3o. Minutes ' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1988
II17 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman y , nczlman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Steve Hanson, Larry Brown, Todd
Gerhardt and Lori Sietsema
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the agenda with the addition of a discussion under Council Presentations
by Councilman Johnson of Zoning Ordinance Amendments. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' b. Final Plat Approval, Ralph Kant Addition.
c. Resolution #88-132: Resolution Approving Lyman Lumber Bond Issue.
I ) d. Resolution #88-133: Accept Roadway Improvements for Saddlebrook
Subdivision.
e. Approval Development Contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Second
Addition, Alscor Investors Joint Venture No. 2 (Opus) .
' f. Resolution #88-134: Approve Resolution to Submit Final Application for Lake
Susan LAWCON Grant.
' g. 1988 Audit Contract, Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Company.
h. Resolution #88-135: Approval of Resolution Reallocating 1989 Property Tax
Levies.
i. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, Southwest Communities Coalition.
j. Resolution #88-136: Accept Streets in Chanhassen Hills First Addition.
k. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, HRA.
1. Accounts Payable.
m. City Council Minutes dated November 9, 1988
City Council Minutes dated November 28, 1988
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 16, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 22, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
ity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
VISITORS PRESENTATION 1
Bryan Pike: Bryan Pike from Westside Baptist. We have been before you for
approval of site plan and as we have gotten down to the final facts and figures,
we're deciding, the congregation, to hold off for a time until we can build a
building that's more adequate. We had to keep cutting and cutting and cutting
so that has been our decision. What we're hoping for is to get back into the
Business Park and come before the Council and ask you if that's a possibility.
I just discussed before the meeting that the Section VI, Article 4 that we used
to have and that we were hoping to go in under has been since, what's the word? ,
Mayor Hamilton: Repealled.
Bryan Pike: Repealled, so I'm looking for your help. We've been discussing a '
possible place next to Fitness Master with Opus that they kind of got stuck with
that as Fitness Master backed out of and they've got an area that they will
lease to us. We have approval. I've asked Ron and Steve, I believe went over
there today and checked it out to see what it was like as far as fire codes and
what not. Basically the only question that I understand that he's got left is
there a 1 hour rated wall between an A and a B that runs above the ceiling all
the way up because he hasn't looked at that. He was checking on the possibility
of the need for a panic bars. Otherwise the place is fairly new...so it's
sprinkled right and that sort of thing.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think Bryan that we've been willing to work with you in
the past and I would certainly hope that the future Council would be willing to
work with you also. We'd certainly like to keep you in the City of Chanhassen.
Your congregation here. I would think that you may want to work with the staff
and go through whatever motions you need to to bring this back to the first -
Council meeting in January.
Councilman Geving: Mr Mayor, could I ask Bryan? I believe your request is more
in the form of an emergency and that your request tonight is to get a
conditional approval so that you can make arrangements so that you can start the '
first of January rather than waiting for the first meeting in January to make
your proposal. I guess what I'm hearing from you is that -you'd really like to
get a nod of approval from this Council rather than waiting for the new Council
so that you can make those arrangements starting January of 1989. Is that
correct?
Bryan Pike: Yes, that's correct. '
Councilman Gevi.ng: You see Tom, the question is not whether or not we should
• wait and I think the whole congregation is waiting at this time when he has an
opportunity to get into the Business Park. I don't know what we could do as a
Council other than to move this along in the next couple of weeks here so that
that can happen for you. We're all sympathetic to you because I know this is an
emergency. You had planned on building this year and it's not going to happen.
I don't see any reason why that can't happen. Personally, I would rather have
you at Old St. Hubert's church but you have different plans and you probably
already made some arrangements. '
Bryan Pike: We've been talking with Opus and they would like to lease it as
soon as they could. It's been sitting there for a year. We came along and
2
NB
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
they're willing to give us a good price. I would not like to lose it by not
II being able to get some kind of approval.
Ir
Councilman Boyt: Roger just brought up the point about, what about the old
City Hall for a month? Too small?
' Councilman Geving: They're got too big a congregation.
' Bryan Pike: The old City Hall?
Councilman Boyt: The white building at that crazy angle.
' Bryan Pike: That'd be too small.
Councilman Boyt: What I would propose is that the Council direct staff to allow
' the church to operate for a month.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's, while most of the formal conditional use
' permit requirements that require the public hearing and all that stuff, I think
it's a good idea. They were there before. We approved them before. It's kind
of a reinstitute of what we approved once before. I'm not sure how you're going
to do it but I have no problem with them going back to the IOP district. It
' seems like a logical place. They've got good street frontage and everything
else that they need. The parking situation is such that they're working off
hours. Their traffic is working off hours. It seems to be a good match really.
1 Mayor Hamilton: Let me propose this then. I think Bill has a good idea.
However, often times things get bogged down and not accomplished as quickly as
we'd like. I would like to propose that we give Bryan and his church and the
congregation the 90 day temporary conditional use permit and work with the staff
to make sure that those things that need to be met are met. Let you come back
within that 90 day period to the City Council and review it then.
' Councilman Boyt: Second.
Bryan Pike: I'm not sure if Opus will allow us to put a condition in there that
states if the City Council says no, that we're going to be able to get out of
it. That's I guess some of what I'm asking you what your feelings are and what
does this law strictly forbid us from doing. I'm assuming it doesn't because
' we've done it before. I guess I'll be putting my neck out on the line with Opus
if we come back in 90 days. I can't see that we would not meet the requirements
that they would ask.
rMayor Hamilton: Then I don't think you're going to have a problem. I think you
have 2 councilmembers who will be returning who have already stated that they
are in favor of your being there.
Larry Brown: At this point in time, I was hearing from the Building Inspection
Department that there may be problems with the building being able to meet the
I necessary requirements for such a body such as safe fire exits, etc., etc.. I'm
not sure exactly what that amounts to at this time but I know there may be some
problems.
3
`r i`ty Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 I
Mayor Hamilton: I think there were some problems with that last time and I
think they were mostly unreasonable problems so I think we'll do the things we
need to work with. Just so the minimum requirements are met so there's not the
possibility of having someone injured in a fire or something.
Councilman Johnson: We're not giving an occupancy permit. They still have to
meet all the fire and safety regulations. They realize that. The panic bars on
the doors. The Fire Inspectors were over there today and checked it out.
Mayor Hamilton: You went through this previously Bryan so I think you know what
you're looking at.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to allow a 90 day temporary '
conditional use permit for Westside Baptist Church and that they work with staff
to make sure the requirements outlined by staff are met. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. '
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, MIKE LYNCH.
Mayor Hamilton: It's my pleasure to present to Mike Lynch the City of
Chanhassen's Maple Leaf Award. It says Maple Leaf Award, presented to Mike
Lynch, Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission in recognition of outstanding
volunteer service for the community, 1979-1988. Mike it's a pleasure for me to
present this to you. You did a heck of a lot of good work for the City in the 9
years that you were on the Park and Rec Commission and I along with everyone
else appreciate it.
Mike Lynch: Thanks Tom. It's great to have been able to work in a system.
Watch the system grow. Watch the citizentry become more aware of our parks and
to begin to use them. I think what I regret, probably as Tom does and everybody
involved in this process, is that more people in the City don't discover that
these opportunities are here for us to work in the city and that it's quite a
rewarding thing. Thanks again.
•
Mayor Hamilton: For those of you who may not know, the Maple Leaf Award was
established by the City Council about 7 years ago. We felt there needed to be
an award to be given to those people who had done an outstanding job of service
in their community and it is the highest service award that this community
recognizes to those people who have volunteered their time and effort so
diligently as Mike has. Thanks again.
UPDATE ON LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN-UP PROJECT, CONRAD FISKNESS AND BOB
OBERMEYER.
Mayor Hamilton: I think prior to doing that, I wanted to just pass along some '
information.
Bob Obermeyer: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob Obermeyer with the I
Barr Engineering Company. Conrad Fiskness, Chairman of the Board had an earlier
conflict and was on his way... I'm here this evening just to give the Council a
status update regarding the Lake Riley restoration project. As the Council may
4
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 185
'
ir- recall, in March of this year we appeared before the Council and discussed the
status of the project which essentially outlined what we referred to as the
Phase I portion of the project which was the preparation of the work plan which
defined the project task and also the financial obligations of not only the
cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie but also the Watershed District. Again,
I as the Council may recall, this is a 1 million dollar restoration project which
essentially, if everything went in accordance with the plans, is that the net
obligations to the 3 local sponsors of the project, again being the cities of
II Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and the District would be approximately $20,000.00.
We would have been here sooner to update the Council regarding the status.
However, until the last few weeks, there hasn't been a change in the status of
the project. After we met with this Council and also received the authorization
II of the City of Eden Prairie and the Watershed District, we essentially sent a
draft substate agreement in May of this year to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency which essentially included language that the District prepared which
I outlined the obligations of these local sponsors. The first part of November of
this year we received correspondence from the Environmental Protection Agency,
having a copy of the correspondence, which indicated to the Pollution Control
Agency that due to the lack of progress on this project, that the Pollution
II Control Agency consider reallocating funds for this project. Upon receipt of
that correspondence, a meeting was held with representatives of the Pollution
Control Agency, representatives of the cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and
I also State Legislators were at that meeting. As a result of that meeting, we
received the comments from the Pollution Control Agency regarding the draft
substate agreement. The substate agreement has been executed by the Watershed
i ' District and has been sent back to the State of Minnesota. The substate
II agreement is currently going through the review process of not only the State
but also the Environmental Protection Agency and our discussions with the
Pollution Control Agency in the first part of this week, the Attorney General
I and the Pollution Control Agency have approved of the draft substate agreement.
The Environmental Protection Agency had some minor revisions to the language in
the substate agreement. However, has essentially approved that. So to make a
I long story long, is that it looks like going through a laborious process with
the appropriate agencies, we're now in a position to start work on the work plan
and we anticipate formal approval of that sometime yet_ this week with an
anticipated completion date of about March 31st of 1989. As a part of that, we
I will continue to work with the city staffs regarding key issues for the projects
specifically dealing with the public access not only on Lake Susan, which I'm
aware that the City has made considerable progress on, but also the public
II access on Lake Lucy which is a major hurdle that has to be overcome as a part of
the overall project. But it looks like we will be starting work on the work
plan yet this year and we will again be continuing to work with the city staff.
I We're here just again, to update the Council on this. Again, solicit your
support on the project. We do feel that it's a viable project and hopefully we
can have some net results in the next year. With that, I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
IICouncilman Johnson: I spent the better part of one day a week and a half ago
working with Bob and staff here and MPCA and EPA and about everybody I could get
ahold of on this project to find out what was going on. I think one thing we're
going to want is staff update reports about monthly. And whenever you need any
political clout, whether it be from Senator Schmitz or whatever we need, we want
to be able to bring that about. If EPA gives you problems, we get Boschwitz or
Iwhoever involved but this is too important of a project for the overall
5
.��sJw✓
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
environmental aspects of this town to let it go by the side. There is still
some dangers of losing some funds on this one. We're not over the hump yet. il
We've gone 2 1/2 years on a 4 year project without spending a dollar or a year
and a half. Is it a year and a half or 2 1/2? About 2 1/2 years without
spending a dollar. Before we spend the entire million dollars on this project,
we'll have to request an extension so it's not quite over with yet. I'm glad to
see we're starting to make some movement here. We will be working very hard on
getting the Lake Lucy issue. One issue that's unresolved yet is the definition
of public access. It appears that there are multiple definitions of public
access and we need to get what MPCA's version of it is and what EPA's version
is. Right now all we have is DNR's version. Yes, which one. The equal access
version that is causing some consternation. There are some ways that we can
deal with this as long as EPA and MPCA don't have the exact same definition of
public access as DNR. So hopefully you'll get those definitions for us pretty
soon.
Councilman Geving: The only statement that I want to make Bob is that you don't
have to look very far to get the kind of continuing support from the City of
Chanhassen or this Council because we've always been in favor of the project and
for $20,000.00 this is a tremendous buy for us. The only concern I have is the
potential for that Lake Lucy access which apparently is still up in the air. I
don't know if you can give us any status on it. Can you give us any more
information on where that is or if this is going to hang up the whole project?
Bob Obermeyer: As Councilman Johnson indicated, it is first of all, we do need
a clear definition from not only the Environmental Protection Agency but also 1
the Pollution Control Agency as far as what they're looking for and to date, we
have not yet received that. We anticipate to again be meeting with them at a
staff level and discuss that with them to determine exactly what they need.
What period of time so that we can proceed on with the project.
Councilman Horn: I think Jay and Dale covered it pretty well. The main thing
is just don't hesitate to holler when you need help. This body has been. .. '
Don't sit there and try to solve them all yourself.
Bob Obermeyer: We definitely will continue working with the city staff and
again, just to follow up on one of the comments that Councilman Johnson made,
that this project has been going on for 2 1/2 years and the reason why the delay
is again, a clear understanding as far as what was involved in the project and
potential financial obligations not only to the cities but also the Watershed
District. And to date, we have just received that information from the State so
that there is a clear understanding of what project. ..
Councilman Boyt: My one comment is I'm disappointed that we let the Lake Lucy
access issue drag out almost all year long. I think we should have dealt with
that one. It's going to be tough to deal with. It sounds like we need a
definition but we also need to be making some progress in terms of finding out
what the residents of the lake want and what our options are so I'd like to see
us move on that immediately so that we're ready to go in March when this gets
finalized.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you can help us with the definition until that gets
resolved.
6
11
I S7
• City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II ' Bob Obermeyer: We'll be setting u
g p meetings very shortly with the state agency
to make that determination and we'll be working with Lori to discuss that.] 'I yor Hamilton: Thanks very much Bob. We appreciate your coming.
g
IPUBLIC HEARING: TH 101 REAGLINMENT/LAKE DRIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY, AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
IPublic Present:
Name Address
IISteve Plowman 3622 So. Hwy 101, Wayzata
Gene Borg 6897 Chaparral Lane
II Ernie Echols 8008 - 29th Avenue North, New Hope
Jan Coey Taco Shop
Bernie Hanson Chanhassen Lawn and Sports
Greg Gniterko 8121 Hidden Court
I Bill Diem 1450 Park Court
J.C. Smith - Instant Webb 6750 France Avenue South, Minneapolis
Brian Burdick 5205 Greenwood Circle, Excelsior
II B.C. Jim Burdick Excelsior
Rod Volk - LCLC 17141 Cedarwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim Dauwalter - LCLC 3250 Julian Drive, Chaska
Bob and Elizabeth Haak - LCLC 770 Pioneer Trail
Norman Ruthenbeck - LCLC 7497 Saratoga Drive
Ken Pung 620 West 96th Street
Harold Lund - LCLC 1091 Chaparral Court
1 Al Klingelhutz
Peter Held 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
8201 Grandview Road
Teunis DeJoode - LCLC 810 Pioneer Trail
II Ron Tonn - LCLC 8300 West Lake Court
Joleen Rents 7621 Chanhassen Road
Ralph and Carol Kant - LCLC 3820 Lone Cedar
Julie Billison - LCLC 811 Buckingwood Court
I Dave and Jill Hartman - LCLC 17766 Lorence Way, Eden Prairie
Gerald W. Paulsen - LCLC 7305 Laredo Drive
William J. Ward 1624 Harmon Place, Minneapolis
II Alex Krengel - LCLC 8009 Cheyenne
Larry Heuer - LCLC 403 Santa Fe Trail
Dean Burdick - LCLC 206 Chanview
IIJohn H. Ward 5916 Hansen Road, Minneapolis
Gary Ehret: I know that the Council is real familiar with this. You've seen it
I several times. A lot of the residents, the folks that are here have seen it at
lesat once. I don't know if you want the long version or maybe the little short
version but I guess what I'd like to do is, I'll go through a shorter version
Ili__ and if you want me to go back and cover things, I'll do that.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the shorter version and any questions may get back to
other issues.
