.
Jim VonLorenz: Jim VonLorenz from 5371 Yosemite Avenue. I believe I had
' something to say about this because I was instrumental in getting those bike
paths put on back in the years ago when we started to improve the roadway there.
My wife and I do a lot of walking and riding on these streets starting in our
Yosemite address, plus some of our neighbors do also. I've done it over the
' year and I have found that the bike paths are very important and they are a
safety belt along each side of the road that gives us room to avoid the traffic
that we have as we've upgraded these roads. I think that this permit system
looks to me like a reasonable solution. When you have a special use, yes,
that'd be fine. i think that we need to maintain our bike paths and they are
utilized. I just want the council to realize that there's a lot of us that do
get out there, once a day at least or couple, 3, 4 times a week get out and use
these so it's important that we keep those and don' t let than go by the wayside.
Councilwoman Dimler: Rxcuse me Mr. Vonl,or-enz. Did you ';ay ynu lived on Lake
Lucy Road?
17
Jim VonC.or_anz: I live on Yosemite.Ji start our walking I live about a block and a half from there.
CR 17 and around and come backnoneAp le Road.
ad`a'1 to Lake Lucy and then go down to
Apple Road.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does Yosemite have a trail on it?
Jim VonLorenz: No we don' t. We've got a narrow road and that's
of a concern that we have that there is a lot of, probably part
driving on the is more rapid than we that's where we start and the
dodge a car here the other day my wife andeI to �_t often. In fact t a had to
does happen and it's just nice to have a Lake Lucy Road wide have
bike paths on there on both sides. the II
without any fear It gives us the ability to use this road
y ar or concern of having to be dodging vehicles,
bicycle or walking and it's very important that Either on a
we keep these that we ha Either ve. I
Councilwoman Dimler: But you're not affected by the Larking lane?
Jim VonLorenz: No, no. That isn't a concern. That doesn't bother us.
Councilman Johnson: As a matter of fa II
Yosemite Road no less a trail. That's ct, he doesn't even have asphalt on
one _thing he need to look at.
II
Nancy Tichy: I'm Nancy Tichy
Nancy permit. The other. half of the Tichys. I agree with the
I think that's a good option. There are service people that
have come to our house several times where
it's not a snowy da I've had to push them out. Even if I service y• Our driveway still is very icy and people that come to
our area have a difficult time not being able to park on the road. Also, j I
we hold meetings at our home on occasion where we do need people to be axle to •
park on the road and because our driveway does not service that for peoole the parking permit, if :,e could P' le so I '
good option. I also think the option using a bike i
get thin for certain occasions would � a
Leaving the existing roadway the way it is and we presented this lat the option.
II
Council meeting. Another option to that might be, last
State variance, but if they auto lanes could be cut back this 11 Eeet require a
12 feet? I don't know if that can be done but if ai tUcould, it could a allow u2-1 II
foot auto lanes and an 8 foot parking lane and than a 6 foot bike route. 1
Hopkins and Minnetonka have done this on many of their roads. Two roads in
particular are Tonkawood Road and Baker Road which are i.nbetween Minnetonka
Blvd. and TH 7. Both of those roads are 36 feet tohig
II
density roads and they are both classified leer wide and they are both hign
more than 1,000 cars a day so they're almostsidentalr roads and they service
they accommodate the people for parking and just designate Lake Lucy bike oud
I guess as far as safety, j� Sl.c�nate i t as a bi.ka route. II
Y, the way the road is designed and the way it's set up,
I really can't see a major difference just designating it a bike route instead
of a bike lane. I guess I'd like to make one other point regarding
that we submitted to the Council. The people who signed the pel ti `hb petition
II
didn't, I think the whole thing o petition basically
elaborate options and costly thi-ngs.KDasi�allutall control. All of tes
as a bike route instead of a bike lane. People were getting g pre to worried t i t
I
there would be further encroachments on their property and fur.thtr assessments h3t
and that's not what we wanted so I'd just like to clarify that.
Councilman i1or.kman: If I can make a quick point. In talki nj to Gary toda y, i
'
think the problem as Ear as Gary's comments were with a r
out was, and c;arv's
13 II
II
El
Ieeting - 'larch 27
1989 '37
II
sing at me, he's leaving me here, is that a route kind of has to connect
has to be part of a connecting trail. We don't have that right now with
II
n and Powers.
,ncy Tichy: You could put route on any of those roads. I think.
Gary Warren: What the State had told me, and again we get into this where
who you talked to it seems, is that in order to put a bike route sign on a road,
you have to have a bike trail. In other words, if you have a bike route sign,
that on it's own doesn't stand to indicate the trail. So we could put bike
I:'"; , route signs out there right now for
example. As long as we've got the trail
there, it would make sense but if you've got a bike route and you don't have a
place for the people to go so they know where is the route, that's where they
say it's not compatible.
IIMayor Chmi.el: Excelsior has that bike route. Termed as bike route.
Councilman Johnson: Doesn't that connect on through and all the way down
to Minneapolis. It's a part of an overall system.
' Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that Ursula compromise. I'd like to not make it more complicated.has come go with a good ot something.
I We've got a time to try it. We don't have to make any changes other
hanpint
the cards and I'd like to see us move approval of a special permit parking
system for Lake Lucy Road.
II Councilman Johnson: Nancy, how man
think the people? many? 6? 5? 10? What kind of number do you
ICounciLman ::or_kman: I think we ought to have staff kind of look into that
because do we want to ,make then transferable?
II Mayor C.`;miel: I think individually, each individual one should have to apply
for that themselves and that it not be transferable.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Visitors you mean?
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. The' . residents themselves within the area.
I Councilman Workman: But if I have 6 permits and gee I'm going to have 12 cars
here, I can go over and borrow my neighbors.
Mayor Climiel: That would warrant just a call to the Sheriff's department
I indicating that you're going to have more than what's there. Those that will
have the passes in the windows will be shown but there's going to be 6 more cars
or whatever.
ICouncilman Johnson: Because you' re not going to have some
say, hey, good I can park here because. body come down and
IIMayor c2hmi.e1: They' re very .iccomnodating with it.
They really are
Don Ashworth: I need to talk to public safety but [ would really like to
I— develop a system, if this is the direction the Council wants
to go. Some mans
II19
se
L•3
City Counci i Meeting - Marco 27, 1989
by which we can monitor it and at the end of 3 months, ,
ths, 6 months, 1 year. we can
say, during the course of 1989, x number of permits were issued for an average
of whatever so we have some ideas as to the number of vehicles that were out
there. I don't really think it makes any difference if on a particular occasion
there's 24 permits that were issued to a particular home for a particular
activity but I don't think it would be good just to have 6 that would be a
yearly thing and you can pass them around and whatever else. I just don't think
that will work.
Councilwoman Dimler: Except I can foresee a hardship to them if they're
planning an event and then they have to come in and apply for 24 permits too.
Don Ashworth: The way we'd set it up, it would not be an application. We could ,
set up a process to insure that they could get that permit literally immediately
or within a very short notice. But I think we should have way to monitor
parking is occurring.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that the key
staff can work to get a baseline, typical need and eissue othose permits mand then
we're done with it. If they need more, you arrange for more. If we nave to get
into monitoring this continually, it's going to. be staff time we don't have.
Mayor Chmi.el: I think we can work this out with staff and come up with the '
easiest system that we possibly can.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want just a motion then with the general theme or
are you just going to take what I said earlier?
Mayor Chmi.el: I think basically what you indicated previously.
Councilman Boyt: Well we have a motion, if we could ac a second '
J acorx7 to i t.
Councilman Workman: Who made the motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I did.
Mayor Chmi.el: I think Bill made the motion.
Councilman Boyt: Co ahead and make it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I presented the whole thing. . . That .gas ,, motion by the
way.
Councilman Boyt: Do you want to restate it?
Counci.lwanan Dimler: I guess I would move that the Council would authorize City
Staff to issue parking permits to the residents on Cake Lucy Road and
stipulations and useage to be determined by City Statf. Is that acceptable?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to Authorize Ci ty Staff
to issue parking permits to tha residents on Lake Lucy Road and stipulations and
useage to be determined by City Staff. All voted in savor .end the motion
carried.
20 '
I
C 1Y 0 F
SSEN, ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
' FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: May 1, 1989
' SUBJ: Lake Lucy Road Parking Permits
This memorandum is a follow-up on Eric Rivkin ' s ideas as
expressed in his letter of March 27 , 1989 as well as our staff
meeting outlining how the permit system would be established on
' Lake Lucy Road. Mr. Rivkin ' s letter has a number of excellent
points which I do not believe were included in our previous
discussion. The following incorporates decisions made on March
' 28th including suggestions by Aar. Rivkin , i .e. :
Limit Permits and Maintain Statistics: You were to create a
data base which could be activitea by any of our Public
' Safety personnel . Information such as name, address , date,
parking period valid for (date ( s) J , purpose , etc. would be in
the data base. Creation of the data base and training people
' to use such was estimated by yourself to take a relatively
minor period of time. Upon receipt of a request ( telephone
call/letter ) , such would be entered :_nto the data base and be
' printed on a special form or potentially simply standard City
letterhead. A second copy would also be printed on the offi-
cer ' s log or "Pass-on" slips. The permit would be mailed
that day and could literally be in effect from the time of
' calling through the duration of the permit period. Sending
the permit itself would solely be a form of verification
should the officers ' "Pass-on" logs end up not being passed
on . Additionally, requiring the permit to be sent to the
property owner would proviae a sense of importance in con-
tinuing to call when parking was necessary; and
' Control and Conditions of the Permit: The macro which will
print the permit should also print a standard conditions sec-
tion which would include parking to be limited to the north
' side, no overnight parking, no daytime parking during periods
of snowfall when one inch or more of snow has accumulated or
within 48 hours after such snowfall , etc. ; and
Jim Chaffee
May 1 , 1989
Page 2
Notification: Upon activating the permit system, a letter
should be sent to all residents along Lake Lucy Road
notifying them of the necessity to call in for parking per-
mits and the rules of such. Potentially copying a sample
permit would be advisable; and
Reports: Depending on the number of permits being requested,
a report should be developed to advise this office/City
Council as to the number and type of permits being issued. I
am anticipating that a quarterly report would be sufficient.
If any of the above differs from our previous meeting regarding
how parking permits would be handled or if any portion of such is
not workable, please advise me as soon as possible.
cc : Mayor and City Council
Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court, Excelsior, MN 55331
4C)
1
March 27, 1989
' To: Mayor and Council members of Chanhassen
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Gary Warren, City Engineer
' Chuck Weichselbaum, MnDOT
In light of the recent decision to review parking by permit on Lake Lucy Road, I want
to give you some thought for a compromise option that stems from safety concerns of
' many residents I have spoken to.
The width of Lake Lucy Road was NOT designed to accommodate parking, 2 traffic lanes,
and safe passage for pedestrians and bikes at the same time. Parked cars should not be
permitted at the expense of endangering the lives of anyone. Please don't forget this
is a designated trail system, and safety is the prime concern, the convenience of
' parking treated as secondary and a potential safety hazard. Parking abuses are a
potential also.
Therefore, I recommend that you please consider the following two options.
' One in lieu of permit parking, and the other a set of suggested conditions if permit
parking happens to be the only solution.
' I. In lieu of permit parking (See drawing on page 2) :
It may take several thousand dollars for the city to establish, implement, and maintain
a parking permit system. It has little value for the community on Lake Lucy Road
' compared to the high value that investment in an off-street trail would have for
solving the parking and safety problem. Parking doesn't have to be solved at the
expense of safety and both could be solved inexpensively if you had a 5 or 6 ft.
off-street trail placed over the watermain, allowing a permanent 8 or 10' parking lane
on one side of the street. The cost would still be relatively low since the city has to
pay for restoration over the watermain anyway, the signs would only have to change
once, there would be .no change to the road, no added costs to restripe because
' sealcoating and restriping are due anyway, and there would be no recurring costs
dealing with parking permits because there needn't be any. I think this would be an
excellent compromise, and would serve to show the Council has a compromise solution to
' offer instead of creating a hazard on the existing road with parked cars.
II. If parking permits are the only solution, assuming the state would allow it,
' I suggest the following conditions that keeps the number of parked cars to a minimum:
1. Limit parking to only one side of the road, maybe even in designated portions so
that bikers and motorists can watch out for them. Markings on the road and/or signs can
indicate these. Parking on both sides would not even allow passage of regular traffic
much less some poor biker or pedestrian squeezing through. I suggest parking on the
north side since parked cars on the south could block the Tichy's and Morin's line of
' sight coming out of their steep driveways.
2. Limit the number of potential parked cars by issuing permits only to residents on
L.L.Road, maybe those only deemed having a parking problem to begin with (those with
space on their property for less than 6 cars) . The city could limit the number of
permits granted over a year with temporary permits for more than the limit.
3. No parking in the winter months because of snow removal and safety hazard of parked
cars narrowing the traverse for slippery conditions.
' 4. No overnight parking.
5. Do it on a one year trial basis so that abuses and complaints can be recorded, then
see if you want to make this a permanent change or put in the off-street trail later.
f
6. - No resident should be assessed or be made to pay directly for changes to the road or
signage, unless the design for parking boils down to an individual need.
I would like a response to this letter that I want to discuss with the other residents, I
and in the future, please keep me abreast of developments, so we can respond in a timely
way. I hope there are enough copies enclosed for everyone.Please also correct the ad- '
dress you are sending me correspondence to (see corrected envelope enclosed) .
Sincerely,
Eric Rivkin
I
Option 1
p Existing 36'blacktop&curbs 5'Greenstrip
With existing watermain plan I 6'Paved trail I
8'or 10' I Traffic lane with I Traffic lane with , f Restored
Meets standards to keep Parking shoulders shoulders easement
state aid status I i i 1
ii, ::
..•..• ...•
I I
Exist.Centerline / 5' I I
Waterman ;
I
66-74'Easement I --'
I
5'Paved trail
Option 1 at Existing 36'blacktop &curbs Exisitng
Retaining Wall
retaining wail 1 " '
Waterman Exist.Centerline
? 1 North'- Scale: 1/10"=1' I
Features:
I
• On-street parking
• Safe for pedestrians, esp. children, except at wall I
• 6' Real trail joining parks and neighborhood i
• 5' Greenstrip seperating trail from street, wide enough for snow storage
• Keep state aid funds
I
• Least expensive option with a trail
5'trail x 4"at$4.65/sq yd=$ 13,433 I
Add 25%for City Eng.$3358
Grand total$16,791
I
Sealcoating, restriping,and replacement of north side curb and restoration would be done anyway
Sources: Midwest Asphalt
Il
014Es°4 Minnesota
yo_ Department of Transportation
} District 5
OA 4S4. 2055 No. Lilac Drive
' of �� Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
'1 April 4, 1989 (612)593- 8408
Mr. Eric Rivkin
MTS Systems Corporation
' Box 24012
Minneapolis, MN 55424
' RE: Lake Lucy Road in Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Rivkin:
' I reviewed your letter of March 27th and have the following
comments :
' I feel that the present configuration of the roadway with
parking bays built or off-street parking facility built as
the best and safest roadway for Lake Lucy Road.
' I feel the second best choice would be to widen the road to
allow parking on both sides and build sidewalks or trails
off of the roadway.
The third possibility would be Option 1 as indicated in your
letter. This design leads to concerns for safety when the
' off-set center line is not readily visible. We suggest that
some of the council people drive this type of a road prior
to making any changes . This design is permissible using
' State Aid standards, however. If the design were changed, I
would suggest changing the 5 ft. off-set to a 4 ft. off-set.
I am sending a copy of this letter to both the City Engineer
and the City Manager.
Thank you for your concerns .
Sincerely,
•
C. E. Weichselbaum, P. E . ' �� �'- GyL
District State Aid Engineer
t
I
Art Equal Opportunity Employer
I
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359
June 16, 1989
' To: Local Government Key Contacts:
The Metropolitan Council will be appointing eight people to a new Regional
Transit Board (RTB) this summer. To accomplish this, the Council's
Metropolitan Agencies Appointments Committee will be holding four public
meetings in July to hear statements from candidates and also on behalf of
candidates who wish to be appointed to the RTB.
The new RTB will consist of 11 members. At least six of the Council's eight
appointees must be elected officials of cities, townships or counties. In
addition to the Council's appointees, the governor appoints the RTB chair; he
' also appoints a person who is age 65 or older, and a person with a disability.
Of the Council's appointees who are elected officials, two must be county board
' members from different counties, and four must be elected officials of cities
or townships. Those who serve on the RTB as elected officials may do so only
as long as they hold that elected office. No more than three of the board's
members may be residents of the same city or township.
' As required by law, the Council is requesting nominations from organizations of
local elected officials, such as the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,
' the Metropolitan Inter-County Association, the Minnesota Association of Urban
Counties and the Minnesota Association of Townships. Each of these organiza-
tions may nominate at least two persons for each of the district seats on the
' RTB. Local governments that are not members of these organizations may submit
nominations independently.
The public and local elected officials are invited to attend and participate in
the meetings. Following the meetings, the committed will submit its recommenda-
tions to the Council, which will appoint the RTB members. In making its
recommendations, the committee will consider evidence of the candidate's
commitment to regularly communicate with Council members, legislators and local
elected officials in the district on issues before the agency.
Enclosed is a list of dates and locations for the four public meetings, all of
which will begin at 7 p.m. , and a map of RTB districts. Some districts for the
RTB have changed and constitute new combinations of Metropolitan Council
districts different from those of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space
Commission and the Metroplitan Waste Control Commission.
I hope you will participate in this process and assist us in selecting members
' of the RTB. For more information or to receive applications for candidacy,
call Sandi Lindstrom of the Council staff at 291-6390.
Sincerely,
5b::;:I JUN 191989
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Steve Keefe
Chair
' Enclosures: List of meeting dates and locations, RTB district map
PUBLIC MEETINGS OF
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S ,
METROPOLITAN AGENCIES APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE
Districts G and H July 19 Burnsville Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Pkwy.
Burnsville, MN
Districts E and F July 20 Champlin Council Chambers
Main City Hall Building
11955 Champlin Dr.
Champlin, MN
Districts C and D July 25 Hennepin County Government Center '
Auditorium - A Level
300 So. 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN '
Districts A and B July 27 Metropolitan Council Chambers
II
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN
All meetings will begin at 7 p.m. '
1
I SP ST FRANCIS I I[[TN(l
RING PARK 9 YOUND v_.+
2 01060 10 RORRINSOALL
3 MINNETONKA REACH I1 SPRING LAKE PARK I
4 TONKA RAY 12 U.S.GOVT
5 EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP I LlNwppp
I 6 GR[CNw000 IA COLUYRIA HEIGHTS i
EAST tCTN(L
7 WOODLAND 15 ST ANTHONY BURNS i OAK GROVE ——
J
[MEDICINE LAKE 16 LAUDERDALE
I
17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEM LAKE I /
IS MCNOOTA 26 PIRCNw000
19 LILYDALE 27 WHITE BEAR ,
I 20 GREY CLOUD 29 RAPPORT /
21 LANDFALL 29 MILLCANI[ ��
22 D[LLN000 30 OAK PARK SHORE HEIGHTS ANOKA CO. COLUM eU$ (`J'/��'/�'/
23 PIMC SP RIMGf 31 l-.KLLANO SHORES RAMSEY ANOOY[R NAY LA ` ,
24 MAXTO YLDI 32 ST.YARI'S POINT FOREST LAKE I NEW SCANOIA
'
FOREST LAKE
tANOKA County Boundary
ORONO Municipal Boundary ry MA$ a N 7 OA YTON AM•IC LINO LAKES
YA1IN •
AMDEN CHAM►LIN . COON RAPIDS 1
C
Township Boundary AOG[RS ILAINC CEMTC RYILLL
ilttjHUGO
HANOVER LEXINGTON2 MIA PINES B WASHINGTON CO.
.SSCO
REENFIELD CORCORAN MAPLE GROVE g l 11 ouNOS'"'"I[wlr '' —1""'—
VIEW 27 A
�y BROOKLYN LARK NORTH ; 22 I STILLWATER
�OCKFORD. RIOILT 12 OAKS WHIT('EAR
HENNEF N CO. ■ROOKLYN NEw . NE,„ GRANT CENTER VAONAIS ,Y� /%/ a
-RIGY IN HEIGHTS 4-.ALA I QLOR[TTO N((43TA1 I Q13 10(6 I 25 S r029 SII WATER
AA 3 ,4 24ILLSI _ � - II
INO[PENOCNCC M(OIN• PLYMOUTH 01 l -
�fETROPOLITAN `0 51 .,/- CANADA vO1TN ?O
COUNCIL I MAPLE PLAIN RDf[VILLE I ST,NU
—L( 28
GOLDEN zl AILEw OOD ` LAK[ BAYMwN ,
AKDAL[
B VALLEY 7 [lM09z
i ,
LONG LAK .-,,A , a ; I J NEST ; /
WAY ArA-LL„
��+,-�! I ��oROwo .* RAMSEY CO. IAKEUNO
G/MA TERTOwM �//`JiL MIMMETOMKA SAINT�ILUL LAK CLA�
MINN[TRISTA O Y / 7 ST LOUIS ZI
LARK j MI NEAIOLIS
HOLLYWOOD 1 WATERTOWN �� �j am, A 131 i
I / / DE[PMAVCN OMR . �:
i % -�j (�/� /,j ST CR01%'EACH.'
•
' �__ /�/. /4•. ,{I %/ 9 w(ST '`� w000RU R7 3
i 30MIrA CPU$ /�.,
1 EDINA 1 -r ST I w AFTOM /D
PAUL
�AYER /jf 18 ■SOUTH -I
NEW GERMANY // "I1 RICHFIELD r"AIRPONT M(MOOTA fT MEV ..f
jj 12 HEIGHTS ■TU AxLN MAUI
ICTORI CHANHASSEN , [
U0 e
CAMDEN 1 wACON1A J LAKETONN EDEN PRAIRIE IT�IUL
I W ACONIA \Il
i RLOOYINGTON `PARKI
CARVER CO CNASKA IMV(R GROVE :`�
—_ —�
EAGAN WEIGHTS COTTAGE GROVE OENM•RN
L 'i'•
I CHASKA
I rou IC I - (DAKOTA
CO.C O. lam�'
NORW OOOc 3.. ;RICA I CARVER IJFCNSON SHAKOPEE I fy i j/, ,
I COLOGX DAHLGREN —.i RURMSVILtI '� '/�/
SAVAGE 1 / �-.
YOUNG AMERICA I BENiON I I //, '
PRIOR APPLE VALLEY ROSEMOUN^T H I ...WINGER
NAN RG LOUISVILLE r LAKE,�/ IIII
I I —� —_-- I I -- HASTINGS
I SJo
;1'ES
r'�
SAN FRANCISCO HANCOCK I G i w i - I
i I I vEAMILLION 1RAVENN•
/SAN()CREEK I SPRING LAKE I CREDIT
I
LAKEVILLE Eu PIRE �, I MARSNAN
' --ME _ (r i RIVEA V(R0I L10N i
:OROAr SCOTT CO. I "O� ill
RnKCroN
^T Uwa ENCEi I i I � I
E
l rCll!PLAIN( I I
i I I NEW MARKET i I Li Crow TRIER
BLAKELEY i BELLE PLAINE HELENA CEDAR LAN HAMPTON I(�'
E EUREKA CASTLE ROCK I I MI[SVIL`
NEW MARKET
I
C1--LL—TI i 4AMaroN i DOUGLAS
NEAAGU(I 11.80 I I
I 4 MILES 5 10 15 20 23 I
y I I RAMOOLP
GREENLE Iw•rERFOD •
I � sI
t REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD
I
I
MI
1
ROSEMOUNT INC.
12001 Technology Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 U.S.A.
' (612) 941-5560
TWX. 4310012 or 4310024
FAX: (612) 828-3088 (/
Rosemount.
I/11/1
' June 5, 1989 I
' Mr. R. M. Ferrick
R.M. FERRICK ASSOCIATES
' 7103 Interlachen Court
Eden Prairie, Mn 55344
Reference: Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition
' TH 5 Improvement Schedule
Dear Dick:
' Enclosed for your information are two memos that we have recently sent to the
Governor and the Commissioner, regarding the schedule extension of the TH 5
' improvements. Rosemount is extremely concerned about the safety implications
resulting from any schedule delay, given the significant traffic increase in the
project area due to our new facility construction.
1 We will actively support any efforts of the Coalition to put these projects back on
schedule. Please advise if there are additional actions which may be effective.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey W. Schmitt
Vice President
Company Services
JWS/smh
Enc.
1
CC : Evnie Ec 1ols
CH-ly of `har►hass�n
ROSEMOUNT INC. Q i dk Fe vr;c<< (SW (pr���IOr�
12001 Technology Drive S-kVe I Ier •
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 U.S.A. ,-.�j{.-�(
(612) 941-5560 {O n w s) !o b VVo Kill I �J U n
TWX: 4310012 or 4310024 1' ,
FAX: (612) 828.3088
Rosemount.
May 23, 1989
Commissioner Leonard Levine
Commissioner of Transportation
411 Transportation Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Commissioner:
We have just become aware of the schedule slippage of the TH 5 improvement 1
project in the Southwest Twin City suburbs. Rosemount Inc. made a major
decision in late 1988 to build a 340,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility in Chanhassen,
MN, just south of TH 5. A factor in that decision was the original schedule
committed to by the State for the widening and signalization of TH 5.
One thousand employees will initially occupy the new facility in early 1990 -- this
will put additional pressure on an already inadequate TH 5 road system. While we
are disappointed about any slippage from an inconvenience standpoint, the
overriding concern with this schedule extension is the safety of our employees, and
other citizens who work, and/or reside in the Southwest Corridor. With the
addition of one thousand employees to TH 5 in the Chanhassen area, traffic signals
at TH 5 and Market Boulevard with left/right turn lanes are mandatory to allow
safe access to, and egress from, our facility site. Rosemount Inc. experienced a
similar situation several years ago in soliciting a traffic light at TH 5, and what was
then West 78th Street. After numerous accidents, someone was fatally injured at
this unlighted intersection; only then were traffic lights finally installed. We do not
want to see history repeat itself in Chanhassen.
We solicit your support in putting the TH 5 improvement project back on schedule.
If it is impossible to recover the entire project schedule, we would request
consideration be given to completion of the TH 5/Market Boulevard
intersection/traffic signals in early 1990 for safety reasons. '
Thank you in advance for your consideration and your efforts.
Sincerely,
el) • 1
Robert M. Co
President &
Chief Administrative Officer
RMC/smh
I . Ernie Echoic
Ci`- y of a�ha6sch ,- 1
I ROSEMOUNT INC. Jl j C(�
12001 Technology Drive ►J l F�v�r c K (ski w Co r r►`d l
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 U.S.A. `I ? ,/
Tel. (612) 828-3209 ✓'fe Ve 'L-( tier ss
' Cop s) ob wor�in -for)
Vernon H. Heath Rosemount.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer V 111111111111 aa�i
I May 30, 1989 �``/vc.-
v
r
The Honorable Rudy Perpich 1 ,':
130 State Capitol _ ,
ISt. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Governor Perpich:
I I would like to personally solicit your assistance in
removing the obstacles which have caused a six to nine
month delay in the completion of the TH 5 improvement
project in the Southwest Twin Cities suburbs.
As you recall, it was your initial support in February,
I 1988, that elevated the priority of the TH 5
improvements, so that completion could be realized in
1990, prior to the U.S. open.
I Rosemount Inc. made a major business decision in
September, 1988, to build a 340, 000 sq. ft.
manufacturing facility along TH 5 in Chanhassen. This
I facility will house several of our major product lines
and will employ 1, 000 people at occupancy in early
1990. The availability of access via TH 5 was an
important factor in our decision. I feel the two
I schedule delays, which were made public during the last
six weeks, present serious safety concerns for our
employees and for all Southwest corridor residents who
I utilize TH 5. A portion of the TH 5 project was to
provide signals, turn lanes, etc. at the intersection
of TH 5 and Market Boulevard (the main access to our
new facility) . The delay of the project significantly
I increases the risk of accidents and resultant injury,
at this intersection.
I I appreciate your efforts on behalf of those who work,
and/or live, in the Southwest Twin City area.
ISincerely,
. `►Ii
H//nlw
I
II
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition
General Meeting - June 14, 198
SEE PAGE TWO FOR MEETING NOTICES
Attendance: Richard Feerick, Robert Lindall, Todd Vlatkovich,
Jerome Carlson, Shari Graham, Dennis Hogan, David Tramel, Augie
Mueller, Lee Johnson, Eugene Dietz, John Mullan, Earl Howe, John
Baumgartner, Patricia Pidcock, Don Braun, Ernie Echols and Jane
Shanard. '
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Feerick at 7:40 a.m.
Vlatkovich reviewed the legislative session indicating that
increased transportation revenues will come from the increased
tax on auto registration and the motor vehicle excise tax. He
rated the session which will produce approximately $50 million in
increased highway funds as a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10. ,
Lengthy discussion ensued as to the timetable for the balance of
Hwy. 5 construction. The consensus from MNDOT is that the
letting scheduled for March 1990 for Cty. Rd. 4 to the Hennepin
County line may even be optimistic and that acquisition will need
to be completed of 4 buildings which could affect the schedule. .
Carlson indicated he had not even been contacted regarding right • II
of way acquisition for the portion of construction from the HC
line to County Rd. 17 in Carver County and asked if funding was
still in place for this portion. He was asurea that it was.
John Mullan provided an update on activity toward letting for the
County Rd. 4 through Cty. Rd. 17 segments indicating that all was
proceeding smoothly with the communities and developers
involved.
Lindall suggested that the coalition pursue whether or not
MNDOT's commitment to the cost of designing 1st phase of 212
could be used to apply for a matching federal grant t resign 212
from I494 to Norwood. Martin Sabo, in his noon :. :eech to the
coalition, suggested that application for funds be made through
Cong. Frenzel's office as it his district.
A technical meeting will be held at 8 a.m. Wednesday, June 21 at
MNDOT District 5 office, 2055 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, to
discuss specifics of the Hwy. 5 schedule and to determine where -
the coalition can help expedite the plan.
A meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 28 at MTS '
Systems, 14000 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, to prepare the
agenda for the coalition's meeting with Commissioner Len Levine
on July 10.
Carlson suggested that the highest level official of the U.S.
Open be invited to the July 10 meeting. Feerick indicated that
Governor Perpich be invited as well. That meeting is scheduled... . ....)
JUN 19 1989
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
II
IISouthwest Corridor Transportation Coalition
Page 2- June 14, 1989
Ifor 2:30 p.m. in the 4th floor conference room of the
transportation building. A representative from Cong. Frenzel's
office will be invited June 28 and July 10.
1
I Carlson moved and Pidcock seconded a motion that a letter be sent
to Commissioner Levine and Governor Perpich requesting a project
manager for the Highway 5 project. The motion passed
unanimously.
ICarlson moved and Pidcock seconded a motion to adjourn. The
motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43
I a.m.
Respe tfully Submitted,
1 -''119.C%1"(%ier-----------
Jerome Carlson
II Secretary .
IMEETING NOTICES
Wednesday, June 21 8 a.m. - Technical meeting, MNDOT District 5
Ioffice, 2205 No. Lilac Dr. , Golden Valley
Wednesday, June 28 7:30 a.m. - Agenda meeting for July 10
Imeeting, MTS Systems, 14000 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie
Monday, July 10 2:30 p.m. - Meeting with Commissioner Levine, 4th
II floor conference room, Transportation Building
I
II
II
II
1
m
I
I y,
CITY OF n. -
I C .4' ': ANHASSEN
5-
,...4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
.
I (612) 937-1900
'
IMEMORANDUM
TO: All Personnel
IFROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
IDATE: June 13 , 1989
SUBJ: Data Privacy Act
IIIn a recent situation, one of the building inspectors received a
complaint about a fence problem. When he went to inform the
I violator of the problems with his fence, the violator demanded to
know who the complainant was. The inspector refused to give the
name of the complainant citing state law and city policy and
Ireferred the person to Scott Harr and myself.
Please be aware that state law does prohibit us from giving out
the name of a complainant on a property-type of complaint. Our
I inspector was prudent in 1) not giving out the complainant' s name
and 2 ) referring the violator to Scott or myself.
I have attached a copy of the state law that specifically prohi-
bits us from making public the names of complainants on property-
type situations. This was further verified through our City
I Attorney Roger Knutson. Please feel free to contact Scott or
myself should you have any questions regarding this matter.
I
I
I
I
r
I
MI
Subd. 6. Access by labor organizations. Personnel data may be dissemi-
nated to labor organizations to the extent that the responsible authority deter-
mines that the dissemination is necessary to conduct elections, notify employees
of fair share fee assessments, and implement the provisions of chapter 179.
Personnel data shall be disseminated to labor organizations and to the bureau of
mediation services to the extent the dissemination is ordered or authorized by
the director of the bureau of mediation services.
Subd. 7. Employee assistance data. All data created, collected or main-
tained by any state agency or political subdivision to administer employee
assistance programs similar to the one authorized by section 16.02, subdivision
28, are classified as private, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12. This
section shall not be interpreted to authorize the establishment of employee
assistance programs.
History: 1979 c 328 s 17; 1980 c 603 s 24,25,29; 1981 c 311 s
12,13,17,39; 1982 c 545 s 9,10,24.
13.44 PROPERTY COMPLAINT DATA.
The identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or
political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances
concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data, pursuant
to section 13.02, subdivision 3.
History: 1980 c 603 s 20; 1981 c 311 s 39: 1982 c 545 s 5,24
13.45 SALARY BENEFIT SURVEY DATA.
Salary and personnel benefit survey data purchased from consulting firms, 1
nonprofit corporations or associations or obtained form employers with the
written understanding that the data shall not be made public which is main-
tained by state agencies, political subdivisions or statewide systems are
•
classified as nonpublic pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 9.
History: 1981 c 311 s 19,39; 1982 c 545 s 24
13.46 WELFARE DATA. '
Subdivision I. Definitions. As used in this section:
(a) "Individual" means an individual pursuant to section 13.02, subdivi-
sion 8, but does not include a vendor of services.
(b) "Program" includes all programs for which authority is vested in a
component of the welfare system pursuant to statute or federal law.
(c) "Welfare system" includes the department of public welfare, county
welfare boards, county welfare agencies, human services boards, community
mental health center boards, state hospitals, state nursing homes, and persons,
agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities under contract to any _
of the above agencies to the extent specified in the contract.
(d) "Mental health data" means data on individual clients and patients of
community mental health centers, established under section 245.62, or mental
health divisions of counties and other providers under contract to deliver
mental health services.
Subd. 2. General. (a) Unless the data is summary data or a statute
specifically provides a different classification, data on individuals collected,
maintained, used or disseminated by the welfare system is private data on
individuals, and shall not be disclosed except:
(1 ) Pursuant to section 13.05;
21 '
•
,; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1
,4 ..:
I story: 1975 c 401 s 7; 1981 c 311 s 39; 1Sp1981 c 4
s 11982 c 424 s 130; 1982 c 545 s 24
ICIVIL REMEDIES.
Subdivision 1 . Action for damages. Notwithstanding section 466.03, a
I political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system, or state agency
which violates any provision of this chapter is liable to a person or represen-
tative of a decedent who suffers any damage as a result of the violation, and
the person damaged or his representative in the case of private data on
decedents or confidential data on decedents may bring an action against the
political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system, or state agency to
I cover any damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In the
case of a willful violation, the political subdivision, statewide system or state
agency shall, in addition, be liable to exemplary damages of not less than $100,
nor more than $10,000 for each violation. The state is deemed to have waived
I any immunity to a cause of action brought under this chapter.
Subd. 2. Injunction. A political subdivision, responsible authority,
statewide system or state agency which violates or proposes to violate this
I chapter may be enjoined by the district court. The court may make any order
or judgment as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any
person of any practices which violate this chapter.
' Subd. 3. Venue. An action filed pursuant to this section may be com-
menced in the county in which the individual alleging damage or seeking relief
resides, or in the county wherein the political subdivision exists, or, in the
case of the state, any county.
I Subd. 4. Action to compel compliance. In addition to the remedies
provided in subdivisions 1 to 3 or any other law, any aggrieved person may
bring an action in district court to compel compliance with this chapter and may
I recover costs and disbursements, including reasonable • attorney's fees, as
determined by the court. If the court determines that an action brought under
this subdivision is frivolous and without merit and a basis in fact, it may award
reasonable costs and attorney fees to the responsible authority. The matter
I shall be heard as soon as possible. In an action involving a request for
government data under section 13.03, or 13.04, the court may inspect in camera
the government data in dispute, but shall conduct its hearing in public and in
I a manner that protects the security of data classified as not public.
Subd. 5. Immunity from liability. A state agency, statewide system,
political subdivision, or person that releases not public data pursuant to an
I order under section 2 is immune from civil and criminal liability.
History: 1974 c 479 s 5; 1976 c 239 s 4,5; 1979 c 328 s 14; 1980 c 603
s 13; 1981 c 311 s 39; 1Sp1981 c 4 art 1 s 8-10; 1982 c 545 s 24
Illi- 13.09 PENALTIES.
Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter or any
I rules adopted under this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Willful violation of
this chapter by any public employee constitutes just cause for suspension
without pay or dismissal of the public employee.
I History: 1974 c 479 s 6; 1975 c 401 s 6; 1976 c 239 s 6; 1981 c 311 s
39; 1982 c 545 s 24
I
. 12
- -_
I.
c,,,,,.4 _a,
I ., {
1
C 1T '{ O 0. „, a _ ,..),,,,,,,_
_, ,
,..:A 0 HAN HA S SEX
',k
1 ,,
1
...
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
., (612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
TO: City Staff
FROM: Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director
I Y
IDATE: June 14 , 1989
SUBJ: Sprinkling Ban
I Attached please find a memo from Jerry Boucher requesting
assistance on enforcing the sprinkling ban. Also attached please
find a copy of the violation warning notice. These are available
I in my office or at the front desk at City Hall. We would appre-
ciate you all having some on hand to advise people that you are
aware of their violation of the ban. You can also advise Jim
Chaffee or myself and we will see to it that a violation warning
notice is delivered to that address .
Thank you for your assistance.
Ic: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
IAttachments
I
I
1 _
I
I
I
I
kw
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 06-26-89 PAGE 1
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E _
038034 6.412.50 BLOOMBERG COMPANIES, INC LAND-PURCHASE + IMP
038035 33.12 TODD GERHARDT TRAVEL + TRAINING
AND-MILEAGE
038036 13.75 LEFEVERE,LEFLER,KENNEDY FEES, SERVICE `
038037 160.00 THE SIGN SHOPPE REP. + MAINT.,BLDG + GND
038038 26.50 SW SUBURBAN PUBLISHING PRINTING AND PUBLISHING _
038039 4,500.00 VOTO,TAUTGES,REDPATH& CO FEES, SERVICE
6 11,145.87 CHECKS WRITTEN
c
,•r
vh.
kw
$4, R
1V
4
V 4
�' 4
AGENDA
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
' TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 , 7 : 30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1. Call to order.
' 2. Appoint Acting Chair, Larry Schroers .
3 . Approval of June 13 , 1989 Minutes .
4 . Review Results of Resident Survey for Herman Field Development.
5 . Final Approval of Master Park Plans:
' - Chanhassen Hills Park
' 6 . Review Parking Area at Curry Farms .
7 . Preliminary Masters Park Plan, Carver Beach (along Lotus
Trail) .
8 . Approval of Park Improvements, Cenvesco Site, Oak View
Heights.
' 9 . Presentation of Southern Parkland Study, Mark Koegler and
Al Klingelhutz .
' 10 . Review July 4th Events .
11. Commission Presentations.
' 12 . Administrative Presentations .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ROUTE TO:
Gary Street Dept.
I
June 16, 1989 Dave _Utility Dept.
Dan Planning Dept.
IKim Public Safety
Mr. Dave Warzala X Don File No.
Barton-Aschman Assoc. , Inc. K ag. ADni 1 v Pe►c - Gl
1 111 3rd Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55401 X Copt .}p s(La) — qi�cr ii
IIRe: S.P. 1002-44 (T.H. 5)
Proposed layout for CSAH 17
Iand W. 78th Street in
City of Chanhassen
Carver County
1 Dear Dave,
We have reviewed the above referenced layout with our central office and
II am returning to you a copy of the layout with their comments on it. .
In regard to the question about the Burdick Access, it appears to be
acceptable to Mn/DOT. If you have any questions, please feel free to
Icall me.
Sincerely,
1
Evan R. Green
1
Project Manager
Attachment: Layout
1 cc: ' ary Warren, City Engr.--Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson, County Engr.--Carver County
IC. Hoffstedt
D. Ellis
File
1 ERG:cs ChM Or CHA B ASSE
PT-977
I JUN 20 289
I i i � D T.
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Mayor and City Council
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I Chanhassen Planning Commission
Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: CHADDA
IDATE: June 22 , 1989
1 SUBJ: Groundbreaking Ceremony for Heritage Park Apartments
IMark your calendars for the groundbreaking ceremony for the
Heritage Park Apartments on Tuesday, July 18, 1989 from 4 : 00 to
5 : 30 p.m. More details will follow.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in
I � / n
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN'
•
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 June 21, 1989
Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Manager
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District
1 8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Conrad:
As a long time resident of Chanhassen and a part of the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, we call upon you
' to help stem off what appears to be a potential disaster. As you
are aware, a meeting was held with Watershed consultants/
representatives and with Councilmembers Ursula Dimler and Tom
1 Workman. The purpose of the meeting was to share information and
answer questions regarding the Chain of Lakes Project Work Plan.
The meeting ended on a sad note in that our Councilmembers , whose
1 only desire was that Chanhassen citizens know what the work plan
is , felt that their pleas were not being considered. By
contrast, Mr. Haik apparently left the meeting feeling that the
City no longer supports the project. This position must have
1 been presented to the Board as Mr. Haik' s letter of June 8, 1989
has the same misperceptions. This position is also unfortunate
as the work and requests for public input into the process by
1 residents such as Eric Rivkin and Dale Carlson has been solely to
insure that this was a good project - not to scuttle it.
This is to confirm that the City of Chanhassen is committed to
1 the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project and to the sche-
dule approved by the Watershed District and Pollution Control
Agency last year. The Lake Lucy boat access issue is scheduled
1 to appear on the July 10, 1989 City Council agenda. [Please note
that the LAWCON grant application and actual purchase was moved
to September of 1989 by LAWCON. This was not asked for by the
City nor supported by the City of Chanhassen. LAWCON' s position
is mandatory not advisory.
This is also to request that the Watershed District and their
' consultants hold a series of public meetings where area residents
would be notified of the draft plan and invite their input into
this preliminary process. If there are monetary costs of pre-
paring notices or sending such, the City stands ready to bear
1
MI
1
Mr. Conrad Fiskness 1
June 21, 1989
Page 2
this burden. However, we are not in a position to present the
project or to field questions. This is where we need your help.
The City feels this is a major project and recognizes its impor-
tance to the quality of the lakes. We do not want to jeopardize
the project or the grant; however, the questions posed to date
are sincere and valid ones. We would like to work with you and
the agencies involved in cleaning up our lakes.
S . cerely, '
D.nald J‘-/Chmiel
Mayor
DA:ks
. 1
1
1
r
I
I
I
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. g(C2- •
I 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
WAYNE G.POPHAM JAMES A.PAYNE TELEPHONE MARK B.PETERSON ROBERT C.CASTLE
RAYMOND A.HAIK DAVID A.JONES 612-333-4800 TIMOTHY W.KUCK THERESE M.HANKEL
ROGER W.SCHNOBRICH LEE E.SHEENY CAROL B SWANSON JULIE FLEMING-WOLFE
I DENVER KAUFMAN ALAIN FRECON TELECOPIER BRUCE A.PETERSON DEBORAH A.DYSON
ROBERT A.MINISH LESLIE GILLETTE 1331 612.334-2713
1321 612-334-2781 THOMAS C MIELENHAUSEN ZACHERY M JONES
ROLFE A.WOROEN
G.MARC WHITEHEAD MICHAEL T.NILAN
THOMAS M SIPKINS MICHAEL D.CHRISTENSON BENSON K.WHITNEY
J.MICHAEL SCH N T2 KATHRYN M.WALKER
A
BRUCE D. JOHNSON ROBERT C.NELSON
EN 1311 612-334-2503 TODD M JOHNSON GEORGE J.50C HA
G.ROBERT JOHNSON THOMAS F NELSON JEFFREY P CAIRNS SHANE R.KELLEY
I GARY R.MACOMBER THOMAS J RADIO LOUIS P SMITH MARK F TEN EYCK
ROBERT S.BURR DAVID L.HASHMALL BRUCE H LITTLE DUANE R.NOECKER
HUGH V. K.BERG TT,III
KATHLEEN M.MARTIN SUITE 2400 MARK F PALMA ELIZABETH LEVINE
DEE ROWS
FREDERICK C.BROWN JOHN C.CHILDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET RUSSELL 5.PONESSA
THOMAS K.BERG DOUGLAS P.SEATON DENVER,COLORADO 80202 BRYAN L.CRAWFO RD JOHN M.BAKER
BRUCE D.MALKERSON THOMAS E.BANNER TELEPHONE303-693-1200 MATTHEW E.DAMON KAREN M.MANSE N••
JAMES R.ST ELLEN RICHARD A.KAPLAN JOHN W.PROVO SUESAN PACE-SHAPIRO•
I JAMES B.LOCKHART BRUCE B.Mc PH EETERS TELECOPIER 303-893-2194 JILL I FRIEDER9 LINDA 5.FRIEDNER
ALLEN W.HINDERAKER SCOTT E.RICHTER PAUL B.JONES ANDREW D.PARKER
CLIFFORD M.GREENE PAUL J.LINSTROTH SUITE 300 SOUTH M ELLEN L.MARS
D.WILLIAM KAUFMAN SCOTT A.SMITH 1000 STREET.N.W. WILLIAM O.LITTLER
PAUL H.TIETZ BRIAN N.JOHNSON WASHINGTON, D.G.20036 ELLEN SUE PARKER OF COUNSEL
MICHAEL O.FREEMAN DONALD M.LEWIS GREGORY G.BROOKER FRED L.MORRISON
HOWARD SAM MYERS,III KENNETH RO55•
TELEPHONE 202.826-'3300
WILLIAM M.OJILE,JR.
LARRY D.ESPEL DAVID R.STRAND TELECOPIER 202-828-6318
BRIAN W.OHM
JANIE S.MAYERON ELIZABETH A.TM OM PSON DIRECT DIAL NUMBER GREGORY G.SCOTT • •ON,TTie ONLY IN C•LIVOMM,A
THOMAS J.BARRETT KEITH J.HALLELAND •ROSANNE G.ZAIDENWEBER AOM,TTtO ONLY#00
•• •OMITT[O ONLY IM OHIO
(334-2609 )
I
June 8 , 1989
I
Mayor and City Council
I
City of Chanhassen JUN 9 ��
690 Coulter Drive
P .0. Box 147 Ct1 OF CHANHASSEN
IChanhassen, MN 55317 r
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
IAt the last meeting of the Board of Managers of the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, we reported on the
failure by the District to comply with the obligations assumed in
I the Substate Agreement entered into with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. The Agreement covered the period from May 4 ,
1988, to March 31, 1989 , and set forth requirements which have not
I been accomplished . These include the failure to obtain by March
31, 1989 , the appropriate legal instruments, assurances, and
financial commitments to insure the establishment of a public
I access to all lakes within the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes system.
Specifically, a public access was not obtained to Lake Lucy.
This effort to obtain EPA/PCA funds for the Chain of Lakes was
I a joint effort with the Watershed District, the City of
Chanhassen, and the City of Eden Prairie . In reliance on the
commitment by Chanhassen to obtain the access to Lake Lucy, the
II District proceeded to prepare the required reports and meet the
obligations imposed upon it as the responsible local unit of
government by the Substate Agreement. The District has advanced
I its funds in reliance on the understanding that the City of Eden
Prairie and the City of Chanhassen would share in the payment of
the costs to fund a work plan. The local share of the project for
the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Chanhassen is one-third
1 of the local cost in the amount of $8 ,233 . 00 . The Watershed
IN
Page 2
Mayor and City Council
June 8, 1989 '
District has advanced the funds and has submitted the work plan
required by the contract. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
is reviewing the material in consultation with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Given the requirements of State and Federal law that the
public access be obtained, and the substantial monies advanced by
the District to date, the Managers at the last meeting, discussed '
the failure by the City of Chanhassen to supply the public access
to Lake Lucy. The Managers understand the desire by Chanhassen to
obtain information and have supplied substantial information
requested by the City. They have exhausted funds that are
available for this project and are not in a position to advance
additional funds on behalf of either the City of Chanhassen or the
City of Eden Prairie. The Managers directed the staff to not
incur additional expense, and that we inform the City of
Chanhassen of the need to obtain the access to Lake Lucy by
July 15 , 1989 . A copy of the executed Substate Agreement is
enclosed for your information. If the project is terminated, the
District will request reimbursement from the City for one-third of
the local costs incurred to date.
ue"r 7 truly yours,
,
'K lL C•
Raymond A. Haik
RAH/766ZBDH '
Enclosure
cc: Mayor and Council of the
City of Eden Prairie (w/enc. )
Board of Managers, Riley-purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District (w/o enc. )
Barr Engineering (w/o enc. )
1
J
I .: `J�R i.
1 CI TY OF
\ Q w i R.-
AL, _ .. .
I .,...,,,_,, ,_ ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
___• (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner aoo
IDATE: June 9, 1988
SUBJ: Approval of Formal Commitment, Lake Riley Chain of Lakes
Cleanup Project
1
The Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and the
I Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District agreed to each
contribute $8 ,300 towards a $50 ,000 budget for the Lake Riley
Clean Lakes Project work plan. The work plan was to be initiated
1 immediately by the Watershed District and completed by November
30 , 1988. The work plan will provide a timetable and implemen-
tation plan for the clean water project. The DNR is contributing
close to $500 ,000 towards the clean water program and as part of
I this is requiring any of the lakes involved in the program to
have a public boat access. One of the factors affecting the
funding of the project is that Lake Lucy and Lake Susan do not
I have public boat accesses . The DNR and PCA want some form of
commitment from the City of Chanhassen that a public boat access
will be provided on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy.
ILake Susan has land available for a public boat access and funds
have been applied for for the development of a public boat
access. Lake Lucy does not have the property or any immediate
I plans for a public boat access . Because of this , it was
necessary to meet with the Pollution Control Agency and the DNR
to determine what the consequences would be if a boat access was
I not possible on Lake Lucy and what exactly were they defining as
a public boat access . On Thursday, June 2 , 1988 , staff (Jo Ann ,
Olsen and Lori Sietsema) met with members from the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District , the Pollution
I Control Agency and the DNR to discuss the issue of a public boat
access on Lake Lucy. The PCA and DNR stated that a public boat
access on both Lake Lucy and Lake Susan was necessary for them to
I participate in the project . Staff explained the difficulty of
immediately locating a public boat access on Lake Lucy. Staff
explained that the City did not control land suitable for a
I public boat access at this time but would pursue locating a
public boat access through a study group and any required public
hearings and would initiate this process immediately.
I
I.
Don Ashworth '
June 9, 1988
Page 2
The DNR and the Pollution Control Agency requires some form of
commitment from the City to the pursuit of a public boat access
for Lake Lucy. This commitment is preferred prior to the expen-
diture of the $8, 300 from Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and the
Watershed District for the work plan. Both the Watershed
District and Eden Prairie prefer not to spend the $8, 300 on the
work plan if the additional funding needed for the whole project
will be removed by the DNR and the Pollution Control Agency.
Staff has prepared the attached proposal with a timetable for the
location and improvement of a public boat access on Lake Lucy.
Also attached is a letter of commitment from the Chanhassen City
Council. Staff feels that if we can provide the timetable and
the letter of commitment that this will satisfy the DNR and the
PCA and that the project can move forward. Staff recommends that
the City Council approve the attached letter of commitment and
timetable and that it be signed by the mayor and sent to the DNR,
PCA and the Watershed District.
1
f '
I
1
LAKE SUSAN
July 1, 1988 LAWCON Grant Application is
' submitted.
September, 1988 Preliminary approval awarded to
qualified applicants .
' July - October, 1988 Public hearings are held for
residents ' input. Final application
' is prepared and submitted.
December , 1988 Final approval is awarded to
qualified applicants .
May, 1989 Construction of access begins . *
September, 1989 Project completed.
LAKE LUCY
June - December, 1988 Study alternatives; hold public
hearings .
' January, 1989 Present recommendations to City
Council .
' May, 1989 Submit LA[rCON Application.
August, 1989 Preliminary approval .
' August - October, 1989 Final approval is prepared and
submitted.
' December, 1989 Final approval .
' May, 1990 Construction .
* Lake Drive East Extension required. Study complete. Currently
on schedule as shown.
. ':
Ai Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 1 f//r / Ao�
Telephone (612) 296-6300 '
MINNESOTA 1990
1
March 21, 1989
Irt ..S
Mr. Conrad B. Fiskness, President ' 7+7.1 '••••••••••
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Barr Engineering, Room 4
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Dear Mr. Fiskness:
Enclosed is your copy of an executed Substate Agreement between Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for the "Implementation of Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration"
project. Please keep this copy as a reference of grant requirements.
I want to congratulate you and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
on receiving Clean Lakes Program Funding to conduct your lake restoration
project. Your work is highly valuable and greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Mark D.
Tomasek of my staff at (612) 296-7756.
Sincerely,
/ J / L
.4-te4
Gerald L. Willet
Commissioner
GLW/jmg '
Enclosure
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes• Marshall• Rochester 1
Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
•
•
' STATE OF MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
SUBSTATE AGREEMENT
FOR THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF PUBLICLY
OWNED FRESHWATER LAKES
PHASE H AGREEMENT
I. SUMMARY
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT: Riley - Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed District
' PROJECT NUMBER: S005893-01
t PROJECT TITLE: Implementation of Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project
COUNTY: Hennepin and Carver
PERIOD COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT: May 4, 1988 TO March 31, 1989
' TOTAL ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: S 50,000
FEDERAL SHARE: S 25,000
' LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHARE: S 25,000
' OTHER: NA
' II. RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Minn Laws 1979. Ch. 333. Section 31 . Subd. 6(a) , and Minnesota
Statutes 115.06, subdivisions 1 and 2 ( 1986) the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Agency) is authorized to administer the state appropriation for lake .
improvement grants-in-aid to provide grants- in-aid to local units of
government.
B. Pursuant to Section 314 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1324 ) . the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to provide
' financial assistance. through Section 314 Cooperative Agreements with the
States , to implement methods and procedures to protect and restore publicly
owned freshwater lakes .
' C. The Agency is the designated state agency that is authorized to enter into
Section 314 Cooperative Agreements and to receive and administer Section 314
financial assistance. The Commissioner of the Agency is the state agent who is
responsible for applying for , receiving. disbursing and administering federal
funus made availalbe pursuant to Section 314 Cooperative Agreements.
r -
C I 1
Page 2 of 17.
D. Pursuant to 40 CFR 35. 1600, Subpart H. the Agenc y may make fin '
assistance available to substate agencies by means of a Substate Agreement
(Agreement) transferring Section 314 funds from the Agency to substate
agencies. The Agency may enter into Agreements with substate agencies to
perform all or a portion of the work provided for under a Section 314
Cooperative Agreement.
E. The Agency has entered into Section 314 Cooperative Agreement Number
5005893-01 with the EPA for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance to
undertake a Phase II Lake Restoration Implementation Project of the Riley
Creek Chain of Lakes .
F. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is a local unit of govern-
ment (Local Unit) eligible to enter into a substate agreement with the Agency.
III. DEFINITIONS
The terms used in this Agreement have the meanings defined in 40 CFR 30.200
( 1987) and 40 CFR 35. 1605-1 through . 1605-8 ( 1987 ) , and Minn. Stat. chs . 115
and 116 ( 1986) . Notwithstanding the definitions referenced above, the
following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
Best Management Practices (BMP) - Practices , techniques , and measures, that II
prevent or reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources by using the most
effective and practicable means of achieving water quality goals . Best
management practices include, but are not limited to. offical controls .
structual and nonstructual controls , and operation and maintenance procedures. '
Cost Effectiveness Analysis - An analysis performed to determine which best
management practices will result in the minimum total resource costs over time
to meet federal , state, local and substate agreement requirements and objectives. II
Eligible Project Costs - Those project costs that are: reasonable, necessary
and allocable to the project , permitted by appropriate federal cost principles,
approved by EPA in the applicable Section 314 Cooperative Agreement and
determined to be eligible pursuant to this Agreement . Eligible project costs
do not include costs allocable to Agency administration, public information
dissemination, or training.
In-Kind Contribution - The value of a non-cash contribution to meet th cost
sharing obligation of the Local Unit of Government . An in-kind contribution
may consist of charges for real property and equipment or the value of goods
and .services directly benefiting the project.
Local Unit of Government or Local Unit - A statutory or home rule charter city.
town, county, soil and water conservation district . watershed district , an
organization formed for the joint exercise of powers under Minn. Stat . 471 . 59,
and any other special purpose district or authority exercising authority in
water and related land resources management at the local level .
Nonpoint Source - A land management activity or land use activity that contribut '
or may contribute to ground and surface water es
pcllut �on as a result of runoff ,
seepage. or percolation and that is not defined as a point source in Minn.
Stat. 115.01 , subdivision 15. Nonpoint sources include. but are not limited to.
I
■
_Page 3 of 17.
rural and urban land management activities and land use activities and
specialty land use activities such as transportation.
Official Controls - Ordinances and regulations that control the physical
development of the whole or part of a local government unit or that implement
the general objectives of the local governmental unit.
Operation and Maintenance - Activities required to provide for the dependable
' and economical functioning of the best management practice. Maintenance means
the preservation of functional integrity and efficiency and includes
preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and replacement. Operation
means control of the processes and equipment. structures, facilities.
' accessories or appurtenances which make up the best management
including but not limited to financial and g practice:
laboratory processes and planning. personnel management. recordkeeping.
' Phase 1. - A diagnostic-feasibility study to determine the current condition of
lake water quality, evaluate methods for lake restoration and protection, and
recommend a program of best management practices to preserve and restore lake
' water quality.
Phase 11. - Implementation of a program of best marrdgerner,t practices to preserve
and restore lake water quality.
' Replacement - Obtain.ing and installing equipment . structures , accessories , or
appurtenances which are necessary during the design life or useful life. (which-
ever is longer) of the best management practices to maintain the capacity and
performance for which such practices were designed, implemented and constructed.
' THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1
1
NM
•
Page 4 of 17.
IV. AGREEMENT '
A. PROJECT INITIATION ACTIVITIES - WORK PLAN
1. Project Scope and Description. In accordance with the conditions for a
Lake Restoration Implementation Grant as provided for in 40 CFR 35. 1600,
Subpart H. the Local Unit shall accomplish the following:
a) Develop and submit to the Agency for review and approval by March
31 , 1989 a Project Work Plan for the Restoration and Protection
of the Riley Chain of Lakes which is consistent with the conditions
of EPA Cooperative Agreement Number S005893-01 . which work' plan shall II
describe in detail proposed project implementation, and include at
least the following:
i ) A milestone schedule for project Implementation
ii ) A detailed project budget which describes the financial
participation and obligation of : The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District (District ) , the Minnesota Department of Natural II
Resources (DNR ) , the Agency as the administrator of EPA grant
assistance, the City of Chanhassen, and the City of Eden Prairie.
iii ) The identification of water quality objectives for each of the
project lakes including in- lake water quality objectives and
inflow water quality objectives .
iv) A detailed description of the prospective Nonpoint Source :
Abatement Program indicating: The prospective watershed
management activities to be implemented including BMPs and
appropriate offical controls . and the roles and
responsibilities of all cooperating governmenal units, agencies.
and groups to be involved in the Nonpoint Source Abatement Program
implementation. and operation, maintenance and replacement as
defined herein. The description should identify the type.
number and location of BMPs to be utilized, and the areas to be
subject to local controls.
v) A completed feasibility study for the proposed fish barrier '
between Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake.
vi ) An evaluation of the benefits of undertaking biomanipulation
in Lake Riley.
b) In cooperation with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden
Prairie, initiate. and implement to the Agency' s satisfaction,
• undertakings to obtain by March 31 . 1989 the appropriate -
legal instruments, assurances . and financial committments
necessary to ensure the following:
i ) Public Access. The establishment of public access to all
lakes within the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes system
as is required to perform and implement the Work Plan. For the
purposes of this Agreement ' Public Access ' shall be in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 35. 1600. Subpart H and
conditions and requirements of the Fisheries Division of the the
DNR as applicable to the proposed fisheries management program.
1
' Page 6 of 17.
9) Establish cost sharing mechanism for Nonpoint
Control Measures
10) Prepare and Distribute Work-Plan
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
•
1
1
1
1
Page 7 of 17.
D. SPECIAL CONDITIONS This Agreement shall be subject to the following
Special Conditions:
1. No portion of this award may be used for lobbying or propaganda
purposes as prohibited by 18. U.S.C. Section 1913 or Section 607(a)
of Public Law 96-74 .
2. No costs can be incurred until the EPA Project Officer concurs. in
writing, with the contents of this Substate Agreement between the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Riley - Purgatory - Bluff
Creek Watershed District. ' •
3. The following provisions hall be ins. Iuded .is % per i.rI Conditions
to be inserted in a future Substate Agreement intended to be
entered into between the parties to this Agreement for the
purpose of project implementation . if and upon the completion
approval and acceptance of this Agreement and subject to the
availability of Section 314 Grant Assistance:
a) EPA Project Officer review of Substdte Agreements will
assess those nonpoint source controls included in the
project scope to determine if such controls are sufficent in
ther nature, number , and location, to protect water quality
from future degradation throughout the Riley Chain of Lakes.
b) No costs for monitoring and analysis can be incurred by any
entity other than the Agency until a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) is approved by the Agency and the EPA
project officer in accordance with its Quality Assurance
Program Plan and any applicable Quality Assurance Project
Plans . If the QAPP element is approved, costs for laboratory
analysis shall be reimbursable. The QAPP is to be
transmitted to the Agency for approval prior to undertaking
any monitoring.
c) The Local Unit shall forward a copy of the proposed
monitoring plan to the Agency for review and approval .
costs for monitoring and analysis can be incurrred by any
entity other than the Agency until such monitoring plan is
approved.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1
I
IIPage 8 of 17.
I I
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
IILEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
•
II
II
•
I I
I I
I I
I I r
I I
I I
I I
I I
. I
LI
Page 11 of 17. I
e) The engineering, limnological , and legal services provided under the
conditions of this Agreement shall be provided by the engineering and I I
legal consultants previously retained by the Local Unit.
f) The Local Unit shall retain its right to assign its subcontract with any
person in regard to performance of this Agreement, and any or all rights I I
pursuant thereto, to the Agency.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN II
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
I I
II
II
•
I I
I I
I '
' I
Page 12 of 17.
' g) The Local Unit shall be responsible for the satisfactory and timely
completion of all work required under any subcontract and the Local Unit shall
be responsible for payment of such subcontracts.
h) The Local Unit shall exert all reasonable effort to investigate claims which
• the Local Unit may have with respect to the work performed under this
Agreement and, in appropriate circumstances, take whatever action, including
' withholding of payment and legal recourse. is available to the Local Unit.
i) Architectual/Engineering consultants subcontracting to preform services
provided for in this Agreement shall provide certification of adequate Errors
' and Omissions Insurance as defined by Minnesota Rules part 7075.0200. subpart
4 ( 1987) .
8. Records Maintenance. The Local Unit shall maintain complete and accurate
' records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of all Federal and State
Grant funds disbursed under this Agreement . Such records shall also account
for: disposition of eligible g project costs . property purchased, program income.
' and documentation of compliance with applicable statutes , regulations . and the
conditions of this Agreement . Such records shall be available to authorized
representatives of the Agency or the EPA for examination and audit and shall be
maintained for a minimum of three years after termination of this agreement . -
II9. Semiannual Reports.Progress Re
g p The Local Unit shall submit Semiannual Progress
Reports (original and two copies ) to the Commissioner or his delegee. Reports
' shall be submitted for the periods ending June 30th and December 31, and
shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the period. Reports shall
include at least the following information:
' a) Work progress relative to the milestone schedule, and difficulties
encountered during the report period.
' b) A brief discussion of the project findings appropriate to the work
conducted during the report period.
c) A report of water quality samples taken and ninnilnrind data and a
discussion of the changes in wafer quality which dpp ear to have occured
from the best management practices implemented during the report period.
d) A report of expenditures in the previous report period and those anticipated
during the upcoming report period.
State Fiscal Year Spending Projections. The report for the period ending December
31st shall include a projection of total anticipated project expenditure for
' the subsequent State Fiscal Year. The State Fiscal Year begins on July 1 and
ends on June 30th.
10. Annual Submittal of Cost or Price Summary. The Local Unit and any subcontractor
with whom the Local Unit has contracted shall provide annually, by December
31st. , the following information for the subsequent calander year : a breakdown
of labor rates and anticipated costs , an indirect rate and anticipated cost , and.
' supply and equipment prices and costs . Such information shall be reported on
EPA Form 5700-41 or an equivalent Form provided by the Agency.
1
1
JUN 6 ' R3 10: 47 ERR ENGIt1EERItNGi PAGE . 03
1
Page 13 of 17.
11. Non-Discrimination in Employment. During the performance of this Agreement,
neither the Local Unit , nor those with whom the Local Unit subcontracts for all
or part of the work to be preformed under this Agreement shall , because of age.
sexual preference, political affiliation, race. color. creed, religion,
national origin. sex, marital status , status with regard to public assistance
or• disability; discriminate against any person with respect to hire, tenure.
compensation, terms of employment , upgrading of employment, facilities,
privileges or conditions of employment; refuse to hire• persons seeking
employment: .or discharge an employee,
13. Non-Discriminitation in Availability and Use
Unit, nor those with whom the Local Unit subcontracts rtfor all rtorea portion of the work to be preformed under this Agreement shall exclude any
participating in, deny them the benefits of . or di:criminate aganestothem oon
the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex . marital
status. age. sexual preference, political affiliation, or status with
regard to public assistance or disability.
14. Agency Rights. In addition to any other remedies, the Agency may seek to
recover from the Local Unit any or all funds tendered or disbursed for the pro-
ject if the project is not designed or constructed in conformance with sound
engineering practices or if the project is improperly operated or rnaintanled.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PACE HAS RF,EN
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
•
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
I
JUN 6 89 10: 46 E,ARP EIh; I REEF 1116 H6E . 02
1 `y
.
' Page 14 of 11.
F. FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
' 1. Cost Sharing •
a) Federal Share. Contingent upon receipt from the EPA of Section 314 funds for
' this project, and subject to the limitations in Section IV (F) , on cost sharing,
the Agency shall provide to the Local Unit the federal share of the project
cost. not to exceed $25,000. The federal share available to the Local Unit
for project activities shall not include those funds designated in the Section
314 Cooperative Agreement for Agency grant administration, project support,
public information dissemination or training.
•
c) Local Share. For that portion of eligible project costs incurred by the
Local Unit for designated eligible project expenditures, the Local Unit shall
provide full payment subject to reimbursement . The Agency shall provide
reimbursement to the Local Unit for up to 550 .000 of eligible project costs
' at a rate of fifty percent (501) of eligible project costs.
2. Limitations on Cost-Sharing
' a) In the event that the total expenditure necessary to accomplish the project
objectives described in this Agreement is less than the total eligible cost
provided for in the Section 314 Cooperative Agreement and this Agreement;
' actual costs incurred by the Local Unit in accomplishing the project objectives --
shall be used to determine the amount of federal financial participation.
b) In the event that the project or any part therof shall be determined to be
ineligible for federal financial participation pursuant to 40 CFR 35. 1650-5 , the
Agency shall deny reimbursement of expenditures incurred by the Local Unit in
undertaking such ineligible activities . The Agency also reserves the right to
require repayment of all or a part of previous reimbursements where
' ineligibility of project activites has been determined.
c) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. the parties hereby
recognize and agree that the cost shdring for this project is on an
equal basis so that. regardless of the total costs of the completion of
the Work Plan (provided that such costs shall not exceed the total
sum of $50,000) each party to the Agreement shall pay an equal
amount of such total costs .
3. Requests for Reimbursement
a) The Local Unit shall submit a request for reimbursement of expenditures for
each of the standard calendar quarters ending: March 31st . June 30th. September
30th, and December 31st. The Local Unit mdy submit requests for reimbursement
' at more frequent intervals for good cause shown in writing and submitted to the
Commissioner or his delegee. Submittal of requests for reimbursement for
periods less than a standard quarter shall be subject to approval by the
Commissioner or his delegee.
I-
- .
ma
Page 15 of 17. I
b) The Local Unit shall submit a completed Request for Reimbursement
I
(RFR-1) with supporting documentation of expenditures.
c) The Request for Reimbursement shall be signed by the Local Unit' s II Authorized Representative.
•
d) Expenditures for eligible project costs shall be recorded on the Request for
Reimbursement according to the approved Program Elements provided for in the II
Section 314 Cooperative Agreement between the Agency and the EPA. Supporting
documentation of expenditures shall be organized and tabulated according to
approved Program Elements. and where applicable. Sub-elements. Each II expenditure for which reimbursement is being requested shall be supported by:
( 1) an approved invoice or payment voucher. (2) a copy of the check or other
financial instrument by means of which payment has been made. (3) indication of
applicable labor hours and hourly rates . (4) indication of applicable indirect il
rates and costs. (5) indication of material . supply. and equipment prices and
costs . and. (6) sufficient additional information to verify the nature and
eligibility of the program activity associated with the expenditure.
4. Determination of Eligibility of In-kind Contributions. In-kind services I
shall be eligible for reimbursement subject to the following conditions:
a) The activity is an approved and eligible activity for a particular Program II Element of the Section 314 Cooperative Agreement and this Agreement. and is
a part of the approved project work plan.
b) The activity does not exceed the approved budget allottment for the Program II
Element of which it is a part .
c) The equivalent cash value for non-cash services is reasonable, necessary and
allocable to the project.
d) Where federal reimbursement is being requested under this Agreement.
reimbursement may be provided only for those local expenditures which exceed
the cumulative local expenditure necessary to meet the requirements for a local
match under the conditions and requirements of any other federal program or
programs in which there is concurrent participation.
e) Non-violation of other foderal agency. department . etc. conditions interagency II
agreements . etc.
5. Documentation of In-Kind Contributions. For those activites where local project II support is in the form of eligible in-kind contributions rather than cash
expenditure. the request for reimbursement shall provide a statement
documenting: ( 1) hours expended. (2) actual or reasonable equivalent estimates II of hourly rates. (3) indication of applicable actual or reasonable indirect
rates and costs, (4) indication of material . supply, and equipment prices -and
costs, and. (5) sufficient additional information to verify the nature and
eligibility of the program activity associated with the in-kind contribution. II The Statement shall indicate the total cash value of the services provided, the
Program Element( s ) or Sub-element( s ) to which the services apply. and shall be
signed by an offical representative of the organization or department or agency
of government providing the services certifying provision of services and by II th? local Unit ' s Authorized Representative indicating receipt of services. Such
i :—it ion may ::e provided :n the P�:-. rt of ' ^ . ,nd Services (RIS) . or equivalent.
II
J
i
IIPage 16 of 17.
6. Program Sub-EIcmcnts. Where approved Program Sub-Elements have been
I established through an agreement between the Local Unit and the Agency or the
EPA. eligible project expenditures shall be recorded by approved Project
Sub-Element on Report of In Kind Services , or equivalent and supporting
II documentation of eligible project expenditures shall be organized and tabulated
according to approved Program Sub-element .
7. Withholding Reimbursement Payments .
IThe Agency may withhold reimbursement payment on ten percent ( 101;) of the total
project expenditure eligible for reimbursement or on ten percent ( 10%) of
eligible expenditures associated with a particular Program Element until such
I time as the Commissioner or his Delegee is satisfied, by means of inspection
that satisfactory construction or equipment installation has been accomplished.
or by means of review that a satisfactory work product has been completed, or
II through documentation that an acceptable legal instrument has been duly executed.
G. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Ii . Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, there is no obligation on
any party to this Agreement to do any work not otherwise described herein, nor
as described herein, other than to complete the Work Plan study as described
II above. The only financial obligation of the Local Unit is to expend not more
than $50,000 of which $25 ,000 shall be reimbursed to the Local Unit by the
Agency according to the conditions of Section IV, (F) above in order to compelete said
Work Plan study, subject further, however, to paragraph 2 below:
I 2. In the event public access to any or all of the lakes within the Lake Riley
Chain of Lakes has not or cannot be obtained under conditions satisfactory to
all the parties hereto, prior to the completion of the Work Plan study
II described herein, than the Local Unit or the Agency can terminate this
Agreement at any time without incurring any additional financial obligations
hereby. In such an event, the Local Unit and the Agency shall agree to share
equally in all costs incurred to date in accordance with Section IV (F) above.
I3. Any additional Substate Agreement to be entered into for initiation and
implementation of all work and activities to be undertaken as identified in the
II Work Plan study shall be subject to the expessed approval of all parties hereto
including: the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the cities of
Eden Priarie and Chanhassen, the Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Minnesota Department of Nautural Resources . Such approval shall
II include the expressed approval for any further financial obligations to be
incurred by all local governmental units.
1-I. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT
IThis Agreement shall be effective on the date of execution as to encumbrance by
the Commissioner of Finance and shall remain in effect until March 31 , 1989
or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily
II fulfilled, or until terminated according to the conditions of Section IV (G)
2. , whichever occurs first.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
I this
II
M
• r
;`
Page 17 of 17.
I
. 42zhC;)"'\ ,-
. LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNME T MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY'
Co missioner —
I
Title
I
Date `3u'l,e----4U 9 / cr
7` Date g��--- —
Approved As to Form and I
Execution Approved As to Form and
Attorney e the
Attorney Gencral
By -----7;-$4—j7.,- _ill!idDl- B _1 f I
Authorize Title / G y ` �
Signature // Special Assistant
Attorney General
I
Date _ •---tt-1 q l SE' h_ p_A ,t, _ii i qt )-�--
--I
Date
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION I
.....l1L :.iUNi.1J
By
FEET 131.57F--- 1
1
Title —_M_ I
Date
I
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
•
ENCUMBERED I
. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
By ° 'M e°al
I
Title FEB 2 11989
I
Date
i
I
•
•
ms
Discussion items for the Council meeting on June 12th to Riley chain of lakes
restoration project
1. Lake Lucy Homeowner's Association organization and representation on project
' Dale Carlson, Co-chair
Eric Rivkin, Co-chair
Tom Hickey, Co-chair
Other volunteers -
Joe Morin, questionnaire for lake uses
' Mark and Cathy Sanda - Communications
Other Lake Homeowner's organization project representatives -
Ray Lewis - Lake Riley area
I 2. Public acceptance of the Lake Lucy public access
Getting public acceptance of a Lake Lucy access is conditional upon public confidence that
Lake Lucy will be cleaned up. We agree that the success of the whole project is highly
' dependent upon cleaning up the lakes starting with the headwaters. The public feels that
spending money on this project is worthwhile if we have confidence that our water quality
goals can be met. Results must not be purely experimental, but we require that the
' methods have a believable and reasonable degree of success.
Issues: Ongoing expenses and taxes to cover them
Not likely to pass Wetland Ordinance
Alt: Mechanical assists similar to ones used in BWCA might be cheaper but
definitely ecologically economically more feasable in the long run
Option that if all else fails, we can finance a lake Lucy restroration
Iindependently
3. Public acceptance of a Work Plan
Before getting public acceptance of a Work Plan, a process and a schedule that directly
' involves the lake users must be used to insure that revisions to the work plan will be
acceptable.
' Summary of concerns from the Lake Users meeting on June 6
Formation of an advisory committee
Legitimate part of process from now on
' Need reasonably more time
Watershed support and involvement which we have from Conrad
' Redefine water quality problems, objectives, and methods to
achieve those objectives
Public discussion of methods -on for the 14th or postpone when problems and
objectives are defined
Peer review of feasability of future work plan revisions
Monitoring of employed restoration methods by independent team
' Solicit input from Carver County Soil and Water Consery Dist
What's our deadline?
I
4. Project Advisory Committee To get public acceptance of a Work Plan, several thing s can take '
place. An advisory committee should be set up to technically review the Work Plan, its implementation
and monitoring, and evaluate watershed management techniques to make recommended changes in
a revised work plan to the MPCA. This should include but not be limited to:
I
Redefining water quality problems with the help of the questionnaire
Refining of the water quality objectives to align with lake user expectations and
I
feasability of attaining them
Serious consideration of more feasable alternatives that help acheive the new
objectives in a discussion group meeting open to the public
I
It would be a good idea for the Committee's recommendations to precede the EPA's
evaluation of the current work plan. Representatives from Lakes Riley and Lucy have
I
already been selected, our consultants, other experts as reviewers, as well as one council
member, could make up the Committee. Mark Tomasek has agreed to review any output of
the Committee. '
Extension for time has to be applied for by the Watershed Dist, which their board has to
approve. A formal extension of the sub-state agreement requesting more time, perhaps I
until the end of the year, needs to be sent to Mark Tomasek of the MPCA from the
Watershed Dist. to insure we don't lose the grant opportunity.
1
Enough Money for the Watershed District - do they have enough for consultants, peer reviews, and
meeting time to carry the process forward? Influencing factors: . '
Conrad says attorney advised him it may not be possible to spend any more money with
Barr on this project because there isn't enough to cover it.
I
Barr Eng. is expected to have public meetings included in their Work plan budget
5. Summary of meetings with Barr Engineering and Conrad Fishness of the Watershed
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
•
Informational meeting of lake users
IRiley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project
June 6, 1989 7pm Chanhassen City hall
IAgenda:
A.Introduction
Please sign the attendee list
IB.Why are we here
(Please feel free to help answer these and other reasons you may have)
An active process. Informed citizens must become involved if desired and attainable lake uses are to be
I
achieved.
What is the project really all about?
What stage is this project in?
I Why should we be concerned about our lakes?
Extent of involvement so far-
How many got chance to read work plan,familiar with any part of it?
Attended any Council meetings on the subject?
Were you polled earlier in the project to find out what you want?
Help ourselves understand possible causes of our lake problems
Help ourselves assess the practicality of our expectations
Can it be changed?How?
IUnderstand role of our consultants,various experts
C.A quick lake terminology primer
(I'm no expert but I'll do my best-feel free to ask questions as we go)
ID.Interpretations of the Work Plan from different sources
From myself
From Councilmembers present
I
From Watershed president
From others who evaluated the Work Plan
(Feel free to ask questions as we go)
I Items of concern so far expressed:
Does it meet anyone's expectations of water quality improvement?
What will really happen to my lake in Phase II of the project if we sat back
and did nothing?
I Are these affects permanent?
Is it real restoration?
Are there any detrimental effects?
What confidence is there that these techniques will improve water quality?
I Why aren't other water quality problems being targeted for improvement,
such as weed growth,muck depth,foul odors,poor fishing, that impair all major uses
of the lake?
Are there alternative techniques to solve those water quality problems?
IIf so, why aren't they incorporated in the Work Plan?
E.How to reach a consensus on water quality goals
I Do a questionnaire -Ray Lewis 4
A lake problem is a limitation on the desired uses by a particular set of users
Define the desired lake uses
Define the limitations on these uses
IDon't confuse symptom of problems with cause
F. Discuss possible means of achieving improved water quality
I G.Discuss appropriate response to strive to meet those goals
Letter to EPA, copies to MPCA, Barr Eng., City all lake residents
Plan of action involving lake residents
Type of lake user organization
I
representation
degree of formality
volunteers for participating throughout the project
IMeetings scheduled ahead
I.
— ue 1
Riley Chain of Lakes Users Survey
I
Your input into the Riley Chain of Lakes Restoration Project is very important. This I
questionnaire is intended to find out how you use the lakes, and to get your assessment
of the lakes' quality. This information is needed to ensure the success of the project.
Please provide your support by answering the questions below.
1. Indicate below which lakes you actively use (or live on). (Check all that apply). '
I actively use lake: I live on lake:
❑ Lucy ❑ Lucy
❑ Ann ❑ Ann
❑ Susan ❑ Susan
❑ Rice Marsh ❑ Rice Marsh
❑ Riley ❑ Riley
2. How many years have you actively used (or lived on) the lakes? (Check one only).
Y Y Y Y ( y)
❑ 0-5 years
I
❑ 5-10 years
❑ 10-15 years
❑ over 15 years
3. How would you rank the most important lake uses?
For each item below, write in the numbers (from 1-9). that best expresses your opinion:
1=Most important
2=Second most important
3=Third most important
Etc.
Fishing from shore
Fishing on the lake
Swimming
Water skiing
Motor boating
Sailing
Canoeing
Lake shore use (walking, jogging, wildlife observation, etc.)
Other
(please specify)
4. How would you rank the biggest quality problems?
For each item below, write in the numbers (from 1-9) that best expresses your opinion:
1=Biggest problem
2=Second biggest problem
3=Third biggest problem
I I Etc.
Reduced game fish population
Too many rough fish
Poor water clarity
Undesirable odors
Too many weeds in the lake
Too many weeds near shore
Too much algae
I I Mucky bottom
Other
(please specify)
II
5. Please indicate those areas where you have observed an increase in quality problems
over the years. (Please check all that apply).
❑ Reduced game fish population
❑ Too many rough fish
❑ Poor water clarity
❑ Undesirable odors
I ❑ Too many weeds in the lake
I ❑ Too many weeds near shore
❑ Too much algae
LI Mucky bottom
❑ Other
(please specify)
6. Is there storm sewer or road (driveway, sidewalk, etc.) runoff entering the lake near
your property?
❑ Yes
❑ No
7. Do you fertilize your lawn?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Page 2 I �
May 19, 1989
better inform residents of the projects being proposed by the rid
Watershed District .
Very truly yours, ( I
Conrad Fiskness -II
Chairman
RAH/632( 2) ZBDH If
cc : Mr. Raymond Haik
Barr Engineering � II
- II
I
f -
CITY OF
k CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director �-
DATE: June 20, 1989
SUBJ: Public Safety Statistics, April and May, 1989
IPlease find attached Public Safety statistics for the months of
April and May, 1989 . You will note that starting in April we are
providing complaint statistics as received by the Public Safety
Department. You will also note that there are no monthly reports
from the Fire Department. These reports will be forthcoming and
the delay has been the result of the addition and remodeling to
Ithe Fire Station and the subsequent move in.
Building
IDuring the months of April and May, the Building Division of
Public Safety issued 30 and 31 single family permits respec-
tively. As of May 31, 1989, a total of 138 single family permits
have been issued. This compares with a total of 130 single
family permits that were issued through May 31, 1988 . As you can
see, our record setting pace is continuing.
iAdditionally, permit revenue for the month of April totalled
$94,274. 00. In May, permit revenue was $65, 760 . 00 . To date,
I permit revenue totals $284, 482. 00. This compares with permit
revenue of $159, 048 . 00 as of May 31, 1988 .
i Police
1 During the months of April and May, the Public Safety Department-
Police Division responded to 322 and 394 calls for service
respectively. Total calls for service as of May 31, 1989 is
1 ,696 . This compares to 1, 767 calls through this same period of
1988.
Code Enforcement
During the month of April, the Code Enforcement Division fielded
32 written complaints . During the month of May, we fielded 38
written complaints and 24 verbal complaints .
I
1
i
4 1
IA
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY TIME CHART
MONTH:MAY MUNICIPALITY: CHANHASSEN CITY
TIME # OF CALLS FOR SERVICE I
12:00-01:00 AM 17
01:00-02 :00 11
02:00-03 :00 7
03 :00-04:00 6
04:00-05:00 3
05:00-06 :00 6
06:00-07 :00 5
07:00-08:00 12
08:00-09:00 21
09:00-10: 00 14
10:00-11:00 14
11:00-12 :00 21
12:00- 1 :00 PM 19
1:00- 2 :00 18
2:00- 3 :00 16
3 :00- 4 : 00 23
4: 00- 5:00 22
5: 00- 6:00 20
6:00- 7:00 13
7:00- 8 :00 22
8:00- 9:00 21
9:00-10 :00 23
10:00-11 :00 28
11 :00-12: 00 32
394
1
I
I
IDISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC , CRIMINAL AND PARKING FINES
FOR THE MONTH OF )1e. . 198?
IIMunicipalities Vendor # Amount Included $ for Parking
r
Irty 156 1 /34 - •
hanh ssen City 151
haska.City
170 yso. =7 3 -
..,/SO .c"o
1ologne City 171
/3 38 $
Hamburg City 407 . .. F. 9 $
lorwood City 746 �j. 7
ictoria City 990 M-6 7 $
aconia City 958 ?'9, f
itet0wn City 9q1 -1/-907. q 9
$ 'Stood
Young America City 992 ‘C,
0c, $ l,f,. 0 C
tw Germany City . 743 '
fye.r City 665 1/ - 7 ( $ .
Hollywood Trap. 404 I $
tket0 Twp. 560 ..57.17/. /g !
San Francisco Twp. 986
lQ. a c
litertown Twp. 988 .
' $
linton• Twp. 56
$
Dahlgren Twp. 238
$
1nden Twp. 150
$
1(
ncock Twp. 392 $ .
asks Twp. 154
Ilconta Twp. . 987 $
Young uc rics Twp. 989
$
Itals 3s/. 7 .
I .
c.
,t:9, 6 . 'Cr-, ,el
I • - ,pOyce A. VanEyll
• ourt Administrator •
t/
IN
CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY
II
BUILDING INSPETIONS DEPARTMENT
INSPECTIONS - 1989
II-
INSUL- FIRE- BASE SEPTIC
MONTH FOOTINGS FRAMING BACKFILL ATION DRYWALL PLACE SLAB PLBG HTG SYSTEM MISC. FINAL TO DATE
JANUARY 39 80 16 40 26 24 91 86 4 33 36 475
FEBRUARY 19 93 12 59 48 16 128 103 1 22 75 576
MARCH 49 69 20 44 25 26 132 115 43 76 599 II
APRIL 75 82 - 31 - --35-- ---24 18 -1.14---116------4- --44— 42---- -----------585 --
MAY 113 , 112 30 41 39 39 197 175 11 43 119 919 II
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER 1
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
IITotal 295 436 109 219 162 123 , 662 595 20 185 348 3,154
. 1
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL O TOTAL MAY JUNE TO DATE II
Building 13,104.00 13,342.50 41,231.00 50,988.00 33,325.80 151,991.30
Plan Check 8,463.08_ 8,287.88 26,712.21 33,091.17 20,383.25 96,937.59
Plumbing 2,754.00 2,500.00 1,881.50 4,889.50 3,302.50 15,327.50
II
Heating 2,124.88 2,042.00 2,004.20 5,305.75 8,748.89 20,225.72
Septic I
TOTAL 26,445.96 26,172.38 71,828.91 94,274.42 65,760.44 284,482.11
•
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBETR DECEMBER II
Building _
Plan Check
II
Plumbing
Heating
II
Septic
~
TOTAL
II
II
I
II
II
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
IApart. Total Number of
Year Single-Family Duplex Townhomes Complex Dwelling Units
I1980 41 9 10 99
I1981 22 1 0 24
t1982 19 1 0 21
I1983 60 4 9 104
1 1984 108 17 6 166
1985 189 38 20 18 265
I
1986 246 8 8 262
I 1987
289 2 32 323
I1988 352 26 34 412
units units
I1989* 138 62 200
units
I
As of May 31, 1989
I
I
I
I
I
NI
^A•— II. MM. Mil Mil Mill iii 111111DEIFORI:REN ONO OM MI OM MOO MOM ONO Milli OMO
ACTIVITY
MONTH: May 19 89
9
Verbal Complaints 24
DATE
COMPLAINT LOCATION ACTION TAKEN
05-23-89 Blocked sidewalk Downtown 1/A
05-17-89 Noise ( jet-skis) Lotus Lake 5/F-Advised of Laws
05-19-89 Lack of lawns Chanhassen Vista 5/F-Advised of Laws
05-22-89 Parking problems Lotus Lake 6 ,5/F-Enforcement
05-22-89 Parking problems Lotus Lake 615/F-Enforcement
05-10-89 Parking Laredo Lane 1/A
05-22-89 Odor - fertilizer Great Plains Boulevard 6-Investigated/F-All O.K.
05-19-89 Odor - fertilizer Great Plains Boulevard 6-Investigated/F-All O.K.
05-19-89 Traffic Lake Lucy Road 6-Add ' l info requested from
CCSO 05-22-89 Odor (Mulch facility) 5 & 41 Area 6-In &6-Investigated/F-Henn. Co.
Advised of Problem
05-22-89 Odor (Mulch facility) 5 & 41 Area 6-Investigated/F-Henn. Co.
Advised of Problem
05-22-89 Odor (Mulch facility) 5 & 41 Area 6-Investigated/F-Henn. Co.
Advised of Problem
05-22-89 Odor (Mulch facility) 5 & 41 Area 6-Investigated/F-Henn. Co.
Advised of Problem
05-09-89 Storage Hesse Farm Area 4/A
05-01-89 Beachlot Issue Lake Riley 2/B
05-23-89 Illegal Structure Del Rio Drive 2/D
05-12-89 Litter Lake Ann Park 5/E
05-13-89 Abandoned Vehicle Conestoga Trail 6-Referred to CCSO/C
05-05-89 Debris Great Plains Boulevard 1/D
CODE:
1. Advisory Letter A. Voluntary Compliance G. No Further Action
2. Certified Letter/Notice B. Warning Tag Issued H. Other
3 . Phone Call Made C. Citation Issued
4 . In-Person Meeting D. Referred to City Attorney
5 . Complainant Advised E. Court Referred
6 . Other F. Action Pending
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
1 FROM: Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director
DATE: May 26, 1989
1 SUBJ: Code Violation Statistics
1 Per our discussion , starting in May there will be monthly reports
with specific data. Attached please find the report for April .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MN MN MN MO NM IM I= MI • I I= I. 1.1 .11 I I. I. •
Police Calls for service
Chanhassen Public Safety
600
500 _.._._._._._._._.._.._._. ._._.__._. r
400 ._._-._-
Sao - _ _ _. ._:
. : 0 .... . . _
. .._._._ :•
y
° .:-: • 0.
100 - � �/. �. .....i. i ••::
o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MI 1989 CALLS FOR SERV vl 1888 CALLS FOR SERV : : : 1987 CALLS FOR SERV
Calls/Month—Yearly Comparisons
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AREA REPORT
ICCS02 PERIOD ENDING:04-30-89 FOR:Chanhassen City PAGE: 1
Description This Year Last Year
I Current YTD Current YTD
Month Month
Assault 5 9 3 7
I Burglary 0 6 3 8
Drug Violation 2 7 4 6
Disturbing Peace 12 41 15 40
I Traffic/Alcohol Related 14 47 8 18
Misc. Criminal 5 27 9 20
Property Damage/Vandalism 5 30 11 34
I Robbery 0 0 0 0
Sex Crime 0 0 1 2
Theft 14 60 19 81
Uttering/Bad Check 0 0 1 2
IVehicle Theft 0 1 3 6
TOTAL CRIMINAL 57 228 77 224
I ***********************************************************************
Abuse/Neglect 4 9 1 5
Domestic 3 15 8 20
I Missing Person 5 22 13 29
Prowler 0 0 2 6
Suspicious Activity 7 36 11 49
I Alarm 17 59 15 62
Open Door 3 5 1 4
Fire 12 33 8 28
I Medical 16 63 12 44
Business/Residential Check 3 22 4 26
Animal 29 111 51 135
I Boat & Water 0 0 0 0
Civil Process Service 0 0 0 0
Warrant Service 4 8 0 1
I Transports 2 3 0 2
Assist Other Agency 7 13 2 8
Gun Permits/Acquire 2 9 0 0
I Gun Permits/Carry 0 0 0 0
Gun Permits/Transfer 0 0 0 0
Unlock Vehicle/Building 31 94 30 111
I Motorist Assist 11 70 10 73
PD Accident 6 89 17 102.
PI Accident 2 18 3 14
I Fatal Accident 0 1
128
0 0
Traffic Misc 35 8 26 124
Misc. Non-Crim 66 266 72 248
I TOTAL NON-CRIM 265 1074 286 1091
************************************************************************
TOTAL REPORTED 322 1302 363 1315
I
1
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY TIME CHART
MONTH:APRIL MUNICIPALITY: CHANHASSEN
TIME # OF CALLS FOR SERVICE
12: 00-01 : 00 AM 15
01:00-02: 00 14
02:00-03 :00 12
03 : 00-04:00 4
04:00-05:00 0 '
05:00-06: 00 4
06:00-07: 00 6
07:00-08: 00 8
08 :00-09:00 15
09: 00-10:00 9
10: 00-11 :00 14
11: 00-12 :00 14
12 :00- 1 : 00 PM 15
1 :00- 2 : 00 14
2 :00- 3 : 00 13
3 : 00- 4: 00 16
4: 00- 5:00 19
5:00- 6:00 15
6:00- 7: 00 18
7 :00- 8 : 00 21
8 : 00- 9:00 26
9:00-10 : 00 16
10 : 00-11 :00 16
11:00-12:00 18
322 '
1
1 , DISTRIBUTION OF TR FI'LC , C:R!.•iINAL AND PARKIN(; PINES
FOR 'ilIi MONTH OF i <' 19 8 l"
1 J
Municipalities Vendor. # 2;mount Included $ for Parking
ICarver City 156 ` ,, 27�=-, I $ -.-qo
Chanhassen City 151 /01-/„/, c_'g $ /7 -I. 01) ,
Chaska. City 170 i , a, sx, ,5'' $ `-0 . 0 6
1 Cologne City 171 R`) ,C'' _-- M$ O - c O
Hamburg City 407 1/61, CO $ /76 . 0 0 .
• City 746 /E // KS— $ /o • O c)
Victoria City 990 --/ll, Z`, $ /6 . c”
Waconia City _ 958 bq I7 7( $ /;i,.) . 0 <)
Watertown City
Young America City 992 S'
New Germany City 743 !Ci' ,
Layer City 665 - , , ,, , _- , Y $
Hollywood Twp. 404 $
1 Laketown Twp. 560 I . -?/ I $ 4, 0 O
4 '
San Francisco Two. 986
1 $
Watertown Twp. 988 $
Benton• Twp, 56 $
Dahlgrer. Twp. 238 $
i Camden Twp. 150 $
IIHancock Twp. 392 $
Chaska Twp. 154 $
1 Waconia Twp. 987 $
Young America Twp. gag
1
Totals (-‘ , )—Cj 3;-,l
1
C 1%r :r 6 . 4:(,:, ,c?�
I /% o1Yce u�
A. V� 'yi1, (I'y._ .
C Court Administrator
Ioacocc: COMMODMODC000100 OD • CB •
u0 .0 ..1 UD uD NO NO No No No .) No up No • !_.!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! Iiii ! ll • --I
0 C) 0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 • 2>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 1
I
CU 64 0 C3 64 C>I C4 64 C4 CA t.,4 CNi 64 0 • H
• ;I
c4 m 4> 4. M M Cu 64 M M M C4 C4 64 • Z
ON M Cu Cu Cu :4 0, 0, 64 64 C., CN ON CO •
trj -,1 '0 '0 OS 0 •• :A CO ,3 -.I LI Os 0 • ,it,
. . 1 ili : iliiii • 1
60000605060060 • .
o
i-‘ o o NJ , o o o . o c o.c)• o • .
I
• • ,
. 1
Laaaaat_ aaaaa L L • n f 1
• 0 1
•0 C.'. Cri C.f 0 0 si, 0 H H 7 H NO CI • d t !
00 ,3 ,30000000000 . • M t 1
00 ,3 ,30000 -t. .6. -P000 • I
• i i
I
! !
1 • i
" _.-.4 7 r ,- H H -4 • r 1 .
(-
H H 2,7) 7.! • H 1 i
:> 5> 2: =1' I> 2> 2> 5i 0 0 0 2>2> 3> • --1 0 ;
, 7 7 Z Z 7" 7: li 7 0 '"-"; 0 7 "! I • xi 5
' •
C) n n n C) 0 Cl n n n n • r io
1 77i t ! 1 I 1 I II ) • M .
, ± ± H H 7 7 7 a 7 a H , • 1
, Er; ,-, a.: a o o m o 7 73 T.I D to ti i • 1
i .- :9 r: c c I c ,-, o o 7., 1 i . • i I
o H m m HE H C3 H 65 L1 61 iz CB X ' • 1
-i2! 3! 2! -I Z T..01 00 H -.1 LI . • !
• I
Mi "0 ' M 1 01 0' if) 0 M d • I I
• I
H H H H H H H H H H • 1 I
ozzoo ozzz c • i n
r- • o E-t; GI M • I 71
• . -I
1 1 3> 0
--I >
7 ,, en !ft :K rn ,1 7> en ell r -n on 7 • 2!
H7
,
. :: £ ZDIH7C)DHFIHC • D. I 0 C
" 7 7 r, -i Hi H "., 1' 7 7 Z=-> '1 • a 1 z pi
rrozZH CO ,.....e-tz. a ._Hrzzm • rri 1 ",
. -
,... :9 CO Ll I> 1 2! 71 H!7 a M M -< •
. • ,-, , H CB
N'. Z Z. r- z -i. PI Z H • r-
.. . . a co.. . z. >u r.,!.-1 • Ca ',,-4 ,7
m r- ni L...., Him • 61 ' OHZ
01 D. tr.1 L_ H CB L. ?ill D 73. 1-.1 •
-i CZ X D 00 L --i CZ CD a C) CD CD • ■ ! s,0 -C
7 r- 1> :71 1> 0 --I CI Z r, 7 7 I" 7C: • 0 i "
7 C Z7 -c 1-4 z co x z± 1> • -h
H m D 1 • 7
H .7.