II
11 7
'-:.��. y Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Gary Ehret: We've issued two reports on this project. The first one was the
preliminary feasibility study and primary feasibility study which the Council
accepted on the 28th, 2 weeks ago tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, there
were a number of meetings with staff. We had a public information meeting. We
met with representatives of the Church of the Living Christ, etc. and there were
a lot of ideas and subsequent issues that were generated. So we put together
what we call Supplemental Report No. 1 to the feasibility study in which we
tried to highlight those issues that have come up since the November 28th
meeting. The first board I have up here represents the watermain in the project
area. What I'd like to cover first is to go through the improvements real
quickly and talk briefly about phasing of the project. You've seen the project
before. We talked about this enormous project with very limited to any
conversation on what are we really attempting to build at this time. So maybe
first to just walk you briefly through the project. We have two codes on the
board, orange and green, color coding. In the report we talk about basically
two phases. Phase one which deals with utilities and improvements primarily
related to the Rosemount facility and TH 5. Phase 2 which primarily deals with
utilities and improvements that are on the Ward property. You can look at a
number of subphases to each phase but in particular what we looked at were Phase
1 improvements that consisted of watermain on Lake Drive. Watermai_n on the new
TH 101 down through the Lake Drive East intersection. A piece of watermain
underneath TH 5. Then a little stub off what would be the remaining parcel on
the Bongard property. Phase 2, that would be any watermain improvements
associated with the Ward property, Lake Drive East and TH 101 from Lake Drive
East to the south. Sanitary sewer, we talked about Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase
1, the improvements on Lake Drive to accommodate the developed lots on the north
side of Lake Drive and with the stub connection for the Church of the Living
I!!
Christ. This is sanitary sewer by the way, and sanitary sewer in this area that
would be to serve the Rosemount building. You could also look at this stub
juncture at West 78th Street and Dakota Avenue with the TH 5 improvements.
Phase 2 then would be the continuation of the sanitary sewer up to serve the
Ward property and this stuff in here. In the report, one of the things we
talked about that is a change on the sanitary sewer, the original feasibility
study included a lot of sanitary sewer to serve this Lot 3. We reviewed that
with staff to some degree and felt that that sewer could be eliminated so part
of Supplemental Report No. 1 is a reduction of approximately $50,000.00 by
eliminating that sanitary sewer. That did affect the assessments also but
that's an important note. That is a change that occurred in Supplemental
Report No. 1. This board represents storm sewer. Phase 1 work would consist of
primarily all improvements on Lake Drive that would be necessary to accommodate
the development of the Rosemount parcel. Construction of the storm water
retention pond down on the city parks property, Lake Susan Park. The systems
associated with TH 5 and TH 101. That would comprise Phase 1. Phase 2 then
• could be a little stub here which goes up to serve runoff from the Instant Webb
property, the Burdick property, this little system for Lake Drive East and this
entire system on the future TH 101. So Phase 1 is primarily the Lake Drive
system with a retention basin and any improvements that would be associated with
TH 101 and TH 5. Those systems all tie into directly to the roadway
improvements. The roadway improvements would be a system. Lake Drive again
from Powers Blvd. to TH 101. TH 101 from TH 5 through Lake Drive East and the
improvements associated with TH 101 and TH 5 be phased to the Lake Drive East
and TH 101 south... That's real quickly the phasing we talked about. We have
looked at some subphasing in that area but at this point we just split them out
into two phases. There may be some subphasi.ng. For example, we know that to
8
11
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 9
keep up with the Rosemount schedule, the City must get installation of utilities
and the roadway in that area. These improvements are more closely tied to TH 5
but that's the key to that one. Improvements in what we call Phase 2 are
I primarily dependent on the Ward property. We did meet with the Wards, Mr.
Hoisington and myself about a week ago. We've run through this scenario and
they're pretty much familiar with what we're proposing. That covers real
' briefly the phasing that we're calling Phase 1 and Phase 2. There was a
breakdown in the report that dealt with costs associated with those
hmprovements. The project was about a 6.4 million total of which 5.2 roughly is
I Phase 1. 1.2 roughly is Phase 2. I'll point out one other change that was
highlighted in the supplemental report. On the assessment of the sanitary
sewer, the assessment methodology that was in the feasibility study has been
revised. When we eliminated the sanitary sewer, we went back and looked at this
with the city staff. We felt that there was a more equitable procedure to
assess the sanitary sewer. We went back and looked at an assessment method that
took in a total area and that's what we're recommending as the assessment
approach for sanitary sewer. That is a change. I think with that, what I'd
like to talk about very briefly is some of the issues that we're aware of, some
of which we attempted to address in the supplemental report. Since the time the
Council approved the feasibility study, we held a public information meeting
Tuesday of last week, December 6th, which was a widely distributed invitation
list to a fairly large area. We got a summary of the report. Basically there
were approximately 20 people that attended. Roughly 15 from the Church of the
' Living Christ and 4 other property owners. Mr. Burdick, Mr. Day who owns the
Chan Meadows Apartments. One property owner who lives in this home here. Mr.
Schneider. I think that pretty well was the attendance. The primary issue at
' that meeting focused on the church. The majority of the people attending the
meeting were from the church and that's where the primary focus ended up. We
reviewed all of the concepts, improvements at the meeting with everyone. The
results primarily focused, like I say, on the church. The issues primarily
' revolved around the church. The fact that they've been there for a number of
years. The assessments to the church and their viability. We went back since
the meeting, held a subsequent meeting with representatives from the church.
Staff went through a number of assessment scenarios. We pretty well summarized
those in the report. Came up with a revised assessment amount which we feel is
justifiable to the church property. Fair and equitable is always in the eye of
the beholder kind of issue but we tried to use assessment methods that were both
fair and just to the church and to assist what they would expect in another
setting. I know that they will speak to you tonight and express some of their
concerns. We tried to do what we could to make it a fair situation. One other
thing that was done, I want to make you aware of, Fred Hoisington asked Harvey
Swenson who the City has used for appraisals in the past, to take a look at this
scenario, specifically at the church property. Do a quick appraisal. Verbally
' I was told by Harvey this afternoon that his appraisal was about $44,000.00 to
what the assessment to that property could be is approximately $44,000.00. I
think with that, it's probably easier to deal with specific assessment questions
as they come up through the public hearing rather than me trying to cover every
scenario so with that I would open it up to any questions that the Council may
have.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think what we'd like to do, rather than the Council, I'd
rather hear the comments the public has to make and we can ask our questions
after that. So what I'd like to do at this time is to open the public hearing.
I'd like to call the public hearing to order. I would like to remind the public
9
"t,ty Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 1
that we certainly want to hear your comments. A public hearing is just that. A
hearing. We're not going to promise that we can answer or that we will respond
to your questions this evening since some of them may need to be further
researched. We may want to have additional information back brought to us prior
to any specific comments being made. So we encourage your comments this
evening. We want to hear than but again realize that we may not answer your
question or respond specifically to questions you may raise this evening. ,
Jim Burdick: B.C. Jim Burdick from Excelsior. I stepped up first because the
only part of this that's alleged to affect me is the storm sewer. I feel that
this, I obviously should not be included. For one thing, I'm quite some
distance from the storm sewer on the north side of TH 5 which is going to become
four lanes and all so it doesn't even come near me. I was just shocked I was
included. Secondly, this property was recently graded and with your engineer
Bill Engelhardt and engineer Gary Warren, they want to do a pond here. If
there's a 100 year pond here and the size of the pipe, of course the smaller the
pipe the bigger the pond would be, is 100 year sized pipe. Of course I will be
contributing to the storm sewer general taxes understanding there's two-thirds
of this comes from the general tax. I'll be paying that just as I pay a general
tax to maintain the Minnesota River or for that matter the Mississippi. There's
a relatively very small amount of water flows into. I discussed this with Gary
Warren. Unfortunately he couldn't be here tonight because as you know he's in
the process of having his family enlarged. That's about it. Just one more
factor that came up Tuesday night. It said that those who are being assessed
who would...experience and increase the value of their property. I just can't
imagine what an appraisal of this property can afford. This storm sewer looks
like it's about 3 blocks away to the closest part if the appraisal before and
after for this property would not be the same. That was the criteria Gary
Tuesday night as to whether the Burdick would be assessed or not. Three things.
There's the remote location. The fact that I've already taken care of our own
water in accordance with the city's specifications, suggestions and plans.
Thirdly, I will not be benefitting in any matter whatsoever shown by this before
and after appraisal. I thank you.
Jules Smith: Since I'm downstream. I'm Jules Smith of 6750 France Avenue
South. I'm here representing Instant Webb on the same question. We are only
involved, Instant Webb is only involved in the storm sewer project. First off
let me say that we couldn't make the meeting of the 6th. Just was not possible
so that's why we're here tonight raising maybe some questions we should have
raised on the 6th. First of all, we really are for the general whole project of
Lake Drive and the improvements that are generally there. We do have some
questions however about the storm sewer system. First of all, the maps and the
study that was done does not show the system as it presently exists and because
there is in fact a pipe from here all the way over to here under TH 5 to serve
Burdick, you might recall that that pipe which flows through here which Burdick
has first buts on running out of here, out of this pond, then we can put our
pond under the railroad tracks. Our collection because we built a pond on our
property as well. We paid for that pipe, $52,000.00. We feel that this piece
of pipe which does not benefit us at all. It doesn't give us anymore flowage or
anything else, the fellas downstream should pay for it just like we pay for it
up here. Or in the alternative, to look at it equitably, if you look at the
whole system to service Burdick, including this pipe which is already in, figure
out what that cost is and then give us credit for the $52,000.00 we already
paid. I think that would be far more equitable. The point is, we are for the
10
1 ,City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
IIMayor Hamilton: Based on a proposal that we have before us that was never
carried through. Things change.
II
[-
Jim Dauwalter: They surely do. We'd also like to submit that the driveway that
we have had, as I mentioned in the letter, has nicely served our needs as well
II as our water and sewer system. The church is also not in a position to benefit
from these improvements in that we're not a property developer. What we have
will continue to use and there's not that alternative for us to creatively come
up with revenues to offset these expenses and therefore we would ask your
Iconsideration to further evaluate the $40,000.00 assessment.
Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you one question. Do you have a septic system there
Inow and your own well?
Jim Dauwalter: We do.
IIMayor Hamilton: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments or questions.
Al Klingelhutz: I wasn't here last Tuesday night. Jack Barnes was up here last -
' and I don't know if the highway center islands were discussed as far as TH 101
and the old TH 101 was concerned. I understand there's supposed to be a center
island coming in front of my property. The fact that my property and the normal
II access to the property from the north except through the parking lot behind
Pauly's, I think that would create a hardship for the property and devalue by
considerably dollars and it won't think any other property. It has to be
accessed through someone elses parking lot to get onto their property and I hope
IIthe Council takes that into consideration and take a look at that.
Mayor Hamilton: As a part of a plan, that divider is proposed south on TH 101
II extending from TH 5 well down towards Total Superette. Also going north. I
don't recall if it went up as far on the north side of the tracks. The Council
endorsed that by a 4 to 1 vote and I'll tell you I'm the one that voted against
it. I don't want to see anything in there. I don't think it's right. I don't
I' think there should be any dividers in there.
Al Klingelhutz: I can't quite understand. Those proposals were made when TH
:' 101 was supposed to be the main highway coming into Chanhassen. Now we're
looking at another major entrance into Chanhassen and I don't believe the center
islands are necessary in that area because it's going to reduce the traffic, not
IIincrease it because you're promoting another entrance into town.
Councilman Geving: Al, I don't believe I remember seeing those barriers further
north than the railroad tracks. I'm sure of it in fact. If they are, we
'' certainly don't want them in.
Al Klingelhutz: Even the markings on the highway right now. There are yellow
I lines. I think it's probably illegal for me to cross from the north at the
present time. I don't think you can cross the line.
Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes, you can cross it.
IIAl Klingelhutz: If you look at the highway and see these yellow lines going up
[:7
like this with little kind of hash marks across them, those are supposed to be
Iobserved for something else in traffic.
II 12
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
1
iMayor Hamilton: I think they were put in there merely to delineate the two
sides of the road at this time. That's all. It's not a driving area so you
II
can't turn across there.
Councilman Horn: My first question is, is the area that Al's referring to part II of this study?
Gary Ehret: I believe you're referring to your building right?
Al Klingelhutz: Right. Just north of the railroad tracks. II
Gary Ehret: The answer would be no. I
Councilman Geving: Trunk Highway 5?
Gary Ehret: It would be part of the TH 5. I
Councilman Horn: I believe that that can be totally under the control of this
Council. I think the only reason that that got put in here was the fact that
II
TH 101 was temporarily routed through there. I don't think that we will have to
be concerned about that once we get TH 101 rerouted. Put medians or take
medians out of there where we want to. The part that Dale was referring to is II the part to the south of the railroad track and we did approve that. We told
MnDot we approved the concept but we were still under the impression that those
would be changed and they need to work with our consultants and get input that
we got at the public meetings. The proposal that we got from BRW did show that
median coming out going into West 78th Street. The first proposal had that cut II
off also. What we're still working with and yet to do is open the access to the
Legion property south of TH 5 because there's still a median proposed there and 11 it's still proposed in BRW's report. I believe, just as you stated, that once
we take TH 101 off of there, and we do the traffic studies based on that, none
of those medians will be necessary. That's what I hope the people that follow
along behind me on this Council push to make sure happens because I don't think
II
those will be necessary once we get the numbers. I don't endorse and I don't
believe the rest of the Council did the plan that was presented. Endorsing a
concept but we still expect to see changes in that plan. I
Al Klingelhutz: There was quite a little concern with me because I'm sure with
the size of the property and we've got a single lane road, virtually a single
I
lane road coming into it sometime in the future is going to be suitable for a
lot bigger business than what we've got there right now that will generate a lot
more traffic.
Mayor Hamilton: Just for clarification, the issue that Al is raising is not a II
part of the Lake Drive feasibility study. It's part of the downtown
redevelopment process so it's not even a part of this issue that we're
II
discussing but you've gotten some good input anyway.
+ Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public I
1 hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
II
13 1
II -"Oity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
IIMayor Hamilton: Gary, you have some questions to answer I think and some issues
to deal with. I guess I would like to ask the council if they have any
additional questions or comments to include with those that you have heard so as
I this item comes back, there can be some clarification. Also, does this need to
be acted upon this evening? I would hope not since I think there are some
questions of benefitting property and assessment questions that perhaps can't be
Ianswered this evening. That additional information can be presented on.
Don Ringrose: The primary issues were the ones of assessments. I think...the
II issues that formally won't be answered until the assessment hearing but
traditionally most cities try to answer those questions now because people make
decisions about other things and assessments 2 years away. The church has to
II plan so what I think is certai.nly...of the Council in terms of...what they think
their assessments will be next fall or a year from the fall.. .actually assessed,
that's technically a different questions. I would merely raise the issue for
Council action tonight to meet the schedules. I think it's clear to everybody
I that Rosemount. ..and it seems to me that to take care of the•TH 101 realignment,
the City wants to...TH 5.. . The schedule is pretty tight. . .right now the
State is waiting on us. We're not waiting on them. ..
ICouncilman Johnson: I think some very good issues have come up. I do believe
we do have to go ahead tonight and approve the feasibility study, the supplement
and authorize the commencement of the plans and specifications for Phase 1.
IIMayor Hamilton: Was that a motion?
I Councilman Johnson: Sure, that's a motion.
l_
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion for discussion.
I Councilman Johnson: The other thing is, I agree with the church on several of
their issues. When you look at the but for doctrine. But for Rosemount coming
in there, they wouldn't have an assessment. I think that it was Rosemount who
I decided and requested us to move the road. The road was platted. We had to
vacate a platted road in order to meet their requirements. I don't think two-
thirds of this project are being financed by public funds. Two-thirds may be
going from tax increment financing which is slightly different than saying metro
I funds. Considerably different actually. For one comment. I would like to see
a reduction in the church's even more. I think we've done a pretty good start
but to say the church is benefitting because their property value is going to go
I up $40,000.00 would be fine if the church was in property speculation. If
that's what they planned on doing but I don't think there's any plans right now
to try to sell their church to another church. Westside Baptist is looking for
a facility right now.
1
Jim Dauwalter: Make us an offer.
I Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to have staff get into some conversations
with Opus and Rosemount on this as to how they feel because really we have to
treat everybody, every property owner equal. We can't say we like the church so
I we're not going to assess them at all and Rosemount you have to pay the full
assessment. .. You probably were notified of it because it was a public hearing
as any vacation is and everybody within 500 feet were notified. I'm pretty surd '—'11
IIthat Pastor Ruthenbeck probably got a notice or somebody got notice at the
14
II
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 `a9 5 I
church saying that we're having a public hearing on that. We held that about
ir- September.
Jim Dauwalter: We might not because of the street. '
Councilman Johnson: It's just everybody within the area is notified of those.
The other thing is, I think a very good point was made to take the entire
watershed district into account and credit back to the United Mailing and
Mr. Burdick to take the total cost of the watershed improvements and say what
would the assessment be if the entire watershed was put in. Credit back to them
what they have already paid in their assessment and have the remainder left
over. I think that's a very interesting calculation and was a good point to be
made. You are benefitting in that your water eventually goes to a new pond
that's being built and more sewers downstream from you. This benefits in more
nutrient stripping of your waste water after it's gone through your ponds. The
ponding areas you're putting in does very little nutrient stripping. Very
little removal of the pollution from the water. Hopefully the ponding that
we're going to be putting in further downstream will have more effect on this.
This will be almost like a storm water treatment system to a point. So there
will be same benefit to the pollution coming off your, well not benefit to the
pollution but some removal of the pollution coming off of your properties from
the cars, roofs, etc.. I would encourage the consultant to look at that part of
it and then I'd like to see another hearing on the assessment side of this
within the next, probably the second or third meeting of the next Council. ,
Don Ashworth: I agree with the motion and Mr. Ringrose's point. We do have, as
a certain of our citizens who do have concern. Staff worked very well with the
citizens and businesses in the downtown area. St. Hubert's church I think
you'll recall had some initial concerns. We resolved those. I feel very
confident that during the next 20 day period of time we can meet the church and
resolve some of these issues and have them back before the City Council for
final consideration. Again, I feel very comfortable that the Council moves
forward on this item, that we will be able to bring the item back. That we will
have resolution to a number of the issues that have been brought before us
tonight but not all of them.
Councilman Horn: It seems like everytime we talk about assessments, you hear a
misunderstanding of the term downstream assessment philosophy. I don't think
that was explained very well... The other thing that I don't think we do very
well is we don't let people know that they can fit this type of assessment into
their planning process because it doesn't hit them all at once. In other words,
why don't we let people know what their assessment is on a per year basis
because we typically finance these things on some extended payment period.
Especially I know when you get into an agency like the church where you fit it
into a yearly budgeting cycle. You're not looking at $40,000.00 next year out
of your budget. It's on a payment each year for 10 years it looks a lot
different.. . Typically I think we don't explain that well enough to people in
the hearing process. I don't think we have this evening. They probably weren't
aware of that. I think some of the things that Jay tried to describe on the how
the downstream assessment works should be made very clear because everytime
assesments come up we hear I'm not being benefitted by this project.. .the
downstream philosophy that we've been using...
15
II 2i.)a
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
IICouncilman Geving: I have a comment or two. Historically this project, the
extension of Lake Drive East was planned as a priority project over 5 years ago.
[-
1 It was always our intention to connect TH 101 and CR 17. It was a priority
until Lake Lucy Drive came along and also Bluff Creek Drive. It was our
intention to put 80% of the funds from our State Aid, MSA funds into the project
I costs which meant that we could fund nearly 80% of the road project by using our
State Aid funds. We used those funds pretty well up last year with Bluff Creek
Drive. I don't believe, even though we have met this past week, we have had an
open meeting with any of the members who wanted to attend and we had some very
I good meetings with people that were here but I don't believe that yet we have
all the alternatives for the assessment issue resolved. I agree with what Don
said. I appreciate what Don said in fact because I know that he would work very
1 hard, just like he did with our downtown assessment policy, to bring this down
to a more reasonable figure. My comments tonight are purely for the record
because I will not be here when the assessments are finally written into the
record. But for tonight, I want to say that this road, had we done it 3 years
1 ago would have been fully funded, at least to an 80% degree by the city MSA
funds. The project would have been completed with very little impact on the
Lutheran Church or any other of the people who own properties in this area. I
1 don't believe that all the commitments for 1989 MSA funds have been made. We
possibly could use those funds for part of this project to divert some of the,
as has been proposed, assessments. Nor does the church have the capability of
1 using our reduced assessment policy. Whereas Rosemount and any other business
are allowed a reduced assessment because of building in the Industrial Park. I
would like to ask that question of Don. Can the church take advantage of that
reduced assessment policy Don?
IIDon Ashworth: No because they have not created any form of taxes but I don't
think, I think there are some other options that are open for the city and
1 church to explore. Similar again to St. Hubert's church which will make the
assessment more tolerable for them.
Councilman Geving: What would you say to the statement that I made about the
1 potential coniuitting 1989 MSA funds to this project?
Don Ashworth: The funding for Bluff Creek did go out and did consume the 1989
I allocation and a part of 1990 but again, I think that we have some options open
to us in other forms of funding that again could provide help for the church.
I Councilman Geving: Just a comment or two about benefits. One of the policies
in making an assessment is that there's assumed benefit. We can assume this
where you have a business and you can write it down. You can improve your
property and it increases in value assuming that you want to then turn around
1 and sell it. The church has no intention of increasing the value of their
property for that purpose so your needs are a little bit different here in terms
of what the real benefits are. When we moved the road to the north to
I accommodate the Rosemount and Opus developer, we did so at their request. Now
the road lying approximately 900 feet directly along the entire length of the
church property and is attempting to be assessed on a per lineal foot basis is
I really unfair. So I'd like to ask the engineer to consider the possibility of
making that road assessment also on an area basis because the church owns
approximately a little over 5 acres. Rosemount just bought nearly 60 acres and
there's other properties owned throughout that by the Wards and by the City so [1.7
Iconsider that as input Gary in your potential for arriving at some alternatives.
1 16
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 '.4'9 7 I
Then too, I think we need to get the other players into the act. I think we
need to bring in Opus and I believe that we need to bring Rosemount into the
picture because these two are the beneficiaries of this entire scheme. We did
not plan on building this project in 1989. It really occurred just within the
II
last several months so we have some new requirements now and I believe that
sitting down, just as we did with the Lutheran church, sitting down with Opus
and Rosemount, they too can be brought into this entire scheme and there might
II
be some relief from them if we can show that there is a benefit, more direct
benefit to particularly Opus. I think the signed papers and closings happen
today and that is history but Opus is still available to us I think to bring
I
into this entire picture. I think that we're almost there. We have made a
significant reduction in the assessments and while Jules is not really pleased
yet, and Mr. Burdick is not totally pleased, but we have made some attempts
during this last week and I think that we should keep. While we should continue
II
the project and we want to close this project out tonight and move along so we
can continue with what we intend to do, we should keep the assessment action
open so we can meet again. I was hoping that we could even meet as a council II before the end of December but that's probably not going to be possible. Don
mentioned in the next 20 days and I will not personally be pleased until the
church's assessment is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00. For that II reason I'd like to leave this discussion open for the assessment between now and
the time of the assessment hearing so that our consultants and our City Engineer
can work out the details. That's all I have.
Councilman Boyt: I'll make this brief. Just highlight a couple of points that '
= have already been made. I think it's a very good point that the church isn't a
profit center and that's probably a critical difference. They don't pay taxes
is another critical difference. I think we've already wrestled with this as Don II
mentioned with St. Hubert's and I would like to see us follow whatever strategy
we followed there as much as possible. I am very relunctant to see us creating
situations that we're not willing to apply to everyone. Since we've got quite a
II
bit of history recently in assessments, I would think that we know what we can
do here. I think that fits into Clark's philosophy of what we've been using.
Everyone seems to have stated a good intent. I also believe that the church
II
should begin budgeting for a worse case scenario. One of the things that the
City needs to keep in mind is that the total cost for- the project doesn't change
so what we're doing when we try to help the church is that we're saying to Mr. II Burdick, you're going to pay more. Or to someone else in this project so it's
very important given that, that we're consistent with what we do here and I
think St. Hubert's is an excellent example of how we've been able to help
churches and I hope that we would continue to do that.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to make a couple of comments. I want
Mr. Dauwalter to realize that when I said things change, it wasn't a foot I
comment. It wasn't intended to be. Things do change and we hope they change
for the better. I think that what we are attempting to do is a better change.
A couple of the items in your letter to the Council kind of struck me. One is,
you state that you presently have access to TH 5 and your driveway has nicely
II
served our needs for the past 18 years. That may be but everytime I go up
there, as I did today, I get a little nervous about taking a left off of TH 5 to
get into the facility and I would think that you would be nervous about your
II
parishioners and people who bring their children up there to go to the daycare
Icenter. I think you'd be a little nervous about them making a left hand turn or
even a right hand turn off because as the traffic increases it becomes 1
17
II
II 'City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
increasingly dangerous. If one person were to be killed or injured seriously, I
II would feel very badly about that and I think that what is being proposed would
[-
be a tremendous improvement to that access that you have to TH 5. Also, you
state that the well and the septic system have served you well since you've been
there. I think that's true. However, is it serving the city the best that it
' can? Wouldn't it be best to have that church connected to a sewer system? You
do have a daycare center that functions in there on a daily basis. It's a
rather large daycare center. You use the sewer continuously. At some point the
septic system is going to fail. I think you know that. Consequently, I think
the time is probably best now so we don't have anymore pollution than necessary
to get you connected to the city sewer and water system and that would
definitely be a benefit to the church and to the entire city. So those two
' things just struck me right off and seeing a couple of items that perhaps hadn't
been seen or thought of as assets and improvements to the system. I'm sure you
don't want to pay for them but I think that once you think about them, they
' probably are worth paying for because they would be helpful to all of the people
who use your community there. Those are the only comments I have. I agree. I
understand that the church doesn't want to pay anymore than they have to and it
is difficult but sometimes it's to the best also.
' Jim Dauwalter: I acknowledge those comments and I think they're fair comments.
It's also why the church has not requested that we freeload on this. We have
proposed the number within that letter that I submitted to you that we have
shared with both BRW as well as Gary Warren so we do acknowledge that there is
some benefit there...
Resolution #88-138: Councilman Johnson
moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept
the feasibility study, Supplemental Report No. 1 for TH 101 realignment/Lake
' Drive and to authorize the firm of Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and
Gardner to commence with plans and specifications for the design of Phase
I improvements as identified in Supplemental Report No. 1. Separate document
packages will be prepared for the north leg of TH 101 improvements and for the
south leg of TH 101 and Lake Drive improvements. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure this will be on an agenda item early in January. The
issues that have been raised will be dealt with again. If we could fit it in at
the end of December, perhaps we can try to do that. Is anybody busy on
Christmas day?
UPGRADE OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Mayor Hamilton: Todd, this is your item and we had looked at this a couple of
weeks ago and you were requested to have somebody from the company who had the
lowest bid to come in. It was Southwest Audio Visual.
Todd Gerhardt: At 7:00 we did put on a demonstration. Some of the council
members were here. What was being proposed was a Shure system which would give
[72
5 surface mics for the councilmembers. Three new mics for, one for each of the
' staff tables and another individual microphone for the podium are more suited
for this council chambers. The presentation felt that.. .negatives use and it
' 18
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 .2 '
would be a little more aware of the mics in front of you was another big point
Jr- that was brought out. I felt the presentation went well. I'll just open it up
to some of the other councilmembers for their comments and what they felt about
the system.
Mayor Hamilton: Was everybody there? I apologize for not being there. I was
in another meeting with Don. I
Councilman Geving: We had 3 here.
Councilman Johnson: We tested it pretty extensively. Some of Todd's '
pronouncements on what the system would and wouldn't do, didn't quite agree with
what the experts from Southwest said but the rattling of paper will turn on the
miss. One of the main differences, the flat mic they had up here was ,
considerably larger. I was able to came all the way back to the wall, sit here,
talk in the same voice and the mic was picking it up just as well. Bill was in
the back of the room there. They're going to attach 4 speakers, 2 on either
side filling from the front up here and they're even talking about maybe making
than white instead of black. The mics are not always on. Only when you start
talking do they activate. If they're set and you're making some minor little
noise over here, minor shuffling of- papers, it won't turn them on. It's when
you take a full blueprint and start turning it and stuff with a big blueprint
that will still turn on the mics. It was a pretty successful demonstration. I
was fairly pleased with it. The picture on the front here shows what the mic is
like. It's about twice as big as the mic here. We set it to where, between
where Don and I would share a mic and it seemed to work quite well that way too.
It doesn't pick up sound from the back like these mics will so you can turn up
the ampliphier a little higher and not get as much feedback in it. Even with
just one speaker over there, it was better than what we have here at the present
time.
Todd Gerhardt: They are proposing 4 of those speakers. Two on the east side
and 2 on the north side.
Councilman Johnson: Also a separate audio channel would be running to our
camera right now. Right now we have an audio channel that runs to the camera
and to the tape recorder through a gerryrig system and I think that's probably
part of the problem with our cable. When we get a separate ampliphier going
directly to the camera, we should have a lot better sound on the cable,
theoretically.
Councilman Geving: Tom, these boxes are about, I would say 5 x 8. These
speaker boxes that will be placed in the four locations. I thought they worked.
I would recommend though that we proceed with some other ideas that the Council
had and that was to change the background here behind Jay and Bill to some kind
of a material that would give us some better acoustics. Either with like carpet
or some kind of wall covering possibly. Then we suggested maybe even the
possibility of a monitor like this with speaker out into that area out there.
In the waiting area where we could say, hey Al Klingelhutz your item is up.
Please come on into the council chambers. Or gentlemen, would you please be
more quiet. We can hear you. But a monitor out there I thought would be good
because there are times when we overflow in the Council chambers and we could
open the doors and people could stand out there and listen to the proceedings of
the Council. So those are just some suggestions that we might want to take into
19
1 City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
consideration.
Mayor Hamilton: I had thought they might suggest even putting something to the
ceiling to deflect the sound. To keep it down off of the ceiling because we
have a barrier. That thing is such a barrier up there. It just stops the sound
' from getting under it so you can put deflectors so it will carry it at least
somewhat. You can't do a lot because the lights are in the way but I think
there could be something done to improve. I think usually you see in the Opera
Hall or just a place where they play music to keep the sound moving in the right
directions. I don't know, if you guys are happy with it, I'd certainly be
happy.
Councilman Johnson: A lot of those actually are to absorb sound and keep it
fran reflecting.
' Councilman Horn: Does this bid include the optional fillibuster button?
Councilman Johnson: It's an option to give the Mayor some buttons to cut off
people.
Councilman Horn: It's so two microphones can not be activated at once. That's
not in our bid is it?
Councilman Johnson: The demo they gave us had two microphones going at once.
Councilman Horn: I think it's something that the Council might want to
consider.
Mayor Hamilton: If it's something that can benefit the mayor, we ought to get
' it. He'll need all the help he can get.
Todd Gerhardt: If that's an option that you were interested in, it could be
' added on but it is not included.
Councilman Horn: Can you add it on after you get the system?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Councilman Horn: It's not something you'd have to order?
' Todd Gerhardt: You'd have to order it.
Don Ashworth: But if you want to do it, why not order it?
' Councilman Geving: Do it now. How much is it?
11 Todd Gerhardt: I'd have to go up...
Don Ashworth: I was going to say, if it's less than $100.00 or $200.00, do yu
want to pursue it?
Councilman Geving: Would it affect the bid? I mean would Audio Visual
Wholesalers have had a cheaper item? [7_11
1 20
301 IICity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Todd Gerhardt: No. There's such a difference with the additional add on to two
speakers and everything, you're looking at $2,000.00 difference right now.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, you were talking about the privacy button also.
Where they have a cough or a privacy button supposedly. That may not be on the
microphone. I'm not sure how that works.
Councilman Boyt: I'd be inclined to order it like it is. That's what our bid's
at and if we need it, let's change it later.
Mayor Hamilton: You can look at some things in the future if you think it's
required.