0 Z rn ti 0 ... 7-1 • -. H ! p1 (5)
in 7
X --i 7 D • 0 CI 7.1 M
3 Cl '7 trl 7 • -f• 1 0 H I
=.5 is, •
T. ' • -1 'f H • I
" Z • -
,...! • ..... 04 d CD
• 0 ,
a •
co-< nri
• '0 -o
• CD 1>
• Hi --i
• IZI a
• M
Z
--I
• cp. H
.4 .4 4 .4 .4 .4 .4 4 .4 .4 .4 -4.4 4 • CB
\ \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ .„ \ • 7 H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • :1' ttf
I
H . >-> H H f-, i.-, •
\ \ \, ..„ \ \ \ \ \ \ ‘, \ \ \ • 73
up .1 .1 u0 .0 .1 .0 .1 NO U0 ,G s3 ,i) ,3 • d '
, ... en rn en nn rn nn rn • ;7, I ;
L' 6.4 (5 4 ,...) tO M M MI M MI C4 6.1 M • CD I
Cu H .0 .0 -. ...1 W 1.4 -.. -..1 -4 .0 U0 LU • .;4 I
• I
•
• ;2
11
OZ772> D00- 7, DDTTO • 77 .
C.0 7 H H a a H H 3 a 3 H ;-4 H • H (--.1
. . :-: ,•: :- , . :- m - r- rt7117! ,-7, • 7! III
z 7 7 7 7! H H H '", r' 7 •
03 7 7 Z Z ZZZ11 •
0 7> 2.> , D D • 7 i
Z Z Z - Z Z ' • I
I
..,
• I i
■
f..,) t,) f 3 t.) '3 P.) t,) IQ t..)I Q !,.) N.) t..) t.) • 0 li
e, eTi en en f CP .F, ,r1 cn cil 'P fq ,r 0 • 73 I ;
00000000000000 • 7 ! I
; • 7
' • .
03 r,,: ,,::: cri CO co M M co CO 0) M cr, m • to. ?.-
;,) rf w :,, ,..; !J %1 M M M ',.) 61 6.1 M • T !!`..-
0• H ,0 ,0 -..: -.I 04 64 -.! -. -.I NI NO. i.1 • D• -i
• H 7
....
• D ,
• c-5 c..
. • n ; \
. ,..., :
,,.
. H
to
• :41 \
• -4 3 ‘C.
. of
--- --..---., -,.---.----
ME
MIN 011i ION 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1011 IMO 1111 1111 1111 11111 1111 1111 1111 1111
S ; 10Vd
6F8 OSE NYW1AIdS 6F8 68/TT/V 9NNV11 'xnAinavm V9OIA ONIAOW. OIdNVNI 0006W TOO-BTF1100-68
818 oqz: Holvoa 8E8 68/TT/Jr a ANOOANO 48-ylays V9OIA ONTAOW-<YIJAVNI 0006W T00-2SW.00. 68
210 OSE ONIN 2a..1 68/11/t. 1 sAwvr 'NOSNHOr VlOIA oNinow- WAAVNI 0006W TO0-90F2F00- 68
LF8 OSE .NF. LEB 6 /I.I./tr 1" slwvr ' UINV1 VlOIA ONIA0W-3IJAVNI 0006W TOO-S021.5.00-68
TSE OSE il'NOS:-.FMNV TSE 68/TT/V V Aalavaa 4 TlIM VlOIA ONIA014-0I1NVNI 0006W TOO-U:82E00-6B
ISE OSE i'NOSNDFINV TSE 68/IT/V N IavN 'VANAHS 113 ONIA0W- OI.INVNI 0006W TOO-ET8LE00-68
TT8 OSE OSNOINUNAH TT8 68/IT/t7 V OIVNO 'NASNV1 VlOIA ONIAOW. OIJAVN1 0006W TOO-SFV1100-68
ME OSE l'NOSNAUNV TSE 68/01/V W MOTS "AINHOSNW4 VlOIA ONIA0W-OI:IAVNI 0006W TOO-OTELF00-68
ISE OSE il'NOSNAQNV TSE 68/01/Jr d JAAr 'N01100 VlOIA ONIAOH- 0IJAVN1 00063 TOO. 60ELF00-69
4,
FE8 OSE mmoa FEB 68/0T/tr N Nvni 'NVNI V1OIA ONTAOW-3IJAVNI 0006W TOO-V022.F00-60
0+78 OSE NOS10 0i78 68/60/i". 4 ONINNVd-OIANVNI 00T6W TOO-TEW.F00-68
',... 0178 OSE NO 810 OK3 68/60/4" 'oo liaAao aolow UNON ONINNV& DIlAval 00T6W TOO. FEVLE00-68
ISE OSE N'NOSNAaNV TqE. 68/60/ir 1 Iaor 'NMONQ VlOIA ONIAOW- OIJAVUI 0006W T00-OSLF00-68
808 on,.. Ran 808 68/60/V a NHor 'NOS1AN NAHIO-SW• 31AAVNI oo6Fr TOO. TOP2e.00. 68
21':13 ) NI1WVO 2Z8 66/80/i> r NA11VM 43Nni V1OIA ONIAOW. DIAAVNI 0006W TOO-BEE2F00-68
808 OSE QUA BOB 68/80/V 1 NINNAd '90Q VlOIA ONIA0W-31HLWNI 0006W TOO-LEVLF00-68
lz, 2-28 OSE- - ONI•1 2528 68/80/V W NAHdOISINNO 'Nmoma VlOIA ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W 100-F0E2.200-6B
218 OSE ON:DI LE8 68/80/tr M 81119 'a:slid V33 L( ONIA0W-3IJAVNI 0006H T00-66ELE00-68
l' 218 OSE ONIN 25:8 68/80/V 9 TT*anao 'an daNSIA VlOIA ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W TOO-T0E2.F00-68
IP' LES OSE OWN LFB 68/80"- r A1NVN ''IM01 V9OIA ownow-otAlval 0006W TOO-E022.F00-68
1
808 OSE Ran 808 68/80/t7 r NI'-ON 'NOSNVH V9OIA ONIA0W- 3I1AVNI 0006W E00-8EV2F00- 68
2.28 OSE ONn LF8 68/80/ir M GONNAM 'HsnefuNovno odaa irlimv-INn-a3III1 oo9Ea TOO-VILE000-68
.,,
OSE 68/20/V 41.NIV1dWOO 1VWNOA -HINOM anssi-II -lJaHl 9zom Too-Ft0000t-68
2E8 OSE NI1WVO LES 68/LO/V W VIA1AS '111313 J') VlOIA ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W T00-8VEL200-68
z,
LE8 OSE NI1WVO /e".8 68/20/t, r nvN 4aaNva V1OIA ONIA0W-OIAAVUI 0006W TOO- M7E2200-68
2.E8 OSE NI (WV ,..: 1 68/90/V 1 UPAAOIW ' INOWON ONINNVd-3I1AVNI 00I6W TOO-LL-E2F00-68
' irF8 33 11.1NN9U t5:13 331/ V NIANV 4:MN° N10-.E31,!- 3IJAVNI oothEr T00-08FLE00-68
t,128 OSE 1.1.ANNAQ frE8 68/90/t, V NIANV ('IV NAH1O-SW- 0:11AWil. ood,Er 100-8212.200-68
1-'
*7E8 OSE I.1ANN3Q +/FS 68/90/ V NIANV 'NQVNO NANIO-SW-OINAVNI 000Er TO0-6LELF00-68
6T8 OSE S110d 6T8 68/90/V 1 ( (VI 'aaays 1SNIVOV S3WIN3-NAH10 66ELW T33O-133IL100-68
6T8 OSE SILOd 6T8 68/90/V 1 3Iva 'HAQVS ::-JAIID-SW- 0I-JAVNI. 006,Er TOO- E8TLF00-68
8E8 OSE .124SNI13S 8E8 68/90/t, I vavaava '93:90-1 V1OIA ONIAOW. 0iiNVNI 0006W T00-26ELF00-68
8E8 OSE PASNI1AS 8E8 68/90/V W V101 'AIAAMIs>1 VlOIA ENIAOW OIAAVN1 0006H TO0-96:::2F00-68
2E8 OSE NI1WVO 2E8 68/90/0 W QQOL 'NOSIPET3ON3 VlOIA ONIAOW• 0I1JVNI. 0006W TOO-SVE/ 00-68
;<z.
8E8 OSE PASNI1AS 8E8 68/SO/tr A NONI19 'NNSSNNa VlOIA ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W TOO. L2FLF00-68
:.7 4E8 OSE NI1WVO LEO 68/SO/tr N 03NVN 'HIVIGWOSIS VlOIA ONIA0W-OIAAVNI 0006W TOO-WELE00. 613
LES OSE NI1WVO 2E8 68/SO/t, S NNVW '31301 V1016 ONIA0W-3IJAVNI 0006W TOO-if:0E2100-6B
2E8 OSE NI1WVO 2n3 68/SO/tr I SA1NVH0 'ONONQN3-rtill 33 IOTA ONIA0W-0IiAVN1 0006W TOO-FtrELF00-68
cz LE8 OSE Ni (14 2E8 6(1/ 0/1' I NAA3IS 'NANONON VHOIA ONIA0W-3IANVNI 0006W E00-.ti.t1E2100-68
rz
LE8 OSE NJ (WV LEO 60/ 0/V 1 NBANIS 'NIJNOMON VlOIA ONIAOW• OIAAVN1 0006W TOO-VtrELE00-68
oz" J7178 OGE I 'saaio
LES Ovs 633/V0/1' a r l
/VO/V a swv 'aosnvw vioIn ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W T00-9002100-68
a;
SE Ni.N1WVO 2E0 68/trO/tr 1 AWE) 'N3OVN A ONIA0W-NON-3INJVNI 00E6W TOO-We:Li:00-68
.9;
6E8 OSE NVW1AIdS 610 68/VO/V N NVIISINHO 'NOSNV1 A ONIA0W-NON-0I-IAVNI 00E6W 100-9IFLF00-66
Ol 6F8 OSE NVW1AIdS 618 68/trO/tr N NVIISINN3 'NOSHV1 v-loin ONIA0W-OIAAVal 0006W T00-'22.21100-60
GI 6FB OSE NVW1AIAS 61-0 60 V(/t, N VI (I IV '1U N l O -0
VNNIAN VOIA NIA0WI7JAVNI 0006W TOO-WF.2.F00-68
vq
FE8 OSE N9a0a FEB 68/10/V a AANNOS ' 193M01 V10IA ONIA0W-3L 1AVNI 0006W TOO-FLELF00-68
ci
zL, FEB OSE N9a0a FEB 68/00/V a NO! 'NAWINN VlOIA ONIA0W-0I.JAVNI 0006W TOO-ELF-2.200-68
■1, FE8 OSE NAa0a FEB 68/FO/V G OIVNO 'INVW V9OIA ONIA0W-3INAVNI 0006W TOO-ILFLE00-68
°15
9E8 OSE W.:WSIIIM 9E8 60/FO/t, N ANVO 'callonw VlOIA ONIA0W-3IJAVH1 0006W TOO-FFILM). 69
g FEB OSE N3Q0a FEB 68/EO/V V NI9dV721:19 '930VW viol() ONIA0W-3IAAVNI 0006W T00- 2 9F2.5:00-68
' L ... . .. .... . . . . . .. ... .. . . t. . , . .... .
0
i IN3aI3OV 1V30 aINO 1VN3II1 MOD a:ANNA:330 ( I u, 1.s13 . 4.1-sc(1 ) AWN 1V)01 II1[
---- dA3INAO V aaoo t NOTIVII3
-S---.- 3.101:1 906NO
68/0F/3, [IL 68/T0/0
(- aTao AU MINOS Et ONIISIl NOIIVITO
INS WINVdAQ S4ANINAH13 AINnoo a3navo
IA-ASSOd
6B/ET/S INIVa '
JEOII3
. _
•
9 : 10Vd
• 83 083 VNOSUMNV TS3 63/ /t I NA6•IVN 'NAHOAN VIOIA ONIAOW. 0.11MHI 0006W T.00-1 SY.!LEO06@
6F8 OSZ NVW1AidS 6E8 68/9t/V V NA:AHIVN 'SANHOO VIOIA ONIAOH- OIA.WW 0006H 100-V3ELF00-69
E38 083 NAUOU F38 68/91/V. 1 !w() M' 'IS'1M IISOd:M/U111Il'USIW 6T9Ed 1 00 166E000-68
L38 083 NI1WVO 238 68/91/V N 1NAlOr 'NVW:1100 i10 101100-.N. 1-1INAror TOOEW I00-286F000-68
■''
083 083 NIIWVO L38 68/8T/j 11100WW SIU-SW-30VAd a• ilsia OFOEN 300-I2E4F00-68
L38 083 NI1WVO 4e8 63/ t/t7 M SVWOHI '31100WW SIa-SW. A0VAd QMISIOL OFOE N TOO. 1:85.2200••68
,
E38 0'.:13 N:1110/1 238 68/St/V 0 TiAssm 4.1..AVNN V1OTA ONIA0W- OIAM:91 0006W TOO-EZELE00-68
,,
,.:n 083 NI1WVO 138 68/8T/V r VSSI UAW filVHEMA..J. MAdd HAHIO-8W• OIAAWAI oo6Er TOO-IVE1M)..68
■c6 248 083 NIIWVO 438 68/8I/V r VSSI1AW 'IIVHSV&1. NOINd V10IA ONIA0W-OIAMUI 0006W TOO-OVEL200. 68
/38 083 NI1WVO 138 68/8I/V V 108V0 'NOIHI V.10 IA ONIA0W- OIAMW. 0006W TOO-317E2200• 68
438 083 NI '!NE) /48 68/8t/V '1 NVA?:-.1 'SIAVH1 8:1H1O-SW-0Ii.AW11 oo6Er TOO-EVELF00-68
, 238 083 NIIWVO 238 68/8T/V N NVAH 4sInval kflOIA omInow- aIJAval 0006W T00-8VE1E00-68
238 083 NIIWVO L38 68/ST/V 3 NVA>.111 'NOSNHOr VlOIA ONION• 0.11.1al 0006W TOO-VVE2Y00 68
NACIOg F38 68/ /V V NHVW ' II:TA !ISOd::M/MAIIII°11SIW 6T9F.A COO. T66F000. 68
L38 083 NIIWVO 230 68/St/V. S Aoal 4irrod 1 ownmwm Nonull 90TVW 800-T06E000-68
.
le, /60 083, NI1WVO 238 68/ i:/V • A081 4invd HAHIO-SW• 0:i:-1. Vdi oo6sz:r voo. TO6F000-68
L38 - 083 -NI1WVO - /38 68/8I/V N -TavHoIs4 -4s3na - HAHIO-SW-OIAMdl oothEr FOO-TO6E000-68
L38 O NI1WVO /38 68/8I/V N IAVHOIW 4stimi 9NISS9SSOd - NonoIl VOTVW ZOO. TOO6F00-60
138 083 NINVO 438 68/i?. /ti N 1M•OIW 'ssmi rama-sw-amov-ival ocy-3Er TOO. T006E00-68
lev 3T8 - 083 - KAIPIA 3TO 68/VT/V r fINVHOPI 'NOWNV knoxn ONIA0W-OIAAWAI 0006W TO0-6FV4E00-68
238 oq.if., NI1WVO L38 68/VI/V V alkmmi 4811Im vi•ln MIAOW- :)I :1. 0006W 100- 2EELF00-68
L30 083 NI1WVO L38 68/VI/V r AWMOAHI 4u1wAom V10IA ONIA0W-0I.JAVH1 0006W 300-8FELF00-66
ig:
,•.- L38 OSZ - NI1WVO 438 68/VT/V r .R10110--1H1 i:Tawma VlOIA ONIA0W-OIdAVNI 0006W TOO-OEFLE00-68
1z,
4E8 086 ONIN 4E0 68/VI/t' 1 miwzns 41Nnoow VlOIA ONIA0W-0.11.1VH1 0006W TOO- 33E4F00• 68
LEO 083 ONIN 4E8 68/ti:/F' 1 AaNAI 4sNnmo V10IA ONIAOW. 3IAAWAI 0006W '1:00-i: 2.000-o8
) 238 083 - NI 1V L30 68/VT/V r TWHOIW '1"IS1VM A ONIA0W-NON-OIJAVal 0046W T00-1F84200-68
' L38 083 NI1WVO 238 68/VI/t' W ANNA1NMVa '13aVNHO8 n ONIA0W-NON. OIAMdl 0036W T00-0E82.200-68
2Z8 083 NI1WVO 238 68/F']/F' W HITVA 'AAHHdWOH A 8NIA0W-NON. 0.11AVH1 002.6W 00' 61'3
' /30 082, NINVO L38 68/VI/V F) amva '311H n ONIA0W-NON-:]1 AMal 0066W T0O-1032.200-68
808 0'16 ;MIN 808 68/VT/V S NAAAIS 411-3la89 VlOIA ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W T00-8031.200-68
438 083 NI1WV0 6613 68/VI/V. 4LNIV1dWOO 1VWHO1 1,./0--00 . T.83S-I.E11 LET21 TO0-9T0000I .60
6E8 086 NVW1:1I..AS 61.8 68/VT/V - 'INI9 1dW00- 1VW801 Nisna-wo-lovviva .10Nd VET3d TO0-810000T-68
830 083 INSN11.1S 838 68/F'1:/F' 1. M3WINV 'NVWdVHO n. tov NMONNNO-8 .1.] 9 0008V 1O0-EV-8E000. 68
168 083 NJ. WOO /38 68/FT/V W siwr 4>118898 HAH1.0-SW. OIJAV7A1 0062r TOO-VIELF00-08
18:- F30 083 N3U08 [68 68/FT/V 3 vi: WVd 'HIIWS 9101A ONIA0W- OIAAVH1 0006W Too-oeuyoo•68
268 026 NI1WVO 668 60/ET/V Avry 'HONIS VlOIA ONIAOW. OI.A.MI 0006W TOO. 64'F 1100-68
L30 083 NI1WVO 230 68/F:1:/F' 1 .< :i :L: 4>AAAAAHO V10IA ONIA0W-0I1AVNI 0006W F00-2.6TLE00-60
l' 468 083 NI1WVO 260 68/FT/V 1 AONIO 4>J1A23AH0 UAHIO-SW. OIAAVNI ooc6Er 600. 6614E00-68
ez
1.313 083 NI1WVO 468 61]/[1./F' 1 ION[3 'NAAAAH3 A ONIA0W-NON- 3IAJW11 0036W TOO- T61:6E00-68
/zz
668 083 Ni NYC) 130 68/FT/V A '1SINAa 4NNna vioin ONIA0W-3IJAVd1 0006W T00-8614E00. 68
iz
oz L38 023 NI1WVO 2.613 68/['1:/F' :9 NIAAN 'NVWSNIN V10IA ONIA0W-OIAMH1 0006W TOO-0614E00-68
6 838 083 INSNI1AS 838 613/[ /1- 1 AIOHVW 4-rivil VlOIA ONIAOW-3IAA931 0006W 1 O0-9TE2E00-68
61
038 083 INSNI-138 838 68/EI/V W Nwins 'NOS-IMO ONINaVd-OIAMHI 0016W TOO. LTELE00-68
LI
91 61:8 083 .1...M:1.1 3E0 68/c::1:/F' V ANVAU 4I9A8A VlOIA ONIA0W-0I1A9>11 0006W 100-0 182.1'00-"6F1
Gt. 868 083 .1:9881 :35 838 68/3T/V .1 SVWOH1 'NAOVH 8NI99Vd-3IAM91 00T6W T00-6TE4E00-68
et
1338 083 INSNITAS 068 68/3I/V N Hai HIVN 'NOSNAH VlOIA ONIA0W- oIimal 0006W I00-80E9.100. 68
let
z■ 838 023 INSNITAS 838 60/3T/F' H svlonoa 'NIAd v-loIn ONIA0W-0IAAWAI 0006W T00-20E1E00-68
II 6T8 083 SILL),:) 6TB 68/i::r/t, '3 1NAONIA 'ONAHOW VlOIA ONIAOW• OIJAWAI 0006W T00-803LE00-68
.
o6t1
E38 083 N:MOU F38 68/TT/V V 1MHOIW '031WHOS A ONIA0W-NON-OIJAW11 0036W 1 00-31EL100-68
-6 -
"F3 0 08e, 8,11308 238 68/TI/V V '1:39831w 'OAIWHOS V.10IA ONIA0W-OIA39al 0006W T00-TIELF00-68
0 IN:MI30V .I.Y3E'I a'[9[) 1VHAIll 11103 TAHwxyl ( !. 1.,5ALJ. '1.sel > AWVN 1V9AII1 Jam .4: N0IIV110
1 :. --- :-.1A3.11.10 --- 31Va 1099113
I ,
68/0E/V 03. 68/10/V
UPAO AE a31908 60 08I1611 N0II9II0
INAWI9Vd3a S4iJINAHS A.LNOOC) 97An9Vo
: VU ' 1A-1SSOd
A1
130110
_ _ ___ _.
MI Mg 11.11 ME 11.11 111111 ME UM NM ME OM MN .111 M IIIIII MN 11111 ME MI
1111 MI 1111 MB 1111 1111 1=11 1111 IIMI IIII 1111 IIIII 1111 1111 1111 MI EN NM MO
2 tA0Vd
.
1 T8 OGE OSA3IaaNAH TI8 68/S8/V r• MAWNV 'OIAVANAU VlOIA ONIAOW. 3IAdVal 0006W TOO- i7,E8t.F00-68
6E8 OSe; WAlAIdS 6F8 68/qe:/i., d lAwa 'AA ! vloin ONIAOW• Ca.iAVal 0006W 100-969LE00-68
6F8 O' NVW1AIdS 6E8 68/SE/9 V AOH1 'SIVNVW311 V1OIA ONIAOW. 01: 1.jwit 0006W TOO-G692.E00-68
2.9E AGE NOSIONAR 2VE 68/9E/9 4INIV1dW00 1VWHOA aNn dilnim +4E)- 3ii.JVNJ oof= TOO. E.E0000T-68
EEO OSE N3UOU EE8 68/9E/9 d NAAAIS 'HAOaVA V10IA ONIA0W-01AAVal 0006W E00-9TILE00-68
- 6T8 OSE NVW1AidS 63 68/9E/9 it aInva '30IA 10I0 ONIA0W-3IAAVal 0006W TOO-•0ELLE00• 68
, 6E8 OGE NVW1AIdS 6EB 68/9E/9 W 31,INV 4s.invao vicar) ONIAOW. 3i1AVal 0006W i00 '6 TLL0068
j
17, EE0 08F; NAU0a 2E8 68/TE/9 W HdASOr 4NATTINVA ONINaVd-OIJAVal 0016W TOO-OTLLE00-68
I c,
EE8 OGE NAaoa FES 68/EE/9 3 NV1Q 41aNwig9a1IH ONIAaVd. OIAJVal 00I6W TOO-TILLE00-68
l1-9 FEB ()fl ; N1UOU £ 8 68/FE/9 V nor 4NNVW1A1A ONIAaVd-3IAAVal 001:6W TOO-EILLE00-68
c, 0E8 08Z7 -D4SNI-U1S 8i'.;8 68/FE/V i HJANNAA 4H-Aa-low ONIAaVd-OIJAVN1 00T6W TO()-9TLLE00-68
6,:
EEO OSE N.Aaoa EEO 68/F.E/9 H aInva 4ANANAg ONINaVd-0Ii3Val 00T6W TOO-STLLF00-68
u
TEA OSE NAQOU EE8 68/FE/9 1 NHor 4SdAdSV3 ONINaVd• 3I iAVal 00T6W TOO. 8T42.200-60
808 Or;7 gall 800 68/%c/t- it NvAr 41AdVA aAH10-SW. OIJAVNI 006Er Too-e.eqLFoo-6a
- 2.c:o co.w:: NAUOU 2E8 68/E4/9 r NvIaa 19:1: ii ONIAaVd• OIJAVNI 00T6W 1 00-6021200-68
ks 000 Oqe; gan 808 68/2E/9 A war $ E.AdVA A ONIA0W-NON-0I1AVNI 00E6W E00• 18GLE00-68
6E8 OSE NVW1AIdS - 6E8 68/2E/9 3 wilsor 4:931SUAM- V• OIA ONIA0W-0I-AAVal 0006W - 100-8OLLF00-68
EEO OSE NAUOU EE8 68/2E/9 a ainva 4NV1ZIIHA ONIAaVa-011JVal 0016W E00-41L2 E00-68
j:..
FES OGE N-3aog 52Z:8 68/FZ/V a arnva 'aV1ZliaJ ONINaVd. 3IJaVal 0016W 100. 2142.200-68
c,,
izt TSE OGE 1'NOSM3EINV TSE 68/2E/9 W AAHUHV 'NIA1NOA' koloin- :MIAOW- DIA:AV:31 0006W TOO-E69LE00-68
TGE OGE VAOSaAaNV ISE 68/FE/9 V aAHd0ISIaH0 'soopJa VlOIA ONIAOW• 0IAJVal 0006W 100-269LE00-68
OGE .3'NOSN3aNV TGE 68/2E/9 a s::iwvi 'Tlosovw vioin ONIA0W• 3IJAVal 0006W T00-6691_200-60
EE8 OGE NA008 % 3-68/2:/ 13iNva 4oNilaIN ONIAaVd-3I-JaVal 0016W- TOO-E12LE00-68
TGE OGE 14NOEPT11IANV TSE 68/1E/9 C) 3ssAr 'Nov. mul wula-sw-arootv. aVal 001,1r E00-82E9000-68
I.:
TSE OGE A'NOSHAaNV TGE 68/EE/9 0 AsaEir 4NOSN3PI• ilAIM-SW-0.103V-AVal 00' 2r TOO-82E9000-68
PW' OGE 6W91 1)1-8 P;8 68/ZE7/9 8 Tiva 4ONISS0a sia .sw• 21399d gwasia 0202N WO. 4FZV000-68
qoo (.) - ZNIAW coo 68/ C/9 3 13NAN891 41HAOA VlOIA ONIAOW• OIAAVal 0006W 100-E9SLE00-68
090 OGE NO510 098 68/EE/9 1 1' 'tsawwila 0NINHVd. 0.1.1aVal 0016W T00-969LE00-68
-
LEO OSE ONIA LEO 60/1E/9 V winvi 6VHOVA V1OIA ONIA0W-OIAAVal - 0006W T00-6624E00-60
LEO OSE ONIA /E.B 68/1E/9 W vai-ama 4NVAQ VlOIA ONIA0W-0IAAVNI 0006W 1 OO-GM:1200-6B
L18 OGE ON IA 2.18 60/TE/9 9 lAVHOIW '003V6 :::1:11-1.10•.SW. 31:..A..AV:.:11. 0062r 100-9E1LE00-68
2';;F:' OGE SWVI11IS 2.2E 60/1-E/9 r vsJogsla ' NHosrm vloin 9NIAOW• 3IAAVal 0006W TOO-S89LE00-68
'Ic
ETII OSC TIT.1 <. 10 68/0E/9 C) or AaVW 4HDSA1 'ilIV SIOILINI .2 115V 2;n -8v TOO. 921:9000-68
,.
Lc; ET8 OGE f:I58:1 ZT8 68/06/V o or AaVW 4H0811 STU -SW- 1091d 1-Thlfl.1.sIO OFOZN Z00-91T9000-68
it, ET8 OSE IlislaA ETO 66/0E/9 3 or AaVW 4H3891 9119 S13I1ANI-G 11SV EGEGV E00-9899E00-60
.rz
2GE OSE SWVIlliM L8i.: 68/0Z7V w 9N9r 4NVW31IM 91010 ONIA0W-3I-JAVal 0006W 100-909LE00-68
!'s
LE8 OGE ONIA LEO 68/0E/9 r NHor 'INSE10V1 VlOIA ONIA0W-31 AAVal 0006W TOO-EEELE00-60
I" 0E8 05;1- :DISNITAS 8Z0 68/0:e*/1., V 3113H0IN 4on9WoN5 VlOIA ONIA0W-3I1A9al 0006W 100-EFEL200-68
ez
TGE OSE A*NOSaAUNV TGE 68/0E/9 W NHor 430V,9 -AnDia-sw-aIoov-Akom 0062r E00-9809000-68
zz
TSE OSE A'NOSaAINV TSE 69/0E/9 W NI--ID)' 410Vd AnINa-sw-aioov-Avul ooqzr 100-9809000-68
,z.
cz 8E8 02/C INSNI135 0E8 68/6T/9 3 NNV 4aNniNutio V10.16 ONIA0W-0.11AVal 0006W 100-1EE6E00-60
6:
628 OSE NVW13.1d5 6E8 68/81/9 0 aNVHOIH ''ASV0 :::131.11.0-SW-3I.A.1Val. oo6Er 100-01ELE.00-68
618 OqZ:: 01109 6113 68/8T/9 4INIV1dW03 19W1-i0A 0V1-i90V-WO-UI30V-JVNI 002E4- T00-810000T-60
1E8 OGE ovionoa 1F8 68/81/9 41.NIV1dW00 -191..pio-1 E1;-A09H3 A8-W0-1J3H1 910EH T00. 2100001-68
C
6E8 OGE NVW13Id6 6E0 68/61/9 3 laAUOH 'a3NIH1 910I0 ONIAOWOIlJVal 0006W 1 OO-8EE1.E00-68
IVI
£e.8 0 NAUOU 1E9 68/1T/9 1 981:11 4z1ImoHom V11-IIA ONI00W. 3I9198l 0006W 100 -9226100-61-I
ci
i, FEB OSE NAU08 £/C8 61-1/6 1/9 r NOINV 4NOSNVIISI1-;IH3 91010 ONIA0W-3IA•9al 0006W 100-9ZELE00-68
II
27.8 osz Niiacia Fir.8 68/61/9 1 AaaAl 'NANHAOA V1OI0 ONIA0W-3I1AV1-ll. 0006W TOO-SEELE00-68
r"
TSE OSE :14NOS8ArINV TGE 60/61/9 d AHIONII 'NASNVH VlOIA ONIA0W-OIAJVal 0006W 100-8GE6E00-68
6:
ISI.e.: OSi-: A'NOSafINV *LSE 60/LT/9 ' VlOIA ONIAOW. OIAAVal 0006W TO0-9GE6E00-60
I ! , . ,,,, ,,. ,, , 0,. . .. . ... ... ....... ... . .I 04 .0 . 4 . *
10401 .........
S
IN3r1I33V 19:18 apJo 198311:1 aaoo TpPin000 cp.. 1.s-t!J. '1.F,e1 ) 3WVN 19831!'1 Aaoo t NOTIVII3
6
1, ----
833:1-930 ---- plva
AO6VHO
1
68/0E/9 01 68/1:0/9
gINo A1--I aAlos 1-0! ONIISI1 NO:1:1-9.1-1-1
INAW1aVdArl 54AA1831--IS AIN003 830890
6)3/c.1/2 :Alva 4 IA-:A5S0d
JZOITO
_ ____ _ _. __ _ .__._ . .... _. _ _ _
66T00 : lvlol. ans
£ 3 Oqi NAacia T38 68/0E/V W Nosvr 40NIGHV • n-Lay NMONNNO-S 11SV 000SV 300-ETGV000-60
EE6 OGE NAGOG 2E8 66/0E/t> a smwvr 'NOSN3UNV-- 0-13V NMONNNO-G 11SV 000 TOO-ETGV000-66
TGE OGE 94NOSNAUNV IG3 68/0E/j, 1 uor 4NosamaNv VlOIA ONIA0W-3IAJVH1 0006W TOO-6E2.2200-68
6E6 OGE NVW1AIdS 6E8 68/02/11 W AON1 4NBSAIN n ONIA0W-NON-OILIVNI. 0036W 300-8TGV000-68
c.;t
68 OGE NVW1AIdS 6E8 68/02/f.7 W AM! 4N3S9IN H3H10-SW-0.11AVNI owx.r 1:O0• 8TGV000-68
-" 6E0 OGE NVW1AIdS 6E8 68/02/V r A: : II 'NOSIONN iAING-SW-IIIMV-NVNI 00GEr E00-38VVO0C. 68
,
6E6 0G3 NVW1AIdS 6E8 60/0E/1/ r AMAI 'NOSIONN mnia-sw-arl. .JVNI oog.Er TO0-38VV000-60
TGE ooe, A'NosaJaNv TSE: 66/0E/V 1 YR:IWO 48aGMN V10.10 ONIA0W-0I3AVNI 0006W T00-OW.LE00-60
610 Q(3 SII0d 6T8 613/0%/t V voalam 4NAIN3P3V3 AAING .sw-atoov-Aval oos2r E00-T66V000-66
6TO OGE 6.1..UM 61.8 68/0E/V V vooda.iu 'K1iNAMV3 MRLO-SW-OILIVNI 006Er TOO- T6VV000-68
2Z8
0'%. NI1WVO 22'8 68/0 /ti S NVING 4.:klmmlos ONISSMS(11 NOMI1 t,OTt7W 100-0E2.2.T00-68
LE8 (Y3 NI1WVO 268 68/(W/V S NvIda 4dffP*13S HAT.IICW. 3.11JVNI 000Er Too. 1:1.82.I00----6O
268 OGE NI 1WVO 2.68 68/0E/V S NVING 4• diPM136 VlOIA ONIA0W-0I.AAVNI 0006W TOO. E262 -68
1.2$ OSE NI1WVO 2E8 68/0E/t' S NvIda 6d,:li-KiH3S odma midmv.INn-amiAxi 009Ed TOO-ELOLT00-68
2E6 OGE NI1WVO LE8 66/63/V 1 VNMVHS 4N0MPMNV VlOIA ONIA0W-3IAAVNI 0006W TOO-2.981200. 68
2.36 oqe NI1WVO LES 68/6E/t.' r T3INVG 'NOLAV13 HAHIO-SW-3I.iiVNI oodwr TOO-G(182200-60
230 oqz:: NI1WV9 2E0 68/6E/V 1 MAINNAr ' 1NSNId ONINNVd-01HAVNI 00I6W 1:00-9982100- 60
2E8 OGE Nr mu 2E8 66/6E/ N alvNoa 46:31011 HAFOI.SW- 3IAAVNI 0062r 1.00-8981A:00. 68
IT8 on : OSNOINGNAH ITO 66/66/V W 31 1631 41A08 VlOIA ONIO0W- OTHLIVNI 0006W T00-0EOLT00-66
2.3.8 OGE NI1WVO LES 66/66/V 1 AUM1 'Eamillna 3nIaa-sw-ar33V-Ava1 00GE1' E00-08VV000-66
2613 OGE Ni 1WVO 2E8 60/6E/V 1 ANN31 4sImilina V10IA ONIA0W-3IAAVNI 0006W E00-08t,1,000-60
LEO 0G3 NI MVO 238 68/63/V 1 ANNAI 45I111--u.via A ONIAOW-NON- oIJAval 0066W I00-06Vir000-66
1E6 OGE NI1WVO 2E8 68/83/V M Nola 'imav,i VlOIA ONIA0W-3I1AVNI 0006W 1 00-V98LT00-68
L.-. BE8 0G3 INSN1116 8E8 60/83/fi '-I 1PAG 4N115INANI9N A ONIA0W-NON-3IJAVNI 00c.6W TOO-ZELLE00-68
zz
1E8 OGE NI1WVO 1.E8 60/8E/V 1 VlAWVd '9NSON VlOIA ONI0OW. OIJAVNI 0006W 100-T9132E00-66
I-' 868 ()GE INSNI1AS 13E8 68/22/V d smwvr 'II NITT.HIW ONIMVd-OIJAVNI 00T6W 100-TELLE00-60
c 138 OGE NI1WVO LEO 66/2E/V W VI3INI 4NVWMOM V10I0 ONIAOW• OIAJVNI 0006W 100-E962.E00-60
2E8 ()GE NI1WVO 168 68/2E/V H NI-101' 4NVAN N3H1O-SW-3I ]dVNI oo(sEr 100- T961E00-60
91-
1.360 086 rISNI1A5 6E8 68/2E/t, 3 advdon 'NAWNVi V1010 ONT00W-3IAJVNI 0006W TO0-0091..E00-68
Gl 2E8 OGE N11WVO Lea 60/1.E/V 4INIV1dW03 AMNOA a-wo-Nnos 1.SNOV wIdo OEEEA T00-0E0000T-69
jp1
268 083 NT1WV9 2E8 68/93/V r G1VNON '.sivN111 d11H10-SW-3I1AVNI o06Er 100-0984E00-60
1 cl
!z 6E8 083 NVW1AidS 61.'13 68/96/t' V 1AV1-13IN 'NOSLNAG1I0 v-loIn oNInow-ofidval 0006W I00. 118131.100- 611
III 616 OGE 60/9E/0. M SVWOH1 'NrilANOIMZ. V10.10 ONIA0W-311.AVNI 0006W T00-613131,100-60
et
6L11 OGE NVW1AIdS 6E8 68/9E/t, G HMOOr ' iNSMONII3 V1010 ONIA0W-OIJAVNI 0006W 1 00-1682.E00-60
it
! Q TGE OGE l'NOSNAUNV TGE 68/6E/V (3 vinNva 40N100 V10I0 ONIA0W-3I-JAVNI 0006W T00-002.2.E00-68
z 4,4 . 444444
I 0 1NAGI33V IVAU apio 1VNAII1 1(100 amddnoon ( Iw IsA!3. 'Isel ) B4VN 1VNAII1 maoo o N0IIVII3
Ig
! , ---- MOI1A0 -. ... .1.190 --
0
1 60/0E/V 01 68/1O/V
GINO AL) amidos 6:1 ONIISI1 NOIIVII3
INAWINVJAG S4AAINAHS AINnoo aAmvo
61:1/61/5' 3.11va 10- 3660d
J30113
_
OM - OM MN MO NM MI OM .1111 - Ns am um Ns am NE No is we
It
•
amorowil
Chaska
as
Police Department
address all correspondence to
GREGORY E. SCHOL
Chief of Po ce
i
I
' May 1 , 1989
Hello!
Attached is the monthly report for the Chaska Police/School
Liaison Officer Program for the months of February, March and
April. Included you will find:
*Narrative report of monthly activity
*Listing of presentations given
' *Number of calls for assistance
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the
program. If you have additional questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gregory E. Schol
Chief of Police
r
Officer Norman A. Prusinski
I Chaska Police/School Liaison Officer
Chaska School Office: 448-8620, ext. 748
Chaska Police Department: 448-4200
I MAY' 0 5 1989
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
City Of Chaska Minnesota 205 t__- =ourth Street 55318-2C94iPhone 612-448-2S
POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON PROGRAM
NARRATIVE REPORT
FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, 1989
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Claudia Finzen and I presented drug abuse prevention programs to the ,
Third, Fourth and Fifth Grades. In the Fourth and Fifth Grade programs,
Chaska High School Students, in Chemical Awareness Groups, spoke to the
students about the negative effects of using drugs and alcohol.
I received ten calls for assistance from the Elementary Schools . The
calls included the following:
- I investigated the sexual abuse of a Chaska Elementary School
student. An adult male has been charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct II
in the Second Degree.
- I investigated seven cases of the theft of hood ornaments that were
stolen off of cars belonging to Chaska Elementary School staff. Two
Chaska High School students have been referred to court for seven
counts of Theft.
- At Chanhassen Elementary, I assisted two staff members. One incident II
was dealing with personal , problems and the other with problems with a
parent.
CHASKA MIDDLE SCHOOL
I presented three programs to the C.A.P.S. class. The programs included: ° I
Can't Be Too Careful; which is about crime prevention and personal safety,
Arrest Seize; which covered police procedure in arrest and search
situations, and Seatbelt Awareness. Programs on Sexual Abuse Prevention
and Drug Abuse Awareness were presented to the Sixth Grade Health
Classes. In all of these programs, videos or films were shown to the
students.
I received twenty calls for assistance from the Middle School , which
included the following:
- I investigated a false fire alarm. A Chaska Elementary School student I
was given a verbal warning and her parents were contacted.
- A student reported to me that he was being harassed in school by
several other students. I spoke with all the students involved to
resolve the situation.
- I investigated a child abuse case which proved to be unfounded.
- I investigated two theft cases and four locker thefts . Both theft
cases and three of the locker thefts are inactive. One locker theft
was solved and a student was issued a juvenile warning notice. I also
contacted the student's parents .
1
a
II
- I investigated an incident involving a student who was trespassing at
' the school. The student was given a verbal warning.
-
I assisted Mr. Werner in dealing with a disruptive student. I helped
Mr. Werner with taking this student out of his class.
I - I investigated the sexual abuse of a Middle School student. An adult
male was arrested and charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct in the
Second, Fourth and Fifth Degrees.
- A Middle School teacher reported seeing a suspicious car driving
around in the Middle School parking lot with two nen wearing ski
' masks. I was not able to find out the identities of the two males or
why they were in the parking lot. I sent out a metro wide teletype
asking for any information on possible robberies or other crimes
' involving these two men.
- A teacher reported that her car had been vandalized. This case is
currently under investigation.
-
A student reported to her counselor that she had been assaulted with a
knife by a High School student. This case has been turned over to the
' Scott County Sheriff's Office because it occurred in their
jurisdiction.
I - I investigated a theft which involved an E./B.D. student. Due to the
student's serious E./B.D. problems , I referred this matter to Social
Services so they could assist the school in getting the student
counseling and placement in a Level IV program.
I -
I Assisted Middle School Counselors with four students who were
threatening suicide. In three of the cases I assisted the students
' parents in getting their children into a hospital for evaluation. In
the fourth case I assisted the parent in making an appointment for an
evaluation at the Waconia Mental Health Center.
- I investigated a child abuse case which was referred to Carver County
Social Services for follow-up with the family.
ICHASKA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
I received twenty-three calls for assistance from the High School, which
included the following:
- I assisted High School staff with investigating a fight/assault
report. The student who was responsible for the assault was suspended
from school.
- I investigated two criminal damage to property reports. One case is
' inactive. The second case was solved and the student, who was
responsible for the damage, was disciplined within the school .
- The report of the sexual abuse of a High School student was referred
to Carver County Sheriff's Office because it occurred in their
jurisdiction.
1
- A High School student reported to me that she had a friend who was
planning on running away from home and committing suicide. I
contacted Social Services , and a Social Worker came up to the school
to talk with the student who was making the threats.
- I investigated six theft reports at the High School. Three cases are
inactive and three were solved. One student has been referred to
court, and the dispositions of the two other cases were handled within
the school.
- I investigated two reports of students being threatened by other
students at the High School. I met with all the students who were
involved in these matters, and resolved the situations.
- A locker theft was investigated. The case is inactive.
- A child neglect case was referred to Carver County Social Services for
follow-up.
I investigated the Assault of two High School students who were
sprayed in the face with Mace. A High School student has been
referred to court for Fifth Degree Assault and Illegal Use/Possession
of Chemical Mace.
- I investigated two fires which were set in the boys restroom. A High
School student has been referred to court on two counts of Arson in
the Third Degree.
- A sexual abuse case of a High School student was investigated and I
proved to be unfounded.
- A High School Dean reported that a student has been missing a lot of
school. The High School student has been referred to court for
Truancy.
- A High School student came to school after she took an overdose of
some pills and she was threatening to commit suicide. I placed the
student on a 72 hour hold and she was transported to the hospital.
- High School administrators reported an incident where a student was
being extremely disruptive in school. The student had several other
past cases of being insubordinate to staff members. A report was
written to document this student's disruptive behavior in case there
was a need in the future for a court referral.
- Two High School students were referred to court for Possession of Drug II
Pharaphernalia and Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana.
- I investigated the sexual abuse of a female student who is attending I
the Co-Op Center. This case is currently being reviewed by the Carver
County Attorney's Office for possible charges on the male who was
responsible for the sexual assault.
1
GENERAL INFORMATION
II attended meetings of the Carver County Multi-Disciplinary Child Abuse
Team, Community Education Advisory Council, Tobacco Free Schools Task
IForce, and the Early Childhood Learning Center Task Force.
I chaperoned a Middle School party in February. In February, I attended a
I school on the Investigation of Sexual Assault which was presented by the
Minnesota Crime Bureau and F.B.I .
I
1
1
1
PRESENTATIONS
FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, 1989
CHASKA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL '
GRADE 2: STEALING- 2 PRESENTATIONS/139 STUDENTS
GRADE 3: JUST SAY NO- 3 PRESENTATIONS/118 STUDENTS
GRADES 4&5: DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS- 2 PRESENTATIONS/256 STUDENTS
CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ,
KINDERGARTEN: POISONALITY- 2 PRESENTATIONS/197 STUDENTS
GRADE 3:JUST SAY NO- 2 PRESENTATIONS/105 STUDENTS
GRADES 4&5: DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS- 2 PRESENTATIONS/214 STUDENTS
EAST UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1
GRADE 3: JUST SAY NO- 1 PRESENTATION/25 STUDENTS
GRADES 4&5: DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS- 1 PRESENTATION/56 STUDENTS
GUARDIAN ANGELS SCHOOL - I
GRADES 4-8 :DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS- 1 PRESENTATION/120 STUDENTS
HEADSTART PROGRAM
MICKEY MOUSE SAFETY BELT EXPERT: 25 PRESCHOOL STUDENTS '
JONATHAN CHILDREN' S WORLD ,
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: 2 PRESENTATIONS/25 PRESCHOOL STUDENTS
CHASKA MIDDLE SCHOOL
CAPS PROGRAM: CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL- 2 PRESENTATIONS/30 STUDENTS '
: ARREST AND SEIZE- 2 PRESENTATIONS/30 STUDENTS
: SEATBELT AWARENESS- 2 PRESENTATIONS/30 STUDENTS
HEALTH CLASS (6TH) :SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION- 4 PRESENTATIONS/120 STUDENTS
:DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS-2 PRESENTATIONS/120 STUDENTS
OPTION 5: POISONALITY- 1 PRESENTATION/20 STUDENTS
TOTAL PRESENTATIONS: 32 PRESENTATIONS
TOTAL STUDENTS CONTACTS: 1670 STUDENTS
CALLS FOR ASSISTANCE: 54 CALLS
(E.S.-10, CMS-20, CHS-23, COOP-1 )
05705 Q3634tX MB 110. 116D7-0094: APPROVAL EXPIRES 2/92
FORM C-404 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I
18-5-861 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Period In which permits Issued 1
I APRIL 1989
I REPORT OF BUILDING OR (Please correct any errors in name and address including ZIP Code)
553
ZONING PERMITS ISSUED
AND LOCAL PUBLIC •
I CONSTRUCTION 040800 27 8 5120 019 1 0
26 9999
BLDG OFFICIAL 11248
If your building permit system has changed, FOR C ITY OF CHANHASSEN
I mark(X)appropriate box below and explain 690 C OUL 7 ER DR
In comments. CHANHASSEN MN 55317
❑Discontinued issuing permits
❑Merged with another system
- ❑Split into two or more systems
❑Annexed land areas I
PLEASE COMPLETE AND MAIL
❑Had other changes THIS FORM ON OR BEFORE 4_ 19R 9
1 If no permits were issued during Bureau of the C Instructions are included.For
r•MAIL'THISS.
this period,mark(X)in the box—s 1201 East Tenth Strom further assistance,call collect
I
COPY TO _
and return this form 5,-- Jeffersonville,IN 47132 (3011763-7244.
Sectiorrh NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED
HOUSEKEEPING Number of
BUILDINGS Item Valuation of Number of Valuation of
No. Housing construction Housing construction
' units
Buildings Buildings
i Omit cents units Omit cents
131 lb) Icl Idl lei (f) Ig)
Single-family houses,detached ,�
Exclude mobile homes. 101 �� SO 3.3 4,wD
Single-family houses,attached
. -Separated by ground to roof wall,
-No units above or below,and
-Separate heating systems and utility meters.
(Count each unit as a separate building) 102
Two-family buildings 103
I Three-and four-family buildings 104
Five-or-more family buildings 105
ITOTAL—Sum of 101-105--1. 109 •
Section 11 NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED
NONHOUSEKEEPING Item Number of Valuation of Number of Valuation of
I BUILDINGS No.
Buildings Rooms construction Buildings Rooms construction
Omit cents g Omit cents
(a) (b(
lc) (dl lei If) (g)
Hotels,motels,and tourist cabins
(transient accommodations only) 213_
II Other nonhousekeeping shelter 214
..Sictiori41.04 NEW PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED
NONRESIDENTIAL Item Number Valuation of Number Valuation of
BUILDINGS No. of construction of construction
I buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents
lal Ibl Icl (dl le)
Amusement,social,and recreational 318
Churches and other religious 319
Industrial 320 '� Ly4iJ,COO
Parking garages(buildings and open decked) 321
Service stations and repair garages 322
Hospitals and institutional 323
Offices,banks,and professional 324
I Public works and utilities 325
Schools and other educational 326
Stores and customer services 327
Other nonresidential buildings 328
I ANIAMP, Structures other than buildings 329 PRIVATELY 4'OWNED
-'SectioWnf ADDITIONS, PUBLICLY OWNED
ALTERATIONS,AND Item Number Valuation of Number Valuation of
CONVERSIONS No of construction of construction
buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents
I (al Ibl Icl (dl Is)
Residential—Classify additions of "77 ^^
garages and carports in item 438. 434 2
Nonresidential and nonhousekeeping 437
I
Additions of residential garages and carports
(attached and detached) 438
PLEASE CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE ••■••■
M
Section Ve DEMOLITIONS AND PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED
RAZING OF Item Number of Number of
BUILDINGS No
Buildings Housing Buildings Housing
units g units
(a) Ib) I/cl (dl (e)
1?C.G
Single-family houses)attached and detached) 646
Two-family buildings 646
Three-and four-family buildings 647
Five-or-more family buildings 648
All other buildings and structures 649
Section VP INDIVIDUAL PERMITS AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION VALUED AT$500,000 OR MORE
Please provide the following information for each permit authorizing construction valued at$500,000 or more
entered in sections I through IV.