Todd Gerhardt: I'll look at it and get more information and send it back. 1
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award the bid for the City
Council Chambers sound system upgrade to Southwest Audio Visual in the amount of
$4,326.70. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II
Mayor Hamilton: Before we go any further, I'm going to do something I should
have done a while ago and that's to introduce Steve Hanson who is here. He is
now our City Planner. He's taking Barb Dacy's, nobody can take Barb's place but
Steve is taking that position and we know that Steve will be doing an excellent
job and we welcome you to the City of Chanhassen.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND A CAR WASH,
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND 101, AMOCO OIL COMPANY. 1
Mayor Hamilton: I believe this is the same spot as Brown Standard is located
and I think before we get into any lengthy discussion of this, I received a
letter from the Browns requesting that they have additional opportunity to work
with Amoco Oil Company to reach some type of an agreement with them. I'm a
little distressed when I see someone who's been in business in this town for 18
years, as is Amoco's will to do, I guess they put people out of business as they
see fit. I don't like it and I think that they ought to try to work with the
Browns a little more carefully and see if they can't find some resolution to
having the Brown's continue in business at that location. Consequently, I'm
going to move that we table this matter to a future date.
Councilman Geving: I'm going to second your motion Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the Site
Plan Review for a Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Car Wash for Amoco Oil
Company until a future date. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn: In addition to that, I would like the staff to look into an '
L overall plan. We're getting convenience stores all over the place. I think we
should have some type of a limit on these things so we don't have a
proliferation of one particular type of development in our community. We don't
21
IIty Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
want to be known as the community that developed an area of convenience stores.
II Mayor Hamilton: Along that line, I spoke with Bill about that this evening and
[-
seeing how's Don is here, I would like to see and suggest that a moratorium be
placed on any type of, for a period of time until an ordinance can be developed
or something can be done to resolve this issue. Some type of moratorium placed
on any more convenience stores placed in the city period.
Councilman Johnson: I'd say at least the downtown area.
Mayor Hamilton: Anywhere. I think there are ways to handle them effectively.
Whether it's allowing only a certain number in a specific area, a radius. The
' same type of thing as we've done with contractor's yards.
Councilman Geving: I think it's citywide. I think it's part of our whole
planning process. It's citywide and I agree with you Mr. Mayor. We ought to
take a look at the whole process.
' SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST, METRO LAKES MINI-STORAGE, 7800 PARK DRIVE.
Steve Hanson: Again, I can't tell you exactly what was on the Planning
Commission, I wasn't there. The request for a sign variance was to allow a
' pylon sign and as you'll notice in the packet, there was a fair amount of
discussion regarding whether there had been a prior commitment for a pylon sign
versus what's allowed in the present code. The staff has gone back through that
' based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and gone back through
those Minutes referenced by them. Essentially came up with that there had been
one mention of a pylon sign at the time. At the time the applicants were doing
' their site plan process, they had not gone ahead with that type of a sign
request. Based on that, the staff had determined that there was no reliance
essentially on those statements that had been made at that time. Really the
reliance is on the codes that you have before you now. The ordinance was... and
' that recommendation was then thought for denial of a sign variance. They would
want those.. .to the existing code.
' Mark Senn: I'm at a little disadvantage. I haven't seen the staff report. I
don't want to be terribly repetitive. Just to I guess make a couple of brief
points. As it relates to the development of the project, as we went through
development phase and went through all the negotiations with both the Planning
' Commission and Council and staff, a number of changes were made along the way in
the project to help accommodate what appears were in existence out there as it
relates to the lengthy wall along the mini-storage property. We sunk the
' building down to eliminate the massiveness of that wall. A berm all along the
edge of it to also accomplish the same end. We also beefed up the landscaping
along that side again to accomplish the same end. The catch-22 we're in now is
given the fact that we've done that and the building has such a low point of
visibility we deemed it to be fairly impractical to rely on building signage or
signage that would be placed on the building itself. It would not be very
visible as far as the clientelle goes that are seeking out the mini-storage
' project. We would like to ask the City's indulgence on that basis of the
earlier compromises we made in relationship to the structure to look favorably
on the pylon sign. It's kind of a trade-off basically to all of the [7.1
modifications were made in that exterior wall. The only other thing I guess we
22
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 316 I
would like to comment on is, the last time we were before you, your staff just ,
{ referenced the Planning Commission and really couldn't find a lot of reference
I to it one way or another as it relates to the stuff we had at the Planning
j Commission but the last time we were before you, which is the September 8, 1986 I
meeting, I think the Minutes are very clear in that you had stated that the sign
ordinance would give us the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
Whether you stick to that...or not, we did rely on that. We felt we had the
II
right to do that and we were a little bit surprised when we came in to apply for
the sign and be told that we could not build a pylon sign. I'm sorry, I don't
have your...ordinance but there seemed to be a lot of discussion at the Planning II Commission about when that sign ordinance changed the later part of 1986. Some
of the research...with that information and that may very well be the case.. .
Councilman Boyt: Somehow it strikes me that the City Council wanted to
II
previously, be careful that your building had a fairly low visibility. I'm not
sure they accomplished that but I am convinced that, you mentioned or in the
Planning Commission Minutes that a big part of your business came through
II
referral and Yellow Pages and not direct site of the building. I would be
inclined to think that even under the old sign ordinance where you couldn't go __
above the coping on the top of the building, you were always going to be limited
II
in your ability to advertise to the highway. ...the City's intent of giving you
low visibility to the highway. That was certainly not compatible with being
able to put a sign even under the existing ordinance that would give you that.
I'm inclined to think that the businesses in the office park should be of such a '
nature that they don't have to advertise to attract business off the highway.
My opinion is that the Planning Connnission saw this almost unanimously as not a
good j ustification to give a variance. One of the things that struck me when I I
read the report is that we have 5 conditions for the granting of the variance
and there wasn't anything in the staff regards to any of those 5 conditions so
the report isn't properly prepared as I see it. So at this point, I would
either say table it and prepare a proper report or I would vote against it.
I
Councilman Horn: I would tend to agree with Bill on the visibility. It might
be a low wall but it does block out the view of the industrial park. You can't
II
see beyond that wall so obviously we tried to get as low as possible but the way
the lay of the land was, it was totally impossible not- to...actually dig in.
The other thing I'd like to comment on was that, I think the Council when they
I
act on something, acts on what they have today. The Council did not delay that
project to the point where the ordinance has changed against the sign. That was
totally under Council's.. . Things do change. .iture Councils are going to make
changes more than the ones we made in certain areas. I think when you delay a
II
project as this one was delayed, you have to go along and live with the rules
that are in place at the time that you finally get the project off the ground
and that's what I see happening. To think that a condition is going to stay in
II
effect from 1986 to where we are now, almost into 1989, is really expecting a
little much when you consider the type of growth that Chanhassen is
experiencing. If you'll also recall, I think the Council at that time expressed
concern with that type of facility at that site anyway. I think had we had the
II
chance to look at the possibilities for that site, you probably wouldn't have a
project on that site so I think to come along at this point and ask for
something that doesn't meet the current requirements is going a little beyond
II
what I would recommend.
II
23
11
IIq1)94
. City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Councilman Geving: I think that a
g pylon sign of any size such as being proposed
II here would be completely out of order in the Industrial Park. I have to agree
[-
totally with the Planning Commission in their recommendation to us in this
respect. When we designed the Industrial Park, that certainly was part of our
overall intent that we wouldn't have a number of signs out there on the highway
' trying to bring people in off the road. I think that there is a high degree of
people that use the industrial park, do so through the Yellow Pages. Know it
exists, whatever but you've not going to convince me as a councilmember that you
need a pylon sign in the industrial park to attract business. I an totally
against it. I don't see the hardship and even if there were, I don't see how
you could have a 20 foot sign above the roof line and still be the intent of
what you're trying to do. It just wouldn't match so it would have to be at the
very most maybe an 8 foot pylon. I don't know how big that berm is but I'm
against the pylon and I would vote against it. That's all.
' Councilman Johnson: Well I don't think our sign ordinance is perfect and I hope
that we'll make some modifications, I don't think we should modify it enough to
allow this pylon sign. It's not the right place. I think that the plantings
that are going on in there can be made such that the sign is still visible.
That low profile ground sign will be visible there. It's not going to be as
visible as a pylon sign but that's the nature of the park you decided to locate
in.
Mayor Hamilton: Since the Council decided to allow that business to be there,
to be located in that area, they ought to be allowed to have a sign that would
' attract business, even if it's a temporary sign. I think if you're going to
have a business, you should encourage that business to do as well as they can
possibly do. On the other hand, I voted against this project initially because
I don't think it's the correct place to have it so I would probably vote against
' the signage change. I'm kind of torn here because we have a business here. It's
here now. It's a functioning business and I'm all in favor of anytime you have
a business in your community, you should do all you can to help them keep that
' business going and thriving as best as possible. Even if it means a temporary
sign to get you rolling. Say an 18 month period of time. Put up a sign that
would attract the business that you need to get you going -and at such time as,
say after 18 months or 12 months or whatever the period of time might be, then
' the signage changes back to conform with the ordinance or whatever is required
at that time.
' Councilman Geving: I would make the motion to deny the sign variance request
#88-18 for a 50 square foot pylon sign in the IOP district.
' Councilman Horn: For a permanent sign?
Councilman Geving: For a permanent sign.
' Councilman Horn: Second.
' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Sign Variance
Request #88-18. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
i 24
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 1
ACCEPT LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC I
HEARING.
4 Larry Brown: I'm starting to lose my voice so I'll turn over it to our
II
consultant Dick who has a brief presentation.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not sure that the Council needs a presentation. I
We're calling for a feasibility study and a public hearing. We're going to
accept the feasibility study and call for a public hearing. Unless there's some
really glaring things we need to discuss about the report, it seems to be a good II and complete report. It's a project that's certainly been needed for years. I
wish we had done it a while back so I'd like to see us move ahead with it. In
fact I'll move approval of the Lake Lucy Road watermain feasibility study and
call for a public hearing to be held on January 23, 1989.
II
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Geving: Did you include all of these conditions and recommendations? I
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. II
Councilman Horn: I agree, this is a needed project. I think this is going to
be a tough one for the new council because there's a lot of people in here that
we're going to put in, while maybe not a legal hardship, we're certainly going
II
to put them in a hardship situation so this is going to be a tough one to deal
with. Obviously it's a project that has to happen at some point.
Mayor Hamilton: They just got their yards back in order and now we'll tear them II
up again.
Councilman Geving: Not only that Tom. This was a very hot item last summer and
II
the Lake Lucy people were pretty upset about all of the assessments and I think
we're going to have to be very careful. I agree with what Clark said about the
new council. It's going to be something we're going to have to advertise fully. II Let people know what's happening. Be full and open about this whole process and
do it in a slow procedural method because this is going to hit them like a ton
of bricks let me tell you.
II
Mayor Hamilton: I see this project as one that really is a citywide benefit
because you're tying our whole water system together. It benefits everybody in
the community have this project so I don't believe that one person benefits
II
anymore than another in this community when we do this project. It could
probably be one of those rare instances when you look at an area or citywide
assessment rather than just a location. It could probably be paid for out of II water bills to everybody and let people know why it's going up. Why the water
rates will be increased to pay for this. That seems to be a more reasonable way
to do it than to start assessing someone.
IICouncilman Geving: I think that's the message though that we've got to get
across early. That it is a citywide project.
IIt-- Councilman Johnson: There is also in this project some people who currently do
not have any access to any watermain who now have very large pieces of property
that eventually will be developable when they have sewer in the area that it
II
25
II
r • City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
will be a benefit to them.
So there should be some assessment. There's also
[-
some benefit citywide.
Mayor Hamilton: Once they develop, then they can be assessed.
' Councilman Johnson: That's what I think Alternate #3 is all about.
Don Ashworth: That's staff's recommendation.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that we assess them when they develop.
Councilman Boyt: A huge portion of this is already being paid for by the City
' as a whole. One of the things, Larry you can nod if this is true but my
understanding is that we are not touching the existing road surface or bike
path.
Larry Brown: There were two options. .. .one of them involved using a clamshell
or sheeting to keep that watermain outside of the roadway surface. The other
option however did involve disturbance of the roadway and replacement.. .
Dick: The option that we're recommending would be the trenching meth
the trench box. And it just so happens, g td using
j peens as we estimated that alternative, it
' did come in at the low assessment so we think we can do the project without
damaging the roadway at all. There are a couple of locations on the road where
walls have been built right up along the road and they would have to be dealt
' with specially.
Councilman Boyt: Do you think that in that alternative, someone, whoever put
the report together, acknowledged that one of our biggest challenges is going to
' be the assessment process and that we may well get challenged in court and that
will add to cost in time. I would suggest to you that, as the others have
mentioned, look at some means of not assessing this except where we have a very
' strong case to prove benefit. The other thing is, we better get it done fast
because unless it snows a great deal in the next few months, we have last summer
looking at us a year from now. .
' Mayor Hamilton: Even worse. It's going to be another year on top of us.
' Resolution #88-139: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the following:
' 1. The attached feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain
Project No. 88-25 be accepted.
2. Construction Alternative 3, which includes the booster pumping station
1 improvements, be designed as the chosen alternative.
3. Plans and specifications be ordered to be prepared by Westwood Professional
' Services.
4. The City Council resolve that the excess proceeds from the general
obligation bonds of 1986 for trunk water system improvements be pledged to
finance this project.
' 26
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
I- 1
5. A public hearing be called for January 23, 1989.
6. Staff be directed to develop the assessment policy for this area for review
prior to the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. '
Councilman Geving: I'd like to appoint Councilman Jay Johnson to this without
any further discussion. '
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move that we table until the next Council has a
chance to make their appointments. '
Councilman Boyt: I'll second that.
Councilman Geving: If that's what you prefer. It's your term that's being
expired.
Councilman Johnson: It's not that I wanted to continue to service, I will. '
I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the appointment to
the Southwest Metro Transit Commission until the next Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to amend the agenda to discuss
item 13.5 at this point and discuss item 13 when Mark Koegler arrives. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
WEST 78TH STREET/LAREDO DRIVE STOP SIGN/SIGNAL, COUNCILMAN BOYT.
Councilman Boyt: I think Don's memo summarizes it very well. My point is
simply, I don't think this has to be a decision that we put a tremendous amount
of thought into. I think what we need to do is take some action while we're
doing some of our more detailed work and get a stop sign up there. It's
dangerous and difficult to get across that intersection.
Mayor Hamilton: Why wouldn't it be better to have a stop sign at Kerber and '
78th? Or both.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe both. I don't have a big problem with putting them '
other places. I think that's one place that given the bank and the Brooke
Superette and just the flow of traffic from the residential area onto West 78th
Street. We've had a year now and there's definitely a need. I think Don makes
an awfully good point. Before we do anything very permanent, we need a study.
I agree with that but on a short term basis, I think we need a stop sign.
27 ,
1
• City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: If we're going to do that, if you're going to do a study, than
we should look at our end of town also. Frontier and 78th. It's just as
dangerous as it down on Laredo.
Councilman Boyt: But in that one, we run into the State problem. I'm not
' opposed to having stop signs at all those locations. I'd just like, if it's
easy to put one in in a particular place and there's a clear need, let's go
ahead and put it in.
Mayor Hamilton: I mentioned Kerber because I know people are cutting across to
avoid the stop signs on TH 5 so I wouldn't be opposed to putting two on there.
One at Laredo and one at Kerber. It seems like if you're stopping at Kerber
first, then it certainly gives the people at Laredo a chance to get on. It's
going to stagger the traffic hopefully. Even at Market. Market's going to be a
real busy street one of these days.
' Councilman Geving: I think that's something that we don't know yet. I kind of
like what Bill is saying. I've been bothered by that West 78th and Laredo for a
long time. You just can not get across there. I counted 16 or 17 cars one
morning when I tried to get across from Laredo onto 78th.
Mayor Hamilton: Just so we stop traffic on 78th someplace.
' Councilman Johnson: There was one action that we did suggest to staff to pursue
with MnDot when we gave them our final choice of 2A that we're going to reroute
' TH 101 to TH 5 is to pursue rerouting that now. Take it to the present Dakota
and switch those signs now. Take that action at this point. This way we get
that street back and we can again put the 3 way stops up there in front of --
Kenny's there which is another very important place to stop the traffic always
with the two churches and all there.
Councilman Geving: I don't even go that way anymore.
' Councilman Horn: ...come out of that clock tower area because you're got the
traffic going high speed down TH 101 right at that short stacking.
Mayor Hamilton: Plus you have traffic parked along the curb so you get to the
corner and you can't see. Especially on a Sunday morning. They park right up
to the corner. You're halfway in, or all the way in before you can see if
' there's anybody coming. They're going to hit you before you see them. I think
you're suggesting then Bill a study to figure out where we should have these
stop signs or are you just saying to do it now and then have them.. .
' Councilman Boyt: What I would like to see, and maybe there's a more reasonable
approach. I think it's obvious that a sign would improve things at 78th and
Laredo and I would like to see appropriate signage put in there as soon as we
can.
Mayor Hamilton: Three way stop.
Councilman Boyt: Three way stop. We already have a one- way so finishing it
off. I think that we should definitely do a study on all the signs on West 78th
' Street as soon as we can and make traffic flow the way we want it to flow there
instead of having a short cut which I don't think anyone envisioned that West
28
-
•
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II-- 78th Street was going to be a shortcut for around TH 5.
4
Councilman Horn: I would also like to suggest that, obviously this is part of
our overall downtown ringroad traffic. I believe this is something that the II
HRA should be involved in and we should ask BRW, since they came up with the
downtown plan, what their plan is for that. This shouldn't be a surprise at
this point. That should have been taken into account in that ringroad plan. II
I'd like to know what their response is to it.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move that we follow Bill's suggestion and put a I
sign immediately at Laredo and 78th. Make it a 3 way stop and then institute a
study for stop signs on 78th all the way from Powers to TH 101 as it goes north
and just see what else can be done. That's my motion.
Councilman Boyt: Second. II
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to install a 3 way stop sign at I the intersection of Laredo and West 78th Street immediately and institute a
study for stop signs all along West 78th Street from Powers Blvd. to TH 101
going north. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson ,
who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to point out, I'm opposed only to the II
immediate signs. I think we definitely have to have that study but I'm not for
putting up traffic signs without the traffic study to justify those signs.
Mayor Hamilton: We need to slow traffic down. That sign can always be changed II
after the study.
Councilman Geving: The only point that I'd like to make Mr. Mayor, since we II
passed this, that the study be done swiftly. Now that we've agreed with the
signs, let's get the study done in the next 30 days or whatever. Whatever is
reasonable. II
Councilman Horn: I think we've already proven that once we put them in, even
though they're ill advised, we don't take them out. The o
prime example of that. one on Frontier is a
II
Councilman Boyt: Which one is that?
Councilman Horn: The one on Frontier that we I in that nobody stops at. Put in. The last stop sign we put
IIMayor Hamilton: That's another point Clark. I think if we're going to put this
sign in, then we'd better monitor it as soon as it gets in so people stop there
or come reasonably close to stopping. Just driving through it doesn't do it for
or
II
Councilman Horn: I totally disagree with putting up a knee slap reactions to
stop signs. I think you get into trouble by doing that. I think this is II
something that deserves study. I think this takes expert advice. I don't think
we're experts in traffic flow to justify doing that and I don't think that
IIthat's the highest priority intersection that we can address. There are far
. 29
11
II 12
• City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II
more dangerous intersections than that. (-
IIUPDATE ON CONTRACTORS YARDS IN THE A-2 DISTRICT, MARK KOEGLER.
I Mayor Hamilton: We have your report Mark. Is there anything over and above
what we have seen in here that we ought to be aware of that you may want to
relay to us?
IIMark Koegler: Mr. Mayor, I think the report is fairly self explanatory and I
won't duplicate that. I'd only offer, I think the substance behind the Planning
Commission's position to date was the fact that they think that the nature of
I the southern area of the city has changed substantially over the last 10 years.
Reflected in that, apparently it is their feeling now that contractors yards are
no longer appropriate land uses outside the industrial area. I'm sure you're
II aware that the point this is at tonight is simply to bring it to you for your
concurrence that they should continue to pursue the investigation of this
change. They will then go through the public hearing process but there were
I people on the Planning Commission who felt it wise to check with the Council to
make sure you had somewhat the same thinking before they go through that
process. So it's in that regard that it's brought to you this evening for your
review.
ICouncilman Johnson: I like the definition that you gave to modify the
definition to where it was an accessory to the principle residential use and
I that it is, while maybe not solely the members of the family but like a home
occupation use. Have a restricted number of employees. If you've got 20
employees coming in there, that should be in the IOP. If you've got 20 -
employees coming to work at your place of business, you should be in the
industrial park. If you've got 1 or 2 employees coming in, you're more like a
Buck Excavating. He has a couple of employees I believe that come in there but
it's not 10 or 15. That's what I would see as a contractors yard. Is a
II slightly larger than occupational or home occupation as defined elsewhere in the
ordinance. The place where Gardeneer and all those where they have quite a few
employees, I don't think that's too terribly appropriate now. As we expand and
I become more rural residential out there and less really agricultural. That's my
feeling on it.
Councilman Geving: I think there's always going to be a need for small
I operations that have 4 or 5 to 10 employees somewhere in this city. A lot of
them aren't big enough to go into an industrial park. They're just shall
operations. They're mom and pop. They're making crafts or whatever they're
I doing in their garage or in their basement. I think there should be a
limitation on the size. I think that would be a good recommendation and I do
believe and agree with the Planning Commission that the uses south of TH 5 has
II changed a lot over just, you said 10 years. I think it's changed a lot just in
the last 2 or 3 years when we were forced to go to 2 1/2 acres. I see that
developing very quickly south of TH 5. Almost to the exclusion of contractors
yards. I think it's going to be filled up pretty much with single family homes.
I But, I believe we need to control that and recognize that even those contractors
yards that pop up aren't very temporary in nature. They're not long term.
[LI
They're there because it's convenient. In most cases it's cheap. They can
II operate out of their home and they don't have to go into an industrial park and
buy a very expensive piece of land. We've got to recognize that and I think I
I30
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
would agree that the contractors yards should be in the industrial park. That's
all I have.
Councilman Horn: Man times I've mes I ve made the statement that if you find a lot of
people violating a rule or an ordinance, it's time to take a look at the
ordinance and see if it makes sense and that was exactly the reason we did that
in terms of contractors yards. The primary purpose was to allow mom and pop
type businesses that resided in Chanhassen to legitimatize their useage and keep
those small businesses here. The original intent was not to provide an
incentive for other businesses like that to come in or even bigger businesses to
come in. I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should allow outside
businesses to come in and develop that way. I think that's something that
should be considered. I think what we've had to allow in lately has totally
gotten out of hand with what the original intent of this thing. As one of the
people who pushed hard to get contractors yards opened up so we could use some
of that area, both for contractors yards and houses I might add, I find that the
intent of what I had in mind in at least initiating this has gotten out of hand.
I think it's time to take some control again. I think this is a good step in
doing that. The only consideration I would have is should we use this as an
incentive for other businesses outside the community to come in or should we
just grandfather in the existing businesses in Chanhassen as the original intent
was?
Councilman Boyt: Two points in Mark's report caught my eye. You went through a
list of communities, Maple Grove, Chaska, Eden Prairie, and the only one that
had contractors yards was Chaska and they had a minimum lot size of 40 acres. I
don't want Chanhassen to become the home of contractors yards and we are. We're
going to continue to be unless we change our ordinance because there's certainly
a demand for that type of business and we're the only place within a reasonable
driving distance that allows it. If you look at what we've approved in
contractors yards, the two most recent ones, we had one that came in. A person
from outside of town has an operation that includes 5 tractor trailers and in my
opinion is completely incompatible with the long term interest we have for that
part of town. We have another fellow who came in and because the bank forced
him to split his property off and economic conditions, even though I voted
against it, I could understand why there might be room- in the city for that sort
of contractors yard. So we certainly don't want to become a collecting point
and we don't want to be known, in my opinion, as the only city in the
metropolitan area that allows them. I think that Mark's recommendation that
says they are largely inconsistent with the long term growth in Chanhassen is
exactly right. If we want to set something in place that says the existing
people can say, we've already got that. Right now what we're looking at
basically is do we want to be an attracting point for future contractors yards
and I would say we sure don't. I'd like to see an ordinance written that would
make us a suitable place for the people who are currently operating but
definitely not attract anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just looking at the first sentence of the recommendation in
Mark's report and it says, contractors yards are largely inconsistent with the
long term growth of Chanhassen. I think that's probably one of the worse
statements I ever heard. I think contractors yards are an important part of the
L growth and development of a community. When I grew up as a kid in Hopkins there
were contractors yards all over the place. They help your community develop.
You can go to Hopkins today and you can't find a contractors yard because the
31
II - -City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
IIground was developed and they move on. They moved out to Eden Prairie. They
moved to Minnetonka. You probably would be hard pressed to find any in those
communites today because they've moved onto Chanhassen. They've moved to
I Victoria. As areas develop, the small businessman, the contractors as we call
then here, they move on because the land becomes too valuable for them to stay
there. It just happens that some of the contractors in this community, small
I contractors are of a great help to the city of Chanhassen. They have supplied
us with services and materials over the years that have saved us untold
thousands of dollars. I agree with Bill that I don't think we ought to be a
I melting pot and a resting place for every contractors yard to come along. I
don't think that's what we are but I think they're a valuable and needed asset.
They're a small business. They're a guy or a couple of guys who have gotten
together and started a business and are trying to make it work and the only way
I they can make it work is by either leasing some inexpensive property or
inexpensive building or being in an area that doesn't cost than a great deal of
money. They can't afford to start a small business and be in an industrial
I park. Small business in my opinion, is the backbone of this country. More
people are involved in shall business than they are in anything else. Certainly
all these people are not going to generate all the tax dollars that Rosemount
Engineering does or that Instant 4tiebb or United Mailing or others do, but in my
Iopinion they're very important. Those people are out there working theirs butts
off to make a buck and what they make they spend and they spend it in your
community and I think they're very important and they're an asset to the
I community. Tor that reason I would prefer not to see any change in the
contractors yard ordinance at this time.
' Councilman Johnson: Since they're asking for future use, the Planning
Commission as to what's going to happen in the future, I'd like to hear from
Don, Tom and Ursula on this, if they've had a chance to look at this, if they
can express their opinion.
IMayor Hamilton: They'll have plenty of time to express their opinion. Not that
I don't want to hear from than but I don't think it's fair to put than on the
,' spot this evening. They're going to be dealing with this issue.
Councilman Johnson: Only if they want.
1: Mayor Hamilton: They'll be dealing with this issue from here on. I think
they've heard our comments. They can formulate their own opinions along with
the two that will be here, why they'll be the ones to vote on this.
ICouncilman Johnson: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission should go ahead and
continue action...
I' Mayor Hamilton: It sounds to me like there's a clear indication that they
should. There's 4 people saying they should and 1 that's saying they shouldn't.
I mean how clear of a message do you want to send?
IICouncilman Johnson: In 3 weeks there might be 2 saying there should and 3
saying they shouldn't.
II Mayor Hamilton: Then they can deal with that at that time.
LI
II
32
II .
-*
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
1
Councilman Geeing: I think they ought to continue. I think you heard it from
the Council tonight.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I'm hearing correctly. Four in favor, 1 opposed to
doing something with the ordinance. Is there anybody who didn't hear that?
Good, then I guess we're all listening then. '
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you wanted to talk about zoning ordinance amendment?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'd like to talk about two and we'll reverse the order
of them. The first one I want to talk about is temporary uses. We had a
section in our ordinance which allowed temporary uses if you gave them a
conditional use permit. Very astutely our City Attorney has informed us that if
you get a conditional use permit, it can't be temporary so we struck out the
entire section of the ordinance. We need something for like when the church,
Westside Baptist was here that gives us a little more flexibility in doing what
we actually did today but in accordance with the ordinance. I would like to see
that the Planning Coninission, City Attorney's office look at reinstituting a
temporary use provision to our zoning ordinance to where it is contingent upon,
it would be the continued use contingent upon obtaining a conditional use permit
type deal.
Councilman Geving: Would there be any difference Jay if there were an emergency
power granted to the Council in ordinance form? For example, let's say Pastor
Bryan Pike came before us tonight and said their church just burned down. A
little different situation but pretty much the same kind of scenario but they
say, we need a temporary use for the next 6 months to get our act together and
build a church. The Council needs to have that provision in it's ordinance to
be able to say, go ahead and do it. We know it violates all the ordinance
regulation rules but it is an emergency situation. That's really all you're
talking about.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly, or if anybody's business burns down and he has to
relocate and the only place to relocate temporarily he's not permitted there.
We don't have, like you say, the capability to do it other than as we did it
earlier.
Mayor Hamilton: We can do anything we want.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, we can do anything we want but is it defensible? What
I want to do is have an ordinance that makes it defensible.
Mayor Hamilton: To who? Defensible to whom? To ourselves? If a disaster
occurs and we need to move somebody into a building on a temporary basis, who's
going to tell us we can't? We're the ones who can make that decision. That's
just like the church tonight. There's no reason that we can't do that.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that was that one. The other one we touched on
tonight too which was convenience stores and free standing auto service centers.
I discussed this with some people with other cities and how some other people 11 have taken care of this issue of having too many, what people will fear are too
33
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II
many convenience stores. One way is if you're going to have a free standing
[-
II structure that is only a convenience store with gas pumps, which is what Amoco
is proposing, is that you require them also to have service bays. That's one
thing I'm afraid we're losing here. Eventually if Loren for some reason has to
leave, we're getting down to very few service. As we're growing we need more
II and more service, automobile service. That's something we're hurting here and I
don't want to see us have to go to a strict service center. There's already
been one proposed for town but I like the home town service station. I've
II gotten very good service from both Gary Brown and Ivan and...the three I've gone
to here. Everyone of them did a good job for me.
Mayor Hamilton: If I could follow up on that for a second. There's an Amoco
I station in Buffalo that has a convenience food thing. They have videos, they
have coffee, donuts, the whole works there. They also have service. It's a big
station and it's really nice. They're out towing and starting and doing all
I this stuff. I see no reason why we can't have the same thing here. No reason
at all.
I Councilman Geving: There's a need for Gary Brown's type operations in our city.
We need the towing facilities. If there's a car wrecked on the highway, the
State Patrol has to have a place to bring it to. You need to have a place where
you can get your muffler fixed and fan belt fixed. I don't want to have to go
I to Excelsior to get that done. I want to be able to do it in Chanhassen. I
don't know what you're leading up to here Jay by your bringing this up to the
Council for discussion but I think it's healthy to discuss this because that's
I what we're becoming. If we develop, let's say the Chanhassen Legion club
decides to sell and vacates that corner. You could have that same type thing
[.._
there. Or the Ward's property. You could have one on each one of those
II corners. We don't want convenience stores all over this community. We don't
need them.
Councilman Johnson: We could have 5 total there.
IIMayor Hamilton: I think we talked about the possibility of having a moratorium.
I think that's a good idea. Until such time as something- can be developed.
1 Let's give ourselves a chance. That's all it does is to allow us the
opportunity.
Councilman Johnson: If we go with the moratorium, Charlie James' property, we
I did a site plan review that included a convenience store with pumps. It's been
so long ago, nothing's happened there. Is that one already been approved?
IDon Ashworth: I don't think it's valid at this point. It's over a year old.
Councilman Geving: I think you might be in Roger's bay...here though because he
II could have proceeded to a point where it might have gone beyond the point where
we could stop it.
Mayor Hamilton: But he never came in with a specific plan.
II Councilman Geving: Do we have any plan? There's no plan?
Ll
II Mayor Hamilton: He had a building but he didn't say I'm going to put a PDQ in
here and this is the gas pumps.
II34
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 y 11
Councilman Geving: Is it built?
4 Councilman Johnson: No. It hasn't been started. We did a site plan review I
believe about a year ago.
Roger Knutson: You do not get a vested right to proceed unless you've got
sticks in the ground.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so we could prevent that from happening if we went
with a moratorium. Is that what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: Yes. I'll remind you tonight you had one, for example you had
one you approved. ,
Mayor Hamilton: Which one?
Roger Knutson: That sign, before that one.
Councilman Boyt: We tabled it.
Roger Knutson: 7 was?
Councilman Geving: We tabled that. '
Roger Knutson: There are two ways of handling it. You could say, what
applications that are in process right now or you could say no.
Councilman Johnson: What does it take to do a moratorium?
Roger Knutson: An ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: Is it a zoning ordinance or is a public hearing?
Roger Knutson: It's...