Item Number of
No. Owner- Valuation of
from Description Name and address of ship
sec. p owner or builder Mark IX) construction Housing Buildin
I—IV one
Omit cents units
(a) (b) (c) (dl Ie) (f) Igl
Kind of building 1
2 -+ � '!� -- A,�r �Priv.t. (Srp i i>;frl ni5h�
• 2C Site address
9'.2eo Mar-,y.4-.A u.Je Va vd ----------- - ❑Public $11)11/,C00
Kind of building
1��— —T I
1
IZIPrivate
Site address.
❑Public
1�4co ct).c,c1- 17?•U`5-Yet4- $ 1,7Oo,ec>7
Kind of building
•
❑Private
Sits address
❑Public
Kind of building
❑Private
Site address
❑Public
$
Kind of building
❑Private
Site address
OPublic
$
Kind of building
❑❑Private
Site address
"
$
Kind of building
❑Private
Site address
❑Public
$
Kind of building
❑Private
Site address
❑Public
$
Kind of building
•
---' ❑Private
Site address
❑Public
$
Comments
Are you aware of any new permit-Issuing
jurisdictions? No ❑Yes—Please give additional information in comments.
Name of person-to contact regarding this report Telephone
Area cods'Number Extensio
Title
-1 rr.* . , ,1 937-/900
FOpa C-404(a-Lie)
ICHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY
BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
INSPECTIONS - 1989
II
INSUL- FIRE- BASE SEPTIC TOTAL
MONTH FOOTINGS FRAMING BACKFILL ATION DRYWALL PLACE SLAB PLBG HTG SYSTEM MISC. FINAL TO DATE
IIJANUARY 39 80 16 40 26 24 91 86 4 33 36 475
FEBRUARY 19 93 12 59 48 16 128 103 1 22 75 576
IMARCH 49 69 20 44 25 26 132 _ 115 43 76 599
APRIL 75 82 31 35 24 18 114 116 4 44 42 585
II MAY - .
II JUNE
JULY
II AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
IIOCTOBER
NOVEMBER
I DECEMBER
TOTAL 182 324 79 178 123 84 465 420 9 142 229 2,235
II
TOTAL
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TO DATE
Building 13,104.00 13,342.50 41,231.00 50,988.00 113,665.50 '
Plan Check 8,463.08 8,287.88 26,712.21 33,091.17 76,554.34
IPlumbing 2,754.00 2,500.00 1,881.50 4,889.50 12,025.00
Heating 2,124.88 2,042.00 2,004.20 5,305.75 11,476.83
ISeptic
TOTAL 26,445.96 26,172.38 71,828.91 94,274.42 218,721.67
II JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER . ,
Building
IPlan Check
Plumbing
IHeating
Septic
II TOTAL
II
I
I
MO
II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
Apart. Total Number II
Year Single-Family Duplex Townhomes Complex Dwelling Unit
1980 41 9 10 99
1981 22 1 0 24 II
1982 19 1 0 21
II
1983 60 4 9 104
II
1984 108 17 6 166
II
1985 189 38 20 18 265
II
1986 246 8 8 262 _
1987 289 2 32 323
1988 352 26 34 412 II
units units
1989* 107 107 I
;3R
As of April 30 , 1989
II
1
II
II
II
I
m
1111111 INN 11111 1111111 M 111111 1111111 IIIII IIIIII 11101 1111. 1111111 OM MN 11111 MI MI 111111 111111
Progress and Growth—Week of March 27, 1989—Page 3
CITIES
Chanhassen booms with residential development
•
One look at the statistics and it is ap- ment to be built on Chan View Ave. , r i; I';�.: '':P1'),'Ty; �x°*;, „ ,7� "�", ax' Pk4:: ik..,:',,';'-f.,' 5'r u � S M r�r:f'—
parent that Chanhassen is a city on the • Market Square' — a 60,000 to `' - ,,, y „` �x!, d t J,'4'4 ' L.'x' } 't`,. ,,�>
120 000 retail center ro osed for land 4 t W a[ w f�4`` ," * ] k , 'a� I
grow. p P , n ' ; l n , - v
The number of'permits issued for west of Market Boulevard. w ; ;7 ,' LM r f; i. 3n t �; r .. 4, 1 //..:,,
single-family homes has more than Chanhassen Mayor Don Chmiel said ry: ], sR "4«f�r '' ' 4' '
tripled in the past four years. The he is not surprised by the growth the ci , s -•. ,..,:{ h, } • ' , ,'< , !' `°a
estimated value of new commercial ty is experiencing. "I have followed ;', 1 4'-'1.,-4,,":"1" ,.s 4 k
construction increased by $4.9 million Eden Prairie for the last 20 years and ' 4 r ' f , ,N„,,,,,.' r
Y Y � y t � roY t � �. ! RL � 1 �. )
4, �f
in 1989 from the previous year watched their growth growth and pro fi -, Y <. , r 4'j.i , , ,
Chanhassen, a quiet village of 4,800 gress. What I see happening to us is J F z` x f;f ''�r + .� z
, r f wz� Y��V"`„`,w+ � i 7 5C J'{4ti f N .„:=7„;;,,,,,:„!,:;,4,';-` ,;',::;,'.„,.,,,,:,,,-,-1, s(
residents at the start of the decade, is what happened to Eden Prairie ',` -. ' ^' r '.. s ° k t ,• " '"n
now a growing city with major com- Chmiel said .°,4,- xr '> ', ` ' '^ z'...,..,•1,4`,,,;;Z'''',,"i + , ••t i •,] f i tt t r .t 4 k .. y t i r -• 1 '. Jt a \,<+
mercial and industrial development, Chmiel said major industrial .,1,,,-,,,,,,z,,,,,..:,,-,.1" e [ "',. - " ' r �` ''* .•
and a burgeoning population. develo ments such as Rosemount and - `-k K � rt': "4' . ""x ,', ',-; - 4'
9 9P P P u *f 4`k � r yk �- '� s z ~, ��v
With the redevelopment of the McGlynn benefit the city-'They help us , s-7s '"' `f ri „ :"„ °' > }, r ,.
downtown business district, and the to provide jobs and growth to the corn- 4 i ,. F - ` ,, ti^ ,. ,
i
unveiling of plans for several large new munity." He said the new industrial >„ f;,�,, '' �s , v , ;,n tt j , `, . �;r�
developments 1988 was a watershed development, along with the city's o � r c,,i . ' "r x'" ' ,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,'...,4-.. ..,,
,° 1?
year for Chanhassen. Some of the pro- downtown redevelopment will help br " , �1a, k.� 'x' t ° .b
jects started or announced in the past ing more customers to the city s ex- , r �,�,,.4 '�Y'� , '., r
year - include: isting businesses. y
g L+� , s f L J�.
• Rosemount Inc. — a $16-million In addition to businesses, an increas- ,, c `I»It ,e )x >. 'l ' ',
manufacturing facility now under con- ing number of people are calling ,-- .3;:�; t, r.`:41.•,••;;,,s1,5.'1.4—i,.152,k .. I �, ..G: • * "'\`
struction north of Lake Susan. Chanhassen _their home. The city's -3 •." ,'''-'4,4A4,,:.,,,,,-,0„, Y , , �` ,
• McGlynn Bakeries — a new cor- population is estimated to be 10,500— .,,. < ,e ,�,.°t Y', �
Y T ,
4, , e
porate headquarters and frozen food a figure the Metropolitan Council „;� x,',:, 4+ ,7o ." •' ,i F �,
operations under construction south of forecasted the city wasn't going to ' ;V+ ' Ae ', `'� . ,� t + s ' '�} : .- r
Highway 5 off of Audubon Road. reach until after the year 2,000. „ t.,,,,_ 1 '' ' '
9 ', , ! .tea r'i -,..4,' e-`t }�'ys- t� r
• Country Hospitality Inn — a $4 We are far exceeding the - •_ ';{ ” , _ _
million all-suite hotel to be built on the Metropolitan Council's projections.
west end of the Dinner theater There are a lot of new, young couples
complex. moving in from more congested Fireworks over Chanhassen's renovated old village hail.The building was
• Heritage Square— a 60-unit apart- areas..." Chmiel said. restored and moved to Heritage Square park.
Hotel seen as spur to Excelsior's redevelopment
While Chanhassen experiences proposed $28 million hotel would be a would probably stimulate additional
c,� -'y''4"' t growth from new housing and develop- major development. PVI is expected to redevelopment in the area as well as in
"" .'` ,' ment, Excelsior's growth comes from formally submit a plan for its 165 hotel the downtown," he said
t 'Si"'
r�''"`, ,�, e, i,�1 its increasing attraction as a recreation and conference center sometime this The new hotel would require tax in
-
''':,,,,,,s,','''
:a ",, , ; and commercial center. spring. crement financing, a development tool
Mayor Jim Olds said Excelsior's Olds said the -hotel would provide that is commonly in other cities but has
� .�� ,,�"-'x ..,,�� ", location on Lake Minnetonka and it's new jobs and an add to city's commer- not been used in Excelsior.
. r„ I I I. __ _ . il.�. ,.,,r-.1,r,t.
OMM OM ONO OM MMO 01111 O ONO MO OMM MO OMM Milli M
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
MONTH: April 19 89
Verbal Complaints
DATE COMPLAINT LOCATION ACTION TAKEN
04-01-89 Junk/Debris South of Lyman Boulevard 1 , 2/
04-01-89 Improper Disposal of Cat Litter Hopi Road 4/G
04-01-89 Dog Feces Next to complainant ' s home 3/G
04-01-89 Abandoned Vehicles Highway 5 ?
04-01-89 Barking Dog Murray Hill Road 5/Subj . to take care of
problem/G
04-01-89 Rabbit at Large-Inhumane Trtmnt Juniper 3 , Inspection made/G
04-03-89 Problem With Dogs & Renewal Lake Lucy Road ?
of Kennel License
04-04-89 Debris Downtown 1/
04-05-89 Construction Parking & Debris Fox Chase Development 1/
04-05-89 Construction Parking Fox Chase Development 1/
04-10-89 Parking Request Gray Fox Curve 3 , CCSO Advised/
04-10-89 Parking Request Lake Lucy Road CCSO Advised
04-11-89 Misspelling of Street Sign Shawnee at Redman 1/Referred to Engineering
04-11-89 Loud Noise Industrial Park 1/G
04-11-89 Debris/Garbage Hidden Lane 1/G
04-11-89 Encroachment of Construction Grandview 1/G
on Property
04-12-89 Safety Hazard West 78th Street 1/Referred to Engineering &
Maintenance
04-13-89 Building Debris Chanhassen Vista 1 , Area Inspected/G
04-14-89 Storage of old cars Hwy 5/Great Plains Blvd. 1/Referred to Planning Dept.
04-14-89 Building Debris Pleasant View Road 1/A
04-18-89 Wetland Issue Chanhassen Vista 1/G
04-18-89 Student Dispute Unknown Referred to CCSO
04-19-89 Permit Question Frontier Trail 1/G
04-19-89 Dog at Large Great Plains Boulevard 3/A
04-19-89 Dog at Large Cheyenne Spur 4/B, & Follow up letter
CODE:
1 . Advisory Letter A. Voluntary Compliance G. No Further Action
2 . Certified Letter/Notice B. Warning Tag Issued H. Other
3 . Phone Call Made C. Citation Issued
4 . In-Person Meeting D. Referred to City Attorney
5 . Complainant Advised E. Court Referred
6 . Other F. Action Pending
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
PAGE 2
MONTH: April 19 89
DATE _ COMPLAINT LOCATION ACTION TAKEN
04-19-89 Wanted Operation I .D. Chaska area Referred to Deb Rand
04-20-39 Taking Water Without Permit Industrial Park 1/G
04-21-89 Home Business Concern Gray Fox Curve 1/G
04-24-89 Dangerous Curve Sandpiper Trail/ 1/Referred to Engineering
Minnewashta Parkway
04-24-89 Fallen Tree End of Paddock Lane Referred to Jerry Schlenk
04-25-89 Dog at Large/Vicous Dog Utica Lane 4/B
04-25-89 Dog at Large/No License Carver Beach Road 4/B
111/1 MIN IM INI IMM Mill Mii OM NM =I IMO IIIII I= OM NM IIIIIII • • 111111
LAW OFFICES I 2—k: ISC/
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57
(612)455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE. MICHAEL J MAYER
PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J BERG
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 1
DAVID L. HARMEYER
*ALSO ADMITTED To
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN June 13, 1989
'
Mr. Gary Warren
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 1
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Erosion Control
Dear Gary:
Enclosed is the revised development contract language
requested by the City Council.
Very truly yours, 1
. •A IS, G: • NIS, FARRELL
& ■ - ON, P.A. 1
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
1
1
CITY OF CIANHASS - 1
imp JUN 1 ,-; 1 89
ENGINEERING OEPi.
JUN 15 1989
CITY.OF CHAN HASSLr"4 I
1
' 6. Site Erosion Control. (Change caption) .
7. Lot Erosion Control. Home builders shall comply with
erosion control practices and instructions received from the City
Engineer. Before a building permit is issued for a home, the
permit applicant shall post a cash escrow of $ 5-006 OO with
the City Clerk to guarantee compliance with the City ' s erosion
control practices, clearing of dirt from streets caused by
' construction activity, and picking up litter and debris. The cash
escrow may be used by the City to cure default. After the
construction activities have been completed and the site
-the.
stabilized, the cash escrow, less funds s used by the City to
' cure default, shall be returned to the permit applicant.
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
' 5. License. The Developer hereby grants the City , its
agents , employees, officers and contractors a license to enter
the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate
by the City in conjunction with plat development.
' [ 6 . Site Erosion Control. ( Before the site is rough
graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or
building permits are issued, the erosion control plan , Plan B,
shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The
City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they
would be beneficial . All areas disturbed by the excavation and
' backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the
completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise
provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified
' seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible.
All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored
as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time
' is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does
not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule of
supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may
take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at
the Developer ' s expense. The City will endeavor to notify the
Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the
City to do so will not affect the Developer 's and City ' s rights
' or obligations hereunder . No development will be allowed and no
building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full
compliance with the erosion control requirements . Erosion
control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been
restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted .
After the site has been stabilized to where , in the opinion of
the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control , the City
t will remove the erosion control measures . Before the City signs
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $1 . 00
per foot of erosion control that is required to be constructed in
' accordance with the erosion control plan for the plat, Plan B, to
cover the City ' s cost for removal .
7 . Building Construction Escrow. Builders shall
t comply with requirements and instructions received from City
officials and staff . Before a building permit is issued for a
home, the permit applicant shall post a cash escrow of $500 . 00
per permit with the City Clerk. Multi-unit applicants shall pay
an increased fee in proportion to the S.A.C. units . The escrow
shall be used to guarantee compliance with City Ordinances, con-
ditions of plat approval , and other site specific requirements
such as the maintenance of erosion control measures , the clearing
of dirt, debris and/or litter from City streets and the
surrounding area caused by the builder ' s activity , and to cover
' the repair of any damage caused to streets , sidewalks , curbing
and other City utilities . The cash escrow may be used by the
City to cure default. After the construction activities have
been completed and the site stabilized , the cash escrow, less the
funds used by the City to cure default, shall be returned to the
permit applicant.
I
GC-2
I
■
1
. CITY OF
-\
G CHANHASSEN
1 fi
`\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 June 21, 1989
1 Krass and Monroe
Attn: Mr. Phillip Krass
1 Marshall Road Business Center
327 Marshall Road
P.O. Box 216
1 Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Burdick vs . Chanhassen
Krass and Monroe File 1-6959-1
1 Dear Mr. Krass :
1 Pursuant to your request to Mr. Farrell, I am sending your letter
of June 2 , 1989 to the Mayor and City Council. I am withholding
distribution of the appraisal itself until I have received two
additional copies ( to insure all members receive a bound copy) ,
1 or your agreement that I can unbind one of the copies so as to
produce a legible, stapled copy for the City Council. Please
contact Karen Engelhardt as to your preference.
1 Although I am forwarding a copy of your June 2, 1989 letter to
the City Council, you should be aware of the fact that this
1 action is primarily advisory. All land acquisition funding has
come through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Similarly,
all transactions regarding acquisitions and sale of properties
have occurred, by state law, through the Housing and
1 Redevelopment Authority.
In regards to your offer to settle at the same value received by
1 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the 6 .1 acre tract on
the other side of the road from your client' s, I question whether
you fully recognize the implications of that offer .
Specifically, the offer received by the Housing and Redevelopment
1 Authority was $4. 50 per square foot for the westerly 100, 000
square feet and $2. 50 for the remaining 165, 000+ square feet in
its "after" condition. This produces an average sale of $3 . 25
1 per square foot for the six acre parcel. Secondarily, as with
virtually every real estate transaction, the seller was respon-
sible for paying public improvement costs . The current estimate
1 is $1. 10 per square foot without including land costs . In addi-
tion, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority agreed to carry
1
Mr. Phillip Krass
June 21, 1989
"Page 2
out soil corrections - estimated at . 50 per square foot.
Ironically, this amount compares very favorably to the City' s
original ( "before" ) appraisal for the properties and the actual
amount paid of $1. 75 per square foot for Lots 5 , 6 , and 7. The
Ward parcel was appraised at approximately . 35 per square foot
and such value was sustained by the condemnation commissioners
and accepted by Mr. Ward - such land also being included in the
bank offer. I did not include this in the above calculations,
but such would significantly lower the overall amount paid. At
question is the amount of Mr. Burdick 's land which could be
-
catagorized as closer to the Ward property versus closer to Lots
5 , 6 , and 7 in their pre-improvement condition/value. Contrary
to the above facts, you appear to say that you would settle your
appeal for the value of 8+ acres at the same rate agreed to by
the bank for 6+ acres - such being $3. 25 per square foot with the
seller paying the cost of improvements/soil conditions. '
As noted at the beginning of this letter, this office does stand
ready to present your position to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. However, such would appear to be contrary to previous
beliefs of your client as to the value of the property.
Thank you for your consideration. '
Sincerely,
1
Don Ashworth '
Executive Director
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
DA:k
1
1
— tau nffirr'.c
•Phillip krF‘';ISs' iis S
I.a liken li Moir
# k.111'yrr
f lanp'�li i.rnh
Jay U.Gnitll erg (,nll 11 11.'llrntlr•
Mark R.
I
11'tllslrn 1\'.iziii'c ()flit'II '11 SI;I;I+
charlcrrd
Mark J.\InenrSS x I'M;ir'ia \.W Ik r
Diane I.Carlson • n 0 d rA ll iol SI.,cdn
U. ,i,im m 1ddmim
�+h \Onipuvl m`wnnh ll,rhaa
I June 2, 1989
I Mr. Patrick Farrell
Attorney at Law
403 Northwest National Bank Building ,
South St. Paul, MN 55073
I Re: Burdick v. Chanhassen
Our File No. 1-6959-1
IDear Mr. Farrell:
This seemed like an appropriate time to see if this condemnation matter
IIcan be resolved without the significant expenses to both parties of a trial.
By separate cover, I have sent four additional copies of the updated market
I value appraisal done by Robert J. Strachota of Shenchon & Associates. Mr.
Strachota has reviewed information from his initial appraisal and added certain
sales and transactions which have occurred since that time which strongly support
Ihis initial conclusion that the value of our property approaches $2 million.
After reviewing the -appraisal and discussing this matter on several
occasions with myself and Mr. Strachota, our clients have concluded that the sale
I price obtained by the City of Chanhassen for portions of the property condemned
from us would represent a fair price to receive in this condemnation. As you
are aware, the City sold portions of this property for $4.50 a foot. We believe
I there was additional consideration for the City of Chanhassen in the type of
development and the timing of development on this property that it desired to
have. We think if the City had marketed the property in a different way and
II considered some alternative purchasers, the price would have been considerably
higher.
Nonetheless, we are willing to accept the same price the City obtained from
I the banking interests and for the 345,896 square feet which have been taken, at
a price of $4.50 a foot, total compensation would be $1,556,532.00.
I am requesting that you forward our proposal for settlement along with
IIthe market value appraisal enclosed with this letter to the Mayor and City
Council members of Chanhassen for their consideration.
II
II
k-1,;., h. \111;d1:111 Rn;,,I ItINI I (,'n1r r '{.'i\i:11.:,'Ic11I k,au! I'll lin\ ?It, ,`;I.IEnl;rr \111111,-;0:1 ■.■ii!I li•Irlihun.-il;l''I I I`, -UP,Il I.\\0t111 I I-,ili if)
I ;,ntllgedlll 0101.1. tiuUi I MO If 5()l\c�,1 1i.!nrl Iii " I IrNgnOw;anli.\IIIIII■-■ll I ,,I iI Ii 1,.ply ri i(iI,I 44;,0)119 I.\\lb l',1(Hi. }!1171
I •
Page -2-
June 2, 1989
We both have a great deal of work to do in preparation for our August trial
date if this matter is not going to be resolved; so I would appreciate hearing
from you as expeditiously as possible.
Very truly yours,
KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED
Phillip R. Krass
Attorney at Law
P RK:tffl ur
Enclb e
cc: B.C. Burdick
Brian Burdick
Robert Strachota
1
1
1
1 /
1
A(i ii 'iv .-, .
I . C I T Y 0 F ,...._ __ ____,,;1 ?
�
1 `\I '
1 '
. -
I -,T ' °• ' . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
IIFROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager -.. ;Ct1iet 1
DATE: June 26 , 1989
1 SUBJ: Boat Storage/Mooring
1 This item is over one year old. The initial purpose of reviewing
the ordinance was to clarify various sections to more properly
address citizen complaints and to ease administration. The item
1 was presented to the Park and Recreation Commission who held ini-
tial hearings. Those hearings were overwhelming in the number of
persons attending/petitions presented. The Park and Recreation
I Commission actions were placed into proposed ordinance form and
submitted to the City Council for consideration. In September of
1988, the Council generally concurred with the proposed amend-
1 ments, but sent it back to the Park and Recreation Commission for
additional public input. The Park and Recreation Commission
again heard public comments during November/December, 1988.
Again, citizen involvement was tremendous and, ironically, totally
I distorted the purpose and intent of the modifications. Instead
of recognizing that the City already had in place the ability to
control mooring, control storage of boats on shore, control
I rafts, etc. , the tone and flavor of those meetings was that these
were totally new ordinances significantly depriving citizens of
rights that they had for years. The fact is that the City has
I continuously removed illegal boats stored in the Carver Beach/
Greenwood Shores area for the past 15 years. In a similar
manner, residents of the Carver Beach/Greenwood Shores area are
not permitted, under current ordinance, to moor boats in front of
1 public lands. Yes, an exception does exist where a property
owner living across the lake could moor his boat in the Carver
Beach area and the City would have difficulty in enforcing that
1 particular instance. The fact is that no one, to the best of my
knowledge, has ever passed up their legal right to moor in front
of their own lot so as to be able to illegally moor 1, 000 feet
across the lake in front of somebody else' s. Again, it was this
I type of detail which was attempted to be addressed in the
modified ordinance. Again, these points were totally distorted
through the hearing process .
II
I
IM
11
Mayor and City Council
June 26 , 1989
Page 2
I would impose one simple question, "Will the minor amendments '
proposed truly provide that much more benefit over current
ordinance?"
Since December, I have attempted to meet with staff and the City
Attorney' s office to look through each of the issues presented
and attempt to determine whether the amendments suggested truly
provides additional protection. Some of the amendments
added, i .e. necessity for a principle structure to exist before
mooring would be permitted, has unknown implications . To the best
of my knowledge, all beachlots since 1983 have been controlled by
specific permits identifying what can be done on that beachlot,
i .e. mooring, docks, canoe racks, etc. Citizens, such as Mr.
Peterjohn, saw this amendment as a means by which mooring would
be stopped on the beachlot adjacent to Mr. Peterjohn ( 20 ft. wide
parcel owned by Mr. Hall) . In review of this particular
situation, it is the City Attorney' s belief that documents in the
file reflect that Mr. Hall ' s usage predates the ordinance and
accordingly is a grandfathered use. This fact is further com-
pounded by correspondence from City staff to the previous owner
and Mr. Hall stating that he could in fact use this lot for
mooring. My point is that, regardless of whether the amendment
adding the principle structure is included or not, it would not
solve the dispute occurring between Mr. Hall and Mr. Peterjohn. '
Similar parcels probably do exist and would, similarly, be grand-
fathered if documentation supported such. I know of no parcels
that were created after 1983 which were not a part of a specific
beachlot conditional use permit. It is highly unlikely that we
would consider creating new parcels without insuring that they
complied with the beachlot ordinance. In essence, what has been
gained through the amendment?
Attached please find an opinion from Mr. Knutson where he has
condensed what he considered to be the major problems and how
those would be addressed under current ordinance. City staff has
not placed this item onto the City Council agenda for June 26,
1989 . This is a pre-alert to Council members of our initial
position that only the section dealing with rafts ( requiring a
permit for such) is being considered. By giving the Council a
pre-alert as to staff' s initial position, we are hoping that the
Council' s concerns with this position can be identified within
the next two week period of time and specific responses
researched prior to final consideration.
The Council should be aware that Mr. Peterjohn will probably be ,
in the audience Monday evening. He is aware of the staff recom-
mendation regarding how this item would be proposed to be
handled. He is not aware of the most current position which
gives Mr. Hall a "grandfathered status" . I have met with both
Mr. Peterjohn and Mr. Hall and, in all of those meetings addi-
tional facts have continued to come to light supporting one of
their positions, then the other. This is an item that is truly
not black and white. Each of the documents reviewed (covenants,
1
Mayor and City Council
June 21, 1989
Page 3
development contract, beachlot ordinance/permit, and correspon-
dence) have opened a new perspective on the issue and, accor-
d dingly, have influenced decisions both favoring and harming Mr.
Peterjohn, then Mr. Hall, then Mr. Peterjohn, etc. None of the
issues presented would in any way be changed if the ordinance
' amendment were placed into effect regarding the Hall/Peterjohn
controversy. Mr. Knutson informs me that his current position
is conclusive in that all pertinent documents appear now to have
been brought forward.
t
1
1
I
1
I
1
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS
MICHAEL J. MAYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.' 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
ATflCEIN WISCONSIN
February 9, 1989
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN
Mr. Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Mooring and Storage of Watercraft
Dear Don:
You asked me to respond to two questions: 1 ) Can a person
who does not own a lake shore lot or who does not have the right
to use a recreational beach lot moor a boat on a lake lying
wholly within the boundaries of Chanhassen? 2) Can a boat owner I
store a boat on a lake shore lot that they don' t own without the
owner' s permission?
Section 6-27(b) of the City Code prohibits the mooring of
boats by individuals who don't own a lot on the lake. The Code
does not require that the boat be moored in front of your own
lot. I don't, however, understand why anyone would want to moor
the boat in front of someone else' s lot.
You can't store your boat on someone else ' s lot without the
owner' s permission. This is simple trespass law. If I
misunderstood your questions, please let me know.
GR --GRANNIS, FARRELL
KNUTSON,)P.A.
Roger N. Knutson
RNK: srn
I
FEB 1
31989
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
CITYOF
C iANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
! MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator,
DATE: December 29, 1988 44_5)
SUBJ: Boats and Waterways
As directed by the City Council, the Park and Recreation
Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the Boats and
Waterways Chapter of the City Code. The Commission felt that the
proposed amendment was in accordance with their concerns
regarding park property and acted to recommend approval .
Additionally, they felt that the people affected by the amendment
should have the ability to go through the variance process , and
recommended an amendment to Section 5-23 allowing such ( see
attached) .
IThe Park and Recreation Commission will be discussing in further
detail the possibility of providing mooring buoys off of park
property. As Section 6-21 excludes public property from the
stipulations of the amendment, the Commission did not have any
reason to hold up the process any further.
Attachments: A - Proposed Amendment
B - PRC Minutes dated 12/13/38
I I
it
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 3
know that standing here there' s a bating question as to why Park and Rec
would be asked to mediate then what might be considered a private matter .
j : : I guess at this point my point of concern is a discriminatory nature in
which it addresses those people that are non-conforming use that it is
there. I guess I would ask that the advisement to Council would be that
the amendment go forth but those that have proof of the non-conforming
use, be allowed to continue that use.
I don' t know if there' s any questions . I don ' t want to repeat information
that you' ve got, I guess it would take up time.
Mady: Yes , the amendment does consider non-conforming use and this is a
situation if the non-conforming use. . .for a period of one year, than it no
longer exists .
Lynn Hall : My contention is simply that with a variance necessar y to
continue my use, that' s a hurdle that I don' t think I should have to jump
at this point . Because of the legal nature of the use. I understand your
reasons for it.
Mady: One thing I want to instruct to staff. On the mooring issue, my
understanding was that the Council asked us to look at the mooring issue
as it related to parkland . So in your situation, it ' s actually private
property that' s being discussed here and that probably will be better
handled , will be handled at the Council level versus . . .private property. I
We don' t have any jurisdiction on that.
Lynn Hall : I understand .
Mady: I 'm surprised that maybe the Planning Commission might be getting
involved.
Boyt : We look at boat mooring as it pertains to all of the lakes i.
n
Chanhassen and what our recommendation would be.
Robinson : Is this your situation that you were before the Council on
September 12th?
Lynn Hall : Correct .
Mike Schroeder , 6600 Lotus Trail : I guess I 'm probably the reason you ' re
here. I 'm the one with the boat moored down on the parkland and had it
moored there since we purchased the land in 1986 . We purchased it from
Mr . . . . He also had his pontoon. I guess my point of view on this whole
thing is that this ordinance seems to be pretty much directed towards me If
and my use. As you read the ordinance, it states all seasonal docks,
moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before
November 1st of each year. All non-conforming moorings and other II
structures except docks and swimming rafts , once removed may not be
returned to the lake which seems to pretty much leave me out. I 'm not
sure why that is. I don ' t think it ' s , I don ' t know of anybody else that ' s
been mooring along in there. . . We' ve been doing it for a number of years
and I think Mr . . . .also was using that. Can I answer questions?
. .I
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1983 - Page 4
Mady: Are you actually mooring it off the shore or is the shore in front
of your house?
' .? Mike Schroeder : We ' re the last house on the end of the parkland and it ' s
about, I don' t know, I suppose 30 feet or so from the property to the
lake. We file every year with the DNR for a permit.
IBoyt: But they didn' t respond to. . .
' ,$, Mike Schroeder: No. I understand that the City wants to kaboosh that
somehow. . . I don' t think anybody else on the lake has ever tried to
register .
Hasek: Your boat is moored off shore. How far off shore?
Mike Schroeder : I suppose 20 feet or something like that.
Hasek: How do you get to your boat?
' Mike Schroeder : I wear shorts . It ' s fairly shallow. In referring back
to the meeting of September 12th. I think that I agree with the
grandfathering in the raft and the dock that' s also down there . The
house, next house to us has a dock and he ' s had it out there for years .
' My impression of the meeting from September 12th was that you guys would
take a look at how we could take advantage of that parkland and develop it
for use. I think it was donated by the people in Carver Beach and I think
' we have an interest in that area and developing it to the best use for the
City but especially I think we should take into account the people in
Carver Beach and how we would like to use that. I think there are many of
us that are interested in working with the City on improving that whole
area and cleaning it up and things like that. Rocky here will speak more
to the raft .
Boyt: That' s what we had thought. That Park and Rec . . .
Mike Schroeder : But anyway, I think it should say except docks. . .
Mady: We have questions concerning boats that have been moored and the
dock on private property. Those aren ' t considered non-conforming uses
because you ' re not talking about your own property.
Sietsema: The dock is a different situation because, is that Mr . Taucks?
And he is a parapelgic I believe and was granted permission by the City a
' number of years ago to have his dock. I believe has a boat out there too?
Mike Schroeder : Yes he does .
Sietsema : And he has had a long standing agreement with the City to be
able to do that.
' Hasek: Based his condition.
Sietsema: Based on his condition , right . Does that answer your question?
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 5
Mike Schroeder: It is on parkland?
Mady: Yes. '
Sietsema : It ' s also on parkland.
- Mady: The question i.s, can you have a non-conforming
actually own the property? y ng use when you don' t
Hasek: It' s a granted use. The question is, is it really a
non-conforming use?
Mady: I 'm still not sure. I think they have. . . '
Sietsema: I 'm not real sure on that Jim.
Mike Schroeder : But it is off the parkland. The way the rules are,
you've got to be a landowner to have any rights and I think that' s
where. . . The people at Carver Beach who have always for years taken care
of that area and used it.
Robinson: Is this city jurisdiction only or is the DNR involved?
Sietsema: The DNR doesn' t really have much regulations on this .
Mike Schroeder : But the DNR has to approve what you have.
Sietsema: Right, they have to approve our Water Surface Useage Ordinance
and any amendments that we put on so they would have the last word on it
but they don' t have. . .
Schroers : Are you right next to the old boat access?
Mike Schroeder : Yes. I 'm down at the way far at the end last house.
Schroers : And there' s just a thin strip of parkland between your house
and the lake?
Mike Schroeder : That ' s right .
Roger Byrnes , 6724 Lotus Trail : Lori says this whole ordinance was- to
clarify the issue. It seems like the issue was pretty clear . They passed
an ordinance that said what rafts had to be and docks and what they were . I
Now, I don' t know what. . .what the wording said. It doesn ' t make any
sense . Why do we need this ordinance? I can ' t understand it.
Sietsema: One of the things that the Planning Commission wanted to clear II
up is that, the way the ordinance is stated right now, it says that a
lakeshore owner can launch or moor a boat in public waters. That means if
you own lakeshdre property on Lotus Lake, you could launch a raft or moor
a boat on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Riley or Lake Ann or Lake Lucy.
mg
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 6
' Roger Byrnes : Lake Superior or any.
Sietsema : But being a non-lakeshore owner , you didn ' t have that right. I
' think that they wanted to clarify it that yes . . .
Roger Byrnes : I don' t agree with that. I think it said anybody could
' launch anywhere but nobody wanted to. That' s why nobody ever did. Only
people that wanted to, was the people in Carver Beach with the raft. It
didn 't say that I couldn' t launch or put a raft over on Lake Riley.
' Sietsema: What they wanted to clarify is that a lakeshore owner could
moor a boat but it had to be in front of their own property. They
couldn' t moor a boat out on. . .
Roger Byrnes : That' s what you' re trying to say. That isn ' t what the
ordinance said before.
Sietsema: That' s what we' re trying to clarify.
' Roger Byrnes: That' s no clarification. That ' s just banning another law
out to the thing. They' re not really trying to clarify anything . You' re
just trying to put some more restrictions upon people who want to have
rafts out there or mooring.
' Hasek : It' s all a matter of how you want to straighten it out is really
what their question is. The way that it ' s set right now, if you own, if
' I understand it properly, if you own land on Lotus Lake , by the ordinance
it gives you the right to put a raft on Lake Minnewashta. The way it was
written , the understanding , the lawful reading of the ordinance, that was
the clarification that needs to be straighten out and the question is , how
' will you clarify it. What did we want to say what was the intent of what
we wanted?
' Roger Byrnes : The way I read it, it didn ' t have any restrictions on
anybody putting the raft anywhere.
Hasek: But is that the way we want it to state?
' Roger Byrnes: But nobody wanted to. The only it
y reason even came up was
because of one raft .
' Hasek: That ' s the situation.
Roger Byrnes : But that ' s not a problem. One non-conforming person or
group of people or one little thing wasn ' t creating a problem.
Hasek : But you ' re a member of the city just like any of the rest of us .
' Why isn ' t it a problem?
Sietsema: It ' s a matter of being proactive .
Mike Schroeder : Did you have someone. . .
( 1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 7
Roger Byrnes : Did somebody else try to put one out there?
Mady: We had a problem with them. To be honest with you, we do. ,
Roger Byrnes : We' re the problem.
Mady: You' re not the problem. The raft is a problem.
Roger Byrnes : But we are the raft .
Mady: . . .and you have a swimming beach down there. It's not a safe
beach, what the City considers a safe beach. Since it' s a city park, we
need to fix that. That's what we' re getting to.
Roger Byrnes : That ' s fine but why put restrictions on. To fix s omething ,
,
you don' t restrict it, you just fix it. I don' t understand your train of
thought. She comes up like you ' re trying to fix a problem that ' s there
but there isn 't a problem.
Sietsema: The way the ordinance is written , there is a potential for a
problem and to be proactive, we want to take care of that before we have II
the problem.
Roger Byrnes : Yes , but the potential has been there for 30 years and it ' s I
never materialized so why worry about it now? That ' s what I don ' t
understand . Now all of a sudden worry about it now when it may not ever
occur. Let ' s have a problem and then fix it. If it ' s not wrong , don ' t
fix it.
Mady: We have a problem in one, liability. Just because no one has been
seriously injured there does not mean it won ' t happen this summer. Now II
the City recognizes that what ' s happening there, we need to make sure that
we don' t cause a problem.
Roger Byrnes : At the Council meeting, the City Attorney said that the
City is not liable. If it' s not the City' s raft, the City is not liable.
The City doesn ' t own that water . The City can' t be responsible for people
that are out on that water. The City doesn ' t own that raft and they
can ' t be responsible for people that are on that raft .
Mady: But if it' s out from a city beach you see, our understanding is
that it' s out from a city beach.
Roger Byrnes : But it ' s not even a city beach according to you guys . '
Mady: It' s park property. When you ' re out from city property, it ' s there
at the knowledge of the City so the City does have some liability in that
they have active knowledge of the situation. If it' s a problem situation,
they can be liable sometimes .
Boyt: We would like to make it a nice beach . We would like to make it ,
nicer than it is now. We would like to clear out the poison ivy and
poison oak. Put in a raft that meets all the conditions.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 8
Roger Byrnes : That raft there met all the conditions . The raft that was
' there, in fact that was probably the only raft on the lake that met all
the conditions . That met all the conditions for that ordinance that was
passed.
Boyt : Well , it didn' t look safe at all .
Mady: It' s not considered safe by a number of us who have been on the
water and been to the raft. That raft doesn' t have a permit.
Roger Byrnes: No raft on the lake has a permit.
Mady: Oh yes .
Roger Byrnes : They all have permits?
' Mady: I know the one on Sunrise Hills has a permit. I hemmed it on.
It' s been on there for 5 years that I ' ve lived here.
Roger Byrnes: The raft has to have a permit on it?
Mady: Yes it does . The permit ' s on it right now as a matter of fact.
It' s a little steel tag. •
Roger Byrnes : Who gives it to you?
Mady: The Sheriff does .
Roger Byrnes : The Sheriff wouldn ' t give us a permit . How would you get
one?
Mady: This is the Minnesota Boating regulations .
Roger Byrnes: That ' s right and they say every raft and every thing in
that lake is supposed to have a permit from the DNR. I 've been begging
the Sheriff for a permit. He said no way. He said he won ' t let me give
you one . I said forget it. How did you get one?
Mady: Through the Sheriff.
Roger Byrnes : You must have a little pull there.
' Mady: The State says that obtaining a permit for swimming area markers
from the County Sheriff . . .
Roger Byrnes : You ' ve updated it every year?
Mady: Structures such as swim rafts , boat lifts , bouys . . . All structures
placed under a permit must have the permit number painted on and you
' obtain your permit from the County Sheriff . It ' s here if you 'd like to
read i.t.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 9
Roger Byrnes : I understand. I've read it and I begged the Sheriff for a
permit. He wouldn' t give me one.
Boyt: I think that' s between you and the Sheriff.
Roger Byrnes: No, it's between the Sheriff and the City who it' s for
because the City tells the Sheriff not to give away permits and he don' t
give away any permits. So there you are. What are you going to do? Have
you talked to the Sheriff about issuing permits Lori?
•
Sietsema: No.
Roger Byrnes : You haven ' t said one word to him to issue a permit or not
issue a permit?
Sietsema: I never have, no.
Roger Byrnes : Has anybody in the City to your knowledge?
Sietsema: No.
Roger Byrnes : Well somebody has because he said I won ' t issue any permits
until the City tells me they want permits issued on that lake. That ' s
exactly what the Sheriff told me.
Sietsema: That ' s the first I ' ve heard of it.
Roger Byrnes : Well , I ' ve been hearing it for 2 years . He said the city
guy won' t. He says I call down there. In fact , he was going to issue it
one time and the day he was going to issue them, he said no , I can ' t. I II
got a call from the City and they said don ' t issue no permits. Can' t do
it.
Robinson: Can we look at that Lori ? Can we look into that?
Roger Byrnes: That was a bouy permit that time but I 've been trying to
get a permit for the raft too . What I can' t understand why, I had my boat I
laying down there. I had it down there and the kids used it . . .and let
them play down there which is probably wrong . I let them play down there
anyway. . . It' s park property. It ' s not really private. They kept saying
private use of public property. Now they tell me I can ' t have my raft out
there but all these other rafts , everybody that lives on that lake has a
raft and a dock on that lake and that seems to me, that ' s private use of
public property. That lake is public. Everybody who has a raft sitting
out there or a dock or a boat moored out there or a dock, a fishing dock
or whatever they' ve got out there, that ' s private use of public property.
I 'm public too just like them. Why can ' t I have my raft out there too? I II
can see if it goes off the shore, that belongs to the City, the shore
because we gave it to you. I can see that but anything that , if I 've got
a mooring bouy; I keep my boat out in the water. If I ' ve got a swimming
raft , I keep- it out in the water . Why shouldn ' t I have the same right to
have my raft or my boat out there as anybody else who lives on the lake .
JI
i`
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 10
Just because people live on the lake don ' t give them any more right to
that water than anybody else. If they think that way, they' re wrong .
That water belongs to everybody. Now, if you want to restrict it and tell
everybody, get all their boats , all their rafts , all their docks off that
water , fine but if you' re going to let some, you should let everybody.
Everybody that wants to. I realize you think that' s going to cause a big
problem. You' re going to have 87 million rafts out there but it ' s not
going to happen. Most people don't want it and I think the people that do
want it, should be able to have it out there.
1
Boyt : That' s what we' re here to talk about tonight . I think we
understand where you' re coming from. I think we need to talk to the
Sheriff and find out how he makes the decision and who he ' s in contact
with with the City. We' ll ask Scott to do that.
Roger Byrnes : Find out who' s directing this guy not to issue any permits
because up to this date, before this law was passed , there was no
ordinance that said I shouldn' t have a permit or Lori shouldn ' t have a
permit or you shouldn' t have a permit. Anybody can get a permit and the
law hasn ' t passed yet and this guy' s been holding a permit for 2 years .
Mike Wegler : My name is Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. As
far as the raft and stuff was concerned , I ' ve lived here for all my life,
35 years and since I was a kid, I ' ve always swam on that raft and learned
to swim down there. I have 3 children and they swim and they use that
now. To take this right away from them, this isn ' t right. This issue
really, as far as me building a raft and stuff , we' ve always taken care of
it and we knew it needed some redoing but it was not unsafe. I ' ve been
out there and been on it myself and jumped up and down. It had brand new
plywood out to the. . .wall . It was not unsafe. It had reflectors on it.
It went by every standard that was in the book as far as being conforming
and it did. Like they said, it was probably one of the only ones that
did . I think the park should look at the situation there and try to get
us, work something out so we can use it. It ' s not hurting anybody. It ' s
a benefit to everybody. Thank you.
Gerry Maher: Garry Maher . I live at 7101 Utica Lane across from
Greenwood Shores beach . I 'd like to give you each a copy of some
information I received from calling 10 or 12 other municipalities . The
Lake Minnetonka Water Conservation District . Also , the DNR. I ' ve lived
1 there for 13 years at the present location and Chanhassen for 16 years . I
am also one of the problems . I have a sailboat , Hobie Cat and a
paddleboat that I ' ve kept at Greenwood Shores beach for a little over 6
f ) years. That boat has not caused any problems or have I been made aware of
any problems. Both the boats are licensed. When the boats were
originally put in, I talked with Don Ashworth at the City to see if there
were any problems regarding parking the boats where I did. They happen to
be adjacent to public property. At that time there were no words spoken
as if it would be a problem or anything else. There was also a letter on
file with the City regarding the information when I was asked to remove
I the boats. Alo, I 'd like to make a note that I was told in several
letters from- the City that I would be notified regarding this meeting .
Unfortunately I haven ' t been. These boats , as I said, are properly
I
-
a i
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 13
taking care of it. There again , he moved into the area and he knew at the
time he bought a house adjacent to a public access , that ' s part of the
reason the house might have been valued at a certain reason or whatever.
But under the circumstances , it' s some of those attitudes that are saying,
if you can afford lakeshore, you can buy it. If you don ' t, then too bad .
Well , unfortunately there is only so much lakeshore available at any givens
time and it ' s going to be decreasing as time goes on. It ' s up to the Park
and Recreation to make sure that that lakeshore is useable for all of
those people that aren' t able to get to it. More importantingly, his
particular attitude is what prevailed about 20 years ago. When I grew up
as a kid and used to go to Christmas Lake swimming and there was a public
access and a diving platform out there and we used to go scuba diving out
there. It was readily accessible and everything else. As time went on,
people started to complain that number one, there was a problem with the
fire road so they didn' t want to widened it. People. . .were able to say,
well , we don ' t want to widened the road therefore we have to close off the
public access . So what happened . 15 years went by with no public access
on Christmas Lake. It took almost an act of Congress in order to get that
changed . It ' s that attitude if it prevails , will cause the same problem
again. Somewhere down the line there will be no public access on Lake
Minnewashta . Maybe none on Lake Ann. Who' s to say that somewhere down
the line Lotus Lake or any other lakes are all going to be tied up. Under
the circumstances it becomes very equitable .
Ray Roettger : Can I rebutt that? Number one, the I
property between Mrs .
Moore and my property is a private outlot that gives rights to Sterling
Estates. Number two, I think you can go out and talk to the fishermen and I
the older couples you ' ll find that I welcome with open arms anybody that
wants to park in the street, walk from my property or down that road to go
to fish on the lake. In fact , I ' ve let them use my boat . It is not those I
people that I 'm concerned about. I 'm concerned about the people that
think they have a right and abuse it. As long as I can get down to that
lake, I can park anything down there and I don ' t have to take care of it
and I don ' t have to pick up and I don ' t have to clean up. That ' s what I 'm I
talking about restricting. But for him to bring his fish house down along
side of my property, why he can do it as long as he doesn ' t block my
driveway. Like I said, I ' ve even let some older people who live down I
around on surrounding property, I ' ve seen them go across . . . People travel
through there all the time and I ' ve let some other older people use my
fishing boat so.
Mady: Before we start repeating here, is there anyone new that would like
to have a word? e
Cindy Gilman : I 'm Cindy Gilman . I represent Lotus Lake Association and
read the amendment. I think it ' s good. I think it helps clarify. I
think it leaves it open for someone who wants a raft regulation to get on
there. I know Sunrise Hills is not the only one with a permit on Lotus
Lake . There are 4 others so there should be a way for them to get a
permit to have a raft out there. We like the way it reads and I think it
helps clarify. ' Thank you.
, lI
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 14
Mike Schroeder : I guess I got a little confused here on what was the
purpose of this whole ordinance. I ' ve heard that it' s so people who own
' lakeshore can' t go to another lake and have a dock. That we want to
protect the people from the raft on Rocky' s area , that that ' s been
grandfathered in or do you have more instances of people setting up and
mooring a boat on a different lake than what they own lakeshore on
' I guess . Then we have the people over here and they' re matters. All of
these things seem to be, I 'm not sure it ' s clear what the City is really
trying to do. It kind of seems to change as the discussion goes here. All
' I know is that at the end of the whole thing, I end up losing my mooring
so for me, that' s the purpose of the whole thing and that' s where I 'm
coming from. If you want to work with Carver Beach and that area and
'
developing that area , it sounds like you have some plans to do that. I
think we'd love to hear it. What are they? I thought that was a lot of
the discussion for tonight was going to be. What we can do with that area
to develop it and improve it. We' re interested in that but. . .
Mady: . . .how we usually handle these things . Typically we open up the
public discussion and we get all your thoughts out right away. Then once
' everybody has kind of said what they want to say and we start discussing
through the panel . We' ll open up at one side and go to the other. You' ll
sample what our posture is on this concerning Rocky' s raft and . . .we' ve got
' some pretty good ideas for you that we can help the whole situation. We
haven' t gotten down to that point yet but when we discuss that , you will
be allowed to put your comments in at that time too but right now what
we' re trying to do is get as much information out from you as we can so
' that when we start talking about it, we can also address all of those
things too . There might be something that we didn ' t think about . That ' s
kind of how we have handled it in the past.