Don Ashworth: But if you were going to do that Roger, is the Council not better
served in simply instructing your office to have an ordinance ready for their
next meeting where they could pass it rather than, then again, maybe further
study it. Let's talk about the service bay idea than to put a moratorium into
effect. This is where you get into the takings and the whole Constitutional '
issues that were out 2 to 3 months ago. Can you honestly recommend a
moratorium?
Roger Knutson: The only time you're supposed to have a moratorium, it can be 1
for a limited duration, not to exceed 12 months or 6 months. It's to allow you
to do a study and it has to be by ordinance. To pass an ordinance you got to
have it in writing and you got to see what you're signing. Yes, I could bring
back the moratorium to your next meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Could we call a special meeting for next Monday night for
the ordinance for that?
Roger Knutson: If you want.
35
i
II 1 ��
.-°Eity Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II Councilman Geving: Is it that urgent?
rgent.
I
[--
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I think so.
Roger Knutson: I'll remind you of one thing. Convenient stores with gas pumps
II a conditional use?
Councilman Geving: No, they're permitted uses.
Roger Knutson: I'll make a guess and I don't this to be a fact, between now and
the first of the year, you're probably not going to see many people start
construction.
IICouncilman Johnson: Especially since we just tabled them they won't.
I Councilman Boyt: To me I think it would be nice if we could act on this before
the Amoco station came up. If we want to kill something temporarily, the way to
do it is to meet a week from tonight and do just that.
IICouncilman Horn: I think it could be the first item on the agenda in the first
meeting in January. That would be before anything else is considered after this
meeting.
ICouncilman Geving: See there's no other council meetings between now. Nothing
can happen in this city between now and the first council meeting in January.
IIRoger Knutson: They're going to need site plan review anyway. Nothing can get
away from you.
II Councilman Geving: We would be safe in holding this until the first meeting
in January.
II Councilman Boyt: What do we gain by doing that?
Councilman Horn: We get the people who are going to have- to live with this
U decision to be able to make it.
Councilman Boyt: That's a good point.
;' Councilman Geving: I think that's an excellent point. Nothing's going to
happen between now and then anyway.
,' Councilman Johnson: Except for Charlie James starting construction.
Mayor Hamilton: He's not going to do that.
I Councilman Horn: I think we should instruct Roger to come back with an
ordinance for discussion at the first meeting in the year and you can take
action at that point. That should be the first agenda item.
IIRoger Knutson: So I understand this, there will be a moratorium on convenience
[7
stores with gas pumps? Is that right? .
1
36
II
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
-� r
Mayor Hamilton: Right. Without service.
Councilman Boyt: The ordinance doesn't go into effect until it's printed in the
paper.
Roger Knutson: Correct. '
Councilman Boyt: So even if it's the first item on the agenda Clark, it
wouldn't go into effect during the rest of that meeting. It wouldn't be until 2
weeks later.
Councilman Horn: You don't need to act...
Councilman Geving: Your agenda on the first meeting in January wouldn't have
anything on it that would affect this moratorium.
Councilman Boyt: What about Amoco? Can you deny them access to the agenda? I
doubt it.
Mayor Hamilton: They'll request to be on the agenda the first meeting in '
January.
Councilman Boyt: You bet they will. '
Councilman Johnson: But if it gets passed, we can table it.
Councilman Boyt: You kind of have to have a reason for tabling it.
1
Councilman Johnson: Sure, we have a reason. We just passed a moratorium about
5 minutes earlier.
Councilman Geving: I think we'd have a pretty legitimate reason wouldn't you
Roger to table an issue like this? You're studying it. You're absolutely
studying it. It's a legitimate reason.
Councilman Boyt: You mean you're establishing a moratorium before your
moratorium takes effect?
Roger Knutson: That's in effect what you're doing. Again, as far as remedies
go, assuming your moratorium is valid and you table it, there's nothing they can
do about it.
Mayor Hamilton: Of course, staff doesn't have to allow it on the agenda either.
If they came in and said they wanted to be on the agenda the first meeting in
January, you don't have to allow them on the agenda either.
Don Ashworth: We'd have to have a pretty good reason not to. '
Mayor Hamilton: Because we're studying the issue. We're not ready to deal with
it at this time. You can put them off for a while.
Don Ashworth: I will work with Roger.
Mayor Hamilton: I imagine Amoco's Attorney will be calling you in the morning.
37
I C�q�
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
II
Councilman Horn: Let's ask Roger. Would you feel, any ordinance we pass can
I obviously be changed. Would we be in a better position? We can't pass
something without seeing it can we?
II Roger Knutson: No. So if you want to have a special meeting, you certainly
can.
Mayor Hamilton: What is your recommendation Roger? I think you understand what
II we're trying to accomplish and I want to know what your recommendation is for us
to do.
I Roger Knutson: There's no disadvantage from a legal point of view in having a
special meeting. There's a potential slight, very modest disadvantage to
holding off until the first of the year but as long as it's close.
I Mayor Hamilton: Well, we need to be put into the strongest legal position that
I think we can be put in to deal with this.
IRoger Knutson: A special meeting would be a stronger position.
Mayor Hamilton: Even if we had a special meeting, I don't think it's going to
I have an adverse affect on the new council members. I don't think we're creating
anything they can't live with.
Roger Knutson: They can repeal the ordinance at the first meeting.
IIDon Ashworth: Would you like to meet like at 5:00 then? I'd like to get this
into the newspapers so people are aware of it.
ICouncilman Geving: They're here.
I Don Ashworth: If we take action, it would be in this week's edition of the
newspaper?
Councilman Johnson: Not as a public notice but it would be a report.
IICouncilman Geving: We could meet on the 19th. Next Monday night.
IMayor Hamilton: The 19th at 5:30.
Councilman Horn: I would like to suggest that the future councilmembers consult
with us on this issue.
II
1989 POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN UPDATE AND 1988 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, CITY
tMANAGER.
Mayor Hamilton: As has been the case for the past 8 years, the City Manager and
I I have met. I've written a performance evaluation on himself which I have here
which you're welcome to review. I am suggesting as a part of the review that
his position classification needs updating and revision. Don and I have
L7
reviewed that and I think, there's a lot of rewriting that needs to be done as a
Ijob description.
I38
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
r '
Councilman Geving: Did you give him your appraisal then Tom?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Geving: It's been the policy or at least it's been the custom, let's
put it that way, that the mayor performs this and we look at it as a council.
In the past we've each been asked to even fill out our own performance appraisal
but for my own purposes, I would go with whatever the mayor decides. He works
closer with the manager than anybody on the Council.
Mayor Hamilton: I was pretty tough on him this year.
Councilman Geving: You generally are. I think you're very frank and direct. ,
I'm satisfied.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it is here if anyone wants to review it. '
Councilman Boyt: I'd make a couple of suggestions. The first one would be that
when we talk about reevaluating or reclassifying the job, I'd like to see the
job, go back through the job and determine it's size. Let's get some outside
frame of references, hopefully in the business community, not just public
government, similar size jobs and determine if we're in the right salary
classification or not. There are some real systematic ways to do that that's
appropriate.
I
IL Mayor Hamilton: That's what we did when we established where we're at right now
but it needs to be done again. That's what I'm saying.
Councilman Boyt: I have a few other things but I think they're easily discussed
one on one.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
L
1
39
' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 1988
II
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Gevi.ng and
Councilman Johnson
FUTURE COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Ursula Dimler, Tom Workman and Don Chmiel
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Larry Brown, Steve Hanson and Jim
Chaffee
' Mayor Hamilton: Larry, are you going to give us a report on the stop sign
situation on West 78th Street?
' Larry Brown: Yes. As you may have been aware of, we are taking or have been
taking traffic counts out there. We've looked at the warrants for the placement
of the multiway stop sign and it does not meet the warrants according to the
' infamous Minnesota State Guidelines. Obviously we realize that this is not a
Minnesota State Aid road so it's basically in the Council's decision. However,
in looking at the traffic counts, it's my belief that if we do place the stop
signs, during peak rush hour we're going to be backing traffic up to darn near
II the Great Plains intersection by the clock tower which is going to make it
extremely difficult for people in the other driveways such as the Riveria, to
make left hand turning movements from Riveri.a onto West 78th Street as well as
' the other driveways. We would like to continue analyzing this with the traffic
study. We did follow through with Council's direction, at the previous council
meeting, we've got locations out there and if the Council insists, we will
proceed with putting up the stop signs tomorrow. If the Council would rather
see us proceed in a way that we have been proceeding with further traffic
analysis, we will do that as well. That's all I had.
ICouncilman Horn: What were the counts?
Larry Brown: For?
Councilman Horn: The different directions.
Larry Brown: Westbound on West 78th Street during peak rush hour we were
' running 610 vehicles per hour. For eastbound we are running approximately 242
vehicles per hour. For Laredo with a combined turning movement count of 109
vehicles per hour.
Councilman Horn: So in effect if we put the stop sign in, we're giving the 109
the same priority as the 610?
' L:
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Gevi.ng: Did you go down the street any to Great Plains Blvd. and
take any counts?
1
11 ity Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
Larry Brown: No, we did not have time to do that. We'd like to do that and
proceed in that fashion. We also did take a look at the time delay for people
on Laredo in trying to make their turning movements onto West 78th Street. On
the average, during those peak times, it was approximately 33 seconds that they
would have to wait before making their turning movement onto West 78th Street.
Althought this would be classified as a level service D which is less than
desirable, we don't feel that this is unreasonable for that peak period.
Councilman Horn: What's the maximum time that you're allowed to stop traffic
for say a railroad crossing or a left turn lane?
Larry Brown: I don't know those off hand. I believe a railroad comes out to
something like 15 minutes so that's fairly extreme and wouldn't apply to this
situation.
Councilman Horn: What about left turn lanes?
Larry Brown: Left turn lane, I'd have to look that up. I'm not sure.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, how do you determine what your backup is going to be at
the stop sign?
Larry Brown: We went through and analyzed an average case scenario of assuming
that a person stopped, coming to a complete stop, waiting for the turning
movement to take place would be stopped approximately 15 to 20 seconds.
Therefore, we can analyze the inflow versus the people that are allowed to
proceed through the intersection and get a fairly decent idea as to how far the II
backlog is going to take place.
Councilman Boyt: Let's go down to the previous stop signs we had downtown were
by Pauly's liquor store. Do you have any sense for how far the traffic backup
pushed back on that?
Larry Brown: My experience has been, when those signs were in place, they would 1
back up, we would que approximately 4 to 5 cars. Support 5 cars deep. That
would include the right hand turning movement and the traffic which would carry
straight through. '
Councilman Boyt: That was an intersection that not only had left turns but had,
at that point, a through street to deal with and you're telling me the backup
there was 4 or 5 cars and the backup here is going to be what sounds like 10
times that.
Don Ashworth: If I may. I've seen that intersection, the old one, the old 4 '
way, and that would go past Schlenk's house. I never saw it impede the TH 101
traffic coming down but it got almost to that point.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if we only have a 109 cars trying to exit
from Laredo, that's an hour, that's sort of a continuous stream of cars trying
to exit there if they're waiting 33 seconds a piece. Right? i
Larry Brown: That's correct.
2 1
�. City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
' Councilman Boyt: 33 seconds, I guess I don't have any good way of sensing what
that is when I'm sitting in a car. Can you give me something else to relate to?
I ; What's a typical stop light? A minute? A minutes and a half? Two minutes?
Larry Brown: A typical stop light would be probably around a minute. Again,
that varies across the board according to your traffic needs but just a similar
type situation off that service roadway would be probably a minute.
Councilman Horn: The service is much better than trying to make a left turn off
' of TH 5 at a full intersection.
Larry Brown: Most definitely.
Mayor Hamilton: How about, did you look at traffic at Powers at all?
Larry Brown: No, I'm sorry we did not have time to do any other counts. We had
' a limited amount of counters available.
Mayor Hamilton: The westbound traffic was more than the eastbound?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Geving: What day of the week and when did you do this?
Larry Brown: We conducted counts on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last
week.
ICouncilman Geving: And at what time?
' Larry Brown: Our counts were limited to the evening hours so obviously we're
assuming that the counts would be similar.
Councilman Geving: 4:00 or 5:00 approximately?
' Larry Brown: We went from 2:30 up until 6:30 for the counts and analyzed the
peak hours.
Councilman Johnson: You missed the worst part of it then because the morning is
when Laredo is used outbound so your 109 would be your inbound versus your
outbound. The delays of when are you going to have only 33 second delays? I've
never taken a stopwatch to it but I'm thinking at 600 cars, that's about 5 cars
going by and I don't think I've ever, well every once in a while you get out
there in less than 5 cars but in general you sit there. I think the count
should have been, it's especially important in the morning which is the rush
hour, not the evening.
Larry Brown: We tried to do morning counts but failed due to the inclement
I weather. Our counters don't work very well in the wintertime. The batteries
freeze so we ended up starting taking hand counts which was difficult enough in
the evening but by analyzing the evening case scenario which seems to be a less
volume situation, it still proved to be almost a hi.nderance to the traffic flow
by backing it up. So obviously the morning case scenario may be an even worse
situation.
3
r
Council Meeting - December 19, 1988 1
Councilman Boyt: It figures that you'd probably reverse your numbers with
traffic flowing in different direction but I think Jay's point, from my
experience is a good one because in the evening I'll go down 78th and take a
right on Laredo but I'll never go up Laredo to take a left. It's like putting
your car in park.
Larry Brown: In the morning you mean?
Councilman Boyt: In the morning. You just won't get through there. It's a
study in frustration with traffic coming from both directions. I don't disagree
with Clark when he says it's not the most dangerous intersection in town. It's
just one that I think we can pretty easily deal with for the short term and I'd
like to see us, personally I'd like to see us put stop signs up there. They may
not stay there forever but I think it would be a help.
Councilman Horn: Once they're in there...
Councilman Geving: I don't think they should come down, that's for sure.
Councilman Boyt: I think we need to restudy it.
Mayor Hamilton: You can always take it down but if ou don't put it u
Y P up, yo u
can't see what affect it would have.
Councilman Horn: I haven't seen one come down.
Larry Brown: Bear in mind, we do have a problem and I'm sure the Council is
aware of it. If we put a stop sign up, people get used to it. If we take them
down again, somebody comes up, stops and they get rear ended.
Councilman Horn: If you put it up, you're going to have that happen. '
Larry Brown: Obviously our motive tonight is maybe to have you reconsider your
previous decision and have us continue with this study such that we don't arrive
at such a problem.
Councilman Horn: That was my recommendation last week.
Councilman Boyt:
yt: I don't disagree with that and I can see the reasons why you
want to do the study before you do the sign. I can see us studying this
forever. We've created a thoroughfare through downtown. I'd be real interested
in what's happened to the traffic flow on West 78th Street since the change. I
guess I wasn't aware of the traffic being that heavy on Laredo and West 78th
until the last 6 months or so.
Councilman Horn: I'd like to know what we've done to create a thoroughfare.
What has changed in the rerouting?
Mayor Hamilton: Where it previously had to stop at Great Plains and P roceeded
...to TH 101. Now you can take an immediate left off of TH 5, come down 78th
Street and you could breeze right through, just come down TH 101 there with no
stops.
Councilman Horn: You still have to stop.
4
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
1
IMayor Hamilton: Where?
Councilman Horn: To get down to TH 101. When you hit.. .you can turn whether
you swing south or not.
' Mayor Hamilton: You can turn onto TH 101 and proceed east and there are no
! stops. You don't have to stop. Coming from Powers Blvd. all the way to Dakota
' or if you want to go north on TH 101, you don't stop at _all. _ - - _
Councilman Horn: But that has nothing to do with this stop sign here.
Mayor Hamilton: You just asked a question about a thoroughfare and I'l telling
you why there's a thoroughfare there.
Councilman Horn: You're explaining the wrong end of the traffic problem.
You're trying to clutter the problem. The problem that causes this congestion
would be if there were no stop coming westbound. There still is a stop coming
westbound. We have one stop coming west just like we always did.
Mayor Hamilton: Where?
' Councilman Horn: Going down TH 101. It's the same as it was before. I fail to
see what we've changed on this intersection in rerouting it.
I Mayor Hamilton: We need to find out what the traffic volumes are in the morning
because if you sit at Laredo and try to take a left onto 78th, the traffic
volumes going east, it's impossible to make that turn. If that's the case, then
there needs to be some help there to make that turn.