Mike Wegler : I don' t know if you are aware of it but that land there was
donated by the people of Carver Beach and stuff like this. There ' s 3, 000
feet there and that ' s a lot of land . There hasn ' t been a lot done there
for many years. The useage of it has not really increased since I was a
kid. There were a lot of kids down there when I lived there as there is
now. . . The raft, I have a neighbor just up the hill , the raft ' s been
' there for over 30 years . I don' t know if you were aware of this but that
parcel of parkland down there, that 3, 000 feet that was donated. The park
up on the hill where that skating rink and the ball diamond stuff is , that
park down there, that was donated. Carver Beach did not belong to
Chanhassen . Carver Beach was it' s own . We could have went to Shorewood .
We could have went to Chanhassen. We elected to go to Chanhassen. We
felt that Chanhassen would do a better job working or whatever . Now we ' re
thinking . . .
Hasek : I have a quick question for you. What was the land donated to the
City? Why would anybody want to give 3, 000 feet of lakeshore away?
Mike Wegler : At the time we had a few homeowners paying taxes on it who
figured it would be better to give it to Chanhassen for parkland so that
everybody could use it and that it would be . . .
1
i 1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 15
Roger Byrnes : There used to be a clubhouse where the ballfields is now.
The Carver Beach Association. . .clubhouse. . .and that ' s how we paid the
taxes on the land. When the clubhouse was torn down. . .generate any money
so we said, let' s donate the land to the City. We gave the land to the
City with the stipulation that it would always be for the people of Carver
Beach and will always be for the public. That ' s the way it' s supposed to
be. Now we feel that they' re trying to run the people of Carver Beach off 1
of the land. We feel we have a right to use that land . We feel like
we' re getting slighted . We gave the land to the City. At that time the
Council . . .understood the situation. In fact it was the first neighborhood
park Chanhassen ever had. The people in Carver Beach worked with the
City. When that beach was built out there, the City said, well , we ain' t
got no labor . We can ' t put in a beach. Those people were saying , you
guys find some labor and all the people in the neighborhood went down
there and cut the trees down. They did what they had to do and they built
that beach. They maintained it. When the torando went through, all the
people in Carver Beach went through there and cleared the roads and we've
been clearing dead trees out there ever since and this and that and trying
to keep it up. All we ever get for effort is get out of there. It seems
like all the neighbors get out of the city is , you guys . . . is get out of
there and let it be junk in there. It seems like the City has never,
they' ve spent minimal . They' ve spent thousands of dollars on these other
parks but their oldest park they have and they' ve shut it down to a 1
minimal out at that park. There ' s great potential down there. It' s a
nice piece of property. It ' s no good for playing ball and it ' s no good
for flying kites but it ' s great for fishing . It ' s great for swimming .
It ' s great for boating. That ' s what it should be used for . Nobody seems 1
to understand that . They don' t want to . They want to just let it be full
of poison ivy and dead trees and keep everybody off of there.
Mike Wegler : Taking the little bit that we have, taking it away, it
really burns. One thing it doesn' t do. . .
Roger Byrnes : When there' s 3, 000 feet of lake on the other side of the
lake looking over, it looks like you ' re looking through the north woods .
I can. see why the people don' t want it to be developed . They don ' t want
to fix that land up a little because they live out across the lake and
they look like they' re up in the north woods because they don' t see
nothing but trees and dairy cows. But if you get close to it , it looks
pretty bad . . . 1
Mady: I think you recall last year the Park Commission toured your , last
year when we talked with you then.
Roger Byrnes : . . . I was down here talking to you and it seemed like you
guys were really down here trying to figure out what you can do and how
people can use that land . I walked over . . . I don ' t know who it was but I II
heard somebody, I was standing up here and somebody told the guy he had to
get the hell out of there . I couldn ' t believe my ears . The Park
Commission runs a guy off the park.
Mady: We asked him if he was catching fish .
.1
II y)i f f
:
I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 16
1 Roger Byrnes : Somebody told him he was parked illegally and he had to get
out of there.
Mady: No , we told him he was parked illegally but we didn' t tell him to
leave. We asked him if he was catching fish.
ILaura Bros : I live at 6771 Chaparral Lane but I grew up on Lake
Minnewashta so I feel like I do have a vested interest. My parents still
live there . My in-laws still live there and a concern that I have,
I there 's always a battle between lakeshore owners and non-lakeshore owners
as to rights . I think the lake is public property and everyone has the
right to use the lake but my concerns are that some of these outlots need
I to have some policing or some restrictions or some way of checking up. You
may not have a problem on Lotus Lake. You may not have a problem on Lake
Ann but we do have a problem on Lake Minnewashta with some of these
I outlots. One in particular just down between my parents and in-laws. It' s
very small . It was small enough that it doesn ' t warrant a dock out there
and yet we ' ve had a raft out there and 2 boats and someone even came in
and put a boat lift with a pontoon boat on it in a space that ' s so narrow
I there isn' t hardly room for it at all . I think people, maybe they' re
conditional use permits , whatever , but that needs to be looked into on an
individual basis , like he said, so that you can decide, yes there' s room
Iraft there and how it should be used so you don ' t end up with all this . The that' s been out there and placed so far out into the lake that it' s
dangerous . People coming down in boats with skiers , you can ' t see the
raft it' s out so far. And it sticks way out into the lake so if they' re
I going to have a raft , then maybe that needs to fall within the guidelines
of where it can be placed too. So that was just a concern of mine. I
agree with you on that amendment but I think it needs to be looked at
I carefully and have some restrictions or some way of checking up to make
sure that things are being followed through on .
Hasek : Where do your in-laws live on Minnewashta?
ILaura Bros : My folks live right on Minnewashta Lows and my mother-in-law
lives . on Minnewashta Parkway. Is it Minnewashta 2nd Addition that has the
I outlot there . It' s been a real problem the last couple of summers. Thank
you.
I Resident : Some of these people, the complaints they have, unfortunately,
if they checked into it as it says in that deal from the DNR, the DNR and
if you talk to the gentleman , I gave you the name that works for the City
of Prior Lake. One of the reasons that they no longer , they did have some
I ordinance for a period of time and they no longer do and it ' s for some of
these very reasons. Of the battles between non-lakeshore owners and
lakeshore owners . Due to the fact that they' ve got the same kind of
I problem. The guy with an outlot should be able to keep a boat there. If
you can keep 5 boats , 6 boats , whatever it happens to be. The DNR has
specific rules regarding that. Regarding a raft that' s too far out in the
water . The water laws state that if it hinders navigation , all you have
I to do is get ahold of the DNR. It ' s going to be pulled out. If it ' s not
licensed , it' s going to be pulled out . The DNR takes care of those
things. The same thing on an outlot. If somebody owns that lot , maybe
I
Et
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 17
they' ve given somebody permission to use it of which they' re allowed to do
under the Department and State regulations to have two boats on there.
Whether it' s theirs or anybody elses. If it' s somebody' s property and
it's somebody elses boats , then you ought to get ahold of those people and I
let them know about it. A lot of these things can be taken care of under
existing rules as they've stood for years and years and years. It' s
unfortunate that people haven' t taken advantage of those and I think
that' s the very reason, as the gentleman told me from Prior Lake, that
they let it go back to this so they didn' t have to go through some of
these things.
Resident: Just as a side comment, I think it ' s interesting. I happen to
be a member of the Association that owns the beachlot that was just talked
about . I 've been president of the association for 2 years and we' ve never II
had a single complaint. In fact, we've had all of our neighbors over at
the parties on that beach so it 'd be interesting to hear from those owners
to see what the problems are because the abutting property owners don' t
have any problems.
Mady: Any other comments? We' ll open it up for Commission discussion. 1
We' ll start with Larry.
Schroers: I am in favor of the amendment . I believe that as our
community grows, everybody sees all the development . . .and more and more •
people are using our parks and our waterways and if we don ' t regulate
them, it could get out of control so I like the amendment as it is. I do
like the grandfather clause. I don ' t feel that we' re going to try to take
your raft away as long as it conforms to the regulations. I 'd like to see
it there . I 'm not in favor of taking away anything that currently exists
as long as it ' s maintained and it ' s safe and it conforms with the
regulations . In regards to the improvement of the Carver Beach area , we
as a Commission have discussed putting in a fishing pier, boat moorings, a
trail that will run along the lake and canoe racks . I think our intent is
to continue with that effort and try to get some of these things
installed . If it works out at Carver Beach , I don ' t know why it couldn' t
work out at Lake Ann or anywhere else so I would like to see that happen.
I also think that we need to direct staff to speak with the sheriff and
find out the procedure for obtaining permits for the moorings and rafts
and make sure that it' s publicized so the residents know how to go about
obtaining permits . That ' s really all I have. I
Mady: It' s interesting , as Tom Hamilton said a number of times , the
lakes , the city lakes in Chanhassen are beautiful . They supply a lot of
enjoyment and tribute for their residents . They also happen to be the
biggest headache for the City that could even exist because some of
you. . . try to regulate that . Here again tonight , we have that again. . .
hoping we can address this. Dealing with Lake Ann, Gerry mooring his two II
boats , we' ve attempted a number of times in the past through the grant
application process, to improve Lake Ann Park. That included a 2 store
bath house . Canoe rental areas . Boat mooring slips . All this type of
thing. We ' re continuing to try to do that. We just haven' t been granted 11
the money from the State and it ' s our intent to do that. We have a plan .
We need to address that because the ordinance as it' s drafted is going to •
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 18
111 affect, we need to look a little bit harder this year and maybe more next
year. Maybe we need to look at a specified, limit the number of permits
' per year . I don' t know if we' re ready to jump into the whole issue, feet
first and do it all the way across the board but maybe we can start doing
a little bit of testing the water so to speak and find out how it' s really
done. What the ramifications are. The legal liability. All those
things. At Carver Beach , we toured that park. This year ' s capital
improvement has $3,000. 00 in it for improving Carver Beach trailway.
That 3,000 foot strip of land there. What I would like to see do and one
of the things I plan pushing for tonight is to have the City improve that
beach. That means marking it with swimming buoys so it is a marked , safe
beach. We have to do that. If the City went in with a backhoe and pulled
' all the sand out , your kids are still going to swim there so we might as
well make it right. I think we need to replace the raft. I 'd like to see
your raft be thrown off and I think the City should put one in. A nice,
legal , properly maintained. You don' t have any responsibilities. The
City does it and does it right every year that it ' s there. We can do
that. We have the money to do it this year . I think we should do it
right .
Roger Byrnes : That sounds well and fine but i.f . . .and then 5 years from
now you' re out of here and somebody else is out of here and all of a
' sudden , now the City puts a raft at Carver Beach is kind of rundown , we
can not put that back and we ain ' t got no money to replace it. 3 years
from now, 5 years from now the kids are out of a raft again . What ' s to
assure us that the City will keep it there?
Mady: There are no guarantees in life unfortunately.
' Roger Byrnes: Well , there is with you .
Mady: The raft that you have is unsafe and I ' ll tell you why I feel it' s
unsafe. You have a pontoon sticking out from under the wrong side.
Roger Byrnes : It ' s been there for over 30 years .
'
Mady: Yes. You fall off that side of the raft , you ' re going to break
your back. I think we should be doing a better job. It ' s the City' s
property and we need to have the City take care of it. We' ve had these
' problems other places where individual homeowners have taken care of city
property. That ' s not right. We need to make sure the City is doing it .
The City' s got the budget . The City' s got the staff to do it. Let ' s make
them do it because it ' s open for everybody. It ' s a city park. It ' s the
public ' s right .
Cindy Gilman : Can ' t you put something in there so that the people of
' Carver Beach that actually donate the land and stuff, still can have some
control if the raft does go , if the City says 5 years down the road we
don ' t have the money, the raft has to go, that the owners can say fine,
we' re putting one out there. Too bad. There should be something there
' still because they donated the land . Sure , the City can put a raft out
there and take care of it and everything but something there so they still
feel they' ve got a little bit of control . Otherwise , why give the City
1 ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 19
anything? ,
Mady: They can always look back and somebody can take it out or put it
in.
Resident : That ' s why we want to protect it so after 30 years . If you put
one in and it goes, give us the right to put it back in. We' re a non-
conforming use . . .we' ll put it back in. We ' ll make it to the standards and
everything else. It doesn' t say anything in the standards about the point
stuff. We realize that was an old pontoon. We made it. We didn' t have II
the money to go out and buy a nice aluminum pontoon.
Mady: It ' s the City' s responsibility. You do have a liability in that 11 raft right now if you have a problem unless we get rid of that liability.
There' s no reason for you to have it. If something happens now. . .
Roger Byrnes: I agree with you wholeheartedly. All I want is some kind
of assurance that 5 years from now it ' s still going to be there and 10
years from now when my kids have kids and my grandkids come over. I moved
into this city and I ' ve been here for 15 years and I plan on being here
for the next 15 years. I ain' t one of these guys who moves in and moves
out and come in here and screw things up and tell me I 've got to get my
raft out and then leave. You know? Here I 'm sitting with no raft. I 'm
going to be here and my grandkids are going to be here and I want that
raft out there for my grandkids .
Mady: I don ' t know how we can do that . We can have staff look into that . II
Boyt: I have a recommendation.
Mady: Okay. The other thing I want to talk about and concerns we were
talking about the fishing place. There are a lot of people that use that
area to fish in. It ' s wonderful . It ' s a great beach area . It ' s a great
fishing area. They should be allowed down there. Unfortunately, with all
the no parking signs down there , they can ' t get there. I would like to
see us allow parking in a designated area along the street. I don' t
really even care which side of the street it is . I know you' ve mentioned
that you don ' t have a problem with this before. It doesn' t have to be
many spots but at least that guy who was down here last year with a couple
of other people that were fishing for sunfish and caught a couple. He
should at least be able to be. . .and when he sees us and we ' re the City
coming at him to. . . That ' s what he did basically. He saw us coming and
he started packing up right away. It ' s unfortunate . He shouldn ' t have to
worry about that. We need to improve that situation . I
Roger Byrnes : I ' ve got a comment there too . We and Mike were looking out
there and Mike works for the City. There are some places on that land
where it could be cut in there with maybe 2 or 3 little trees cut down ,
that a few parking spaces could me made here. There. A couple here. A
couple there . All the way around that whole strip. There ' s some over
there by the new beach. I don' t know, the other park is facing with no
parking signs go up and down about weekly. Once in a while you park there
and sometimes you can' t. What could be made is a couple parking spaces
11
mi
1 i
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 20
and then some place where the road is wide enough where you can take down
a couple no parking signs. I don' t think there 's a problem with that .
' I 'd like to see people get access to it too .
Mady: Our aim is to improve the utilitization of our parks . That's what
' we want to do. I think I covered by points.
Hasek: I guess that I feel that if we' ve got public property on the lake
that it should be, actually any public property whether it be just a
' normal park in the middle of a neighborhood or a beach such as this. Use
property on the lake that' s some 3 , 000 feet long , that it ought to be
maintained for the citizens of Chanhassen. That' s everybody. It' s not
just the people who are abutting that particular park or live in that
particular neighborhood. I think that they ought to be accessible. By
accessible I 'm not just talking about parking spaces . I 'm talking about
handicap accessible because at some point in time I 'm going to qualify for
that and I want to be able to drive down and use the parks and I don' t
want to have to walk 5, 000 feet to get to a park to use it. Some of this
is related to another issue but nonetheless it ' s still pertinent. I also
feel that if the City is going to allow for mooring or tackle the
situation of perhaps canoe racks , rental canoe racks , that they like what
is thought to be equally available to every member or every citizen of the
City. Not just the abutting property owners . The beach was given up but
it was given to the City and it sounds like it was given because it
couldn' t be maintained by the Association and that ' s understandable.
We' ve had that situation occur in another case and in my opinion we' ve
' created a private park for a neighborhood and I don ' t feel very well about
that at all. I would hate to see that happen to this particular park as
well . I would like to see more parking spaces put in if it ' s at all
possible. I think that they ought to be spread out so that the entire
park can be used . Again , I think if the city is going to put a park in
there, they ought to at least have the courage to take the responsibility
for keeping it clean and to maintain it . I guess just a side issue to
' that. You have a park. I live in an area of the City that doesn' t have a
park. That' s the way it is . . .
Robinson: I agree with the ordinance as it ' s amended . I think there has
to be some restrictions on parkland or lakeshore or lake close to the park
so we don' t have 50, 000 boats out in front of the parkland. I think it' s
' also, we' ve got to let these people at Carver Beach have their swimming
raft out there . I mean , that ' s ridiculous . So I think we control that by
permits or a variance or something. Whether they be grandfathered in or ,
I 'm not sure if that ' s the right approach . Maybe we do it by permit or
allow a variance. There are variances on everything else. There ' s an
exception to every rule. I think there ' s got to be some exception here .
' Boyt: I would like to see us form a committee with some of the Carver
Beach neighbors to look at what can be done with the park. What they
would like to see done with it. We' ve talked about putting rafts , a
swimming area . We want a raft there and I think let' s work with the
neighborhood and see what they want. I am interested in boat moorings
being made available to the people of Chanhassen on our lakes at our
parks. One possible way to do that is , there are a lot of ways to do it
C 1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 21
but it' s an interest that ' s been shown in the community. People want to
be able to leave their boats there overnight and that ' s a way to do it. I
support the ordinance amendment . I would volunteer to be on the committee
to work with the Carver Beach owners .
Sietsema: We may be able to accomplish that by having a meeting that ' s
specifically, with the entire group and invite the whole neighborhood but I
specifically just for that item too .
Mady: That's sounds logical .
Boyt: I think we need to take advantage of their interests. If they' re
interested in even raising the roof. I don ' t think we should turn down an II
interest like that in the park.
Mady: I guess I don ' t look for us to form a committee. I think you can
handle it here. Especially this time of year. Our agenda usually allows II
for us to do that . I would hope that we ' ll work with staff to get
something accomplished in that realm. We do have money available in our
budget to do something . It sounds like you' re willing to do a little bit I
there. We need to cover that whole park. We recognize we need to do a
trail easement. There ' s poison ivy down there. There are trees falling
over. That needs to be cleared out. There are ways for us to do that
with both Eagle Scout projects that have been very successful to the '
larger beach such as Carver Beach. The beautification that was done with
the parking area was an Eagle Scout project and did , in my opinion , a very
nice job up there. We can utilize some of the Scouting skills to take
care of some of that . They do a nice job. They gain some recognition.
Get a few points for their Eagle Scout Badge and it really works out well
for all parties involved . ,
Hasek: What kind of action is required with this discussion?
Sietsema: The City Council directed the Park and Recreation Commission to
review the amendment to see that it was in compliance with what we wanted
to do. in the parks. If you ' re in favor of it , you just simple need to
make recommendation for approval .
Boyt : We can go beyond that too and deal with boat moorings because we
can go beyond this and allow boat moorings in our parks.
Sietsema: This would not prohibit us from putting boat z
moorings '
g n our
parks.
Boyt : The way it was stated , I thought it was implied from the City
Council that they would like us to discuss that, the boat mooring issue.
Mady: I think we need to find a little bit more information on the
liability. On access. Find out how other cities have determined the
numbers that they allow. Where they' re put in place. Right now the ones
that are coming up are people are putting them out near their homes . I 'm II
not so sure that if we did it as a park, the situation of allowing
moorings or that people felt they wanted them.
e ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 22
Boyt : You can see on the parkways , the Minneapolis parkways , they have
' designated areas for boat moorings .
Mady: Minneapolis , the parks , the lakes are entirely, outside of a couple
' areas around Cedar Lake, those areas are entirely public so they have some
. .situation.
Resident : I have a pamphlet, actually it' s a stack of papers that
' dictates for the Park and Rec Director for the City of Minneapolis on it' s
way to . . . It was used for the City of Bloomington in their new program at
Normandale Lake where they' re going to put in their canoe racks, etc. and
it was also , the same plan was used by the City of Deephaven many years
ago.
Mady: Thank you. A side to that also. The ordinances that we have
' concerning our lakes , a lot of them were drafted by the White Bear Lake
ordinances . They' ve dealt with a lot of these problems prior to us . We
typically steal whatever we can from other cities so if we can use
something from Minneapolis , we certainly will . We can always find out
what problems they' ve had and try to get around those things. A motion is
in order . I ' ll make a motion that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of
the City Ordinances and instruct staff to investigate the possibility of
moorings in the city lakes and set up a meeting with the Carver Beach
residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park.
' Boyt: I ' ll second it .
' Robinson : Are there any exceptions? Is that just black and white?
Mady: There' s always the ability for a variance.
' Robinson : Okay, and I ' ve seen the discussion that the City Council wanted
the grandfathered in in that. Is that in the ordinance or is that a part
of that?
' Sietsema : If you want to recommend that a section be written up allowing
for a variance, you should include that in your motion because that ' s not
' included in this amendment .
Roger Byrnes : . . .because the way the ordinance is written , we' re already
grandfathered in.
' Sietsema : This is allowing a variance for mooring of boats . The rafts
are grandfathered in but the moorings are not so that would require an
amendment to Section 23 of Chapter 6 allowing for a variance.
Hasek: It says right at the bottom, removal of seasonal docks and
moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before
November 1st of each year . All non-conforming moorings and other
structures . . .
1
i
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 23
Sietsema : With the exception of rafts . Read on.
Hasek: Except docks and swimming rafts. I apologize. Once removed may II
not be returned to the lake. Non-conforming docks are regulated by
Section. . .
Sietsema : So the moorings would require, you either want to grandfather I
those in or look at them on a case by case basis and have a variance.
Mady: I guess I would like to see us , in my motion, to allow for a
variance opportunity and it would not come under 6-23. That' s concerning
structures . Moorings would have to come under . . .
Sietsema: I believe it' s outlined in Barbara Dacy' s letter.
Mady: I would like to see us allow for variances to the ordinance.
Schroers: And will the variances allow us to address a specific
situation?
Mady: It would have to be in response to a specific situation. That
situation would have to come in front of the Council and the Council votes
on it. It takes a four-fifths vote of the Council to approve or deny.
Sietsema: 6-23 is variances .
Mady: Yes , but that ' s only structures . Moorings would go under number 1. II
Structures are a thing . . .
Sietsema: Okay, Roger would figure that out . ,
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of
the City Ordinances. To instruct staff to investigate the possibility of
moorings in the city lakes . To set up a meeting with the Carver Beach
residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park. And to
allow a variances section in the Ordinance to cover moorings. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Fred Oelschlager : I just had one question. Others brought this u a
while ago but the meeting went along pretty well as far as understanding
and so forth. I 'm Fred Oelschlager at 7410 Chanhassen Road . I 'm also a
lifetime residnet of Lotus Lake. I 've had no problem with the raft at
Carver Beach. I 'd like to see it cleaned up and so forth. I go along
with them fine. I just want to hear something from, I think it ' s . . . '
Boyt : Sue .
Fred Oelschlager : Sue , on the mooring of boats on park property. Can you
just explain that quickly?
I
i
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 24
Boyt : I want to look into it.
' Fred Oelschlager: Is it the numbers you ' re talking about?
Boyt : We' re not talking about numbers yet .
Fred Oelschlager: You' re going to open up a real can of worms there.
Boyt: That' s something that you guys will come in and talk to us about.
' Fred Oelschlager : . . .and you have a brand new public access on the lake.
You open up one of the best area , and I think that should be all that' s
' necessary. I don' t even live on that end of the lake is what I 'm saying .
Mady: You have 3 park areas on Lotus Lake with South Lotus Lake Park,
North Lotus Lake Park and Carver Beach.
' Fred Oelschlager : Like Lotus Lake Estates , Sunrise Hills. They' re
limited to the amount of boats that they can put on the lake basically and
now you want to start mooring boats out in front of park property. I just
want to let you know where I 'm coming from.
Mady: You recognize the issue there . We' re probably going to have a
fairly heated discussion when it comes to that and we recognize that .
Fred Oelschlager : Alright , thank you.
' Ray Roettger: That boat mooring business, you 'd better really be careful .
I appreciate where these guys are . They' re fine people but they better
also be very concerned because I could take a boat and moor it right in
front of your swimming raft and you wouldn ' t want that .
Mady: Not in a public beach you can ' t.
Ray Roettger : If I can ride by water over to the area that you would use .
' Resident: . . .anybody from Lotus Lake could go and park their boat here.
The people don' t do that .
' Ray Roettger : But once it' s written in and you get some smart attorney,
that' s not kind hearted, he could really create a problem.
Mady: That' s what we ' re trying to employ all the problems . We have a
tendency, this Commission has the tendency to be very proactive and look
out for the problems so they don ' t occur . We try to be fair to everyone.
' Mary Jo Moore: I 'm a little confused when you say that the non-conforming
rafts that are currently there will be grandfathered in?
Mady: As long as they' re legal . There are certain requirements and they
can still . If they' ve got a raft in your situation , it ' s too low in the
water, doesn ' t have a permit , even though it ' s non-conforming, it ' s still
illegal .
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 25
Mary Jo Moore : It' s non-conforming to the structure standards also.
That' s my conclusion. So that would go? That would not be grandfathered II
in?
Mady: I guess that' s a question for the City Attorney.
Boyt: If it doesn't fit our standards right now, then it could be taken
out right now. We have standards set for rafts. I don ' t know who it is .
The Sheriff or someone but I think notify. . . '
Mary Jo Moore: Of course now it' s out , the lake is frozen.
Boyt: But someone needs to notify the sheriff .
Mary Jo Moore : But that type of thing would not be grandfathered in?
Boyt: Not if it doesn' t meet the standards set.
Ray Roettger : How many are out there that can be grandfathered in? '
Mady: It sounds like 4. You 've got one. There' s one next to you .
Jerry' s got 2. I thought you said there . . . 9 '
Ray Roettger : No, that ' s a dock.
Sietsema : There ' s probably quite a few. We wouldn ' t know until they came 1
in and asked us .
Mady: Again , when we go to public hearing this thing is going to have to I
be very defined out.
Resident : Hasn ' t anybody come forward and said , that they' ve applied for
a permit and they' ve gone through the whole process legally. Now this 11
issue comes up to take it away.
Resident: Wasn' t everybody ticketed? I
Mady: The attempt was made , yes .
Resident : So how many people does that involve? I know about only on
Lotus Lake.
Mady: In some situations , the boats were removed prior to the enforcement I
officer getting there so we really don' t know.
Robinson : The only boats that were removed , as I understand it , were
boats that were actually on land. All boats that were moored were
contacted . Lori , isn ' t that correct?
Sietsema: I think so. ,
Robinson : There are only 4 boats .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 26
Mady: There may be more. Things seem to always come out of the woodwork .
Resident: Okay, but why can' t citizens who were here and we' re
representing ourselves and we' ve come to both meetings , why can ' t there be
a clause just to grandfather us in? Because we have proof that we have
had it there for 2 years or longer or whatever . If you can grandfather in
the raft, how come you can' t grandfather in these?
Mady: The raft that' s there is a non-conforming use. I 'm not sure the
raft is a non-conforming use. I really don' t.
Resident : It ' s been listed as a grandfathered in raft.
Mady: I guess I 'd feel a lot more comfortable if Roger Knutson was here,
the City Attorney and he told me whether that ' s a non-conforming use
because my understanding is that a non-conforming use goes to the person
who owns the property. In this situation, the City owns that property.
The land. I 'm talking about the land. That ' s where non-conforming use
comes to.
Resident : But the raft is in the lake which is not city property.
Mady: But see, that I don ' t know. That ' s what we need to find out .
Hasek: It really doesn ' t matter . All we do is make recommendations and
suggest a policy. The City Council is going to have to act on it and
they' re really your , right there are yours . . .
Mady: What we say doesn ' t necessarily happen .
Resident : I understand that may be the case but certainly you have a
number , there' s been an adjustment for a raft and somewhere there ' s been
an adjustment for docks but there has not been an adjustment for moorings.
That just isn ' t there. There' s a reason why you ' ve ignored those and I
don ' t_ know why you ' ve omitted it . You know it' s something that ' s going to
be a problem or what? Why are you ignoring it?
Hasek: I 'm just not in favor of it .
Resident: Is that a bottom line?
Hasek: Personally I 'm not in favor of it . If someone had suggested it in
a motion, I would have probably voted against it myself .
Resident : I appreciate your honesty and openness on that because it seems
like. . .
Hasek: I 'm more concerned about , I guess what I 'm very concerned about is
the fairness to everybody in town. Just because someone has been doing
something forever does not give them the right to continue to do it .
I .
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 29
understand what you' re saying Jim and there ' s two sides to the coin. If
one argument is the devaluation of the property value because what I think
to be a decent boat , not restricting any access from either neighbor . On
the other side of that coin is why should I have my property devaluated
based on those concerns? I might add that this is a concern of one
particular individual. The other neighbor has offered to let me use his
dock even but he unfortunately can ' t.
Hasek: I think our charge is to look at the broader issue. I think the
grandfathering will have to be argued by the individuals with the Council .
Mady: . . .handle some of these situations. It' s the councilman' s job and
when you get to the Council , it will be their responsibility to make that
decision. Not ours .
Robinson: But Jim, the agenda said boat moorings and dock ordinance .
Mady: And we talked about it. Unfortunately, it didn' t go the way you
wanted it to go. We did discuss it . I talked about it. Ed ' s talked
about it. We did talk about it for maybe half an hour . . .
Lynn Hall : I can understand what you' re saying but on the other hand
you' re saying that it' s an issue that you don' t want to get into because .
there isn ' t enough people here or whatever . They all had the same
opportunity that we had to be here. Just as I had to find out, even
though I should have been notified , and under the circumstances it ' s an
issue that' s going to have to be dealt with sooner or later so isn' t it an I
issue that at this point as far as you ' ve gone with it , that isn ' t it an
issue that maybe should be , as Sue said , dealt with a little bit more?
Boyt: If we' re against it, we can say we don ' t like the idea of boats
being moored at our public beaches and lay it out flat like that. But ,
they can apply for a variance with the City Council . Right? That ' s what i
we' re saying .
Lynn Hall : So it is going to be in your minutes , that at least it ' s going
to say that it has to be looked into even harder and there is going to be
another meeting . At that point you ' re saying it ' s not going to be the
Park and Rec but it' s going to have to be City Council that does the next
step?
Mady: No . What we said is , we recommended to the Council to approve the
ordinance as it stands and to look into a couple other things . One of the
things we do intend to look at and have always intended to look at was the I
mooring issue off of city property because that ' s where we get involved is
really city property. I 'm not real sure why the mooring situation,
specifically at Lynn' s property, came in front of us. It ' s usually
handled in the planning area . It ' s not something we have gotten involved
in before.
Boyt : We are also dealing with , we have right now some folks who are at
our public parks . We' re saying with our ordinance amendment that that
will no longer take place unless they' re . . .
1
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 30
I
Lynn Hall : Are you specifically stating public land?
Hasek: We' re involved with public land. That ' s what I keep trying to
tell you. The private sector should be the job of the Council . I
certainly don ' t want to start getting involved with every private feud
that there is on ordinances in this City. I 'm not getting paid to do
that . I think if we continue just to deal with the public land in the
best way we know how and trying to help the Council with that , I think
we' re doing our job.
Boyt : It says in our amendment that no watercraft shall be moored and
we' re talking about all watercraft.
Mady: But at this point in time that ' s when we ask for a variance
situation would handle you.
' Lynn Hall : But your jurisdiction is over public . That ' s what I just
heard you say. Not private and then you ' re saying overall so.
' Mady: We really don ' t have any jurisdiction at all . We ' re simply a park
board that comes here and invites the public to make their comments .
Those go into the Minutes . They go to the Council . The Council reads all
of that hopefully and takes it into consideration when they make their
decision because sometimes the Council doesn ' t open it up for public
discussion. Sometimes they do . This is your opportunity to get your
' thoughts out .
Sietsema: The includance of the whole thing about the variance only
' indicates to the Council that the Park and Recreation Commission feels
that it ' s something that they should consider . It ' s not really this
Commission ' s area to even talk about the variance situation except where
it applies to public land . So it ' s really an issue that ' s got to go back
to City Council and they just made a comment on it so that the Council
knows that they' ve listened to you. That they' ve discussed it.
Lynn Hall : But you are also saying, and correct me if I 'm wrong, that if
I get permission from another landowner to moor my boats in front of his
property, if I don' t own the land , I can ' t park there?
' Sietsema : That ' s right .
Lynn Hall : So that goes for somebody who owns land , let ' s say these two
' people right up here on Lake Minnewashta . If they want to have their son
park their boat all next summer in front of their yard , or in front of
their property, they can ' t do it unless they get a variance? This is the
' only city in the 7 county area that will have done that.
Boyt: It says a member of the owner ' s household.
Lynn Hall : So' i.t ' s a cousin?
C 1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 31
I
Hasek : I don' t know if you made all the discussions with the LMCD but on I
Lake Minnetonka it is illegal for you, unless you are a property owner .
Lynn Hall : No it isn ' t. You can have 2 boats . Lake Minnetonka I
Conservation District, you can have 2 boats or less. Read it. Two boats
or less . Anybody can own them if you get permission. Anybody. If you
have 3 boats or more, they all have to be licensed to you or your I
immediate family.
Hasek: I guess I would differ with you on that but I don' t have the
I
ordinance here and. . .
Lynn Hall : I 'm very aware. The gentleman who' s in charge, his number ' s
right here and you can call him. I
Mady: Let me interrupt you right now. I don ' t believe we' re getting
anyplace. We' ve made our recommendation. Before this gets to the City
I
Council . We have other items on our agenda . We need to get to them.
We' re not going to resolve this tonight. You ' ve heard our recommendation.
We' ve listened to you and now we ' re rehashing and we need to move on. You
have your opportunity, hopefully the City Council will bring your ideas up
there. Again , if you haven ' t signed the sheet in the back of the room,
please do so.
. 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW CHANGES AND PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD AND LAREDO I
DRIVE.
Public Present
Name Address I
Ron and Ann Kleve 6770 Penamint Lane
I
Jeff and Cathy Clem 1011 Carver Beach Road
Jerry__ Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Joy Javurek 6780 Redwing Lane
Chuck Snyder 500 Highland Drive I
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Jeff and Anne Keeler 6771 Penamint Lane
Dave Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road
I
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Jeff and Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral
Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road
I
Sietsema: I 'd like to introduce Scott Harri tonight . He' s the engineer
that worked on the plans and he will go through the plans and specs as I
he ' s prepared them.
Scott Harri : Thank you. I 'm going to be making a presentation this way
I
so if there' s anybody interested, I know it ' s hard to get any kind of good
functional thing . My name is Scott Harri and it ' s my pleasure to be here
II
. ...
CITYOF
1 „vi
c ANBAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: December 6 , 1988
1 SUBJ: Boat and Waterways Amendment
On September 12, 1988 , the City Council reviewed a proposed
amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Boats and
Waterways to clarify City regulations . The Council tabled action
1 and directed the Park and Recreation Commission to review this
item so as to be sure it was in line with park development acti-
vities (Attchment A) .
1 ,( Attached please find a memo from Baroara Dacy (Attachment B)
outlining the background and issues ::elated to this item. The
1 amendment as proposed (Attachment #1) would prohibit the mooring
of boats or rafts in front of park property. The Park and
Recreation Commission has discussed this in the past and deter-
mined that overnight mooring of boats and storing personal pro-
perty on park property would not be appropriate use of parklands .
Section 6-30 of the amendment would allow existing rafts and
docks to be allowed as non-conforming uses.
Staff feels this is a reasonable amendment to the City Code,
clarifying the issues that continue to surface. It is
recommended that the mooring issue, as addressed in Point #4 of
1 Ms . Dacy' s memo, be resolved by amending the variance section,
Section 6-23, to allow situations such as the Hall property or
others to apply for a variance so the City can evaluate each
1 situation on a site specific basis.
1
1
9
City Council Meeting 1 September 12, 1988 ` •I
Father Barry Schneider: I would like to request the Council at this time to
consider speed zoning the area past our school on TH 101 and the church to
perhaps 15 mph. It is presently 30 and with children right on that street, and
sometimes Family of Christ youth on the other side, I think 30 mph is a little
high. I guess I started thinking about that because my dog got hit there last
Monday night and now I'm thinking of human beings. Children and perhaps even on
the other street corner by our kindergarten. There are little children there,
babies traffic coming out and they're stopping on that street. I would request
the Council to consider a speed rezoning.
Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about on TH 101, on 6�st 78th Street?
Father Barry Schneider: TH 101 up to Great Plains. Through there. Traffic used
to slow down because there was a stop sign there. The stop sign was removed and
the traffic moves much more quickly now.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we can not do that since that's a state highway and the
speed limit is minimum of 30 mph. I think that's correct on that but we could
perhaps do a better job of signing. We'll do what we can to try and get the
speed reduced but I know that the minimum speed that we can put up is 30. State
law.
Councilman Horn: You might be a school zone.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we could get it school zoned and have additional si na e
to try and slow traffic down. g g
Gary Warren: I'm meeting with MnDot on Friday so I'll bring it up.
Councilman Boyt: Would it help to have more enforcement there? Are people
actually doing 30 mph in that zone?
Mayor Hamilton: Pretty much. As I travel down there, they seem to be.
Councilman Johnson: When the deputies did a survey there, they found the
average speed was 31 mph. The survey was done with a marked police car which
was seen well in advance so the people weren't traveling their absolutely normal
speed. I saw them two blocks away. If you're going to do a radar survey, it
should be kind of hidden.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Jim, you and Gary can work on that problem. 1
,if N PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING BOAT MOORINGS '
SAND SWIMMING RAFTS, FIRST READING.
i197- Public Present:
Name Address
Mr. and Mr. Lynn Hall 3980 Hawthorne Circle I
Roger Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail
Dave Peterjohn 3921 Hawthorne Circle
Mr. and Mrs. Mike Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail I
5
City Council Meeting - ( ember 12, 1988 C
Mayor Hamilton called the
public hearing to order.
I Barbara Dacy: This proposal is to amend the current Chapter of the City Code
regarding boats and waterways. It was originally known as a water surface
useage ordinance. Because of a variety of issues that have come up over the
I last boating season, staff has prepared the proposed ordinance for Council
consideration. to have notified all of the Homeowner's Associations
rights as well as the lot owners abutting the lakes in Chanhassen. � the lake
there are four changes that are being proposed. Basically
Iitem 2 in the water surface useage ordinance regarding� Tithe ability is adding this
person's boat in the lake in front of a lot in which they reside. As now
r a
written, this under 2, does not exist. The proposed
I that you would have to have a home on the lakeshore site. Lakeshore site means •
a lot abutting the lake and you would have to moor the boat within 25 feet in
front of your lakeshore lot. This was as a result of a couple of issues. Number
1, the Park and Recreation Commission considered a number of requests about
I mooring boats in front of park property. This change has concurrence of the
Park and Rec Commission. Secondly, this provision would consistent with the
City Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory uses and principle uses. As now
I written, a dock is an accessory use and if you have a lakeshore setting, you
would need to have a principle use or a single family home before you could have
a dock on a lake. The second change is in regards to swimming rafts. This also
was considered by the Park and Recreation Commission regarding the ability to
have a swimming raft in front of park property. The way it is proposed
Section 2, we would be adding a proposed y P Posed here in
rafts must be located within 100 feet lakeshore nproperty.irAgain, with itheng
1 home located on the lot. The third change is regarding the removal of swimming
rafts and docks. One of the biggest items that the Park and Recreation
Commission was the use of the Carver Beach swimming raft. Because this swimming
I rraft has been used for a number of years by a number of
the ordinance has been written to allow this particular raft to become around the non-
conforming conforming use so this section of the ordinance allows there-establi.shmentof
non-conforming swimming rafts and docks established in the lake. That's under
Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. Now, the fourth item that's g of
considered is this particular section does not include the ability moor a
boat. So for example, if you do not own lakeshore
property
time, you would moor your boat in the lake, you could otbeaable�topmoor the in
boat next season if this ordinance is adopted. I cited a particular example in
here in the staff report that the City Staff has received a number of phone
I calls regarding Outlot A of Kelllyne Addition.
and Mr. Peterjohn are here to speak on that particular situation. Wha.Cityl
Staff is proposing is that there probably are a number of these situations where
either lakeshore property is vacant and people have been mooring their boat on
I the lake or some type of previous mooring that maybe there should be a process
incorporated into the water surface useage ordinance for the Council to review
each of these situations on an individual basis and have the ability to apply
I certain conditions. If that is Council's policy, then we would suggest that
Section 6-22 be revised to account for that process.
Lynn Hall, 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I understand and respect the I planning and Council have put together in regards to theses tuationshand don't that
1 disagree with your thoughts on it with the exception that
[E7
correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that owners of rafts I understand, and
the same as the owners of boats is a right situation would not be treated
where essentially they're
6 .
J
City Council Meeting c September 12, 1938 ')•"
Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail: I live right off of the parkland area at the
p
end of the park strip and by Fox Chase. I'd like to speak against this
ordinance. I agree with Rocky there. I've lived in Carver Beach for over 10
3 • years and my wife has lived there for over 20 years. A couple years ago we
bought Mr. Winter's farmhouse there down along the parkland there and we talked
to the DNR and we talked to the people there and we applied for a permit with
Carver County Water Patrol to moor our boat out there. We spent the money to
get the official mooring and that kind of stuff and now we find this ordinance
which, in our opinion, seems to be drafted specifically towards us. I believe
it is a misuse of the City Council. The City Staff. The taxpayer's dollars and
the time of all the people here who had to come up here to try to stop this
ordinance. There's no danger that anyone's identifying to the people down in
that area of Carver Beach. It's a situation where the environment, there's been
the raft and all the other things there for many years. It seers like this
ordinance is being prompted by a small group of people who want to make the lake
look just like they want it to look and be just like they want it to be and the
heck with the rest of the people. I think that's a misuse of the power of the
City. I do not believe this ordinance is a result of any complaints, at least
that I'm aware of, of people in the Carver Beach area. I think when we have
problems in the area, we try to work it out with each other and I think that's
worked for many years. I don't believe there's any citywide impact here that
this ordinance is addressing. The big issue that is affecting the people of the
City of Chanhassen. Laws and ordinances are designed to protect people of the
City and to protect the rights and the priviledges of individuals and I do not
believe this ordinance does that. In addition, as the way the ordinance is
currently written, it seems to be specifically discriminatory towards people who
have bouys. That has been specifically left out of the copy that I had.
Apparently they have made special provisions for some of the process of dealing
with people who have mooring bouys and I don't think that's fair to us and I
think that should be changed if this ordinance is passed.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask the City Attorney a question. Can a non-
conforming use be sold to a new resident?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So as long as a use is continued, the new property owner
could buy it?
Roger Knutson: Non-conforming uses run with the land like a conditional use
permit, zoning, variance. I
Councilman Johnson: But if they skip a year, don' t put out a mooring buoy for a
year, if they have a non-conforming use that's going on, and they skip it for a
year, what happens?
Roger Knutson: They' re out.
Councilman Johnson: I don' t have a lot of problems personally with the direct
land owners that have a house and have a boat across from our park there, our
9
P 11
1
IICity Council Meeting - C itember 12, 1988 C
Iparkland on a mooring buoy out away from the edge
the Park and Rec seems to be against is people leavinghtheirrboatsIuphonktheat
I City's property on the edge of the land and call that mooring of boats. I'm not
sure if that is considered mooring. I've always considered mooring as to having
a buoy out there and you tie it off the buoy and the boat floats free of the
.
land I'd like to see those
seems to I'd
to be people who have been doing that for so long, it
prejudicial to exclude that and leave the raft. The raft's
more of an eyesore than a sailboat sitting out there flittering the wind.
That's where I sit on this ordinance.
ICouncilman Horn: I have a question of Roger too. In fact,
There seems to be disagreement in the notes that I have onwhetherlthats was na•
legal non-conforming use at the time it was transferred. Apparently
II covenants in existence at that time which obviously we don'dealwith but ase
that a legal non-conforming use that was transferred? as
II Roger Knutson: I'm not the best person to tell you what the facts are.
as I know, they're violating any ordinance today o use.
far
Y yes, they're a legal use.
I Councilman Horn: Apparently there were some
whether they could or could not moor a boat. questions on staff's part as to
II Barbara Dacy: Mr. Hall's Attorney and Mr. Hall has stated that the previous
owner, Mr. Bohling had stored a pontoon boat. The neighbors have contested that there was no boat storaterther there. aAt this other
ge Mr. Hall is mooring his boat out in front of the outlot inconformancewith the
ICWater Surface Useage Ordinance.
Councilman Horn: Did he come in for a non-conditional use at the
that the ordinance was put into place? As I recall, when thatmordinance waseput
I into place, all outlots had to come in for a non-conforming use requirement and
they were logged as such that they didn't intensify their use.
IIBarbara Dacy: They didn't come in for a conditional use
take an inventory at that time in 1982 and identified which beachlots existeddat
that time but they did not go through Planning Commission and City Council.
ICouncilman Horn: When they took the inventory, was their a boat on the outlot?
Barbara Dacy: No.
ICouncilman Horn: Then that would seem to set
As Roger said, if they don't use it for that use,�then non-conditional ruse fgoesd.
I away.
Barbara Dacy: In talking with Roger about that though, the City Staff at that
time conducted a survey on June 11, 1981. There could be an argument made that
I that particular day, a particular homeowner's association did not choose to p
out their dock or have boats out yet so what we're doing in trying to analyze t
these beachlot ordinances, trying to get affidavits from homeowners to verify
Iexactly what existed at the time of the ordinance adoption. It's going to be
difficult for the City to prove that what's on a dock out there, in this case on
a one day survey.
I lU
ill
City Council Meeting C ;eptember 12, 1988 -
Councilman Horn: As I understand these conditional use permits, and we're '
ki • to come to it later in the contractor's yard, it's up to the person requesting
that to outline what is included in that. What the use is going to be. How
many trucks or whatever. It would seem to me that it would be inctrnbant upon 11
the homeowner to request that conditional use permit and define what his useage
is. If the City goes out there, in fact doing him a favor and if he has a
greater use on that than what the City had indicated, he should have requested
that at the time that the permit was granted. The non-conditional use permit.
Barbara Dacy: That's the policy we might take again. We just identified what
beachlots were non-conforming in 1982 and did not have them in for a specific
process.
Councilman Horn: I specifically recall when that was enacted and the way it was
to be been was that each use of each beachlot was to be recorded and only that
use would be allowed in the future. Nothing over and above that would be
allowed.
Barbara Dacy: If they wanted to expand that, they would have to come back and
get a conditional use permit. That's correct. ,
Councilman Horn: The other problem I have is that I'd like to ask Roger, if we
make an exception on this swimming dock, does the City have any liability
because we're allowing it to be moored in a non-conforming fashion off City
property?
Roger Knutson: The fact that it's conforming or non-conforming to your zoning II
ordinance in this case, would not make it to mean more or less dangers. There's
always potential when you allow anyone to do anything that you can get sued.
There's a State Statute that says when you issue permits, you should be free
from liability so I guess I would not be particularly worried about any
liability problems.
Councilman Boyt: Who is liable? '
Roger Knutson: Whoever moored the boat there.
Councilman Boyt: Boat or raft or whatever?
Roger Knutson: Whatever.
Councilman Horn: Do we have an owner? Isn' t part of the process '
owners name and things on this type p putting an
g ype of structure?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, I believe that's required.
Roger Knutson: On rafts.
Councilman Horn: So would this be an association '
n rift or how would it be
identified? Who would be the owner of it?
Barbara Racy: Who are you talking about?
Councilman Horn: I'm talking about the raft at Carver Beach.
11 '
MI
I
City Council Meeting I e
g - _ tuber 12, 1938 1
II
Barbara Dacy: It would be the raft that's out there now?
ICouncilman Horn: And who owns that?
IDon Ashworth: Mr. Bryne I believe.
Roger Bryne: Everybody's. That raft has just been there for 30 years and
IIeverybody uses it. It don't belong to anybody.
Councilman Horn: That's my concern. Our Attorn
is responsible for it and we're sa i eY told us that whoever owns it
responsible for it. Y nobody owns it so in that case nobody's
II
Roger Bryne:yne: It's been working for 30 years. There's no reason it's can't work
IIfor another 30 years. You're not responsible for it, why should you worry?
Councilman Horn: We have more Attorneys in the world today.
IRoger Bryne: If you don't own it, you're not responsible. The City is not
responsible is what he said. Why worry about it? Let whoever owns it worry
about it.
IICouncilman Horn: Do you agree with that?
Roger Knutson: If you think it's a nuisance or it could cause problems, I think
' you have perhaps an obligation to consider the public good. I'd be more worried
and concerned, if it is a legitinate concern, about someone getting hurt rather
than who's going to pay the bill. You're heavily insured for this sort of
Ithing.
Roger Bryne: I don't have a problem with owning the raft. If you want to say
I I own it, that's fine. I'm not ducking ownership by reason of worrying about
liability. The only reason I say I don't own it is because I know everybody in
Carver Beach owns that raft. Everyone in the world has the right to use that
raft as far as everybody in Carver Beach is concerned. That's why you got that
Ipetition and we got 265 names on it. I can get 580 to 680 more real easily if I
wanted to do some more hiking, which I got tired of. Everybody I contacted
said, yes sounds good. Why would they want to take that away? That's crazy.
ICouncilman Horn: We don't want you to be liable for something that everybody
uses either. My point is, I don't think Park and Rec was aware until recently,
II at least from the Minutes I read, that that was a public beach. Is that true
Lori?
II Lori Sietsema: The current Park and Recreation Commission :ins unsure of how
that mini-beach got there. Researching the file, it was approved by a former
Park and Recreation Commission.
Councilman Horn: I think that was a surprise to a lot of us. But it seems to
I me that now that Park and Rec is aware of it, that's what it is, we should have
a plan from them as to how they intend to use it and then I'd be much more
comfortable if we included a raft out there. If we were going to do that, that [7:
111C- the City maintain it and keep it up rather than making some private individual
I12
NI
r
r -Al
N,
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988
II
' responsible for it. I'm uncomfortable. I don't think that's fair to him.
That's all I have on this issue. II
Councilman Boyt: Well, Clark once again we're going to agree. First, it's my
understanding that Park and Rec did discuss this issue? Just to clear that up
II
and that a couple of comments came out there about the concern about whether it
was in fact being treated as a public beach. Would like to see that if we're
going to keep this piece of property, and I assume we are, that the City has an
obligation to make sure that it's a safe and useable piece of property. To do II
that, there's a couple things that I would like Park and Rec, I guess basically
I can just say I'd like them to look at that issue and come back with a
recommendation. I personally have concern that as I read the ordinance now,
II
it's not possible for anybody, Minneapolis, Chanhassen, Chaska, anybody to put a
raft in any lake that we've got and leave it. They have to put their name on
it, if they were conforming with the City ordinance but once they did that, we
could have 100 rafts or we could have one raft. We have no control. Is that II
your understanding of the ordinance?
Jo Ann Olsen: You have to be a lakeshore owner to do that but.. . t
Councilman Boyt: So it is limited?
Barbara Dacy: What we're adding is that in addition to being a lakeshore owner, II
you have to have a home on the property.
Jo Ann Olsen: And it has to be in front of your ' I
now, if you have lakeshore on Lotus, y property. The way it is right
you can actually moor on Minnewashta.
Councilman Boyt: You could moor on any other lake. Once you're a lake owner,
you have this tremendous right to put it up anywhere but if you're not a lake II
owner, you can't?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. I
Councilman Boyt: Well, I think we have 250 signatures of people that say they
want to use it and if we're right to say we've got potentially more people who
II
would use it, then Park and Rec should certainly look at how we can make best
use of this piece of property and it sounds like establishing some sort of
swimming beach even though it's not very far away from one we just established.
It might be reasonable. I think that we should definitely put signs up there II
that this is a public beach and that we should certainly look at how we can
provide parking. I understand that's going to be a bit of a problem but if it's
going to be a public beach, we need to have parking and we need to have it II
clearly signed that it is such. On the raft, my position would be on all rafts,
that if they're not owned by the City, they have to be out in front of a
person's piece of property where they can be properly supervised. I don't want
II
rafts that are unsupervised on our lakes. If it is the City's, then it would go
without saying, I suspect, that the City would put it out in front of a piece of
City property. Then in terms of, I want to be certain that we're setting a
situation here that isn't so specific that it just limits boats or rafts and II
really should be talking about private property. That we should have no storage
of private property on public property. We have a responsibility to protect
public property and be sure that it has public use and
p
II
art of that. There should be no anchoring of private private property is not
property outside of areas
13 1
_ .
..
,�L
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988
1^
II
that are owned by and directly under control of the person who has that
I nchorage. However, there's an interesting point that was brought up here by I
think Mr. Schroeder when I talked to him over the phone. The DNR I gather had
plans to put 10 boats on Lotus Lake with public moorings. Does staff know
anything about that?
IIBarbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge.
II Mrs. Schroeder: When we purchased our home, this is what we were told by the
DNR that there would be 10 permits issued for the west side of Lotus Lake.
Barbara Dacy: And when did you purchase your home?
I Mrs. Schroeder: TWo years ago. So w�
response. g applied for a permit and never got a
IBarbara Dacy: That can certainly be checked.
I Councilman Boyt: This opens up a process that I had never even considered and
that's public mooring places on our lakes. I don't know, since we don't have a
system in place to do that, it's a little bit of a scary idea to turn up and yet
I think the City should probably look at it and find out just what's going on
I here. Apparently the County has a right to grant these and the County accepted
your application but never sent you a response?
ILL
Mrs. Schroeder: Correct.
E___Councilman Boyt: So maybe nobody wants to deal with this issue but I think if
we're going to, very wary of creating a situation in which one person has access
I to mooring because they took action and nobody else has access and we now
effectively limit anybody else from getting it. I think we should research the
issue and maybe Park and Rec would be the logical place to do that since we're
I talking about a recreational activity. No matter who owns that raft, it needs
to be maintained in safe operating conditions and I think that needs to be the
case for all rafts, docks and what not in public waters. They're too attractive
for other people to come, stop by and use. I'm basically in agreement with the
I ordinance as stated but I want to be sure that when we do it, we're not losing
the public's long standing right to use that beach. That we're simply making it
a safe use of the beach and we're making it a public use of the beach and not a
Iprivate homeowner's beach. That's all I've got for now.
Mayor Hamilton: There seems to be agreement, it's incredible but there is.
I There seems to also have been a long standing tug of way going on within the
community between the people who live on the lake and the people who do not.
That tug of way continues today by some who live on the lake to keep those who
do not live on the lake off the lake. I think it's really unfortunate since the
I lakes belong to everybody in the community. We should all have the right to use
them so I think really what Bill and what Jay and Clark have been sayina is
that, instead of legislating it and trying to keep people off and to keep kids
I out of the swimming holes they've been using for 30 years, we ought to try to
work and come up with something that's useable and workable for all the
If- residents. Something that's reasonable. I think as a part of that, the City
[7.":
needs to look at what lakeshore we have, and we do have quite a bit of it, and
we need to sign that as city property and if we so designate it as a beach, then
I14
IN
City Council Meeting( September 12, 1988 ( "II
4:7
fine. We'll call it a beach. Then we need to take the raft that's there out II
and put in a raft that's in good repair and can be used by everybody without
worrying about kids stepping on nails or something else happening. A board
II
4 i coming off. We need to sign it so we say no diving. If you want to jump off
the raft, that's fine but we need to be also sure that the water's deep enough
so even jumping in, somebody's not going to become injured. We need to sign it
to say that there are no lifeguards on duty and that you're using it at your own II
risk, even though it is a city park. I think for the beaches, those are the
kinds of things we need to look at and I agree, I think the Park and Recreation
Commission should look at all the land that the City owns and what potential use
I
we have of that land. Is there one beach or are there 6 beaches that have
potential use? As far as mooring boats, Bill mentioned the possibility of
permits and that the County does issue permits. However, in the past when this II issue has come up and people have gone to the County and asked for a permit, the
County has been relunctant to give a permit unless the City is willing to
approve it so you're kind of chasing your tail on this issue. Nobody will issue
the permit. We've always worked closely with the County and if we felt a permit
II
shouldn't be issued, we've told them that and they haven't issued the permit.
But I think along with designating where the City property is and signing it, we
also need to think of a permit process. Where can we put out mooring buoys so
II
people can put a sailboat out or put a canoe out. Put a fishing boat out and
have a permit process that people can come in, get a permit to put their boat in
and they can leave it there all year so people who do not live on the lake, have
an opportunity to use the lake. That entrails a whole lengthy process of I
looking at what can be moored at those buoys and for how long do you have it and
when is your permit up and all this kind of thing but I think it's something
1 that we need. It's time for us to go througn this issue. It raised it's head
4:, _
about 6-7 years ago and now it's here again and it's time to do something II
positive about it. I think a permitting process would be good and it's
something that we need and I think it can be workable. They do it on bake
Minnetonka and you look at how Minneapolis does it on the city's lakes. It II
works out very well for them. It's a little different situation. You don't
have people living on the lake with lakeshore access but people use the lake
so I think there are, unless the ordinance says in effect that we can use in
II
doing a lot of information off of, so I would charge the Park and Rae Commission
and Lori to move ahead with this item and put it back on your agenda at your
earliest possible convenience. With that, I guess I'd like to see us table this
II
until such time that we have additional information back and can take positive
steps to make the corrections that are needed.
Councilman Boyt: Before we reach a second to that table, I would like to see II
you add that the Attorney be directed to reach a finding in support of this
ordinance because I think we're probably going to be challenged by somebody and
I'd like to know what our legal grounds are before we launch into it. I
Councilman Horn: We certainly aren't setting any precedent with this. `any
other cities have ordinances like this. As a matter of fact, the beachlot
II
ordinance was structured very much after the White Bear Lake conservation
district beach ordinance. White Bear Lake also has an ordinance similiar to
this for other structures on the lake. In fact it does require that the
I setback, similar to a zoning ordinance, in using it. The purpose of these is to II
resolve neighbor disputes. That's why it was generated in White Bear Lake
because two neighbors, if the lakeshore was straight, things would be very
simple but lakeshore goes like this and somebody assumes that the lot lines
II
15 1
. . .
-
City Council Meeting - ( )tember 12, 1988
a
rdon't always run parallel with the lot lines
Cordinances were put into effect. on shore and that's why these
legally if we enacted something I don't think there should be any problem
ng like this.
II
Mayor Hamilton: Exce p '
t I would like to be sure that as the Park and Rec
Commission works with the lakeshore and the
Imay want to add to this ordinance, property that the City owns, they
proposed in here and I think they should havewthattlatitude to look zatsthistande
see how it's going to fit in with what they're
II for us to say this is what we want right now, might gbeoaalittle prremature.thLet
them take this and say it's something that perhaps we support
you go along and see if you can't work some of the kinks ut . bEithersadd to it it as
II or take away from it so it works out best for everyone.
Councilman Boyt: And you're
White Bear Lake ordinance to useoas a mode suggesting then that we be sure that they have
IMayor Hamilton: I think they should use that
nka and see they should talk to
Minneapolis, and talk to Minneto
I lakes. they regulate moorings on their
Councilman Horn: Minnetonka and White Bear Lake are both under conservation
districts. Their ordinances were very similar. The for
I that, as it was structured there, was not so much a lakeowner pur
agnon-lake
owner, it was mitigating a problem that came up between adjacent lake owners.
That was the primary impetus.
Ill: Mayor Hamilton: Eden Prairie may have information also.
lakes. . They have several
IICouncilman Johnson: From my visits out there this saner, I've seen very few
boats moored along there as far as existing moorings that this ordinance would
be taking away. As far as boats being pulled up along the shore, that's
I something different and that's what I would like to s o taken away. I think
where we stand, the hardest place we stand as far as being sued or whatever, is
the people who had a house there and have had a mooring buoy out and a boat
attached to a mooring buoy all along, not sitting up on City
II actually attached to the mooring buoy. I'd like to know how manyeofythose there
are there that have been doing that over the last few years and I think that
this is a good area that we could put in a few public mooring buoys. I don' t
II know how much in a lottery or whatever, to get to them because I personally, if
I owned a boat would like to have a place where I could put it without having to
be a lakeshore owner. I don't own a boat though but I'd like the Park and Rec
to look into the ability to, and this would really give us control over the
II public mooring of non-lake owner boats here.
__ Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what I charged than to do. reement
that we leave the ordinance? I would then move that we tablerthi/suiteauntil
the Park and Rec Commission can review it and bring it back to us.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the amendment
to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding boat moorings and swimming
the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the item. rafts until
LZ
and the motion carried. All voted in favor
•
16
,
C c
- ::ke
N N,
( ,i cEANHAssEN
, r
r
`� , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
N.,.....\„..
......„,
, . ,
' (612) 937-1900 Action CY DC'/AirIris•r-t)r
j rdorrr,
MEMORANDUM m:d.. 4
has..":
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager i;; ..T-ice _$__
Bata :2.,,m;:",;,,1 :0 t,n a;* Ira
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner '
Date Surnmcd to Cot,ctj
DATE: September 8 , 1988 9_r2. -ke
SUBJ: Amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code Regarding Boat • II
Moorings and Swimming Rafts, First Reading
BACKGROUND r
A number of issues concerning swimming rafts, docks and boat
moorings have occurred during the past boating season on Lotus II Lake and Lake Minnewashta. These various issues have lead staff
to prepare an ordinance amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code
1. regarding Boats and Waterways ( forc_terly the Water Surface Usage
II
Ordinance #73) to clarify city regulations . .
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance is presented for Council discussion and II
if deemed appropriate, for adoption for first reading. The ordi-
nance changes are as follows:
I
1 . The ordinance amends Section 6-27 (o) to add that boats
moored in the waters of any lake overnight must be moored II directly out Erom a lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit
has been constructed. This language attempts to address two
issues:
a. To prohibit the mooring of boats in front of park prop- r
erty ( upon recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Commission) ; and - II
b. To be consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations
requiring a principle use of a lot ( single family home)
to exist prior to establishing an accessory use (dock or
II
mooring) .
As now written, if a person owned lakeshore property but did
II
not have a home on the property they would be able to moor
their boat in the lake in front of their property.
r
J , 1
Ar ai. flirtei( -[ 't
' C
' Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1988
Page 2
•
2 . Upon the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Commission, Section 6-28 (c) is proposed to be added stating
that swimming rafts installed in the lake must be directly
out from a lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit has been
constructed. Again, this was to prohibit personal swimming
' rafts to be stored in front of park property as well as
lakeshore property that may be vacant at this time.
3 . A number of petitions and letters have been received from
' property owners in the Carver Beach area regarding the
existing swimming raft. The swimming raft has been used by
Carver Beach property owners and others for a number of
' years . In order to allow the swimming raft in the Carver
Beach area to continue because of its previous long standing
use, Section 6-30 of the ordinance is proposed to be amended
to allow existing swimming rafts and docks to become non-
' conforming structures .
4 . Proposed Section 6-30 does however, prohibit the re-
establishment of mooring a boat in front of lakeshore prop-
erty that does not contain a home on the property. In
drafting the ordinance, city staff felt that it would be very
difficult to keep track of those persons who have been
' mooring their boat on a regular basis in front of vacant pro-
perty. Further complicating the issue is whether or not the
ability to moor would be passed to other family members or
' new lot owners buying lakeshore property. Staff has encoun-
tered similar problems with establishing beachlot usage prior
to the adoption of the beachlot ordinance. There are certain
' circumstances , however, that may justify a need to have a
variance or permit process for a homeowner who has previously
moored his boat in front of vacant lakeshore property to
petition the Council to continue that ability to moor under
' certain restrictions .
An example of this situation is reflected in the correspon-
dence received from Lyn Hall and David and Sally Peterjohn on
Hawthorne Circle. Mr. Hall owns Outlot A of the Kellyne
Subdivision. Pedestrian easements were recorded against
Outlot A for access to Lake Minnewashta for certain lots in
the Kellyne subdivision. In fact, the city recognized this
outlot as a recreational beachlot when it adopted its
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance in 1982 . At that time there
were no docks or boats stored on the property. Unusual in
this case, however, is that the outlot is owned by an indivi-
dual and not a homeowner' s association. The current
homeowner, Mr. Lyn Hall , upon purchasing the lot from Cliff
Bohlmann, had understood that a boat could be stored on the
outlot. This was also confirmed by city staff . Mr. Hall
consequently stored his boat on the outlot. However, when a
Ineighbor, Mr. Peterjohn, contacted staff, we determined that
Mr. Hall had to remove the boat from the property because of
•
1
C ( i
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1988
Page 3
the recreational beachlot rules . However, under the current ,
Water Surface Usage Ordinance, we did allow Mr. Hall to moor
his boat in front of the outlot.
In order to look at this particular situation more closely, and '
there probably are others along lakeshore property, it is recom-
mended that the variance section, Section 6-23 be amended to
allow situations such as the Hall property or others to apply for
a variance so that the city can evaluate each situation on a site
specific basis .
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should discuss each of the enumerated issues and
determine whether or not an ordinance amendment would be
appropriate. Clarifying the ordinance language would help
enforcement procedures and assist staff in responding to
homeowners concerns .
Please note that the ordinance amendment will have to be approved
by DNR prior to its effective date. '
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Proposed ordinance dated August 17 , 1988 . ` I
2 . Existing City Code.
3 . Letter from Lyn Hall dated July 8 , 1988 .
4 . Letter from David and Sally Peterjohn dated July 21 , 1988 .
5 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated September 7, 1988 , with Park
and Recreation minutes and attachments .
" e:•:,v ••
• • ..t r'Cs l� .c 6 r w
1
I
If
A,
IORDINANCE NO.
47
CITY OF CHANIIASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
IAN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CHANHASSEN
CITY.CODE CONCERNING BOATS AND WATERWAYS
11
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
SECTION 1. Section 6-27 (b) of the City Code is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:
(b) No watercraft shall be moored,
on any lakeshore site or on the dwaters oofs any elakeernight
Iunless:
(1) Currently registered, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 361 in the name of the owner of a lakeshore
site on the lake or in the name of a member of the
owner's household; or
1 lir
(2) If moored in the waters of any lake overnight it
must be moored directly out from and within twenty-
five (25) feet of a lakeshore site, upon which a
dwelling unit has been constructed, owned by the
owner of the watercraft.
(3) Currently registered as a guest boat at any
I privately-owned commercial resort or commercial boat
landing located on the lake.
SECTION 2 . Section 6-28 of the City Code is amended by
adding subparagraph (c) to read:
(c) Swimming rafts left overnight in the waters of any lake
must be anchored directly out from and within one hundred
(100) feet of a lakeshore site, upon which a dwelling
unit has been constructed, owned by the owner of the
I swimming raft. All swimming rafts must have an
identification plaque containing the name, address, and
phone number of the owner.
SECTION 3. Section 6-30 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
IRemoval of Seasonal Docks, Moorings, etc.
All seasonal docks, moorings, and other structures shall
be removed from the lake before November 1 of each year. All
Ir08/17/88 /
MO
( f I
§ 6-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
illLakeshore site means any lot,parcel or other tract of land legally subdivided and recorded
in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles and which abuts any lake.
License means the authentic state document used to designate the numbers assigned a I
watercraft and to renew the same.
Mooring means any buoy,post,boat lift,structure or device at which a watercraft may be I
moored which is surrounded by public waters.
Motorboat means any watercraft propelled in any respect by machinery, including water-
craft temporarily equipped with detachable motors. I
Operate means to navigate or otherwise use a watercraft.
Ordinary high water mark means a mark delineating the highest water level which has
been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape; the
ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where natural vegetation changes from I
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
Overnight means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. of any day.
Owner in the case of a watercraft means a person, other than a lienholder, having the
property in or title to a watercraft;the term includes a person entitled to the use or possession
of such craft, subject to an interest in another person, reserved or created by agreement and
r
k.
securing payment or performance of any obligation. "Owner" in the case of a lakeshore site .4)
means any natural person who is either the record owner of a fee simple interest,or the record
owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or the holder of a possessory leasehold interest,
in the whole of any lakeshore site, including authorized guests, and immediate family mem-
bers of such person.
Permanent dock means any dock other than a seasonal dock. I
Seasonal dock means any dock designed and constructed so that it may be removed from a
lake on a seasonal basis; all components such as supports, legs, decking and footing must be _
capable of removal by nonmechanized agents.
Sheriff means the sheriff of Carver County, acting directly or through his authorized
agents.
Slow—No wake means operation of a watercraft at the slowest possible speed necessary to
maintain steerage and in no case greater than five (5) miles per hour.
Swimming raft means a small floating structure designed exclusively for swimming and
sunbathing. I
Swimming area means an area immediately adjacent to the shoreline which is marked in
accordance with the applicable regulations of the state department of natural resources and
which is used solely for recreational swimming.
Underway or in use means any watercraft in operation or use when not securely fastened
to a dock or other permanent mooring or at anchor.
328
, .I
L.
IBOATS AND WATERWAYS § 6-4
r Watercraft means any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water other than a
duck boat during the duck hunting season, a rice boat during the harvest season, or a
seaplane.
IWater obstacle means any ski jump, slalom course, diving tower or other structure upon
the water of any lake. "Water obstacle" does not include any dock or swimming raft or
I watercraft.
(Ord. No. 73, §§ 2.01, 2.03-2.12, 2.14, 2.16-2-19, 2.21-2.28, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-2. Exemption for law enforcement personnel.
Watercraft used by resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel, when
acting in the performance of their assigned duties, are exempt from the provisions of this
chapter.
(Ord. No. 73, § 13, 7-11-83)
ISec. 6-3. Temporary event permits.
A temporary exemption from this chapter may be obtained through a permit issued by
I the city council for special events, trials and races. Such tem ora
addition to, rather than in lieu of, p r1' permits shall be in
any permit required under section 6-4.
(Ord. No. 73, § 14, 7-11-83)
klSec. 6-4. Permits for water obstacles.
(a) No person shall operate or maintain any water obstacle, including but not limited to,
Iany ski jump, slalom course, diving tower or other structure upon the waters of any lake,
unless a permit shall have been first obtained for the same. No permit is required for any dock
or swimming raft erected or maintained in compliance with the other provisions of this
Ichapter.
(b) An application for a permit shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the
city. The applicant shall furnish the information required by the form. A nonrefundable
application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid to the city when the .
application is filed.
I (c) The permit shall be issued by the city upon approval by the city council by a majority
vote and upon filing with the city policies evidencing the required insurance, or a certificate
or binder of the insurer stating that such insurance is in force and in effect. Such policies of
Iinsurance, such certificates and such binders shall be in a form and content satisfactory to the
city and shall be placed with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to transact
business in the state.
I (d) In reviewing an application for a permit the city council shall consider the following
g
illo
(1) The size, configuration and manner of construction of the proposed water obstacle;
(2) The level of competing watercraft traffic which can be reasonably expected during
the requested duration of the requested permit;
329
I •
§ 6-24 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I
(2) Obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, mooring or other structure
authorized under this chapter;
(3) Present a potential safety hazard; or
(4) Be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat or protected vegetation.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.01, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-25. Construction and maintenance generally.
Docks,moorings and other structures may be constructed of such materials and in such a I
manner as the owner determines, provided that they shall be so built and maintained that
they do not constitute a hazard to the public using the waters of the lake and they shall be
maintained in a workmanlike manner.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.07, 741-83)
Sec. 6-26. Docks.
(a) No dock shall exceed six(6)feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the
following lengths:
(1) Fifty(50)feet; or
(2) The minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet. .6
(b) The width(but not the length) of the cross-bar of any "T" or"L" shaped dock shall be
included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of
any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. No dock shall
encroach upon any dock set-back zone; provided, however, that the owners of any two (2)
abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock set-back zone
appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the dock is the only dock on the two (2)
lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. No
more than one(1)dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site.
(c) No person shall store fuel upon any dock.
(d) No oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock.
(e) No advertising signs shall be displayed from any dock.
(Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.02, 3.03, 3.09, 3.10, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-27. Mooring, docking,etc., of watercraft.
(a) Except for privately-owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings estab-
lished prior to July 11, 1983, no person shall moor overnight, dock overnight, or store
overnight more than three(3)watercraft on any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake.
Docking of watercraft at any lakeshore site or storage of watercraft upon any lakeshore site is
permissible however at any time other than overnight.
332
, .1
1 ( C
a
BOATS AND WATERWAYS § 6-45
tr,
' (b) No watercraft shall be moored, docked or stored overnight on any lakeshore site or on
the waters of any lake unless the watercraft is either:
' (1) Currently registered,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 361 in the name of the
owner of a lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a member of the owner's
household; or
' (2) Currently registered as a guest boat at any privately-owned commercial resort or
commercial boat landing located on the lake.
(Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.04, 3.05, 7-11-83)
' Sec. 6-28. Swimming rafts,ski jumps, diving taverns,etc.
P g ,
' (a) All swimming rafts shall meet the minimum standards in this subsection. Their size
shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Swimming rafts shall project over
the water surface not less than one (1) foot and not more than five (5) feet, measured
' vertically, above the surface of the lake. Swimming rafts shall not be located in areas with a
depth of less than seven(7)feet. Swimming rafts shall be reflectorized as provided in subsec-
tion(b).Their distance from the ordinary high water mark shall not exceed one hundred(100)
' feet.
(b) Swimming rafts, ski jumps, diving towers and other structures surrounded by the
waters of any lake, whether floating or on posts, shall be lighted with a light visible in all
directions,or have attached thereto sufficient reflectorized material so as to reflect light in all
t T directions. The material shall be ca pable of retaining ng eig
hty (80) percent of its dry weather
reflective signal strength when wet.
(Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.06, 3.09, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-29. Fueling facilities.
Installation of fueling facilities on docks, moorings and other structures shall be prohibit-
ed.Any fueling facilities which were in active use prior to September 7, 1983, shall be deemed
' to be nonconforming uses. No such nonconforming fueling facility shall be enlarged or altered
or increased or occupy a greater area than that occupied on September 7, 1983. Any noncon-
forming fueling facility which is partially or totally destroyed by any cause, may be restored
to its former use and physical dimension if said restoration is completed within one(1)year of
its partial or total destruction. Maintenance and necessary structural repairs of a noncon-
forming fueling facility are permitted provided that any such maintenance or repairs do not
' extend, enlarge or intensify such fueling facility.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.11, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-30. Removal of seasonal docks, moorings,etc.
All seasonal docks, moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before
November 1 of each year.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.12, 7-11-83)
Secs. 6-31-6-45. Reserved.
111
333
•
§ 6-46 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
ARTICLE III. WATERCRAFT OPERATING REGULATIONS
Sec. 6-46. State law incorporated.
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes chapter 361, and the rules and regulations of the
state department of natural resources promulgated thereunder are hereby incorporated herein
and made a part of this chapter.
(Ord.No. 73, § 5.01, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-47. Towing airborne vehicles. I
No person shall tow any airborne vehicle with a watercraft.
(Ord. No. 73, § 5.02, 7-11-83) '
Sec. 6-48. Operation near shoreline.
Operation of motorized watercraft within one hundred(100)feet of any shoreline shall be
limited to emerging straight out from and straight towards the shoreline, or slow—no wake
operation.
(Ord. No. 73, § 5.05, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-49. Slow—No wake areas.
No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow—no wake areas in excess of
slow—no wake speed. Slow—no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each '
slow—no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use
Zoning Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all
notations, references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article
and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
(Ord. No. 73, § 5.06, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-50. Speed.
No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations:
(1) All lakes in marked "slow—no wake" areas, slow—no wake;
(2) Lake Ann, fifteen(15)miles per hour;
(3) Lake St. Joe, fifteen(15) miles per hour; _
(4) Lotus Lake:
a. Sunrise to sunset, forty(40) miles per hour;
b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen(15) miles per hour;
(5) Lake Lucy:
a. Sunrise to sunset, forty(40) miles per hour;
b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen (15) miles per hour;
411
334
.1
a
( (
BOATS AND WATERWAYS § 6-55
I (6) Lake Minnewashta:
a. Sunrise to sunset,forty(40)miles per hour;
Ib. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen(15) miles per hour;
(7) Lake Susan:
I a. Sunrise to sunset,forty(40)miles per hour;
b. Sunset to sunrise the following day,fifteen(15) miles per hour;
(Ord. No. 73, § 5.07, 7-11-83)
ISec. 6-51. Motors.
I The operation of motorboats which are propelled by an internal combustion engine is
prohibited upon Lake Ann.The operation of motorboats which are propelled by electric motors
is permitted upon Lake Ann.
I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.08, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-52. Direction of travel.
IThe operation of motorized watercraft at speeds in excess of fifteen(15)miles per hour in
other than a counter-clockwise pattern of travel is prohibited upon Lotus Lake.
(Ord. No. 73, § 5.09, 7-11-83) .
I 3
Sec. 6-53. Observer required for water skiers.
I No person shall operate a watercraft on any lake, towing a person on water skis, aqua-
plane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, unless there is in such watercraft another person
in addition to the operator in a position to continually observe the person being towed. The
I operator of such watercraft must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times.The
second person on board shall act as observer of the person being towed.
(Ord..No. 73, § 5.10, 7-11-83)
IState Taw reference—Towing person on water skis, M.S. § 361.09.
Sec. 6-54. Tow ropes.
INo person shall be towed on waterskis,aquaplane,surfboard,saucer,or similar device,by
a cable or other towing device longer than eighty-five(85) feet.
I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.11, 7-11-83)
State law reference—Towing, M.S. § 361.09.
I Sec. 6-55. Personal floatation devices.
No person shall be towed, or shall operate a watercraft towing a person on any such
device unless the person being towed is wearing a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal
Ifloatation device.
11(19 (Ord. No. 73, § 5.12, 7-11-83)
State law reference—Personal floatation devices, M.S. § 361.141.
II [The next page is 385]
335
I
IIIN _-
July 8 , 1988 '
Barbara Dacy
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Barbara:
As per our conversation on 7/8/88 , you will find enclosed a copy of a
letter presented to me from Marcia S. Rowland.
I hope this letter will assist in the complicated affair regarding
outlot A Kellynne. I again thank you for your time and attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
Lynn Hall
1
J U L 1 N 1988 '
CITY OF CHANhASSEN
1 ( f
I BRADLEY \,ti . SOLHEIM
ATTOQ�,E. AT LAW
I
AAA 133 WES" ."4.ST STREET
WACONIA M .F..jE SOtA 55387
April 2-1 , 1987
I
1151 21 44 8-5535
181214•2.2045
Mr . C. Russell Bohlmann
I Omega Group
Hazeltine Gates Building
Chaska , MN 55318
IFRE: Outlot A, Kellynne Add_t ion
IDear Mr. Bohlmann:
Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed your proprietary
rights in Outlot A, Kellynne Addition, Carver County,
IMinnesota. I have personally verified with the Office of the
Carver County Recorder that you have a recorded fee ownership
I of Outlot A. This ownership is in fee simple with recorded
perpetual easements over and across Outlot A in the owners,
heirs , and assigns of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , and Lot 1 , Block
2, Kellynne Addition. As owner of Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , you
have two separate interests in Outlot A. The first interest is
If your outright ownership of Outlot A. Then, pursuant to your
ownership of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , you have the recorded
easement rights over and across Outlot A.
IIn response to your questio^, y ou are free to
you wish with either your ownership easementdinterest.
I Should you wish, you can sell Outlot A to anyone you wish . The
property then would be transferred subject to any easement
interest existing at the time of transfer.
IAs to the easement interest, it is possible to extinguish
any and/or all of the three easement interests (Lot 1 , Block 1 ;
Lot 2, Block 1 ; and Lot 1 , Block 2, Kellynne Addition) . To do
so, the easement interest would be deeded to whomever was
desired. However, you would need to have the permission of the
easement owners and any other affected parties . Affected
I parties may include lenders, if they base their loan on the
value of the collateral, and the easement right to Outlot A
may materially affect the value . For example, if construction
I was started on Lot 1 , Block 2, and there is any construction
loan still remaining for that, the lenders approval would have
to he obtained. Similarily, if there is a mortgage on the lot
from which the easement is going to be transferred, the
Ilender ' s approval would also have to be obtained .
If- Should you have any additional questions , please feel free
to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely;
•
I -1\1\c-._•c.....-._7›.. `-=1,_sc-5_4_,..--Szzrzz C
�f
M
c t
July 21, 1988
17
Don Ashworth/
Joanne Olson/
Barb Dacy
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,
RE: Boat restrictions for Outlot A,
Kellynne Division, Lake Minnewashta
The purpose of this letter is to state our position on the
boat restrictions for Outlot A, Kellynne Division, Lake
Minnewashta. We wish to elicit the support of the City of
Chanhassen to clarify this situation. I would like to in-
form the City of Chanhassen about the history of the use of
Outlot A and the present situation.
We purchased Lot 3 , Block #2, in June, 1985 from Michael
Schachterle. After a very thorough investigation of the
covenants and after speaking with the City Engineer, Bill
Monk, we were informed that Outlot A was intended to provide
an access to the shore of Lake Minnewashta. The City of
( Chanhassen's intention, according the Mr. Monk, was that no
boats could ever be parked or docked on Outlot A or in the
waters of Lake Minnewashta. This intention is supported by
the covenants for Kellynne Division.
The previous owner of Lot #1, Block 1, Cliff Bohlmann, who
was the fee owner of Outlot A from 12/22/81, sold his prop-
erty and the fee ownership of Outlot A to Lyn Hall on
6/23/88 . Before 6/1/88 , neither Mr. Bohlmann nor any other
individual had ever parked a boat on Outlot A or in the wa-
ters
of Lake Minnewashta off of Outlot A. The signed let-
ters from John Merz and David Tester can attest to this
fact. The following is a summation of the boat situation on
Outlot A since June 1, 1988: ,
June 12 , 1988 - Lyn Hall's boat was parked in waters of Lake
Minnewashta 2 : OOpm-7 : OOpm, (anchored on Outlot A) . '
June 16 - Lyn Hall's boat was parked permanently in
Minnewashta off Outlot A.
June 17 The City of Chanhassen was contacted. After look-
ing over the covenants, Assistant City Planner, Joanne
Olson, stated that no boats were allowed to be parked or II maintained on Outlot A. She stated that a city officer-:-:v.-10: .=L)
would be sent to issue a warning to the boat owners.
June 20 - A warning citation was issued.
JUL 251988
;t CI -
19/16-C I/4( -/ 44(.
I C r
k
ISince then the boat has remained moored with buoys in two
feet of water off of Outlot A. Mr. Hall's contention is
I that as long as he does not violate the covenants by placing
any anchors or other personal property on Outlot A, he can
moor his boat in the lake with buoys.
IOur position is as follows:
- We want the boat removed for the following reasons:
I - As lakeshore taxpayers, we pay premium taxes for
the right to dock a boat. The intention by both
I the City and the covenants was not to allow any
boats on Outlot A or in the waters of Lake
Minnewashta off Outlot A (See covenants) .
I - Allowing a boat on Outlot A will have an adverse
affect on the value of our lot and home on Lake
Minnewashta.
I - The narrow outlot (20' at lakeshore, 10 feet oth-
erwise) is too narrow for boat placement. Main-
taining taining a boat on Outlot A is against the inten-
tions of the City of Chanhassen.
Since the City of Chanhassen is currently clarifying an or-
dinance for mooring boats with buoys on Lake Minnewashta,
now is the opportune time to correct obviously detrimental
situation to lakeshore owners and the City of Chanhassen.
I We strongly suggest the City of Chanhassen include wording
in the ordinance to require either:
1) A minimum lot requirement (i.e. 50 to 75 feet of
I lakeshore) for lakeshore owners who intend to moor a boat
with buoys.
2) Preferably, no mooring of boats whatsoever on Lake
IMinnewashta for association lots or outlots.
We believe Lyn and Kae Hall were misled in this situation by
I the previous fee owner, Cliff Bohlmann. As taxpayers, we
expect your support on this matter. If Mr. Hall is to have
any legal recourse against Mr. Bohlmann for misrepresenta-
tion, I'm sure he would like to proceed as soon as possible.
IPlease respond with your position to this situation as soon
as possible.
ISincerely,
ga.„)._e_ e., ,,,,,,_____z_ _.„..e.._ ---- 7--
IDave and Sally Peterjohn
Ilf- 3921 Hawthorne Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
474-7086
I ,
El
(- /-
TO THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN:
1
Prior to June 12, 1988, there has never been a boat docked
or moored on Outlot A, Kellynne Division, or in the waters
of Minnewashta off of Outlot A. We can attest to this fact
back to June, 1979 when the Kellynne addition was formed.
As co-owners of Lot 2, Block 2, Kellynne addition, we would
like the City of Chanhassen to enforce the intent of the
Kellynne addition covenants with the new mooring restric-
tions presently being developed 1
1
Lv i
JOHN P. AND(MARY ANN MVRZ DAVID L. ,AND MARY TESTER
3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3897 Lone Cedar Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
474-6931 474-6527
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
i
I
0 I
• U
C O V E N A N T S
James K. McCleaty and Carolynne McCleary, his wife, owners of land described
\ •..
as Lots O 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots 2, and 3, Block 2, lot A,
�
Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, for the purpose of creating and specifying
the rights of the owners of certain of the above -described lots over said Outlot
A, hereby covenant as follows:
II \\ 1. The owners and their heirs and assigns of Lots I0 and() Block 1, and Lot
CI) Block 2, Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, shall have a perpetual easement
II • over and across Outlot A, Kellynne to the shore of Lake Minnewashta; provided,
however, that no such person shall construct or maintain any dock, pier,'boat
slip, boat lift or hoist, either on said Outlot A or in the waters of Like
II . Minnewashta between the easterly extensions of the north and south boundaries of
said Outlot A; nor shall any such person drive any motorized vehicle on or over
I _ said Outlot A. '
2. No person shall cause or allow to be parked, stored or placed upon
II Outlot Aany vehicle, trailer, boat, structure or personal property of any kind
whatsoever whether or not a part of the real estate.
3. The owners and [heir heirs and assigns of said Lots and,, Block 1,
'; and Lot d) Block 2, Kellynne, shall mainLain..said Outlot A and keep it free of
noxious weeds, trash, litte_tap&&arbagey and shall keep any_grass_thereon
I ' -mowed..
All owners of Lots and 1 Block 1, and Lot(lj Block 2, and each of them,
Iare obligated to maintain said Outlot A according to the terms of this covenant,
and said obligation may be enforced in any court of jurisdiction by the City of
Chanhassen or by any owner of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2.
r ' As an additional remedy, the City of Chanhassen or any owner of Lots 3 and 4,
y- } Block 1, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, may recover by action in' a court of juris—
diction from said owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, or any of
them, all amounts reasonably expended by the party recovering for maintenance of .
Outlot A as eel forth herein if said expenditures were made after seven (7) days •
from written demand upon any such owner of Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lot 1,
Block 2.
111 t
•
el
_ ______
________ ____ ______ __
_ . .. 1--- - - - ( • .
•
•4. These covenants are for the mutual benefit of all owners of land in '
•Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, and the casements herein shall remain
•
forever for the benefit of and encumbrances against Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and '
Lot 1, Block 2, Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands on this 14 day
of June , 1979. _
James K. ltcC ea y I
IA. ! 0 al U� (lt
Carol une McCleary d
' STATE OF O -'
)ss. I
COUNTY OF VASHINGTO$
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14 day of June,
1979, by James K. McCleary and Carolynne McCleary, husband and wife.
I
James K. HcCleary and Carolynne
McCleary, husband and wife. I
4%\� BY 4 ,/I 4‘...4/' /
l
:�•r•,1 - Karlena Thoma
Signature of person taking
111
acknowledgment.
•^' Commission Expires: May 30, 1982
NOTARY STAHP
OR SEAL II
Drafted by: Crathvol, Ploetz 6 Oberhauser
1421 East Wayzata Blvd. '
Wayzata, MN 55391 •
411').2`
. , Q
OFF/C.!OF COUNTY RECORDER
S1AT(;f'?lt:'•r.1:50TA - 11..
>; --44--- CPJAIVWC.:00
---0— was o t y �cvrntY Pidt fn a Q�,ot�t,cc�t�n'meent
�— day o .p. 1101JbtLad� biR
•
M..t!�• r c� opt., in
•
q���ffj�''H171 .ea•
�
� R
C'' IY ac• da,
Dy ., 4/
Cocpuiy C^II .1 . - order,
I
•
r •
.
•
I C r
1
C
t
`�' t -„,- -
4
1 �� .e....
.....,. .., ..
,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Barb Dacy, City Planner
IFROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator /
DATE: September 7, 1988
I SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Discussion of Boat & Raft
Mooring
I
I The Park and Recreation Commission initially discussed Carver
Beach Park along Lotus Trail last April when they directed staff
to have personal property stored on parkland, removed. At that
time there were a number of boats , fishing equipment and a raft
stored on park property. Additionally, the Commission questioned
whether the mini beach should be maintained with the big beach so
close.
IStaff took appropriate measures to have all boats removed from
the parkland. Upon investigation of the City Code, it was deter-
I mined that the raft was not prohibited from being anchored off of
park property. The Park and Recreation Commission determined at
that time to maintain the mini beach, and to upgrade the entire
Carver Beach Park along Lotus Trail through the 1989 CIP.
IPark property has been removed from the tax rolls and should be
enjoyed by all residents equally. Allowing parks to be used by a
I select few for their personal use would be discriminatory. Yet,
allowing every resident to store or moor their personal
belongings on park property would certainly be a difficult
situation at best. Therefore, the Commission felt that the City
ICode should clearly reflect such.
Recommendation:
IThe Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the City
amend the City Code to prohibit the mooring of boats out from
I park property, the storage of personal property, and the mooring
of privately owned rafts or docks out from park property.
-r1 5"
I ,
MI
Park and Recreation rmmmission Meeting ( II
April 12, 1988 - Page 35
rr:
Mady: One last item, the change to the capital improvement program, are
they going to be our agenda next time? ' I
Sietsema : Yes . They've been pulled twice, because I couldn ' t figure out
how to get my new machine and Don was in the hospital . I
Lynch: I'd like to ask for a motion for a staff directive. I toured the
Carver Beach trail and I 'm over there quite often, and they've dumped two '
more loads of sand on that place. They continue to develop the beach.
The two loads are up by the street. There are two dumptruck loads
obstructing any possible trail at this point . That floating dock
I
platform is pulled up on the beach on that site. There is a canoe and a
boat. One on the trail further down in the woods towards Carver Beach,
none of which are supposed to be there. i
Sietsema: Before you make a motion, can I make a comment? Maintenance
staff put the sand there. I drove by one day last week and noticed the
I
pile of sand. I checked with maintenance and the street department said
that they replaced the sand that was washed away during the big storm
last summer.
I
Lynch: There' s too much sand there. You can ' t have a trail . There is 2
feet of sand from last year over the top of the chips. You have to dig
tr-- down in the sand there like I have to find where we had a trail . That 's '
not the most sand that' s gone in there but right now there' s way too much
sand . . . .they can get a cable on it now with a tow truck and pull it
right up and haul it off because now they' re using illegal lake use.
I
It' s on park property right now.
Sietsema : So you want the boat removed and the raft removed and what was
the third thing?
Lynch: Well , the sand removed and I 'd like to see them go in there with
a backhoe and pull a lot of that sand out of there. It requires that I
they bank that , put some timbers in or whatever they have to do to keep
that from falling over, that 's a city road crew maintenance problem but I
don ' t want it on a trail . I want the two boats that I saw and if there ' s I
any others out there in Carver Beach and the old access, I want them
confiscated . They' re illegal . They' re not supposed to be there and then
I want that boat platform pulled out. Now generally, they've gotten it
out to the middle of the lake, it is difficult to get there. Staff would
actually have to go out there on the lake and pull it in which would be
an extremely difficult job.
IISietsema: I checked with Scott Harr because I did talk to him about ,
there is another one on the other end too and I did talk to Scott Harr
about it and explained to him that it wasn ' t supposed to be there. I ' ll
I
check with what the status is and try to light a fire under him.
( . Lynch : We tried it before and there ' s no way to identify it . In the
past , if you know who ' s boat it is, I want them out of there so that ' s my ,
'I
. . __
IPark and Recreatiori ommi_ssion Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 36
I
Ile: motion anyway.
II
Lynch moved , Mady seconded to direct staff , within the next two weeks ,
I staff get the sand off of the trail on the Carver Beach and to remove the
two boats and raft from the trail . All voted in favor and motion
carried.
IBoyt: I don ' t think we should take excuses of wait until we find
someplace else to put it because that 's happened. There' s Novak-Fleck
sign on the parkland and I asked them if they'd move the Novak-Fleck
I sign. Well, we don't know where to move it so it's going to take a
little while. There choise is either park property or their property and
park property isn' t an option. I think you should just get the boats
out. Just take them.
I
Sietsema : They did that with another last year that was left, chained to
a tree down at the South Lotus Lake boat access and one of the park guys
Igot a nice new boat .
Boyt : I think it should be impounded and them put up for public auction.
IMady: They should go to public auction.
Sietsema: Yes , Jim knows what the legal thing to do is and they held it .
lir for
ey a were number supposed of weeks .and nobody claimed it and then they did whatever
t to
IMady: One last thing , do you want us to make a motion on the sign?
Boyt: No.
I
Mady: It' s being handled?
IBoyt: Yes .
Hasek: I 've got one that ' s just a discussion item and that ' s all . We
I finally did get something done with our over 35 league. It took 5 or 6
votes I think it was but I think in 2 years we are going to have a legal
over 35 league in the city and it ' s just going to be nice. I think there
was item in that whole package that related to not going to state
Itournament if you got some sort of a penalty. Do you have that
someplace? We should consider that too . A lot of cities will not allow
you to get into the league the next year if you don ' t get your team in
Ithe state tournament . They just try and that ' s it .
Hoffman: All those teams, all the 15 teams will have a team that is
Ieligible to post season tournaments .
II , Mady: Some of those teams just will refuse to go . They' ll get the berth
and then refuse to go. Don ' t have enough guys that get off of work or
whatever it is .
I .
t
(-
CITY OF
1
_ k
tr4:: -
\‘16(%.\ =
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900
•
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: April 21, 1988
SUBJ: Lotus Trail Clean Up
At the last meeting, staff was directed to check out illegal boat
and raft storage on park property along Lotus Trail. Public
Safety is in the process of identifying and contacting the owners
of the boats and will be removing them if the owners do not do so
in an reasonable amount of time. 1
The Commission also expressed their concern over the sand that
was dumped on the park property. I asked public works and main-
tenance why it was done and they indicated that there has always
been sand in that area. The sand was replaced when it washed
away after last summer' s big storm.
This strip of park land is heavily used by the residents in the
neighborhood and many swim at that sandy area. I talked to some
of the residents in the area and conveyed to them that the City
is happy the park is being used; however, storage of personal
property is not acceptable. I said that I would relay to the
Commission, the neighborhood' s desire to keep the sandy area
along Lotus Trail.
It is the recommendation of this office to continue to have boats
and rafts removed from the park area, but to leave the sandy area
in tact and to construct the trail around it.
cc: Scott Harr 1
1
1
.1
■
I -
4.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IApril 26, 1988 - Page 32
(7
Boyt : There ' s a park next to the development . I wasn ' t aware of it .
I Mady: How big is it? We' re talking 384 acres of development with a 7
acre park. 340 acres with 3 lots per acre is . . .
Boyt: There' s a different philosophy in Chaska about development in
I that, from what I 've heard , I know the City Planner there you accomodate
the. . .as much as possible.
I Sietsema : I think that is comparable in size. If all of that does get
developed, there is a lot of question of what actually is going to happen
there with the road alignments of TH 212 going through and the
realignment of possibly TH 41 and different things. If it were to be
I developed as proposed , it' s very comparable to what Lake Susan Hills West
is in size. We required 37 acres and they' re requiring 7.
IBoyt: It' s a difference in philosophy.
Sietsema : We can' t make them do anything .
IBoyt : Other than express our concern.
Mady: They understand that we want to be accomodating neighbors whenever
v possible and if they' re going to take the position that they don ' t think
_ they need the parkland there, we ' ve got to work together as cities . This
is telling me that they don ' t care . I care a great deal about it .
IBoyt: It was suggested by their planner that we meet with them. The
Chaska Park and Rec Commission .
ISietsema : I think it would behoove us too to make sure that we know what
the other parkland in the area is . To go in there and act like we know a
lot more about it and they' re not doing it good enough. People get a
I little offensive to that. I will talk to John Redman and ask him what
their existing parks are and express that we have a concern that it ' s not
going to be enough and tell them what we ' ve done in Lake Susan Hills
I West . I ' ll let you know what the outcome of that and possibly we can
meet. I don ' t know how far they are in their process . If they 've
already gotten preliminary approval . . .
I Boyt: Even if they' re through with it, I think it would be helpful to
meet with them sometime .
ILOTUS TRAIL CLEAN UP.
Hasek: I think the real issue here is the sand isn ' t it?
IMady: There are a couple of issues here . The sand and the storage.
Sietsema : The boat storage , word got out right away that we were going
IF-
to be removing boats or notifying people so those boats got out of there .
There is still one canoe and Scott ' s going to tag it and give them a
I •
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26 , 1988 - Page 33
II
(7
reasonable amount of time to get the canoe out of there and if they don' t I
them we will remove it. Scott ' s philosophy, Scott Harr is the Code
Enforcement Officer so he ' s in charge of this area and his philosophy is
let ' s not play hardball right away and go and take their boat and make I
enemies but give them some notice and do it in an appropriate manner . If
they consistently store their boat there when they know full well that
it' s not a legal thing to do , than we can get nasty about it. So he will I
be tagging it. He told me that he would be. I don ' t know if it' s done
yet and I ' ll follow up on it and let you know.
Mady: I drove by there tonight. The canoe is no longer down there. II
However , the raft is out in the lake now.
Sietsema: We have no ordinance to prohibit that.
Mady: There is a license requirement on rafts . That is out from public
property. You can ' t have a raft outside of your front land so that means I
that it ' s our raft .
Sietsema : Where do you know that?
I
Mady: I drove by it today.
Sietsema: How do you know that they can ' t have a raft out there? - I
Mady: It ' s just like parking a boat. You can ' t do it .