' Councilman Horn: I don't disagree with that but the argument I'm hearing is
because of something we've done downtown with the redevelopment project and I
fail to see that.
Councilman Boyt: What you're saying is the probably is always there and we're
' just now dealing with it?.
Councilman Horn: That's right.
' Councilman Geving: I think though the problem really is you don't want to
hinder those 600 cars that are trying to go west and quickly get them. through
the area at Laredo and 78th because they're trying to get somewhere. To Powers
' or to Kerber. I would prefer to see them keep moving.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd prefer to see them slow down so they turn in and shop.
Councilman Geving: They're going to do that anyway Tom.
Councilman Horn: Excelsior I think tried that.
Councilman Geving: But made a statement if
g� you you backed them up there, how
far would you back them up? If you put that stop sign at Laredo and 78th?
' Mayor Hamilton: He said he'd back them up to the Riv.
I 5
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
1
Councilman Geving: I'd bet that you would back them up well beyond that. '
Don Ashworth: I just got some of the data there myself today and I wish we had
had more time. I think that there is more of a problem in the morning. It's
too bad we don't have those statistics. One of the reasons I say that is that
there still is a lot of cut through traffic through downtown. What's occuring
is as that traffic comes in, I firmly believe they're going 40 to 50 mph in
front of the new bank and it's that speed that is also hindering people from
getting out there. If there were a way that we could stop even the eastbound
traffic and allow westbound to go through, I think that you would really
overcome the problems because you would be able to take care of that morning
traffic. Letting than get out because you would be stopping the people that
would be eastbound who are primarily non-Chanhassen people and you would be
allowing the westbound traffic to take and move through. Again, in the morning,
that westbound traffic is very, very minor. '
Councilman Geving: Are you saying that we need another count? The count is, are
those people coming out of Powers Blvd., attempting to shortcut through the
downtown area? Maybe they're going to TH 101. We don't know that. Maybe they
should be going out onto TH 5 and going right through.
Don Ashworth: I would have liked to have everything completed for tonight. '
From everything that we're knowing so far, if we were just able to stop what
would be the eastbound leg of 78th, that would really help the problem but I
don't know by doing more traffic management you can do things like that. I
Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you had a comment?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, two things. One, I think traffic patterns will change '
when we open Market. There are people who are avoiding. A lot of it is also
avoiding TH 5. I do see people come on Powers, cut clear across and then get
back on TH 5. They avoid two stop lights like that. Like you say, it's a free
straight shot all the way through town until you get to town. When we redo
Market, things can change. People can come off of TH 5 on Market and go to
Kerber. Right now if you're going to Kerber, you have to get off either at
Great Plains or earlier. Most people seen to get off earlier and cut through
town.
Councilman Horn: Which direction are you heading Jay? '
Councilman Johnson: Both directions actually. What direction I'm heading? I
think that the study, if we put up stop signs at this time, before Market Blvd..
When is Market Blvd. going to be open to TH 5?
Larry Brown: Next construction season.
Councilman Horn: If the railroad gets a crossing.
g
Councilman Johnson: That could be another year. The regulation, whatever we do '
at Market Blvd. to control traffic is going to affect this intersection again
too.
6 1
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
1 ,
Councilman Geving: That's a what if though Jay. I think you've got to look at
' what's happening now. Let's stay with Laredo and 78th and Kerber.
Councilman Johnson: Where are we at on rerouting TH 101 around downtown?
Anything happen there with moving it out to TH 5 instead of cutting it through?
Councilman Horn: We asked MnDot to consider doing that early and they said they
would look into it.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think once West 78th Street is realigned at the west
end and change traffic patterns through and take the entry to 78th Street
further away from TH 5, that should, I would think, cut down some of the easy
access onto 78th what people are using now.
Councilman Johnson: I did think we need a whole analysis of what's happening in
' downtown now as a baseline and then also look at it again when Market's open and
when West 78th's realigned. We're still redoing all the road system down here.
I agree that cars do get going pretty quick before they come up to there.
There's also some visibility problems at that corner. That last pine tree
that's planted outside the Brooke's blocks your view if you're the second car.
Even if you stop right at the stop sign, you've got to slide a little bit
forward to get around that last tree.
Mayor Hamilton: If you stop at the stop sign, you get killed trying to make
your turn from there.
' Councilman Boyt: We've got a chance and it certainly is appropriate to take a
very inexpensive fix. Probably not a long term fix because we're going to
continue to change traffic patterns but a chance to take an action that would
make that individual corner somewhat safer. Right now when you're making a left
turn out of Laredo, it's a dangerous situation in these high traffic periods and
we have the school, the bank, Brooke's, as well as the residents over there who
they either go that way or they go down residential streets someplace and I'd
much rather see them on 78th than on a residential street.
Councilman Horn: Well, the bank isn't open at that hour. The only thing that's
changing is Brooke's and we used to have a gas station there anyway.
Councilman Boyt: I think you'll see traffic in and out of the bank at that
hour.
Councilman Geving: I think there's just more traffic flow.
Councilman Horn: But I don't think it's anything to do with our changes in
traffic.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to move that we table this until a complete study can
be done looking at all the traffic patterns that currently exist and those that
are proposed for the future including the realignment of 78th Street at the west
t__# intersection of Powers and Market Blvd. and the impact that that may have on
traffic flow.
Councilman Horn: Second.
r 7
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
II
Mayor Hamilton: So the next Council can deal with it effectively.
1
Councilman Boyt: Would you put some kind of a time line on that?
Iii
Mayor Hamilton: I think it should be completed as soon as possible. I don't
know what your schedule is. I would say it should be no later than 45 days.
II
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on installing
stop signs on West 78th Street until a complete study can be done looking at all
II
the traffic patterns that currently exist and those that are proposed for the
future including the realignment of 78th Street at the west intersection of
Powers and Market Blvd. and the impact that that may have on traffic flow. I
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON CONVENIENCE STORES WITH GAS PUMPS. I
Public Present:
Name Address/Company Representing II
C.L. Kristufek Amoco II J.D. Filippi North Star Engineering/Amoco
Joe Finley Leonard, Street & Danail, Attorneys-Amoco
David Pedersen than Villager
Charles WM. James T.F. James Company ,
Bud Kaupp SuperAmerica
Roman Mueller SuperAmerica
Steven E. Amick Amoco
I
Mayor Hamilton: The next item we have to deal with was the proposed moratorium
II
on convenience stores with gas pumps that did not include service bays. In
particular Brown Standard which apparently Amoco is intending to run out of
town. We've received some information here this evening that indicates that a
moratorium perhaps could not be supported in court although it's perhaps worth a
II
try. It's still rather distressing to see what is attempting to be done in our
community and I think that we ought to have the ability to say, whether it's
through zoning or some other means, what is built in this town and how it's
II
built. I don't know what other alternatives we have Roger but I'd certainly
like to see us pursue this in some way. Whether it's through zoning. Is that
in the CBD or is that Business Highway District?
IIRoger Knutson: Which?
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we need to take a closer look at that. I
Councilman Horn: As I read this, and maybe I didn't understand it, where it's
talking about trying to put a zoning ordinance change into this effect. I
missed the point that there was being a problem with a moratorium. Giving us a
chance to study the zoning issue. Does this affect both?
L'ii:
Roger Knutson: Depending on what the outcome of the moratorium would be.
8
II
IICity Council Meetin g - December 19, 1988
,
1
Councilman Geving: Could I ask you Roger, are you free to discuss this
I a confidential document at this meeting tonight? We just got this so I haven't
even had a chance to even look at anything over than the cover page. I came
here tonight with the thought in my mind how I was going to vote on the issue
and I was handed a piece of paper now that completely throws this, without
' having to read this multipage document, it's fairly complex and my question to
you is, are we free to discuss it?
Roger Knutson: It's difficult to have a frank discussion.. .
Councilman Geving: I find it difficult to discuss this opening except to say
' this. I received three calls this weekend from people who read about this
particular issue in the paper in the last week's Villager and other papers.
All three of these people were either handicapped or senior citizens who
specifically told me that they do not pump their own gas. They go to a full
' service station where they can have gas pumped for them because they can not get
out of their vehicles and I think they had a very valid point. That's the only
thing that they wanted me to understand. In order for them to get the kind of
service that they need as senior citizens and as handicapped, one was a
handicapped person that I've known for about 15 years. They would probably have
to drive out of the city to get a tankful of gas on a given day. Now I don't
believe that that's the kind of service we need to give to our people in our
' community. I want to put that in the record.
Mayor Hamilton: We may pass on also that being, I'm working in a business in
II town everyday. It was amazing to me the number of comments that were made by
people coming into the store in a positive way of what we were trying to
accomplish. I think most of those comments were to the effect that we have
' enough convenience stores, why would we need to have another one. They were all
very positive about what we were attempting to do so we have a lot of support of
the community of what we're attempting to do.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggestion, having glanced through this, that what
this is saying is that we can't require an operation to have service bays but
there are all sorts of other avenues to take here. One of them is, I would
think would be very similar to what we've tried to do with contractor's yards in
limiting concentration.
Mayor Hamilton: That was exactly what I had in mind when I suggested this
I thing. We've done that with contractor's yards, why can't we accomplish the
same thing with not only this business but others of the nature that you don't
need to have one on every block.
' Councilman Boyt: I would think Tom that it might be appropriate sort of as a
bit of information gathering, to hear what Amoco might have to say. I know at
' least one of the council elect has a strong opinion about this if you want to
open this up for some other comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess we can hear from Amoco if they want to speak.
t__ Joe Finley: My name is Joe Finley. I'm an Attorney for Amoco. I'm a private
practitioner in Minneapolis. Is this on the record?
Larry Brown: Yes, we do have it on tape here.
1
"`"''City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
1
Joe Finley: I practice at 150 South 5th Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis 55403
and my name is Joe Finley. I'm not sure what the document is that you're '
passing around so my comments may, at this point, not be as germane as I had
thought. I was here to ask you not to enact a moratorium today, as you can
probably guess, because I feel it's premature. From what I understand from
talking to my client with the background on this, they proposed to build an
Amoco station. That station has leaking underground storage tanks. The
Pollution Control Agency wants it fixed up and they're going to clean up the
site and rebuild the station in a manner that their lease provides. I know Mr.
Brown has provided a letter to the Council saying a few things and it makes it
sound as though it's a unilateral decision by Amoco just to tear down his
station and leave him hanging. I've reviewed his lease and he signed a lease
last year, in the summer of last year, allowing this very thing that Amoco
proposes to do right now. What I really want to talk about though, very
briefly, I know everybody probably wants to get on, is the function of a
moratorium under Minnesota law. Moratoriums are generally used for two things.
Either where there's a lot of development pressure on the city and they simply
can't cope with it. They may call a halt for a minute and say we've got to
rethink what our ordinance says or maybe our ordinance is silent. That's one '
area. The area where it's really used mostly, whether it's a major
intrastructure improvement, new park or something big like that, you want to
make the zoning compatible with it. That's not the situation here. There's not
much pressure. There's really one pending application, Amoco and I understand
one that's already been approved. I think what's happening is the City is being
asked to interpose itself to do something by zoning that really isn't a zoning
matter. That's possibly to act on Mr. Brown's behalf because he's not happy now
with his bargain with Amoco. But when Amoco looks at it down the road, they're
trying to put a station in here which will meet the marketing demands. What
people want now. There's all kinds of literature I think that Amoco or their
consultant would be happy to provide to you that shows that the station that
they want to build is what people want right now. They also want to clean up a
site that has leaking tanks. To me, as not only a real estate but an
environmental attorney, that's a very salutory goal and if you tell them that
they can't do anything out there, I think there's, the social policies that are
not being weighed correctly. Possibly with, I just want to speak for one second
about the legal test of a moratorium and that's maybe what Roger's memo is ,
about. There's a case called the Ohlmquist case that says when you enact a
moratorium it's got to be in good faith and non-discriminatory and it's also, it
can not affect adversely people who relied substantially on the old ordinance. I
think that's pretty much black letter law in Minnesota. Because of that, many
times people enact ordinances, moratoriums that say from this point forward, any
application that comes in is governed by this moratorium. Really Amoco would
have no objection, I believe, if you pass that sort of moratorium that said
things that are in the fire already, in process, underway, where people have
relied on your existing statute, are not covered by the moratorium but things in
the future are. That's fair to the people who are bringing in proposals. They
know. The resolution's there. It's also fair to the people who have already
brought in a proposal. They're treated under the rules that were in place as
they moved forward. If you're serious about the moratorium. If you're serious
about trying to address the problems you perceive, I'd suggest that kind of
moratorium. One where you distinguish between the people who have already made
application, are working, and those in the future. If you choose a broader
moratorium, and that's assuming that you want to move forward at all, there are
10 1
I . . City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
IIa number of problems that are probably discussed in the memorandum you have
circulating. One is that the specific language of the resolution I've seen at
I least, would lead you to an ordinance that was recently declared
unconstitutional in the city of Eagan and I don't know if it's really a valid
public purpose to send somebody off to study enacting an ordinance which a
Minnesota Court has already told cities is unconstitutional. I think that
II just because of Mr. Brown's letter to the Council, because of the timing of this
which seemed to a lot of people, maybe not councilmembers but other people, it
looks as though the purpose of this moratorium is to address the request of a
II single person and not really the city's needs and that really, I want to fall to
this case. That's another reason too why when cities enact ordinances, they
often make them prospective. Looking forward and they don't have them affect
II projects in process. I don't want to belabor that anymore. I think that's what
Amoco would like to say. I'd be happy to take questions but if you do enact an
ordinance, I'd rather have it be prospective than one that covered the board.
IIMayor Hamilton: I'm sure you would. Do you have any questions?
Councilman Geving: Joe, is it Amoco's intent to provide a service bay with
IItheir reconstructed facility?
Joe Finley: My understanding is it's not. That they're going to change the
facility.
IICouncilman Geving: And my second question, would it provide full service?
il 1
Chris Kristufek:It has the capability of that.
Joe Finley: I don't think they've addressed that. When you were discussing the
IIcomments up there, that's something that I realized I wasn't aware of myself.
Councilman Geving: You have the capability, would you expand on that please
sir?
IIChris Kristufek: Sure, I'm Chris Kristufek with Amoco. The pumping equipment
that will be installed at that station has the capability of being full served
I and self served at the same time. It could be split. My guess is that Mr.
Brown, who likely is going to be the operator of that station, could well split
one of those dispensers and have a full serve island, yes. It's certainly well
within his perogative to do so.
IMayor Hamilton: What's preventing that facility from being constructed similar
to the one that's in Buffalo on Hwy 12? Right out of downtown Buffalo that has
11 food service, videos, has all the junk that you want to have in there plus it
has service-.
'' Chris Kristufek: I'm not certain that I know which station you're specifically
talking about.
Mayor Hamilton: The Amoco station in Buffalo. I'm sure it's the only one
III there. It's right on Hwy 12.
Chris Kristufek: I think if it's the one that I'm thinking to, it's owned by
IIone of our jobs, is not an Amoco constructed facility but rather by an outside
II 11
City Counci 1 Meeting - December 19, 1988
r
individual. It is different than the one that we would build here and the site
plans that were before the City called for a 24 foot by 44 foot what we call a
food shop. Really small facility with a remote car wash, full canopy and 4
electronic MPD's. MPD's being a dispenser.
Councilman Horn: I don't know where you get the impression that we're ,
preventing you from fixing the leak. That's something that needs to be attended
to and to me is totally irrelevent to what's before us now. It's another issue
that has to be addressed. I don't understand what you're trying to say there. I
Joe Finley: It's two things. If we can't get, if I read the language of the
ordinance correctly, if we can't get any sort of permit to do anything, whether
that's building permit, excavation, anything, I don't know if we could, but it's
really more a social. How do we use the resources to decide it? Do we go in
and do it twice? Do we dig the whole thing up and then dig it all up again
later? It makes more sense to me that if they're going to raise and rebuild the
station, there is no better time to haul out all the tanks.. .might be necessary
to put in their tanks. It's very disruptive to do that. It's disruptive to the
operator. It's disruptive to everybody. I don't know why you'd want to disrupt
once for quite a while and then disrupt again to rebuild it. I say it more in
the practical sense. I don't see why you'd take two hits at it when one is
sufficient to minimize the disruption.