Sietsema: I looked it up today because Roger Burn came in and he wanted
to know why he couldn ' t have the raft there and wanted to see the
ordinance and Barb and I spent a considerable amount of time looking it
up and there is absolutely nothing in the ordinance that we can find that I
says you can ' t have a raft out in the water . It ' s public domain and as
long as you have it deeper than 7 feet and it ' s not too high and it ' s not
too low and it ' s got reflective license on it and it meets all those '
requirements, you can pull that around the lake and put it anywhere you
want. You can put it out in front of your house . Anybody' s house . We
have nothing to say about it as long as they don ' t store it on park
I
property.
Mady: Can you check with DNR on that?
Sietsema: I will . I
Mady: I don' t think that raft is legal . I really seriously don ' t . Does I
it have a city license on it?
Sietsema: It doesn ' t have anything to do with the City.
Mady: My raft on Lotus Lake has a little tag issued by the City that tha was I
required when we purchased it . I believe it was $5 . 00 for the beachlot
ordinance and I believe that one has to have the same thing. If nothing
I
else, we have a serious safety situation down there . I read through this
thing, these people think they' ve got their own private little beach.
JI
/-
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' April 26 , 1988 - Page 34
It' s not marked . If the city owns the land there and this is a city
beach, then we have to have it properly maintained and we have to have it
' properly designated and marked . There are no swimming bouys out there
yet our water surface rules require that I believe. It' s within two
blocks of another city run , safe swim beach . I have some real serious
problems with this thing and I talked to Mike Lynch Monday night and he
was furious with what' s going on down there . I think we've got to take a
good hard look at this thing. If we allow any resident and he decides
that he wants to put sand and swim off of any given point and put out a
' raft.
Sietsema : The resident didn' t put the sand there though. The City did
because it was, I checked with Jerry Schlenk and Dale about why the sand
was there and they said because there has always been sand there and when
a lot of it washed out in the big rain last summer , that they replaced
it. There wasn ' t a trail there before though Jim. It was always sand
' there.
Mady: A nature trail went right through there. Right now there ' s a
' mound of sand that high. There ' s no trail right now.
Sietsema : There wasn ' t a trail their either . It led to there and it
stops at that sandy spot and it went on . There was never a trail through
' the sand .
Mady: All the sand on Lotus Lake has been placed there by people . The
' lake has no sand bottom.
Sietsema : But what I 'm saying is that the trail that was there was put
in after there was sand there. There was never a trail across that sand .
It led up to that sandy spot and it started up as soon as that sandy spot
quit because there always was a sandy area there. Whether it' s natural
or whether it was put in by somebody else , since the City has ever taken
' it over from the homeowners , there ' s always been a sandy spot there. I
guess I 'm jumping from side to side on this one because my first reaction
is they can ' t use that public property as if it was their own to store
their boat and put out their own dock and raft and stuff but from the
research I 've done so far , I haven ' t found any reason why they can ' t have
a raft. They can not put up their own dock and I let them know now that
they can' t store their boat there but other than that it ' s city property
' and we've been encouraging people to use city property, park property
everywhere else. If they' re using it and enriching their lives on -city
property, park property, why not let them? Why not? They feel it ' s the
safest spot to swim there than at the narrow spot .
Boyt : If it is a swimming beach , then we need to make the steps to the
lake there .
Hasek : Maybe the question is , is it a swimming beach? If we ut stuff
of
( out there then we ' re encouraging swimming . Maybe it should be boats and
Is no swimming . What is the criteria? What do you want to do with it? I
guess the other , the dock I 'm still a little confused . I can see it
maybe within the ordinance there ' s nothing we can do about putting it out
i ,
(
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 35
there but I was under the understanding that the dock was actually stored —
on the park.
Sietsema : Yes , the raft was pulled up. I told them that they can ' t
store the raft on the park property but it 's out in the water now. As
far as I know, I can' t do anything about that .
Hasek: I guess what I 'm saying is, next year , if that raft shows up this
fall on park property, my suggestion is , if we really have a problem with
that, is to take the thing and dispose of it. '
Sietsema: We can tag it. Public Safety would handle it. They would tag
it that it has to be removed within a certain amount of time and if it
isn ' t, then we would remove it.
Hasek: Is that what we would do with like a fishhouse that was stored
down there? ,
Sietsema : Yes .
Mady: If you check with the DNR, I don ' t believe that raft is legal .
I don' t think you can place things in the water anyplace you wish to
place them. They can only be a certain distance from shore.
Sietsema : That ' s right and he knew all about that and I ' ll check with
DNR.
Mady: That sandy spot can ' t be more than , it ' s 15 yards wide. That ' s
the length of it and then towards the road maybe it comes back 10 feet.
It' s just a very, very narrow spot and to tell people they' re going to
swim there when we have a marked beach just down the lake.
Sietsema : I understand that . I 'm not saying that we should promote
swimming there. All I 'm saying is , do we want to prohibit them? Do we
want to put up a bunch of signs now that say no swimming along this whole
shoreline?
Mady: What we' ve done is we ' ve just thrown some more sand down there for 1
them. We dumped it on top of the hill .
Hasek: I guess I was under the understanding that it was the maintenance 1
crew's suggestion or solution to an erosion problem. -
Sietsema : No , that was wrong . The correct answer is that it was washed
out in the big rain so they replaced the sand that got washed away.
Schroers : Where did they get that sand from?
Mady: The City put it there .
Schroers : Yes , but where did the City get the sand from? Did they just
go to a pit someplace and buy a few truckloads of sand and take it over
there and dump it?
I C
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IApril 26 , 1988 - Page 36
1 Sietsema : I really have no idea where they get the sand .
Mady: It didn ' t come out of the lake .
Schroers : Yes right but did they get some direction from somewhere to do
something like that?
ISietsema : No , maintenance thought of it . Maintenance saw that it wa
gully all washed out and decided to go and replace it. was a
IMady: What they've done now is dump sand at the top which was dirt and
it still is underneath that on either side of the mound of sand .
Basically it extended the beach up to the road now.
IHasek: Maybe what we should do is just ut this back a bit
I ' ll go take a look at it and try and decide what we want�toldo. Iand
' haven' t seen it. It sounded to me originally as though the solution, the
sand there was a solution to a problem which didn ' t bother me at all but
now it sounds like really what we have is an issue.
ISietsema : There ' s a lot of issues with this whole strip. One person who
lives right across from the park mows it themselves . The part that ' s
er right directly in front of their house so I think we need to look at the
Iwhole piece of property and decide how we want it to be maintained and
how we want it be used . Do you want it to just grow natural and not
invite anybody to use it or do we want it to be like a boulevard. The
I only thing I can think of that ' s similar to it would be like Lake Calhoun
is only there is no trail system in there right now. There ' s a nature
trail that ' s kind of overgrown right now. But do we want it to be a nice
boulevard type that encourages people to go and use it? It is park
II property and it has been our philosophy to encourage people to use park
property. Again , we don ' t want to encourage them to store their boats
and they know that they have to launch their boats at the public access
I and they do . They may hand carry across but I don ' t really have a
problem with that .
I Mady: How do have consistency? Last year we looked at the fire lane
which is directly across the lake from this little piece of property. We
told all those people that even though it was city property at that time
that they shouldn ' t be swimming down there . They shouldn ' t have their
Icanoes down there . They shouldn ' t have all this and that down there.
Sietsema: That ' s a different situation because it ' s not park property.
1 Mady: The way this sounds, this isn ' t being maintained as park property.
I have a real problem with anybody taking care of park property other
than city employees . There ' s a liability problem. There ' s also a
I problem, that person thinks it ' s hiw own private land and he maintains it
j as he wants .
ir Hasek : Maybe what we should do is take a look at it . How long would it
take us to walk the problem area that you ' re talking about?
I .
IN
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26 , 1988 - Page 37
C
Sietsema : We could go down there at 7: 00 before our next meeting .
Hasek: I 'd like to do that I guess . 1
Mady: I 'm still a little upset and I 'm voicing both my comments and
Mike' s comments- that two weeks ago we asked staff to get that boat ramp
removed because we asked for it a year before and the year before we were
told it's out in the water, we' ll wait until it comes back in again. Not
it' s back out there again because somehow those people all got a wind of
it and got it done and I believe part of it is because there is at least
one person on city staff who lives close by and that ' s become that
person's private little beachlot. I feel we -have a real serious problem
by allowing a given neighborhood to decide how the park property, they
can set that aside as their public beach when we already have one beach
on the lake that is very close to it . Everything I see is not legally
set up the way it should be. It ' s not wide enough in way, shape or form
to be a public beach . It' s not a safe situation in having residents take
over public property.
Hasek: Did I hear you say you called the DNR? 1
Hoffman: Yes , on the raft. They don' t have any jurisdiction over rafts
on lakes . It ' s the County Sheriff that license them and they do need to
be licensed through the County Sheriff and if they are not, they can be
ticketed . They need to have reflectors on all four sides and a license .
Mady: So what you ' re saying is , any citizen of the City of Chanhassen 1
can go to a public park and put a raft out . That to me is ludicrous . I
can ' t believe that ' s allowed.
Boyt: If there ' s concern about this you could contact City Council and
say would you consider an ordinance?
• Mady: Yes , but I can ' t_ believe there isn ' t one existing . Otherwise , you 1
can put ski jumps anyplace you want . You can put anything you want
anywhere.
Hasek: Most of the regulations are directed at beachlots though aren ' t 1
they? Most of the ordinances and the regular resident can have 15 boats
and 10 diving rafts .
Boyt: No .
Hasek: They can have substantially more than beachlots .
Boyt: Those with riparian rights can have . . .
1
_ Boyt: I don ' t think they' ve addressed those without lake rights .
Mady: This whole thing is ludicrous to me the way it ' s all set up. We
need more information to look at it .
I
■
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' April 26 , 1988 - Page 38
Hasek : Maybe what we should do is take a look at the ordinance and see
' if we've got a problem with it. Maybe there is a loophole in it.
Sietsema : Do you have direction to staff for what you want done?
' Hasek: I personally like to take a look at the park first of all . If
we ' re going to act on that , I 'd like to know what ' s going on down there
myself.
' Mady: I know right now there' s a tree stump right down there. There ' s
somebody throwing their minnows in the water right there. I don ' t know
' what the specific regulations are there but I know if you ' re a duck
hunter you can ' t leave your decoys in a public area overnight. It seems
to me it would apply to minnow buckets and boats any anything else . I
guess probably I 'm upset about what ' s going on up there and I think it
' needs to be cleaned up. It ' s a mess . It ' s an eyesore and it ' s the
citizens who live right there who think it ' s there to do what they want
with it. Let ' s put it on the agenda for next meeting and go down there
' and look at it. Hopefully we ' ll have something accomplished here .
Hasek : Maybe what you should do is kind of take that one on your own and
give them a call and see what ' s going on.
Mady: Otherwise , if you could do it outside the Hennepin County Park,
one of their beaches and put my own raft out in front of it.
' Hasek: I think what the point is , at least they considered if you
carried it across the park, which we don ' t approve, and then stuck it in
the water and there ' s nothing keeping them from putting it in the water
' anyplace they want to because it ' s exactly what the ordinance allows .
Then what we have to do is change the ordinance .
' CLARIFICATION OF CONFERENCE POLICY.
' Sietsema : Does anyone have any questions on that?
Hasek: When is the next one coming?
' Mady: This fall in Bloomington . The last one was in Duluth I believe.
COUNCIL ACTION ON LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE.
Mady: Any bright ideas?
' Hasek : Both of them. I don ' t know that the suggestion of moving the
house really changes what I felt about the park down there. If it ' s
parking fees , if they' re fees specifically for boats or those things that
are beyond the ballpark , that doesn ' t bother me . I just can ' t see giving
up what we ' re getting to maintain that park . To a lot of people that
doesn ' t seem like much but I think there ' s some comment in here, I don ' t
i
al
CITY OF
CEMEASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
rs
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator 1
•
DATE: May 6 , 1988
SUBJ: Carver Beach Park along Lotus Trail
Swimming Raft 1
At the last meeting, staff was directed to research further the
legality of a private individual launching a swimming raft off of
park property. I have discussed this issue with the County,
Department of Natural Resources , and Jim Chaffee, reviewed the
Park Ordinance and Water Surface Use Ordinance and have found
nothing that specifically prohibits such. Staff has referred
this item to the City Attorney, Roger Knutson , for clarification .
I will update the Commission as soon as an opinion is rendered. 1
Mini Beach Area
I have discussed this item in detail with Don Ashworth. It is 1
his recollection that the homeowners put in the mini beach just
south of the old boat access in the early 1970 ' s. At that time,
staff felt it was a liability and recommended to the Park and
Recreation Commission that the mini beach be removed as another
beach was located just two blocks away. The Park and Recreation
Commission reviewed this item at that time and moved to allow the
mini beach. Such has been in place and used by Carver Beach
residents ever since.
General Area 1
I have reviewed the file on this park property extensively and
have found a lot of correspondence between the residents in the
area and the City. Private individuals are not allowed to store
personal property along the shore. The only person who has City
approval to do so is Mr. Gordon Tock who has lived there for 30
to 40 years and is handicapped. Residents have also been
notified that they are not to clear the park property.
r
'I
• - •
Park and Recreation Commission
May 6 , 1988
4:47
Page 2
It is the recommendation of this office to budget money in 1989
to improve the Carver Beach park along Lotus Trail bollards along
the road as necessary , reclaim the trail and promote its use.
Additionally, the area should be patrolled regularily to see that
illegal boat storage is prohibited. Staff will submit a recom-
mendation at a future meeting regarding the swimming raft,
pending a legal opinion.
■
■
■
■
1
ir-
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 10, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson and
Carol Watson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor
REVIEW VISIT TO CARVER BEACH PARK ALONG LOTUS TRAIL.
Mady: Todd, there' s no action required at this time on Carver Beach?
We' re pending some information from Roger Knutson , the City Attorney.
Robinson: What is that? -
Mady: He ' s checking to the legality of having that private raft out in
front of the parkland. '
Hoffman: On number 2 there Curt. It ' s got a little review paragraph on
each one. The swimming raft, the mini-beach area , general area and a
recommendation . On the swimming raft , we ' re waiting from Roger Knutson
for clarification. On the City' s, what we can do about it. Actually the
Carver County Deputy were the ones that oversee that . The DNR does not
have any part in it.
Mady: From what I ' ve seen down there , I think we need to come up with a
plan. That whole linear park area . To me, after seeing how nice it is
down there , there ' s no reason for us to say let ' s take this out , put this
in. Let' s kind of take a look at it and come up with a plan in the next
few few minutes . I 'd like to see up at Carver Beach have II
P the bollards
installed. Get the parking area marked off . It doesn ' t look like we had
very many problems last year . There ' s no reason that I can see to not go
forward with our plans to put the bollards in place , mark off the parking
area and make a little notice of what it is there.
Robinson: For the record you probably should indicate that we did get
- some input from a gentleman who lived across from the old beach . He
approached us that we should do something . It ' s a darn nice park area and
we should do something . Put some money in there and let people park down
there. He had a suggestion or a couple possibilities of a fishing dock
and a canoe rack. I think his points were well made .
Mady: Did anybody get his name?
Hoffman : No. I didn' t ask .
Mady: He had some real ood suggestions .ggestions . He was in favor of parking
along one side, he suggested parking along one side of the road. Ask that
we try to clean up the park. It was nice hearing from him.
.,
•
1
CiYOF
1 _
\' 1°. EAwmassEN
1 T 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
1 FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinatorin
DATE: May 31 , 1988
1 SUBJ: Carver Beach Park Along Lotus Trail
g r 1
This item has been the topic of discussion at a number of recent
Park and Recreation Commission meetings. I have placed it on
1 this agenda to get clear direction as to what action staff is to
take.
I( The Commission walked the site and viewed the area. At that time
it was discussed that landscaping and additional maintenance
should be done at the site. Staff will need specific direction to
proceed, i.e. take out the mini-beach? ; mow the entire site? ;
1 what types of plantings?; etc.
As I stated in my last memo, I contacted Roger Knutson regarding
1 the legality of the raft out from the mini-beach. Roger found
nothing in any of the ordinances that prohibits this raft from
being placed there; however, he said that the Water Surface Usage
Ordinance could be amended to include such.
1 Staff feels that the Commission should weigh carefully the pros
and cons of removing the mini-beach and what is the objective of
1 doing so. The mini-beach was approved by the Park and Recreation
Commission in the mid-1970 ' s against staff recommendation. The
residents of this area are very possessive of the park ( something
which is usually encouraged) and will fight very hard to keep the
1 mini-beach. I bring this to your attention only to make you
aware of the potential heated debates .
1 Staff has contacted the Public Safety Department about the con-
tinued storage of boats along Lotus Trail on park land. This is
not a permitted use and Jim Chaffee indicated he would take
measures to remove them if necessary.
i
1
( I
Park and Recreation Commission
June 14, 1988 - Page 30
I
Cr:
everything . We don' t know what to do with them. I don ' t know how to get I
rid of them.
Mady: We ' ll just have to let nature take it ' s course and hopefully Dale I
can reduce the weeds in the park in both of those hockey rinks .
Hasek: So really what we' re looking at if we want to do that for soccer I
would be we' ll have to treat it and just try and establish seed in there.
My kids play in there and it' s an ideal thing for kids. They don ' t have
to chase that ball around.
I
REVIEW CARVER BEACH PARK.
Hasek: I guess the interesting thing about this was that the I
was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in the mid-70 ' s so it was established on approval . The only problem. that I have with it is the I
way that it ' s acquired sand . It was put in there, it was my
understanding the staff put it in there.
Sietsema: Street maintenance. It wasn ' t for a drainage problem. It was
because it was washed out during the big storm last year . The sand that
was there was washed out so they just put more sand to replace it.
Hasek: That ' s just in-house maintenance . If we have a problem with
that park we shouldn ' t allow that to happen.
Lynch: My problem with it was just like maintaining a private park. I
Hasek: It ' s not really. It ' s not really private . It ' s certainly less
public than some of the other places but it ' s on the street. The access I
is right off the street .
Hoffman : If you had parking there, there would be a continuous shore
I
fishing there.
Lynch : I ' ve been told several times when I was over there that I was I
standing on private property. They tell people to split. There ' s no
parking . There ' s no boat access and in view of the Council ' s
recommendation that in order to maintain park property be accessible.
There' s never going to be anyplace to park there . I 'd like to see this 1
thing, if we heard from the residents out there and the letter from Lori
May 31st that outlined a lot of the problems. I 'd like to see those
passed up to the Council . I 'd like the Council ' s recommendation on what I
they would like to have done. If they say that okay, this is going to be
a park. It' s alright to have that park there. I don' t think the Council
is in a position where they can say well , in this instance we ' re going to
1._. let some of the citizens maintain a private beach on our property. The I
Council is going to have to either say the City is going to have a mini-
. beach or the City is not going to have a beach on that property.
Sietsema : They have said that they will . I
11
Park and Recreation Commission
' June 14 , 1988 - Page 31
ri
Lynch: The Council?
Sietsema : Yes . There ' s a recommendation of the Park and Recreation
' Commission back in the mid-70 ' s to approve that mini-beach and that was
approved by City Council .
' Lynch: So it is an official park property and officially to be used for
that?
' Sietsema: Yes .
•
Lynch: Okay. That I never knew.
' Sietsema : It was established and approved by the City.
Lynch: Okay, then we' ll say that we better sign and maintain it better
' than it is now.
Boyt: We haven ' t treated it like it was our beach because i can remember
standing there. . .up a ways .
Mady: It' s closer to them.
' f Boyt : It ' s also at a bottleneck. The way the drivers go along that
- lake, they must be coming real close to that swimming beach .
' Sietsema : It ' s actually safe for swimming .
Lynch: Our official swimming area should be moved to that position
because of the lay of lake. It is dangerous where we maintain the
' present beach. I guess for now I would like if we could make a motion, I
will make a motion that it has been brought to our attention that that is
officially slated as a beach. That it be signed as a public beach and
' maintained as beach property in accordance with our park maintenance
guidelines because now it looks shabby and I know now it ' s being used as
a private beach and represented as such by people who live near there
' so I think we better bring it up to standard .
Sietsema : I didn ' t get all that .
Lynch : Bring it up to park standards with signing and maintenance .
Boyt: And bouys .
Lynch : Anything to do with normal maintenance .
Mady: I 'd like to see the Council allow us to open up the parking on
Ithat street on the lake side or at least 4 parallel parking spots with
proper signage on that street. We talked with one of the neighbors
there. He indicated he would have no problems with parking on that
street there because people are doing it anyway. This way they can do it
legally and utilize it .
1
Park and Recreation Commission
June 14 , 1988 - Page 32 '
(7 )
Watson: If you can park at Greenwood Shores Park, you should be able to II
park at here. I maintain that these people aren' t going to be real
pleased that there' s suddenly going to be a swimming beach .
Mady: This is true but we need to address the
problems with the boats
being stored on that park property. The reason it' s such an old problem
is because it' s now added to the beach.
Sietsema : It has but it' s like the minute you turn around , you turn your
back, they know that you' re going to be gone for a couple of weeks and
they' ll put their boat back there .
Mady: What you do is you confiscate their boat. We' ve got a request
somebody who wants to put a boat down there at that lake and we've got to I
tell him no, you can ' t do it . Why can' t I do it, you've got 4 of them
sitting down here now. We' ve got to clean it up. This city' s always
been kind of lax in their enforcement. Now they' re starting to get a I
little tougher but we need to get tough on everybody. If you 've got the
law, you' ve got to enforce it. Just because you live across the street
from it doesn' t mean you get to go by a different set of rules than
somebody who lives down on Chan Estates .
Watson: What constitutes having a boat on a public park? As long as
it' s out in the water a ways it ' s alright?
Lynch: It can ' t be on the parkland in excess of 24 hours .
Watson : As long as it' s completely in the water it ' s alright.
Lynch: That' s what we ' re being told .
Sietsema : The boat that ' s moored there on the very, very northern end,
there' s nothing we can do about it. There ' s nothing we can do about that
raft because we have nothing on the books that prohibits mooring a boat
or a raft out from park property. That ' s on the memo . . .
Mady: I tell you what , when we go to bouy that , putting bouys out there , t
I 'm going to make part of the amendment of the ordinance is we' re not
going to allow people to put anything out from park property. To me
putting a raft out on a public beach is no different than somebody else
coming in and deciding to put their own play structure in a city park and II
saying that' s theirs. You just don' t do those things because once "it' s
there, the City has the liability. That ' s it . It ' s ours .
Sietsema: It' s on the list for tii park amendment issues for next time.
Lynch : Okay, I made a motion , Carol seconded it that we add four parking
spots.
Mady: Signed off-street parking .
.1
i
Park and Recreation Commission
June 14, 1988 - Page 33
i/—
Lynch moved , Watson seconded that the park along Lotus Trail at Car
Beach be brought up to park maintenance standards with four parking
spaces , proper signage and swimming bouys . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
IREQUEST TO REMOVE SEAWEED AND WATER LILIES AT CARVER BEACH.
Mady: Lori , did you ever find out what part of the lake this was?
ISietsema : It is at the Carver Beach . The designated beach. The main
Carver Beach. There are lilies that are encroaching.
IMady: Are they lilies or are they those . . .
Sietsema: I don' t know.
Mady: I do know that I don ' t want to see us do too much weeds . The
are a lot of residents around that lake that if you start removing re
vegetation from the shoreline, they' re going to be real . . .
Lynch: Do you have to have DNR approval?
ISietsema: You have to have a DNR permit and there is a cost involved in
having the weeds removed. I still don ' t know what that cost is .
' Schroers : I have some personal expertise in that . We hire every year a
private company to come in and remove weeds at our park and it ' s very
expensive. It ' s time consuming . There are a number of problems involved
with it. Their equipment is very large and very bulky. They have to
have an adequate place to load it and unload a very good launch facility.
They need a place to discard the material after it ' s harvested and that
stuff gets rank.
' Sietsema : There would be no way they would be able to get their
equipment down that hill then to Carver Beach .
' Schroers : Besides being expensive, it ' s not 100% effective. They don' t
get all the weeds . Propelling their machines through the water creates a
wake out in front which pushes some of the weeds away from their cutters
so it's difficult. They do get a majority of it but it' s lot like mowing
your yard . It comes back. Not quite as bad but it does come back .
Hasek: Don' t they only go out 4 feet or something too?
Schroers : Yes , 4 or 5 feet is probably as Ear down as you can do it and
the main reason that we do it is to eliminate swimmers itch because the
swimmers itch actually comes from the snails and the snails live
underneath the weeds. They remove the weeds and that eliminates the
environment for the snails and eliminates the swimmers itch .
Mady: How extensive is the problem? I ' ve seen a few weeds
of bothersome when you walk out or is it choking the beahc out? it ' s kind
( ..
Swimming Raft in Carver Beach
The swimming raft in Carver Beach has been in place for at least the la: II
30 years. There has never been a serious accident in connection with the
raft. The raft does not restrict boat traffic or contribute any adverse II
environmental impact on the lake; on the contrary, the raft has given
thousands of hours of pleasure to hundreds of children and adults who have
used it over the years. The raft also is a favorite fishing spot for many
fishermen in the spring and fall when the swimmers aren 't present.
The raft meets all the requirements of the water surface usage ordinanc(
#73 passed by the council in 1983 .
I
After the recent attack on the mini beach by Mr. Lynch of the Parks
lir department and the fact that the raft in Carver Beach is the only thing on ti I
lake that would be adversely affected by section 2 of the ordinance ammendinc
chapter 6 of the Chanhassen city code concerning boats and waterways. We feel
there are forces in the city that are attempting to discriminate against the I
public right to use and enjoy the public waters of this lake. We also feel
the public interest would not be best served by passing section 2 of the
proposed ordinance.
In conclusion we the undersigned implore you to give your careful I
consideration to this matter and defeat section 2 of the proposed ordinance.
Failing this the raft in Carver Beach should at least be grandfathered as
non-conforming use under the ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration in
this matter.
7L SEP 1988
CITY OF CHANhASSEN II
7 ,,� �u � , �L i:h' ,-,3 V &el / )
� �l-v_r,3�N , Qu,c�� Cq7 --(3 o4.
:;:p;..,, .,oieze.z . 0 ,C)...-(4.•
ma t.: .-: : ��� -/ ,�% 95/ 56
'''':',:,'T' ' --:',42-1,4"eiA-1-4/ '-' - . .
1..4)AM •Z 0 606g.V I.to fay6 4
__Y :.:_'•itk ,. ?:y. � �� >, 7d 4 )5-6 s
i .,:';_r .,�.;: 6 7 / (76� e �>
g „':":::.��• J�:. tee. �:.
. 'A..F,' ,�„•_ - __ .._'!0:" .!? '<7‘.4-77. left!-‘ 1'' .__..__. t ,/
.40ree?er
..m 3
I:= . - 7( /?;•7(114(4e ati,--
—1-7
rr
, ..,
1:,,,:i' i'... .„ 1.,.....,.,.. ,..-.%., :,.. !7,:t3.00,5L-.ser._1+.N1 .
-C'%:-,t; Ocj`.411;:'`: ,,,APA: ' , -.' KC) -'",JO-.hi 0)0"1"--.
Ylr.' t
o
.fir
, %;.r"Y: n':r..::jbs4.:, ' ' .- .iii.µ.; - , ,
m'. GI:� , CB
IH'i tJ
: '3 U4 1/1-' ' ilt;ALL 7��A' CiA',ei--1, C,.lc . C� - 61g 7
l'4'. 741 '7 -,- (1 - 3(4.)‹.,9
- c �L 7e ti/ Ii ,,
111-' " :-, Tifizgit-i-,-p- 1 X;- Zi-:e-----1.--,-- ?C..' -1/
- 01 <-Lrt" ,tt,,t:- gCcc c 3 L 1_. („, ',K._ 93 C • ''•
. C f
„,...
,.., .. , . ..
.....---'. ..-.,
7 .
—1
/ -
C' 1 --•-( Li Lt .), ) Ld 2f-ret.i_D.),01
:.:„.,,,:•••._,L., .,.,.. :..„ 4. . , .,.. _. ...........
•,
.• ,.„q,,..,..2..,-.
,,,....-,„.::,:•,-..,„.-_,.....>..„.,,T,.
.
..., . „,..
.,.-
: ., ; 7i0 ei „ 0ey
•:„..,,,.„,,,,,,,,,....„.- .:,....„.::4-,•::.',0.i-, - _. ,-, -
,q4N.i:-';41' . , k,'.',...,'.,,,,,,:,,. I: • ,..:.,, _ •••••.5.„ ,,f '
I ,
1 .',I.J . --•:Ofi:-
.4,,:-,->„„, _ ‘ . • t ' ''''':— - '' I 0 Qi3ja}QA taStC4 U Lt-, q- .!--.10 T
1 , ., . .„ .k. .,., AN.,
1 ,-;44k4?":-...--;-njillt,rtiA,":4,:'.1-.4" ... - .„
. .
•
t,..4-0.,:-:;=.-f-ivi,:,4- ',-f-i,',?.;.::;'..,. -...(, •,,,,,f,it-,..':.; , .‘;.s. - 1... ',
. . ., . 14.•...".- ''". :'...,
*:",'A:; .-:i,i'::,.;■-‘,,;'..,Atf'.'” 4'.\:: '” ' - . — . ,, ',i:I.'.,! ,.,,.1, ,, 7 0
. ier
.s. :.-Alli,issi,i,!:zy 4- :,., . . y 1 .--;•.----i• .--.i,,-- • 7 Re-iv/2
.04!-..z.,.40r„; . -
.;,..v,.,'k,.g-N.,..:,;:::- .,.;...it .: ''....'*'-4,,..• '... al '
,. . 1
,..4.*
7os? , .,..
1 ::, '.11,....44;',..,0, '* •:4' ...:: ',.1.1, ',t..,-,,-::- ..' ,...:r-- :!.. '' ' ''
i
:OA.,!'"-7):':.','...': .74V>.!:'''.i'=:?.''.!:,',E.'';'i.,i•ii.'.'''
• .:41'.; ..'
:".:.: •
;, .,:c...,,,,,,!,,..11.a.W:::L.A:V.-.:*- . .-. IF ,..:: .;.• 12..--11"3:. ' ig:::p.c...3/-,n ,,',. .420.y„,t,./.2.72.44±10:....,...c.)6:4 ,5/7e:: :?„../06
;0.1•,-.--1.--'1:-'f.t.',-- ,''' -•;' , , ..... .
..-.-
- ,
. -
- 6
C-t-tir-iis.-":'•e?ir54.'''. ' i''''''. .1,, .',V:i :t...
( 4 ET OVii•-Th 1& °
...fr.:, ..
„,,, ......:,
• ,..../--, .,
- ■-..1:''',,f,';.,:,-±,1..-:-.'-. , , _
7' . ..•: - - ' iZOr CIV/P-Gc. /1/26-e% /- I "7. /'/) 77'.
, . :,•
i ‘. .I e -
,,....'.
-..,,,, ..,:''.-.''cili0..-• •
if
.,
•J%-.;"-','4,--.1,r: • .,., . ..t. ‘ ,y,c,.'? , ..
',..:1,Vt'i t
':uri.,...: '.61,...:,:b.','.'0,---4•1, .,
.,"`.., .w...e.:4,1.:41... •:,..*. ..., 4 .. . IN - ..>" .. ,..
-,..,.7.—.,-. 5..p,,,,• ,,.
0 Ce cr,„.„..- ;,&.0., t, m .
.
. .
r.r•4*:-,`, 5.*.',"4=-1:*1;V p -:?i:-.:,.., .,..-v,•,,,,, ,-— - . •,-
I.(
, • ,,-
ligitc.41e, te...-,Vit q b••4*
.4.7)1,.7f - .:-..'4';:;...V.,.4:,:44.;,.."*".r..--''''-... ■-te.' '.- ' . .. '--.
..,
„ r. .... .
0 i
. I
..,%:',,,fi.,:--, ''!" fY`YUA.YL• k ,
.. . .„,..
,,-„ „...,, : ,
. :
14,.,'.1's''',"' - ' ''!-• 6 (,.e,„--.) r_.-b (--, t (7% .;-e-3 -0 y - -- ,... i
,..„,.,.,-------- .. .,..„ „, .„.• •
, .
c.
/7 9' 2-• 3
,, ::,.. ,,,• :{•,•,,t,,,,:,.. .,,,•,„..• ,,,.
..,.:....,-.,:•.: .
-.::,..-.,,,,,,;40:,,,,,,..:4,.-vq1,417'er'...:, .:.' , - • 6 1 A t ti t bet.-t.- x,) -r-yet-I
-, „.w..,., .., r: ..,:; ,.:;,,...4:_ •.: .....
Pu..
,-.N.:..
-.,-
a 7 24,,L.7. 1rei s i 1 ct..._,,
7., 9/ q_7 - ?...133
„ ..
I
,.: •.-,,,-sv• ,.;••",y. ---- ."• ,,c .,42;,,,- ;---.
.1-,4- ..,:-.:. :-:..•,,,A.).,,,,,,r,-4., -:-' 44:,,,A:i..,:•
- *-Af.z.,,14.4-;Y -?w.te P:',.if'•■■,..le-154,.' ,'''"
1
Ar.......-,.:4'.-• ' 1.,:.'''''.' ,- ; ..' . -
:„. c-1
'‘..b. .. f))
9 ._.
s 2-..5_4. (-.)).-kill
.,.g,1-,4,:1-,,,,,t,,,,,--..,,• .:. IA.„4:), ,2, . / (1 ii.f--- - ..._ . . .
...._
-,...„.
" 71( tube,. Id
t 7 5 / 1 L 291-1/L cP /WL.,__
93 y ,,<;s--yi i
. .
•-?-; ,"
, .
, ..
i..,,,..,
.....„ .
,,.
i
. . ..__ .,.
,. ,
---" y --/- - 7(.6/7
i I .
4-
, 4
, .4•of I , 1 %.
1 I 1 ,, 7(C—&.1(/' /L 1)i (./71-7/ /C. (-.' 14:
1 I I'
r',
I) 1)
1 ,■A
'I
.... -
.i.t,"-'::::1::.,,,, • 'r,
I '
-4-V7 Y -
ie
?;,.,.... .,,. t.,{if.,...,AW0c----4. • ,,,,,, , ..,:
. .
...... -
._„r •,,„, , ,--,.
. „
6 ?ei
,( ‘ (
kspt.0'. . '72,■:-. , ,,, - '
, ,
' ....•■
,
I tA'‘'.i'1-1-`=" " •"-','-',,:c3.“',1112.4,;. ' •3-::.,`,- •''.,,- , " '
gi •.:, ,„,_
k•",t '!':':;'7..1.4-,;,:,••:1,, . '''''',?'r.::-.'‘:"..-- i'';'. A - ' 6 eq ?a,4,dlUZ.Je- 'Clk? # 41- 7(-)•8 ....
...
.._
-,--../...,-. -;. .. • - -,. .
ii,,,,,,,,, . 4. ,,4,-,. -._ - .4,0:...,,,,... •,-, j
.,..,, ,-•.;,„ -,.. .•
,.....-,,,,.
...,.,. . -- ,
. .
.........a,
._,. - :-
...
...,
i -,.,.,-„,-- .,.,
:1-,;; r-4. .„ -------.2
, . .
,,,,:=1.tv'--,-;,:‘:
1.1
.,:i,%,. .-:i.'4`.;;.-=
. .
4,,i'...:4:4..i::..;:,,,:1,4-2- ;1;,:ta.4.1,1.4.15,7„>,..k-3?-.;.)-!.-:,41 4,..<4.....„, „fra-c47-?1-/ ... -,. . •
( ,.. ..
.....--
1,311,t,g,:,11;F". iti..., ,. '...Eik-V.V,',;.i.:• ;*„. 7..-.,--.:1-..::: ,':,.'.'
6 / A _, w,-,-
..
. A T _,•,,,,*.r ,.
,r1 .
.._
:=,',v.,' ..,,,,'","."3"f■
r(
,
...'1;.- /_
:.-:',:::,-. :4. '''-.. /c.,/ z ..2,e._„.7 i, ,,i s,
0 7 . . 1-7( 11/ 45'1
,?.: . ,-,,, -7„,.',,,,, -
.....,
.. LIJ...,:,, 0.-.-,-;.--
ez,z),-
? '2-
.1,,....--;:•:...-,-.• _74;/J.::„s.,,i,„.;
.,, ,0
4 1 ts 11") 7
.T.,,,,v1`" - ,,' - itiiji
, -p., .,.:t.,•,':.. • '.',,,,',,,'' It.-
.
,,,,:k.,:,,, : , , .
-Iy.,,6, ',':, 4, 1A
CO„.ttift
. .
Ai':.'ct'■ ,;..,!"-"AV.."....-•. ,iee' -
,1,AZit. 4:4";:-:•:".'".-,. '-;•"'',OV'FP'1:.:4;-*.i$,,. '' '''' '-'.
11,'
W 7 6/-3 v''t
i..7,-,,,,,p43.11:.:,..,,,,,,
,
8
...
._
1/6/'I - ",
.. -
31,.., .. ,. , .• ■, A 4. •
14‘7if—a3-7.5-
_-1..4:',VS,. ,..•,,,,, _ .....,, ,.... „...c , ,,, ,, ,,_,...,_
"Wei...
. g t
ILL (L,t.A6 ■ ' i(`
.. .,,;,,,..,,,,ht.,,,,. 47; '-:‘,;::...'.',""-"
‘I2 1(
(1-..
7 ,...,
2fliii., ..- ,,' .1,,.:
4 „ ,../...4.N tat (---
1 ,..,,z,
„:,,,,,,, p, .
Y.... " .,,,
/ 7 - L / /:
. --7
t. i ., .if..-?:1X ' ....:-2 .
61,1-2,C,--c.
- .-
t.4''''f'i=,":"-,-.1,,b4:;":".- ..i",',,,'".•14,,!:, ,,,,,i :;;" ' -,'''',".".:
6 6 7 0 . rit .
. .
..„..,,.,.
(..../
,. ..
06.v.,1- --'e r .- -----' . ,
... ,.
,
.
„.......,, ,,,.-. ..,.:„,4:32,,,s.:7i.„?:f ,
tt -:-''' -.,..-).ii:"45'1''-:;.-,A;-lf: .. ,-,
. l'Z'/
L4-7 CI'"
,i)/1—
ft^).V., : ":`''';:lii,";,::,.,';j..! -4.:;-•-,--t
se.,„(,...,i," (jj 24....t7jii,..---
.444
44i*7fid
417,-1 - 5708
... . _r_
' ktre_,: ,g..,... ._ .-,-
, ,
4--,?-;;=, ,,, <Atii-,. 'L:,::a ';..1i: ''., :.14,
-
1 '.' 8Ct 0 CA LJ2- LIA..#
-,,i•Vitl%;re ;-*'7 '11?.;:%. ,;•
.,•
4/24/ - e.yi6 /41
.._.
.....
,....
,,,,„, .._..._, ... 6,69,, it)t''.2- P e/- /e" 1- . .
,-.4: 1 i '-..'' '-- ---'0" if-A/SO 4..i
w„', ro..1 ... ,,
/t,"...2 /---)etc r -TV-
_ ,v,
C‘Vr L
cl-74
-
,
II) . j „,..,
C G`l Li /tic' z- (..,.,-1(.: /
_
.,. . .
a ,•
,...
..,.
et;:•-‘,)(.')
4______
9.
, -
I - ' '
i4 7 --f93 7
..ith • ‘ -/7,
Li A_
MO.'
IN 1!..i.J.Z.}1.,. t.% ."
i(s,
(10 C<14) &il'i
,..
a...,,, -,6_ ,,x,,.._
,...„7/
,
70 G , .,..
—' ....,...,;:i...«.6i.e4;
-—----- --7,--,---7 •_ ....,.....1..,
7
..-.--- --...-....--. ---...-.......- - ..
. . - .. ..-
-^,7^-77.7-7.• '7.'"'•'''''•=7;
.
i
„
■'-r;
t
t
t
I
1 I
F
1
CITY of
\L .‘
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
,_,.
._
\ :,:;‘
\ s , CHANHASSEN
, , i _, , .:, ,
_�y (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: June 26 , 1989
SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park/On Street Parking
In July of 1988, the Council adopted a park plan for Greenwood
Shores Park. The decision was controversial on various issues -
most salient being whether off-street parking could be accom-
modated. A separate motion stated:
"Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the
City Council direct City staff to do no additional work in
the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking, totlot or
increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director
review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can
be removed, and if they can, they should be removed. Mayor
Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn voted in
favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson
voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with
a vote of 3 to 2" .
The motion had ambiguity in that what started as a park item
ended in Public Safety' s hands for a decision departing from
typical policy, i .e. Centex, Frontier Trail, North Lotus Lake
Park, etc, were all handled by engineering/engineering con-
sultants. After various rounds between departments, I assigned
the task to engineering. Attached please find the memorandum
from Mr. Warren stating his perplexity, i .e. from a traffic
safety standpoint, only the signs at the curve are needed. If
the original citizen petition regarding general safety (kids
parking to party, conducive for illegal activites , etc. ) were the
primary "Public Safety" concern, all of the signs could legally
stay. Mr. Warren ' s March 8 , 1989 memorandum was seen as a means
to report that nothing more would be done on this issue unless
requested by Council. I continue to receive inquiries as to when
staff is going to put the item back on the agenda.
Mayor and City Council
June 26 , 1989
Page 2
My plan did not work. There remains no authority to "do nothing"
(March suggestion) . I need help. Possible courses of action include:
1 . Doing nothing, in which case I am forced to put the item
on the agenda;
2 . Recognize that this will go on the agenda to decide the
two perspectives presented by the engineer ( hearing
notices? ) ;
3. Pull the item from the administrative section and vote to
confirm the staff position of March; or
4 . Something else.
Personally, I like #4, but I have not figured out what it is .
135
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: They don't have one.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing I'd like to do is a little more general. In
the special assessment loan fund establishing a City fund to help people who
like have an $18,000.00 special assessment. Who own their part of their annual
payment or whatever, can go against their special assessment and then it will be
placed against the property...at the time the property is subdivided or sold at
sometime in the future that they would then, that money would be paid back into
the revolving fund. Something to help these people with these large, you'd have
to start that fund and build it every year. It's not something we can do
tonight obviously but it might be something to consider to be available in the
next few years.
Mayor Hamilton: Any more comments? If not, a motion would be in order.
Resolution #88-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the adoption of the Lake Lucy Road Final Assessment Roll as presented over an 8
year period. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN, GREENWOOD SHORES PARK.
Lori Sietsema: This item was discussed a year ago at which time the Park and
Recreation Commission was directed to monitor the concerns brought up ay tne
residents at that meeting. Having done so, we found a minimal number of calls
to the Carver County Sheriff's Department and therefore we began to review the
parking plan that was proposed last year. The Commission heard a number of
concerns from the residents concerning the limited turn around area. There were
conflicts warn cars and pedestrians using the same entrance and it was difficult
to monitor the parking situation from the street. Also, they had concerns that
we were letting cars down into the park. Taking these concerns into
consideration, staff was directed to revise the parking plan. The revised plan
shows four parking spaces just inside tne park entrance and Mark Koegler is nere
to discuss the details of that design.
Mark Koegler: The direction that we were given by start ana the Park ana
Recreation Commission was pretty well summarized, which was to look at
alternatives and if the decision was made to put parking in that park, wnere
would be the best location to place it. After serious discussions with the
Commission, it was decided that by placing the parking at the top end of the
park, there were several advantages. First of all, the spaces were easier to
assess by somebody coming in as to whether or not they were full yet to a
certain degree the berm that is in place at the present time, which exists
primarily off on this side, would be retained to screen the parking to some
degree from the street. The previous plan, you may recall, we had parking
spaces down on the lower level. Obviously, by moving them up, that lower
portion can be returned to the park as green spaces if you will. All or part of
the gravel that serves that lift station area can be removed depending on.. .
From there we planned really to complex a series of embellishments for this.
Also, having some landscaping around it to improve the appearance of the area.
The bicycle path which would connect down to the existing bituminous which stubs
out here and comes around to Lake Ann. Initially the concerns of the
17
1:(i
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
bollards.. .to control the lift station area to control parking only into that
upper area. That is the philosophy behind making that a shared parking from the
lower section to the upper.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Mark. Councilmembers have any questions they'd like
to ask Mark?
Councilman Boyt: How big is the parking area is square footage Mark?
Mark Koegler: The spaces are 9 feet wide and counting then all, there's four of
than by the way, and counting the aisle width behind them, they are about 42
feet in width. The other being the driveway coming in so the parking area, with
the exception of this driveway, we have dimensions of 36 feet by approximately
42 feet.
Councilman Boyt: 8 feet or so of that is driveway down to the lift station?
Mark Koegler: That would not include any of the driveway down to the lift
station. Through the parking area, yes it would but once you cross to the other
side of the bollards, the control point would have to be calculated in with the
additional gravel extending on down.
Councilman Johnson: If you've got four in this park and the fifth car comes
down, can they turn around and go out of there forwards or do they have to back
out?
Mark Koegler: No, they would have to back out and that was part of the reason
that it was placed up above so that a car could come in and you could readily
see the four spaces just as you entered the area. It would require a backing
movement. The thinking was to try to keep to a bare minimum the amount of
improvements that would have to go into the upper portion of the park.
Councilman Johnson: I certainly don't like people backing out onto streets.
Another thing is, is one of those parking spots going to be reserved for
handicapped?
Mark Koegler: That could be. That's at the discretion of the City as to how
that sign is proposed.
Councilman Johnson: I would certainly want at least one spot in there reserved
for handicap. I think anyplace we have parking we should reserve a handicap
spot. What do you think it would take to give us adequate room in there to turn
around? A little bubble down at the end or something.
Mark Koegler: To be honest with you Mr. Johnson, I think we would have to think
about relocating the parking down at the lower part of the park. There's kind
of a neck, if you will, that comes out here as you approach Utica and it really,
physically, to try and lessen the impact on either of the residents on either
side. At least my recommendation would be, if you're going to look at a turn
around...you have to go back down to the lower portion of the park and probably
use some of that existing gravel to the lift station access. There may be
other ways to do it but I think you're going to have impact to the adjacent
properties.
18
137
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'm not trying to get a 50 wide and 50 foot radius
cul-de-sac or anything in here but some method to where somebody could back up.
I know probably in my little Horizon I could probably do it but with my wife's
station wagon I couldn't.
Mark Koegler: Conceivably you could put a little "T" hammerhead type thing off
on the north side. So when you pull in and point vehicles...is going to impact
that residence somewhat also.
Councilman Johnson: It's a narrow street. It's curved. There's quite a few
kids down there. I'd rather people be looking at where they're going with the
amount of child traffic in here. I'm in favor of the parking but I want it to
be where we can back out of there face first.
Councilman Geving: Mark, I'm looking at your estimate of costs here and it
comes to $6,900.00. Pay particular attention to $2,200.00 that you have
included in your estimate for bituminous walkway and bike lane. Why do feel
that that's necessary to connect that Lake Ann bikeway that's blocked off now at
the bottom of the hill to this park?
Mark Koegler: That item specifically came from the Park and Recreation
Commission that they wanted a safe access into the park where the pedestrian and
bicycle access would be totally separate from the other access...into the other
bike path area.
Councilman Geving: So you're circling the bike path and trailway in front of
the parking area. If we were to put this in, what would be your estimate of
annual maintenance and upkeep of this little four unit parking area? Do you
have a figure for that?
Mark Koegler: I don't have a number that I can give you that I think would have
a lot of credence off the top of my head. It would be a relatively low number
because you're maintaing that access for the lift station purposes year round
anyway. Then it becomes an issue of are you going to open it up in the winter
or not and so forth but the actual maintenance of the gravel parking area, if
it's graded properly, is very, very slight.
Councilman Geving: So you didn't give me a dollar figure.
Mark Koegler: I don't have a dollar figure on me.
Councilman Geving: You feel it's negligible and not a major.. .
Mark Koegler: I certainly think so in light of the fact that you're got a lift
station there that you maintain access to.
Councilman Geving: Are you showing a parking area that would be sufficient for
a medium size car?
Mark Koegler: Yes. The spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet.
Councilman Geving: What's your reaction to Councilman Johnson's suggestion for
a turn around? Obviously you're going to pull into this parking lot area and
then when you reverse, you'll be backing up and making a turning movement. Is
19
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
it feasible in the space that you've got there to do that? That you could have
a slight turn around area where we could be pulling out into the street heading
face first?
Mark Koegler: That's certainly possible. One way to look at that would be to
extend the parking lot further to the west. Add another space, if you will, and
use that for turn around purposes. The practical problem of that is going to be
enforcing that as a non-parking area. You can sign it but that's going to be a
problem and we're trying to avoid making problems and enforcement problems. The
only other reasonable solution that I see again is to go back down to the road
area where there is one.. .and come up with a sign down there.
Councilman Geving: Does your plan also call for the removal of that rock down
there by the lift station and placement of sod over that? Is that the plan?
Mark Koegler: With the exception of the...used for lift station access.
Councilman Geving: How much are you going to have to dig out of that lot area
to make it work with the park itself. What's the depth that you're thinking of?
Mark Koegler: It's sporatic. We just dug down a little bit in a couple of
areas and the rock that was there, ...washed down to that area. ...all of that
would have to be removed and top soil brought in.
Councilman Geving: For $100.00, I don't think you're going to get much rock
removal.
Mark Koegler: We're hopeful that, that was just basically a cost of straffing
that and transporting it back to the top side. We'd like to use as much of that
as possible. A portion of it will have to be done. . .
Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask you one more question. A good share of your
costs are associated with the bollards. Is that a pretty safe way of putting in
a parking area and making sure that it will stay there over time? Is it a
physical chain that you would place between the bollards?
Mark Koegler: It's very much the same approach the City of Minneapolis uses
around their parkway system. It's a substantial 10 by 10 bollard with a cap on
it with a heavy duty chain that swings inbetween. In gravel parking lots
situations such as this, that is commonly used. It's effective and as
aesthetically pleasing as possible to control that. To have an improved parking
lot with the curb and gutter and so forth, obviously you won't have the
definition problems that you would here.
Councilman Geving: Talk for just a moment with us, if you will, on the
plantings. The Ninebarks and the Crabapples. Is that your suggestion for the
area?
Mark Koegler: Yes, it is. Obviously a simple planting plan, we're trying to
provide screening of the area. We're trying to provide a little bit of seasonal
interest in color. The area will be largely screened by the berm which we had
kind of around to the north. There will be more impact to people that are
coming from southbound in terms of actually seeing the parking lot. We would
certainly be willing, that's a suggestion at this point. I think that's
20
•
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
called...for next year and the residents that abut that, have a particular
choice of...they wanted to see.
Councilman Geving: Thank you Mark. I appreciate it. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: What was the original price of the totlot that was proposed
for that park?
Lori Sietsema: $5,000.00.
Councilman Horn: Wasn' t there something else? I guess it was just the bollard
and chain improvement for the park entrance.
Lori Sietsema: At one time they had talked about volleyball but without
clearing trees, they didn't know if they wanted to clear trees to make room for
a volleyball court.
Councilman Horn: I assume it would be a Park and Recreation recommendation that
if we approve this to put the parking in that they would also put the totlot in.
Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema: That's correct.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we're talking about an additional expenditure of
approximately $12,000.00 rather than $7,000.00 just for the parking lot?
Lori Sietsema: We have budgeted for the totlot.
Councilman Horn: I thought that was taken out of that budget when the parking
was not added.
Lori Sietsema: That's true. They would budget again for it in the next year.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we'd be looking at 1989 budget item of $12,000.00
for that park, if that was put in. If I recall, that's what percipitated this
in the first place was spending money for a totlot and volleyball court. I have
no other questions.
Councilman Boyt: I've already asked my questions of staff. I'd like to use
that transparency before you take any comments. The Park and Rec and the
Council has been discussing this over the past year. We received several
letters and I tried to take that information and summarize what I thought I
heard the community saying were their concerns. The community of Greenwood
Shores. They were basically safety problems. The added traffic and the
entrance and exit visibility that Jay talked about. The fact that we might be-
destroying the natural beauty of the park. Increasing crowing of the park and
leading to noise and parties. I think those topics have been discussed very
thoroughly. There must have been 60 pages of Minutes with this item.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that it? Do you have any other comments?
Councilman Boyt: If we're going to take a vote, I've got some comments but
before that, no.
21
L
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I know there's a lot of people here from Greenwood Shores area.
Is there someone who wants to make any comments as a spokesperson for the group.
We've all had an opportunity to read all of the Minutes from the Park and Rec
Commission so we're aware of your comments. We're aware of their comments. We
have received all of your letters. I would appreciate it if you don't hand out
that much information.
Jan Lash: We highlighted the important parts.
Mayor Hamilton: We can't take the time to study it.
Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: You don't have to do it. I thought you could read
it over the next year. We've got a petition here with 132 signatures out of 83
homes. Councilman Boyt, I think did cover most of our major concerns. We have
been to 4 or 5 Park and Rec meetings this year. Several people have discussed
these. They did address some of our concerns. It didn't ever really put a stop
to the idea of the parking. Last week I checked into the history of the whole
thing a little bit, which I think should weigh a little bit on the decision
here. I sat up until after 1:00 in the morning one night reading Minutes from
the Greenwood Shores Association. Minutes that date back into the 60's and
correspondence with the City Council and Park and Rec and everybody. I think
that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. A lot of people have
lived there for over 20 years. Initially when they moved in, it was for
neighborhood use only. It isn't anymore and we know that but at that time it
was neighborhood people who cleared the lot. Paid their own pocket money to
haul in the sand. Spent many, many Saturdays making it a nice park. Therefore,
they feel that they have a personal interest in it and they would like to see it
stay that way. I guess we feel that that $7,000.00 or $12,000.00, if you put in
the totlot, we would rather see you give it to Lake Lucy Road assessments and
make everybody here happy because we really don't see the point in it. The
people who are willing to use it, obey the rules of it, are willing to walk the
540 feet or whatever it is that we've been told it is. Personally, my family
has a speedboat and we would like to try to use Lake Riley. We've gone to Lake
Minnewashta. We've never been able to get in. There's never any parking spots
available. I don't call up and complain because I can' t get in there because
I'd have to get up really early in the morning to get there in time and I choose
not to do that. I would rather go somewhere else. I guess I feel that that
applies to this situation also. If you don't want to walk 540 feet, you could
possibly find another facility that's closer but I really don' t think you'll
find anything that is much different. We've done some checking over at the main
beach at Lake Ann. The walking distance is very comparable. We've done checks
with the Chaparral Park with the baseball diamonds. The distance is very
comparable there. To other facilities we think it's comparable and we think the
way it's set up right now, it perfectly suits our needs and anyone else who
wishes to come over there is perfectly welcome to come. I don't think anyone
has ever been chased out of there except for the people who come and break the
rules and then they're chased out by the residents. Not by the police. I can' t
think of anything else right off but if I do I'll come back.
Mayor Hamilton: Did Bill's overhead adequately address your concerns Jan? The
neighborhood's concerns.
Jan Lash: I think the traffic. The safety, visibility factor. We have a video
that we brought tonight to show you actually what driving a car. I don't know
22
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
141
_ if we would be able to do that. I think those are the two main fears. The
increased crowding. I think now on many, many days when I'm down there during
the week, there is probably for sure 30 people. On the weekends there's quite a
bit more than that and I really don't see that it can accomodate a great many
more people and I think it would detract from the people who do want to use it.
One of the reasons they look forward to using it is it's not as packed as a lot
of the other beaches. To put more people in there, it's probably going to take
one of the main attractions away.
Councilman Geving: May I ask you Jan, of the 30 people that you saw down there,
were they mostly residents? Did you recognize most of them?
Jan Lash: Sometimes they are. On Father's Day we were down there and there
were over 50 people and until 3:00 in the afternoon, I did not know one person
down there. But we did count that day 7 violations as far as parking and dogs
and other things like that.
Councilman Geving: How do you feel most of those people got to the park?
Jan Lash: Most of them walked or rode their bikes. A lot of people ride their
bikes. I see a lot of people coming over from Chaparral on bikes. I see people
taking the trail system from the main lake beach.
Mayor Hamilton: I just had a couple of comments I'd like to make. In looking
at the plan that's been developed by VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings, four parking
spaces, $1,730.00 per parking space. The way it's laid out, they're going to
have the bike path coming kind of around the south side of the parking. Also,
with the trail going directly into the parking area so you could, I suspect if
you put that there to park so people will get out of their car and walk directly
down this path to the beach, which they probably won't use anyway. But it's
certainly an attractive spot for kids to be riding their bikes or to be walking
and to be walking behind cars as they're coming out or going in. So I certainly
don't like that part of the plan. I guess generally on the whole idea of having
parking there, it seems to me to spend the amount of money and the time that
we've spent on this particular project for four parking spaces is not the most
intelligent use of time. I can't think of any reason why there needs to be
parking in this park. It is used by a great many people. People can walk
there. They can ride their bikes there. They can drive up and drop their kids
off or people off, whoever wants to go there. People can walk over there and
ride their bikes from the Lake Ann main park. It can be accessed in many
different ways and to put in four parking stalls does not seem to me as though
we are opening it up for the general public to use. I'm not sure what some
people are trying to prove by trying to ram this down the neighborhood's throat
and I really don' t like it. All other parks in the City do not have parking by
them so I would suspect that if the Council should prevail and pass this, then_
we better go look at every other park and make sure that we have parking in each
and every one of those other parks that don't need it so we can waste some more
money. This should continue as a neighborhood park. It serves the neighborhood
well and I think as the neighbors had stated, it was developed by the
neighborhood. It was paid for by their funds. They did turn it over to the
City a number of years ago. The City has maintained it since. It serves a
great many people and I think the people who are, or anybody who wants to use it
can use it, as I said before so we're not eliminating anyone from the use of
that park. So if we can by tonight's action put this to bed once and for all
23
142
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
and whatever the action would be, whether it's to open the beach or deny it, we
would also say this will not be reviewed for a period of time.
Councilman Geving: I'm kind of the senior member of the Council and so I can
refer to historical problems that we've had with this area along with some other
problems at Carver Beach. We took steps to eliminate and try to resolve the
problems that we had. For example, a number of years where there were parties
and it was a great hangout. It was a great place for kids. Beer parties and 3
to 4 years ago, maybe even longer than that, we decided to get tough and do
something about it and that's when we really tried to close off the access to
this particular area. I think it's working. I think it has been working. I've
had a chance now to go to the park. In fact I walked all the way over from Lake
Ann because I wanted to see how far it was. One of my original comments way
back in 1980 I believe when I tried to get to the park and had to walk quite a
ways and I realized that this was not an easy way to do it because of all the no
parking signs but I found that it wasn't really that tough. If you go down to
the park at Lake Ann, walk along the paved trail, it really isn't very far to
get to this place if you want to get there. My personal feeling is let's leave
it alone. I really think that we've solved the problem once and for all and I
don't believe that we have to treat all parks alike. I think that there is a
difference in parks. Differences in neighborhoods. Differences in how we view
a park and how it's supposed to be used by our people. Originally the 75 homes
or so in the Greenwood Shores area, it was really only maybe 35 or 40 and it's
grown up a lot in the last couple of years. We've added Chaparral. We've got a
lot of area in Carver Beach. People can still walk across the road and get to
this park so I believe that we don' t have to treat every park in the City the
same. They are different. To make a blanket statement that every park should
have parking, I don't believe is correct. I believe that there is enough
sentiment on this particular issue that really we should listen to the people.
They're trying to tell us that they're the ones that use the park. They will
police it for us and that's exactly what we told the commission, the people a
year ago. We said, let's test this area for one year and then we'll take a look
at it. I believe that based on our guidance here tonight, that there has been a
minimum number of calls to the Carver County police. There has been virtually
very, very few instances that I'm aware of, where major problems have occurred
at this particular park in Greenwood Shores. I don' t know of any major problems
so I think there is a certain amount of policing going on by the residents and
the fact that that really is closed. I believe too, that there is a
realtionship with our people who are residents of the area. They've tried to
make this an attractive area. Again, I walked down there just yesterday. It's
clean. It's nice. It's a nice family area. It's the kind of place where you
want to bring your kids to play in the sand and swim. I agree with the Mayor.
I think we ought to leave it alone. Settle this issue once and for all. We've
been at this now for 4 or 5 years and let's just leave it nice and let the
community enjoy it. That's all.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with leaving this the way it is. I think
the thing that really precipitated this item and where the idea got across is
when we, in my opinion, went overboard with the no parking signs. I think we
can have no parking signs if they serve the primary purpose which is safety. I
think if our public safety group goes down there and determines which no parking
sign are necessary for safety reasons, we can leave those in. Any other no
parking signs can be taken out because it...of trying to keep something for the
exclusive use of an area. I think that's what the Park and Rec Commission is
24
1 4a
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
trying to get rid of by saying that they're trying to develop exclusive use so I
have no problem with this. I said originally when this item came up, I felt
that if we are going to have restrictive parks, that the City and it's general
funds should not spend any more money on adding new equipment to it and I still
agree with that. But the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problem with that
either. In fact I haven't heard anybody in the neighborhood say they want a
totlot down there. I think we should eliminate any of the unnecessary no
parking signs. Not spend any extra money down there except to maintain it and
enforce the laws that exist down there and just leave it at that.
Councilman Boyt: I haven't heard anybody want to take, off the Council, say
that we should take the parking out of Carver Beach. You put it in there last
year.
Councilman Horn: We put it in earlier.
Councilman Boyt: Last year we reopened the parking for Carver Beach. It was
closed. We didn't have 100 people show up in the neighborhood but the issue
was the same. It's accessibility to the park that couldn't be accessed easily
otherwise. We've had that park open and that park had a previous record of
complaints years ago. It doesn't have a record of excessive complaints today
but there is open parking there. Those two issues do not follow hand in glove.
The issue is enforcement. The issue isn't availability. We have on the Council
committed the resources to enforcing park regulations. I want you to explain to
the people at Carver Beach why they have parking on a difficult road to drive on
but they've got it there. But we're not going to put it here. Or what are you
going to tell the people at Chan Estates Park where the ballfield is? Where
it's right in somebody's backyard. What are you going to explain to them why
there are places for 20 cars to park over there but we're not going to put in
this park? That's not equal treatment. Every park is not the same but that is
a narrow twisty road. It's somebody's backyard so it's very closely related,
some are backyards to houses and yet the City hasn't hesitated to put parking in
there. This is an issue in which, it really is, accessibility. Four spots in a
park are not going to turn that park into some sort of public fiasco.
Especially if we follow Jay's suggestion and make one of them limited to
handicap. We're talking about a place where people can go, drop off their kids
and probably on a good many days, park there and make the park easier to use.
We're not talking about a dramatic change in that park. People already park
there in the access that's used by the City and chained off. Residents park
there in the access chained off. You look at the complaints that were called in
and I assume the neighborhood is calling complaints in and we have 14 complaints
called in last year. That's not a dramatic number of complaints for a public
park or for a private beachlot. It's unfortunate that there have to be any but
anytime we have an open piece of property, you're going to have to police it and
I think that's where the City's efforts should be. We've got a street there
that's certainly not safe. One of many in our town that are too narrow to
handle traffic. I don't think that we're going to be able to go down there and
remove those no parking signs but I'd hate to say to somebody, you have to walk
540 feet because we can't put a parking spot in. Where we could very well put a
parking spot in, is not appropriate. If you look at the Park and Rec's
discussion and the fact that they unanimously voted to put this in there, it
indicates that the general public feels there should be parking in their parks.
I went down and talked to some of the residents. I know, given your turnout,
I'm glad that your organized and you're presenting your point of view. When I
25
[44
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
talk to people who don't live in your neighborhood about this issue, I haven' t
found anybody who said, you know, I really don't think there should be parking
there. I know that in your letters you've indicated that yes, you have people
who live in several of the developments outside of yours who use the park and
say, gosh we'd rather not have parking there so I've seen those comments. I'm
telling you that what I've heard and talking to people is a little different
than that. To me this is an issue of policy. I guess unlike some of the other
members on the Council, it's my position that the parks that the public is
involved in, that the public pays for any service, should be open to the public
and that means there should be parking available there.
Dick Lash: You can park wherever you like.
Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you that every park should have parking available
so people can access it directly. I'm not treating your park any differently
than any other park. I agree with Mr. Geving when he says the City should be
responsive to the neighborhoods. This is an extremely difficult issue but my
particular position is different than his and I feel that the Park and Rec group
has established this can be done with reasonable safeness.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty much agreement with Bill's comments. I've
been driving by for the last year, both this park and the park at Carver Beach.
I've utilized the park at Carver Beach several times when the folks from
Scotland came to town. We took them down there to Carver Beach to show them the
beautiful little park there and have a little picnic and did a little fishing.
Probably 3 to 4 times a month, sometimes several times a weekend or in the
evenings driven by and I have yet to discover an incident going on at the park.
The closest I got was somebody parking in the roadway there which when I called
then, they stayed in Greenwood Shores when they went home. A lot of people stop
in there, drop the kids off and then drive their car up a few blocks and then
walk back so they can take their innertubes and whatever out. I don't think 3
parking spots and a handicap spot is going to deteriorate this park. The only
other park that I know of without parking right now is at Lake Susan and that
doesn't any access right now because there's no way to get access to it. It's
not feasible to have access to that until we get Lake Drive West put through.
There maybe be another neighborhood park that has no parking signs around it but
I don't know. Clark's idea of getting down to only those required for safety
means, to me that there would only be a few signs. I'm not sure if Public
Safety has even looked at this issue at this point and how far away from the
park that would be. I would assume it would only be on the curb so there would
only be maybe 100 foot of no parking in there. But I don't like parking on that
narrow street. I'd rather see 3 spots plus a handicap spot. I don't think it's
going to deteriorate. Opening up Carver Beach Park has not caused a problem at
Carver Beach. There was one evening where some fishermen were playing some
music a little bit loud, after 10:00 and the Sheriff stopped by and asked them
to leave. The park closes at 10:00. Beyond that, I know of no other incidents
at Carver Beach Park that I've seen. There may have been some. I haven't seen
the police record on Carver Beach. I don't think that opening up this one is
going to cause anymore problem than anyplace else. The way the set-up is here,
the officer or CSO will be able to drive into the parking area and have a better
look down and see the park actually better than they can now from the street.
Resident: And back up onto the street.
26
145
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm not for backing out because that's what you've
got right now is the people pulling in and backing back out onto the street.
That's the situation you have now but when we put parking in here, I want the
people to be able to turn around. Whether we take one of those four parking
spots or add a half spot or whatever. It looks like we're not going to do it
until the 1989 season so I would like to see that ability to turn around somehow
added to this park. That is not a good intersection to back out of. That's my
only complaint with the design of the system. I think if I lived in the
neighborhood I'd probably be complaining just as much. I know when they were
developing behind me I was as wild as anybody else complaining. Most of the
things I said have somewhat come true. I'm still in favor of it. That's how
I'm going to vote.
Councilman Horn: As one who pushed very long and strong to get parking back
into Carver Beach, I think there's an important factor in here and I totally
disagreed with the previous Council in closing that parking off. I hate to see
a right that was granted to a particular area taken away because of an
enforcement problem. You're penalizing everybody for what a few people do.
However, I think we have to be sensitive to what precedent this is going to set.
The difference between this park and Carver Beach Park is the original intent of
the Carver Beach Park was that there would be parking there. This body took it
upon themselves to take it away. All we did by restoring it was to put it back
to the original intent that it was put there for in the first place. That's
what I see we're doing here. This park never had any parking in it. We're
changing the intent of what this park was established for and that has an effect
on people just like taking away the right that people enjoyed has an effect on
people. I was one of the people that used to park my canoe Carver Beach Park
and couldn't launch it anymore because the parking was closed off. It affected
a lifestyle that I had become used to. What we're doing here is doing the same
thing. I think that's what we're looking at. It's fine to have a consistent
philosophy on how we do things but we also have to keep in mind the reason
things were done the way they were in the first place. We have to study history
to find out what was what. What you see here is that this park was developed as
a City park. Was given to the City by the people. I think that's something we
have to consider that might be different.
Councilman Johnson: A lot changes with the years.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. When did the City put in the no
parking signs?
Mayor Hamilton: Since I was here 10 years ago.
Councilman Boyt: When they put the no parking signs in outside of this park,
they took away parking. They took away parking. There was parking there and
they took it away.
Councilman Horn: That's my point.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why Clark is saying he thinks the no parking signs on
the street should be reviewed and those that don't need to be there should be
removed, if I understand what you're saying correctly.
27
146
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Boyt: This is what we started on a year ago. We want some parking
access. The question was discussed at that time or shortly after that, can we
take the no parking signs off the street. I think we had a request from one of
the neighbors to do that. We didn't do that. We didn't do it because it's not
a good corner for people to park on. That's what got us into where can we put
parking? There's been a fairly logical process followed in getting to this
point. If we decide to not put parking in the park, there isn't a good place to
put it for 540 feet is what they said. So the issue is, do you want people to
be within 540 feet of that park or not?
Councilman Horn: Can I ask Jim Chaffee one question? Did we go along with your
recommendation on where the no parking signs should be for public safety or did
we increase that to cover areas that were not raised as an issue of public
safety?
Jim Chaffee: I can't answer that. I wasn't here at that time...
Councilman Geving: Let me ask the same question in a little different manner
Jim. Clark's suggestion is to review those no parking signs and remove those
that don't fit. Or based on your best estimate, your knowledge Jim, come back
to the Council and tell us. Those that either should remain or pull some of
then. Would you have any problem with that?
Jim Chaffee: No, I would not.
Councilman Geving: What is your assessment of this area right now in terms of
the no parking?
Jim Chaffee: Along the curve there, there certainly should be no parking.
Exactly how far it extends back, I haven't been there for a while. I'd have to
look at it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to move on with this. I'd like to make a
motion.
Dick Lash: Mr. Mayor. One thing. Could I make one comment before you vote on
this? My name is Dick Lash of Greenwood Shores. Mr. Boyt...I think is the one
with a conflict of interest with his wife on the Park and Rec Commission. I just
think that would swing his vote. It would swing mine if my wife was there.
Ed Hasek: You've heard from the neighborhood on their comments. I'd like to
just take a few minutes to put something together for the Park Board to tell you
maybe where we're coming from. First of all we're generally acting under, what
we feel is your direction on this issue. Policies trying to make parks
accessible to the general public within the City of Chanhassen. Not to specific
neighborhoods. I would suggest that if we do not put the parking in this park,
we should consider changing the policy to have parking in no parks. I feel very
strongly about that. The reason that we have looked hard and strong at this
particular park is because it has a beach. Beaches are becoming very hard to
come by. I would submit that if we go through any development that comes up on
the lake anyplace in the future, the chances of us getting property to put a
beach into that lake from that developer are virtually non-existant. They're
not going to allow that to happen. It's too valuable so we have a commodity
here that we'd like to use and we'd like to use it for the citizens of
28
J.ti''1
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Chanhassen. Four stalls again, is not too many to request for that particular
park. Personally, I would like to see the original 6 to 10, I think we were
talking about. 6 or 8. 500 feet is not close enough to any particular
recreational area. They keep making the comparison with Lake Ann. Now I would
submit to you that we've got a lot that's immediately adjacent to what is
considered the beach area down there. Not the sand per se but it is adjacent to
the beach area. Actually, this particular park, I believe if we had the graphic
up here, is probably still about 200 feet from the sand so there is a comparison
between that particular park and this one. If in fact there was parking on that
street closer than what exists out there today, then in fact you have taken
parking away as you did in Carver Beach and we as a commission would like to see
that replaced. I guess in viewing the situation out there on site and looking
at where the parking exists, I would have to agree with where the location of
the parking signs is because it's going to be very difficult to get it much
closer unless we consider something in the neighborhood of the parking bays
which would have to be built adjacent to the existing parking lanes out there.
I don't know that there's right-of-way that could accomodate that. It's a very
hazardous corner. Granted, parking doesn't belong on that corner. However, 500
and some feet, plus or minus, can not be considered accessible. 'Ihe whole point
is to get people into that park. Whether you can walk there or if you have to
drive there and pull your wheelchair out of the back of the car to get down to
the beach. You have to be able to use that park. Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to make a motion for consideration. I'm going to move
that the City Council direct City Staff to do no additional work in the
Greenwood Shores Park on either parking nor totlot or increased equipment or
trail connections. A trail connection I guess needs to be done at sometime but
the park should not be improved in any way at this time. It should be left as
it is for use by the people who are currently using it which is a great many
people. That is my motion.
Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Horn: Do you want to add to that the review of the no parking signs?
Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes. I would put that in there.
Councilman Geving: I'll amend my second.
Mayor Hamilton: That the Public Safety Director review no parking signs to
determine if any of them can be removed and if they can, they should be removed.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct ,
City Staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either
parking, totlot or increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director
review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can be removed, and if
they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Horn voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman
Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of
3 to 2.
29
152
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Jan Lash: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you how soon it will be up for review again or
are the residents going to have to go through this each year?
Councilman Geving: Four years. Another Council can bring it back.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW TO AMEND A PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHES MAR FARM OFF OF
TH 41, LOTUS REALTY.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. the original PUD
was to...existing uses to the farm to the zoning. There was a duplex, an
apartment building, two duplexes and a single family residences. The applicant
now is proposing to increase the units and the single family lots. One of the
plans to include the single family home located up here now has been sold off to
another individual so that's not included. Also, the duplex has been sold off
and that is not included. The six unit apartment that's being proposed is split
into two lots so it can be developed as duplex. The house that was moved onto
the site, is proposed to be a single family lot. Then they are proposing an
additional sixth single family lot. The area is in the unsewered area. It does
not have water. The ordinance currently now regulates a minimum of 1 unit per
10 acres. The proposal far exceeds this. The ordinance also requires a minimum
lot size of 2 1/2 acres for lots not serviced by sewer and water. The lots that
are proposed are below this minimum. There are steep slopes on a majority of
these lots. The lots located on Lot 2, Block 1 have a lot of improvements to
the existing structures on them. Staff has visited the site with a soils
consultant. It's going to be difficult to site two approved septic sites per , !
lot. Staff is recommending that the concept plan does not meet the requirements
of the ordinance. We are recommending that it not be approved. The Planning
Commission also agreed with that. They felt that it was not in conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance and that they should come in with a new proposal. For the
City Council tonight it's a four-fifths vote for approval of the concept plan.
Mayor Hamilton: Councilmembers have questions of Jo Ann? If not, Bradley, did
you want...
Brad Johnson: If you guys would pass this around. This is the original
photograph of what Ches Mar Farms used to look like, for your own information.
It was taken from an airplane in 1930. Basically, the reason that we are
proposing something...is that the property itself has been deteriorating over a
number of years. I think in the case of the Planning Commission, they don't
have to deal with economic issues but it's a problem that the City... The
property has gone through three owners in the last several years. Each time, it
never quite worked out the way they had planned and slowly but surely the
buildings have been burning down and/or deteriorating. At a certain point in
time, we felt it would be necessary to correct it. Mr. Kirt came in here about
4 years ago and had it.. .basically any existing zoning. Through the assistance
of the planning staff with the thought that he'd be able to sell the parcels
off. He has been able to sell a parcel that is located here and a parcel that's
located here. The duplex is back here and there's a single family gatehouse
here and then this is...the Gross' that is located here. He was unable to sell
any of the balance of the property. The main problem is there is a six unit
apartment building that has existed there as long as that photograph has been in
existence and it's had probably some great days and some bad days. In real
life, it's a real nice duplex but it's not a six unit building. It is difficult
30
•
C
cgANHAssEN
xK 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM "" w.""
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer � :. 3/9 W1_
DATE: March 8, 1989 -~
SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Parking ii3/21
File No. PW056 -- -
As you will recall, last July, 1988 , City Council directed staff
to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either
parking, totlot, or increased equipment, but did direct Public
Safety to review the no parking signs to determine if any could
be removed and, if so, to remove them ( see attached minutes ) .
While Public Safety would have input to the process , typically
the Engineering Department is responsible for applying standards
for determining the location of no parking zones .
As a result, I have done a preliminary review of the engineering
files on this issue and have found that in November of 1986 City
staff conducted a survey of the Greenwood Shores area to poll the
overall opinion regarding leaving the no parking signs in place.
As noted in the attachments , the overall feeling was that the
street was too narrow and that a traffic problem would be created
on the curve if parking were allowed. Council action at that
time was to deny the request of the property owner at 7120 Utica
Lane, and leave the no parking zone in place.
From an engineering standpoint, cursory review would indicate
that, with the exception of the no parking signs located on Utica
Lane curve at the park area , the remaining no parking signs could
be removed at least on one side of the roadway.
As you noted in your December 15 , 1986 memorandum on this issue,
staff found it difficult to make a recommendation on this item as
the original installation did not involve traffic control cri-
teria, but rather was authorized in reaction to requests from the
neighborhood itself. It would likewise be my conclusion that we
would no doubt receive the same or similar input if we polled the
neighborhood at this time and that therefore the no parking zone
should remain intact as presently signed .
Don Ashworth
March 8, 1989
Page 2
Don , please let me know if further engineering analysis is
necessary on this issue. If so, I would recommend that we hire
Bill Engelhardt to conduct a similar study to that which was done
by him on Frontier Trail for reviewing roadway widths, and cur-
vatures and design speeds for defining, in engineering terms , the
proper no parking zone for this area.
Attachments
1 . December 15 , 1986 City Council meeting minutes.
2 . October 27 , 1986 letter from Kathy and Bill Engebretson .
3 . November 13 , 1986 report from Jim Castleberry, Public Safety
Director.
4 . November 17 , 1986 report from Jim Castleberry, Public Safety
Director.
5 . December 1, 1986 letter from Don and Mary Chmiel .
6 . December 15 , 1986 memorandum from Don Ashworth.
7 . December 29 , 1986 letter to Mr. and Mrs . Engebretson.
8 . July 11 , 1988 City Council meeting minutes.
cc: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
jr-
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the Park
and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 2, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Councilman Geving stated that the City Council should meet with the Park and
Recreation Commission as soon as possible in January to go over their Capital
Improvement Program as well as any other goals and long range plans to
establish common goals.
REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING SIGNS ON UTICA LANE, WILLIAM AND KATHY
ENGEBRETSON.
Mayor Hamilton: When we acted on this previously and we asked Jim Castleberry
to go back and talk to some of the neighborhood people and you have that
information before you.
Don Ashworth: You have the survey from Jim and you have a petition letter
from the Engebretsons as well.
r \G
}� Councilwoman Watson: The no parking signs were originally requested because
of very definite parking problems in relationship to the park. I would say
those problems have been solved. From reading this, it is apparently the
consensus of opinion among the people along there that they want the signs to
stay. I guess it was a case of majority rules. They went up and I suppose
it is a case of majority rules whether they come down or not.
Councilman Geving: I seem to recall that when we did this action back in the
early 1980's, we don't just put up signs arbitrarily. These were requested by
the neighborhood. We were having a lot of problems along Lake Lucy Road and
in the Carver Beach area and as a result of the input from citizens, we went
ahead and installed no parking signs in both of those areas. I think they
accomplished a purpose. I think we have diminished a lot of the problems that
we had at both Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores because of the parking
situation. I have to believe that even the people who are making this
petition tonight were part of the original petition that wanted the signs.
Let me understand though, is this the end where the Engebretsons live, is this
the last sign on Utica Lane?
Councilwoman Watson: No.
Councilman Geving: So this would be right in the middle of the signs?
Councilwoman Watson: Sort of in the middle of the signs.
William Engebretson: This is at the end of the signs. What we're asking for
is just take down the signs in front of our property so when we get company
we're not violating the parking ordinance if they park out there.
Mayor Hamilton: We realize what you're asking for.
William Engebretson: We're not asking to take down all the signs all over the
area. We're at the end of the line and I think the parking problem has been
7
641 --_
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
greatly diminished. In recent years the people walk in from the adjoining
areas and parking really hasn't been that much of a problem in the area that
I've seen in the last few years. What the original concern was in the
neighborhood was a lot of other people coming in and using the park and making
a lot of noise at the park. I don't think it's a problem with parking.
Councilman Geving: If we remove this sign in front of your home, would there
still be no parking signs to the east of where you live?
William Engebretson: No.
Councilman Geving: Yours is the last home?
William Engebretson: It's the last one on the west side of the street.
Councilwoman Watson: It's not supposed to be the last one of the west side of
street however. It is only because the sign just doesn't happen to be in
Way's yard anymore but the signs are to run up so they are even. It is to
run up to Way's and Marcy's property line just as they do on Mr. Benson's
side of the street. Right now, you are right but technically, there always
should have been one up there. Way's always had a sign until like last summer
when it disappeared one night and it never got put up again but they were to
0 / run, they ran to our property line and right across from us on Marcy's and
. Way's property line. That was the ending point of the signs and Mr. Benson
still has one on our side of the road but like I said, Way's disappeared
during the night last summer and it was never replaced but techically, when we
were told they put up, they had to be on both sides of the street and run
uniformally within whatever area but the pattern had to be uniform as far as
parking in order for the officers to have any idea of where the beginning and
ending of those signs are to take place. If the vote is to keep the signs up,
then that sign on Way's property should be put back so the uniformity exists
but they are right right now, they have the last sign because it disappeared
last summer.
Councilman Geving: One of the points that you made Bill was that if you
parked in the street and you had visitors over, you would be violating the
Ordinance on no parking. It is my understanding that you could call the
Sheriff's office for that event, let's say it was a holiday event or party
that you were having and they would disregard the no parking.
William Engebretson: I've called several times and it usually takes 3 or 4
calls to get to the right person to get it on the patrol car list. Getting
back to the parking thing, the original problem was not the parking, it was
the noise in the park.
Councilman Horn: First of all, I am appalled to hear that last statement
about if you call the Sheriff's Department you won't have it enforced. What is
the purpose of having the sign there in the first place if you don't enforce
it. My other concern is the fact that we put up City Parks and then we put no
parking signs in front of them so people can't use them. In my opinion, if we
are going to put no parking signs out so they become private parks, we
shouldn't spend any money on improving them.
8
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: So you are saying that you would not be in favor of...
Councilman Horn: I think all the signs should come down.
Mayor Hamilton: Being able to call the Sheriff's Department for an evening?
Councilman Horn: Yes, I think the signs there should be enforced uniformally
and if you like, the City Attorney could comment on it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a matter of we're not a Gestapo I hope yet and
it would seem to me that if we want to have good relations with our fellow
citizens and with the Sheriff's Department, we would be able to do those types
of things without offending anyone or causing a great deal of problems within
our community.
Councilman Horn: Selected enforcement?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if that's selected enforcement if you call ahead
of time and you state that you going to have additional cars parking in front
)J,/ of our house and
Y you would like them not to enforce the law for that evening
and the Council has already approved that, how is that selected enforcement?
Councilman Horn: Why would it be some special event? Why couldn't somebody
call in and say they want to use the park the next day?
Mayor Hamilton: I suppose they would have that opportunity
to do that.
Don Ashworth: I think you have to look at the purpose and intent of anything
that is passed by the City Council. You have a number of examples of where we
have no parking overnight in the residential areas. If someone did have a
party and it went past 12:00 at night, technically they would be in violation.
The intent of that type of regulation is to insure that in case of snowfall we
can clear the streets. If there is no problem, I don't see where it harms the
purpose and intent of the Ordinance to allow parking on a street for a party
or in this case, if they had guests over and to allow parking in that
instance.
Councilman Geving: The only other point I want to make is that we did get a
letter expressing quite a bit of sentiment from the neighbors that they want
to leave the signs up. I have indications here of seven neighbors in that
neighborhood on Utica Lane and Tecumseh, all indicating that they want to
leave the signs up. They feel that it is a police enforcement measure. It
controls the traffic and it gas quieted the neighborhood down so I get the --
impression that the neighbors of the Engebretson's would like to see the signs
left as is. There was one suggestion in that is kind of intriguing. They
said leave the signs up on one side of the street. That's a possibility.
Councilwoman Swenson: That was going to be my comment. If the people on the
other side of the street haven't any objection, why don't we just leave it on
one side? The concern seems to be that the street is too narrow and that
there would be a traffic problem created on the curb if parking on both sides
were to continue. If we were to park on one side, if that would alleviate the
9
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
problem. I think if there is a dangerous curve there then by all means the
sign should be up at a minimum around the curve.
Mayor Hamilton: But don't you think that is going to create the same problem
again in the summertime when the park opens and they are parking on the side
where parking would be allowed to use the park?
Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think there are any easy solutions.
Don Chmiel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I live at 7100 Tecumseh. I
think the real intent of having the signs is probably what you are reading.
It has eliminated a lot of the problems, a lot of the concerns. Mainly during
the early morning hours at 2:00 we've had different situations arise where
there are still parties going on down at the lake and then in addition to
that, when those people left afterwards, you were cleaning up behind them
picking up the beer cans, the pop bottles, the other bottles that they were
‘-,� also consuming and it did leave an undesirable amount of problems within the
,\ area. I think by keeping the signs as they are and if Bill and Kathy do have
problems with parking, I myself have called the Sheriff and I haven't called
them anymore than one time and indicated that we were having a wedding
reception or having a bunch of guests over and they would adhere so they knew
that, we never had any problems at all but there were existing problems as far
as the park is concerned. It is not too much of a pleasure waking up at 2:00-
3:00 a.m. with car doors slamming and people running around and different
things occurring so with that I would ask that those signs do remain.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to deny the request to
remove the No Parking Signs on Utica Lane, to leave them as they are and ask
that the Engebretsons work with the Sheriff's Department and City Hall. All
voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried.
STREET CONNECTIONS:
A. FRONTIER TRAIL
B. FOX HOLLOW DRIVE
Mayor Hamilton: These items were both on the agenda December 1st. Public
input was taken at that time. It was stated by Councilman Geving at that
meeting that there would be no further public input this evening. We will
vote on the issue. However, there were several questions raised that evening
about some concerns that residents and we would like to have Barb respond to
those questions and we will proceed to vote.
Barbara Dacy: Both myself and Mr. Engelhardt will respond to the 10 or 11
questions. I would just like to start out with five of them. First of all,
there was a question as to whether or not a community that contains a number
of cul-de-sacs is a safer community. We asked Jim Castleberry, the Public
Safety Director to contact various State and Federal Agencies. His information
back to me was that he could not find any studies to prove or disprove that
particular statement. Secondly, there was a question as to why the street was
not connected several years ago and there is a two point answer to that
particular question. One is that the City will undertake it's own improvement
10
7120 Utica Lane
Chanhassen, '1N 55317
(612) 474-5634
October 27, 1986
City of Chanhassen
Attn Don Ashworth
City Manager
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Don Ashworth and Council People
Please approve removal of the "No Parking" sign at the east
end of our yard.
When we have company we ould like to be able to park on the
street without our guests being in violation of the parking
ordinances.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely
J
Kathy and Bill Engebretson
OCT 8 1986
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CTY 'OF
-- e6lEASSEIT
690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM !�'A{!, ✓
T..1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager .-� ^1
-
FROM: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director '
DATE: November 13 , 1986 -
SUBJ: No Parking Sign Removal - Greenwood Shores
Per your direction, I went out and visually inspected the site at
7120 Utica Lane, where no parking signs are currently posted.
It is my understanding that the history behind the placement of
signs in this area was to prohibit people from parking in that
area during the summer months when large numbers of people want
access to the park and lake area. I believe it was the resi-
dents of this area at that time that requested no parking
signs be placed; therefore, it would be important that a
greater sampling of the residents from that area be contacted
prior to making decisions relative to this matter.
From a traffic safety standpoint, there does not appear to oe a
need for the no parking signs . I spoke with the Engebretson' s
who explained to me that they had no initial desire at the time
of this no parking provision, to have their property signed as
such. However, to maintain some continuity with the rest of the
neighborhood, they agreed. Since that time, it has been their
observation that there is not a problem with volumes of people
wanting to gain access to the park and that removal of the signs
by their home would in no way infringe upon their normal use and
enjoyment of their property. Rather, it prohibits friends and
relatives from parking there.
This office has no objection to the removal of the no parking
sign in front of the Engebretson property; however, I would
suggest that the other homeowners be contacted to determine
whether a need still exists for the remaining signs to a lessor
extent, if at all . If the no parking ordinance is to be
enforced, there will have to be some continuity to its layout or
it becomes confusing to the public not familiar to the area as
well as the officers who are tasked with its enforcement.
Jim: Please notify the Engebretson' s that you will be polling
other residents and that the item will most likely be considered
by the Council on December 1st or 15th.
_.J
c, 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
O _ O ° m 0 0 0
a
ii I I I I I
�,� �^ LILAC LANE \ CI HR/S7 /4S HENNE
ch;;cL4 r;AST ". --, ,1 Lr�.YE C: Ai V
./fl_ ;c.� R D --_____7: .
L a
F
� 53 R_ J // r .,fF
l.-1 ST •oar \ i N. R- 1
,. •
ws R-1 A Y �`�`` A` i- �� \cs:- 1-Li Y R04p o r, ••.. ...
y _ iii
,,
l , -� 4gE5T,„„4 C;R , \ '�, ,
a I z Pl-z°
a J�. 1 11
i hnasvarHi ,-.7
} 0�rI
Alb
1 r'1 ����I �-.7
41•
. / r J -J Eta I y i ,r«T .A .\ \-,.-:ft' f<4-
. . Li-.,i ,..=._, � i r .,_,\„.L, ..‘,,,
_._./-N, ___ /� I ate'(. 1F r�/h ZE' -. k _
,__Ni, ....,,,, <,„_.: --; --, \ �j L4 1 E we ' _4 it._ -, \-,�. c %.--!--, �RRp`(EN_ �
R D All
/ ,N 1 � r ,3 -...., -,,,:. ,----„J,,..-..--t7"0mv, , \ _
�� w T L A
r, Y `� 1
� I ♦�
V �w, �; �:;:. II_ 11111
546,E7) �11�
oil xvt
cl L.3 yt .a ,��'� f �t� r�`;1�-tom, ,I / ���m AT
RD \ ‘z-A)\ /1 7 t- '
4,1"'" , i I 1 / _ .,,- ,Op L
j SARA(l j /f f•—i , L.L. '��' E
.,
CIYOF
,. ro
:., , , ,
,,.., , . ,!,
`\ r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director .C__.
• C
DATE: November 17, 1986
SUBJ: Removal of No Parking Signs - Utica Lane
On November 15 , 1986 , a survey was conducted of the Greenwood
Shores area. The overall opinion was to leave the no parking
signs up. The survey went as follows:
7100 Tecumseh Lane Definitely in favor of leaving the
signs up.
7101 Tecumseh Lane Leave the signs up.
7101 Utica Lane Remove the signs if the City makes more
parking available.
7116 Utica Lane Leave the signs up - very good traffic
control with them.
7100 Utica Lane Leave the signs up - expressed a need
for more police enforcement.
7050 Utica Lane Leave the signs up on one side of the
street.
7090 Utica Lane Leave the signs up, at least on one side
of the street.
The overall feeling was that the street was too narrow and tnat
there would be a traffic problem created on the curve if parking
were to resume.
r ..i -7 ,,,.:, ,„! 1.-----, , 1"-",'" ' • 1--„, ,i/
-.1
. ,,, ‘7"...,--- ,...._ - ,,/
• •--..--1,,.) 2,,,,,2-1,--Y4-.>:,"-,CT, „ 6'c,7/Z ,.4 • - : ?s, 1 /
Cil-- L' . ........../..„....., ...,
7 i''---7,-;•-,-!'-: ---a-,:.:(2_,'-2? 71;:77;:-' 7-`,-- •->-, -s...- %-
y / , • /,
,,, . ...,, •—--,--7- --'1"'7*- --'2 n' i",-, ----,--,,t, -----,,-;-6,'-,--/(.---4C-' ' - --.--,. .,-2•2-7 7-: i--
, t ,
/7 ---= & c
i _ .„ ,.... ;-,,, - - ),. • ,_____,_,..."1 .,-",.. , -7";/ A.1 --- A--'- -N.A,^-,'")-I-0,2-'4,1:'--:
,_----4,—...t-7-9/7 •:-.• , " 17-....‘, • ' -Z._ , 1 1 --1---• ! - , I., I,"2 I_ ( ' J__ c 1/4.I---0 ("--' •--cisirT? ---7?-:c
(.'- fr ' • ( ,.--..—. _
. .
..; ••,-... .•I
•7' :-' -'-1--i >- '- .-"?' ' P., 1--7 /—
%7 /, I /,7;1 1--.■
...-
) (:-11-1' ' .1 , ' ,,-' •-''
"--A-"):"..:::72.... 17-22",.."'", ---; • -7-•---' /"":" 7)2' -- "-•"---,•7 -r "7 -.4. -'-'' .2„2,......,'..i:,,>, -, -' Z_..-, •2,,, ,, (,,r-i--;;;--)„,-.
. fr- ,x.,.._ .(.7-. 4: / ....,' ‘,--
. .,
c r
--'t"'"7,7( . ----"--1"' .."1"/:- -- --/-).7:'..-' '..•" '' '--.' . --'1.4--- ,-- ' --' -'-'7".'' '• t 7 / -/%'-'-7,-'
_.,
/
)2--,, - 7 ;- ' -,d. . - (------- --
•.,._ /
. ;.,-;2 ;; ( _ - --Li- - , 21, . .•-:-,
; .. -
- ___ , _
„--)
,-
, - --7-,--,-2,:j,- ,,);7-- --,1 f-27.•«-72 2,-,---
• (--„,„„...„-c-,...3,,,-,.--,,,,.....-rH / --)-;2.,--,--,:•„,„--•,...- - -.; -- 7 - ,--3/7-. .--",‘ (--=,, ',' ,---
, -- • - -...:.
,--x.z-4,,i4.77_-7-2,,/,----•'- 71,- - '--- ---)-2 74_7'. ,---,)--1...!fr.'2/-4--/''-';'--;”"."-7)"-
^7."'" / -----.,--"it{
• r
/, t•
___ ,_______._______2___,t__,,sp_.,,=. •
-
)_-
-•1' ,-2! , -
. > 7,,-'-,,• 2 - 2...._
„--7,•--) .---. 7 ' <.."---.-2 !-.-::.--;,-',2, ;.-.-- .!
----,----"--_.7_,--.t—'t';-;:7.--•;r7,;- ->,1.'„f,{..-,-
/" ".,,-;-G',2 6•1 {/
• / / . /;r51 1,- --\,' f-- M ' ----
,..,..,.--7,--,,..-- _;',..-,,,z, ,,,_, ___,,._ ,7,,.;.:,,...
, .. • -", 4_,/'if • '
• • - //,'- -;
//-' , .--
7/ /„. .._, , ...2._ ,,...-,--, .././ ;,- --- '--;"-77 ---,---',- --; '-'" . •-- (71-1 '1 - fl/—
.
- - , •,..-' ! -4 / i ,., _•L
/ 7.5-7,-:--; " -7-...-- i , ... .:., /. ;
- ,- 4
--.....--
-. .^,,r' ___, ,„/ ---", ",--,-' '' -.-- '--7.-7-7-e_i' '../---2.(:I--
-% / (----,'''' 7---,1-7----7'--- -2-,'...„,/ -- 17-'7.;" ----)' % - ---- ' '1-1 ' ' '/'
,-- .7 2--,-,.------ --,
.•"
..,..
----'12-?7 r' s 1--,V--itr .'- 1
• C 1) ....a tfi '
\■ II /1 1-,, /
,'.... C.
■ ,.
,./
--
/..''').*' .7-7,- ,---r-7---7. 1'; zt,, ,- -- -2 - ,
,-7/' r - .. - 77r1-‘7-r- 1
/,' .."...c-- (...2 /
,-;
-- -,
_ ---,-,--
,,,i •
`
--t - ---- e•-,-/--':--- (----•.—_,--w--,,-,,.--,...- / -,----,,..„,,-7.- ___. .,,,_.4..0--e,...c.-7-„_,(_;:47-i;,.//f.:;-%-;:',-'V-7 i',-
/-) -. ,---- • - / - f---'s' , -- .-- --;,-- --",-1-- , -1- -•. •-,..4' / ., - ' i' - / /. t` (''' a--
,
;„.• .., _____
.1
_ „...4.„,...,„,.....,..7_,■ r-->,i,.a.-7-7,,,?-,..7/7 .e,e..._....:;,,--....7.,":. '------21■--N --; 7„,' '..------>"'17..:1'12' .-.
.(,,/
(74,7?G...-it 9,--- •--7,,.,,„,"
/ ,./^
(77,1i',- / 7 7 --2/ -7..■- ./--Z-1-171 i7 Lr•'',
I
1? N. e .c_•-;
)
' I
,L.4--- --?f,--
• 1
74-27- -; 777- ...-.--,-.N. ....,. -- —.7-70,-4,•,!--.,_. ..., .---'
(, :. • / ,- /
L--
,--›-,..--,:,,•42:(9.2"';;-"--.,7 7-.,-i-'7, --"/- /,-- ---:/-7!,', -1 • --,--)--77"
../G (-"--1 ./- ' e,").,,,L-6,,,,..• (zy(--.2,,,,, , :-./7
• , C,/,,,,- ‘,/,,,..._ ---) --,. ' ,, .,..=-,..,
( (,-
// (1
1\.
I ' ' (.----' (_-''6... (- j
/1
/7
);:.-..".r;'-.7.9".7',/7, ..;;77,f: ---') rt. r,,
/7,/,i e")..
..„
.7,-.- - /,/ / -• • -s.' 74' -(/'
1 -;*----. -- . ! -
• ••-11 4/-c..,/ --i ,'.-,7,7'7-•-,--) 7' .../"V;17 ',7
--.,
P .
; __,/..-- ,/ '
, 1
.." )
C
tti
, .p )56
CEINEASSZN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: December 15, 1986
SUBJ: Request to Remove No Parking Signs on Utica Lane,
William and Kathy Engebretson
Attached please find a request to remove the no parking signs on
the Engebretson property in Greenwood Shores .
Designation of no parking areas must have easily identifiable
starting and ending points so as not to confuse the motorist.
Attached please find the map showing the existing no parking area
in Greenwood Shores . Also included is a survey of property
owners in that area as conducted by our Community Service
Officers .
Staff finds difficulty in making a recommendation on this item as
the original installation did not involve traffic control, but
was authorized in reaction to requests from the neighborhood
itself .
I
o