Councilman Horn: When was this leak discovered?
Joe Finley: I think the leak was discovered last year but the letter from the I
MPC is very recent. Just the last few days.
Mayor Hamilton: They had a leak over a year ago when that street was dug up.
There was a question about some leakage and I think it was proven that there
wasn't any leakage. That it was merely spillage on the ground that created the
problem and the MPC was called in and they had no problem with it. Somebody
changed their mind but...
Councilman Horn: Do we know in fact there is a problem or some speculated
problem? ,
Joe Finley: No, this is not speculation. It's dated December 16th.
Councilman Horn: You also mentioned a market study. Does this market study say '
the service is not economically feasible in this area?
Joe Finley: If I mentioned a specific market study, I think I misspoke. I I
meant that there's a whole generation of market studies which are showing that
by far the greatest demand for services is towards the type of facility that
Amoco wants to build. '
Councilman Horn: You weren't looking at a specific market study on this site?
You were referring to a generic nationwide market study?
Joe Finley: Yes. There are, it's something that are materials collected not
only by our client but I think they were good enough to bring along an article
in the Wall Street Journal that was just published on these types of studies.
It's not some secret of Amoco's. It's a way the entire industry is moving and I
12 1
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
think their point is that zoning, and this is the point that he can take, that
for zoning to be rationally related to the public welfare, you generally try to
find a relationship between what people want and what the zoning requires. Not
that the zoning requires the opposite of what people want. That argument
carries some weight with the Judge in the Eagan case. I just wanted to make you
aware that it's not just a flip statement when Amoco says this is the type of
facility people want. There has been mountains and mountains of papers and
studies devoted to this and I think they finally, just as a practical matter,
when they looked at the different type of stations, the station they want to
build is what people want. Especially in developing areas.
Mayor Hamilton: You should probably ask the people in this town.
Councilman Horn: I think we're dealing on a specific case here and what I see
happening here. You have your interpretation which I don't agree with on what
the problem is. My interpretation is, what we're seeing here is we're seeing an
' overabundance of one particular type of use or service to the community and
we're seeing another valuable service going away. That's my perspective. It
has nothing to do with what one individual owner is trying to do. It has to do
' with the overall community and it has to do with the' service level that our
citizens get. We've already got a whole bunch of convenience stores in this
town. From a good planning aspect, anybody knows who's planning one, that you
don't put the same kind of building all concentrated into one area. That's what
' prompted the thing on our part and we're losing valuable services that the rest
of the community needs and that's a perspective I'm looking at it from.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you're right Clark. I think the way Amoco looks at it
I j is strictly economics. They realize that the station across the street, the
Holiday, is one of the largest volume Holiday stores in the Twin Cities area and
' they feel that they're losing dollars because of that so they want to compete
with them so they can get their amount of the fair share. I think it's strictly
an economic reason for them to do this. If they...out the City, they could care
less what the people want.
' Councilman Horn: And if they did a marketing study on that corner, they'd find
out why. All you've got to do is compare prices.
' Councilman Boyt: I suspect that maybe each of us has a different reason for
proposing this particular moratorium. Mine is directed at the issue of
convenience stores and I think and have thought for a while that we don't have
sufficient regulations in our city to assure ourselves that we're moving in the
right direction on convenience stores. Whether they've got gas pumps or don't
have gas pumps. I think what we did with TH 41 and TH 7, although there
' certainly wasn't unanimous agreement by the Council on that, reflected our
concerns about issues like the number of employees that are in a convenience
store at any one time. The hours of operation as well as the types of services
' offered by that convenience store. These are issues that need to be cleared up.
I guess in all honesty I can't conceive that that particular corner is going to
end up probably any other way than the way you want it to be. I have a little
difficulty penalizing this particular operation when I think the end result is
: probably going to be that given the business highway district, we're going to
have to allow service stations in that. When we do that, we are probably going
to have to offer some sort of options on their part as to how they want to build
that building. But I think there are a lot of issues that need studying here.
13
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
Those issues will impact you. I guess from the standpoint of looking at harm,
you've got a functioning gas station there right now. We're not denying you the
right to use that and I'd like to see this issue studied. I am a little
disturbed that it happens to fit into the plans of one particular business
person because I think the issue is much bigger than that. It impacts the whole
city as I see it.
Joe Finley: I think we're very close in agreeing if we could just call Amoco
out of the moratorium for that reason. Make it a prospective plan. It would, I
think, relieve some of your discomfort that an outside.. .other than a true
salutory public policy to review...
Mayor Hamilton: What Bill just said is certainly all of our objectives and
we're not going to leave Amoco out of this I guess.
Chris Kristufek: The building that we have on the corner is 25 years old and it '
needs some major repair work. We have a frost heating problem. It shifts
every year with the climate that we live in. We need to correct that problem.
It has used it's life fullness. It needs to be replaced. During the timefrane
that we have been studying, and it's been for several years that we have studied
what we want to do on that corner, there have been several proposals brought
forward by other developers in your city to develop the balance of the property
and I'd like to refer to it and this is not accurate by any means but the Hanus
property. It also includes the cement facility up on the corner. There have
been several proposals, some of which I have in my briefcase, of the development
that would include things such as an automall. Those folks have been at my
office and have asked me if I would be interested in participating in an
automall type concept which would provide automotive service to the motoring -
public. My comment to those folks was that no, I am not interested in those
kinds of things because I have my own corner that I own and control in which to
sell gasoline on. At the same time Mr. Brown was given that information and I
understand did make contact with those folks who were selling that property,
however we wish to describe it and one of the words that were used by Mr. Brown
to me, that he was shocked. Shocked meaning that he had made an offer on the
property and 30 minutes later his offer was cut, if you will, and he became the
low bidder rather the high bidder on that property. The same thing happened on
another vacant piece of property adjacent to that where he did attempt to locate
or attempt to buy property for his service center. My point is this, that Mr.
Brown was aware and did agree as Mr. Finley has previously indicated, at his
agreement to our rebuild proposal. Mr. Brown certainly can build a repair
facility someplace in your community. He's involved in other automotive related
businesses now. I'm not certain whether they're in Chanhassen or whether
they're outside of your community but nonetheless he's involved in those kinds
of things. He's not only just an Amoco dealer. He's certainly welcome to stay
as our dealer. And one other point that I wish to make to you. Mr. Brown's
business is.. . He has made an offer. Verbal offer to us to buy him out of his
business. He has not reduced that to writing as we have requested but he has
made it somewhat verbal. So the point is, if we're really not running Mr. Brown
out of business. I think the letter that was circulated to you, the copy of
which I have is not addressed to anyone nor is it dated. By the way, he did not '
provide us a copy of that nor has he appeared at any of these meetings. Staff
or Planning Commission meetings that we have had. The public hearings that have
been held. He certainly is welcome to stay and remain our dealer. We are not
putting him out of business.
14 ,
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988 '-j
Councilman Horn: To me that's a private matter that's totally unrelated to what
I , we're discussing. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
a
Chris Kristufek: I think you need to be aware of some of the issues.
I Mayor Hamilton: I'm completely aware of them. Gary happens to be a very good
friend of mine and he's told me all these things as I'm sure most of you are
well aware of what's taken place. It's always one sided.
IICouncilman Geving: I think you have to understand that we're charged with the
responsibility of providing service to our people. The residents demand medical
II care, fire care, hospital care. We provide all of these kinds of services in
our community and a place to be able to shop. A place to be able to fix your
car when it's necessary is just another one of those services. Whether it's Mr.
Brown's or anyone elses, that is not a concern of mine. What we're trying to do
I is reserve a service for residents. That service is a bay or to have your car
fixed or for the resident that I talked about earlier who was a disabled person,
to have a full service gas station pump. That's what we're talking about in
I terms of services that we want for our community and our residents. Not Mr.
Brown or any other dealer.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger, I guess I'd like to hear your opinion. If you could
I give us some assistance in how fast you think we should resolve this thing. Or
perhaps not resolve it this evening but how we can deal with it this evening so
it can be dealt with at a future date.
II 1
Roger Knutson: I guess there are all sorts of options available to you. One
would have to do with a moratorium ordinance that we presented to be modified.
II .. .referenced to gas pumps or service bays in the moratorium.. . Or three, you
could not pass anything tonight and ask your planning director to study it.
Come back to you at a time when he thinks it's appropriate with an analysis of
the issues and what he thinks are the best solutions.
', Councilman Johnson: The Amoco proposal got tabled at the last council meeting
and prior to that tabling I has asked to put on the agenda an item to consider
I the convenience store issue. It was out of the convenience store, my item, that
was scheduled after the Amoco item, that the moratorium idea came up. As far as
being specifically aimed at Gary Brown and the situation there because as we
look at it, now we're going to have two of the same on the corner with the
:' prospects of having two more across the street. Is that good planning for the
City? I still think we need to do the moratorium. I'd like to hear from the
Attorney on one thing on whether the prospective versus doing it on all the
,1 things. They've been going through the planning process now for 3 or 4 months
and I think that does lay with me a little bit. The other thing is, this letter
from the MPCA does not say you have a leaking underground storage tank. It says
II you found some gas in the ground and they'd like you to study it. It's about
time they got around to asking you to study it since it was September of 1987
that it was discovered. The. State Pollution Control Agency strikes again. It
could quite well mean that your tanks aren't leaking but it could mean that they
II are. I would assume that by now you've probably already done a tank test on
t__ them and you would know for sure from your tank test. A tank test of course
would tell us whether or not they leak. That's a differnt issue altogether.
II
15
II
.�KLi.ty Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
Roger Knutson: Let me just point out that the Amoco situation is not the only
situation that would have an immediate impact on this. There are others.. .
Councilman Johnson: There's also the PDQ over at 78th but I think they've run
out of time on their permit. I don't know if anybody's checked on that yet or
not. It's been about a year since we approved them.
Don Ashworth: There was other language though that we discussed which was
basically to say that would apply to everyone who had not received prior
approval. '
Roger Knutson: That's a possibility.
Don Ashworth: Do you have that wordage available if the Council were to go that
direction this evening? Staff would recommend that you do that in this
particular case.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to also get rid of the group gas pumps without a
service bay part of it which is one of my concerns but just leave it as
convenience stores and look at it in a broader point of view. This is more '
specific than what my intent was. My intent was to look at convenience stores
and how should we be regulating convenience stores in this town? Give us a
chance to sit back and look at these before very many more proposals came in.
It's amazing what'.s on the horizon.
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. First, your study about convenience stores
and their desirability, probably wouldn't take serious issue with that since we I
just approved one within the last 2 years right across the street here. We just
had one built at TH 41 and TH 7 and the one that hasn't been built yet down at
the end of West 78th Street. But you said one of the conditions of a moratorium
was that you were inundated and I think the sense of the Council, of this
particular Council is that we are and that it's time to take a look. It's
always difficult when any of us try to manage issues that are heavily economic.
It's certainly very tempting to say let's have a lasaifaire government structure
that says the economy can make all decisions but we don't do that anywhere.
The sense that I have is that we're going to say to Amoco and to others that
propose convenience stores and it may very well have an impact on downtown
development because as I say, everybody wants one, that we simply want some time
to look... How long do you think it would take you, given the current planning
load, to do a study that could give us a sense of what direction to take with
convenience stores?
Steve Hanson: I would say, again based on the case loads we've got, somewhere
in the neighborhood of 20 days, 3 weeks time. 1
Councilman Boyt: So if we said 6 months, we'd be safe?
Steve Hanson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Now 6 months would put us into June. I imagine you'd like to
be optimistic and think that you could break ground on this project in April?
Jim Finley: I think their optimism would be.. .
16 1
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988 •..:1
II
Chris Kristufek: We're ready to go.
II 3 Jim Finley: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: You don't have a lot of ground to break and you can do it now.
IIJim Finley: There's one thing I'd like to interject too. If this tends more
towards a broad study of convenience stores rather than the resolution
II I understood which is you can't have a gas station without a repair bay. That's
what we heard. I think maybe my plan would change a bit at the characterization
of the size of the convenience store. Most convenience stores are several
thousand square feet. They're a little shopping and they may have a gas pump
I that's incidental to it. I don't think that's really what Amoco is thinking of
doing. This is going to be a gas station. It's going to pump gasoline. There's
going to be a 400 square foot place to buy a sandwich or something. It's not
I really a convenience store in the sense that you're looking at either. It isn't
a legal point but I just wanted to convey what I think my feelings about being
regulated as a convenience store.
I Councilman Boyt: If I might respond. Given the narrowness of, clearly we'll
have to define convenience store somewhere in our moratorium here but it's quite
possible, since this is such a small part of your operation, that you can go
I ahead and pursue what you were going to do. Just don't put in things that we're
going to define as a convenience store until they're approved. That's another
possibility I suppose but you've got the people who can make those sorts of
judgements. It's my sense from where Council's going that maybe Tom's ready for
IIa motion.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes I am. I'd like to move for the passage of an interim
I ordinance temporarily prohibiting the issuance of land use approvals and
building permits for convenience stores in the CBD and BH Districts. There are
three Sections. I think each of you has a copy but I'll make some changes.
II I'll read the intent is for this ordinance to allow the City to complete a study
concerning the appropriate land use controls for the regulation of convenience
stores period. And in the interim, to protect the planning process for the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. Section 2, keep the last
II sentence. Again I'm going to say, no land use approvals or building permits
shall be issued for convenience stores in the CBD or BH zoning districts.
Section 3, the date shall be changed to July 1, 1989. Section 4 would say,
I convenience stores approved by the City Council prior to the effective date of
this ordinance are exempt from it.
Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose to amend the date Tom back to May 1st.
IMayor Hamilton: What are you thinking?
Councilman Boyt: Well, Steve has indicated that he thinks it can be done in 4
1 1 months.
Roger Knutson: You can always extend the moratorium later if you haven't
II completed your study then.
1 17
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
Councilman Geving: The only thing I would
g: y g question of Steve is doing the job
and I don't think he really understands what he's going to be doing in the next
4 months. I'd like to give him as much time as possible to do it right. I
believe the 6 months, if we need more time that's one thing but if we get to a
point where you're ready to come back to the Council within the 6 months, than
you've gained there too. You might be ready in April but I think rather than to
...him, I think the 6 months is a reasonable amount of time. This is a major
study. It's going to take some real thought on the part of the planners and
city council. I believe we should stay with July 1, 1989.
Councilman Horn: I think too the new council has the option of cutting the
timeframe back if the study comes in faster.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to also make one other correction and that would
be that the districts include the CBD, Business Highway and Business
Neighborhood.
Councilman Geving: I'll amend your motion.
Councilman Boyt: Now these are ones that have not been previously approved? ,
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I think that currently we're probably farming out a lot of
our planning functions as we've gone from two planners to one to none and then
the next day we get back to one. I think this is a good candidate for farming I
out to a group. I think it can be dealt more efficiently by a planning group
with wider contacts than Steve has as of yet.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a decision that should be the City Manager's and
the Planner's to work out. Not ours.
Councilman Johnson: I think the 4 month timeframe is adequate.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why I'm suggesting July 1st. We tend to put ourselves
into a box oftentimes because we cut our timeframe short and I think July 1st is
a good one. Yes Charlie. I
Charlie James: Mr. Mayor, my name is Charlie James and I'm with the James
Company as you may recall. I wanted to get a clarification here on our
circumstances. We have every intention of proceeding with our 22,000 square
foot building out here. As a matter of fact, they're doing some utility work ut
there and we just got caught up in several other shopping centers this fall that
we kind of let this one kind of go until spring but we have done all the
specifics of grading correction for the area and putting gasoline tanks in that
area alone. I know that that item alone was $14,000.00 because that's got to be
picked up by that particular operator. '
Roger Knutson: You're not affected by this ordinance.
Charlie James: That's what I wanted to know because we are already out to bid '
and have contracts ready to go.
Councilman Geving: That's number 4.
18 '
. - City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
Roger Knutson: You're already approved.
II1 Charlie James: I just wanted that clarification for the record. Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question of Amoco. Mr. Finley has indicated, I
II think you sense the concern, at least from the convenience store standpoint, if
I gather that correctly. I'm wanting to strike some sort of a time line that
Amoco says that they can live with, that the City says we can produce by. I
I would like us to not push this thing into an upscale conflict if we can avoid it
by striking some sort of time line agreement.
1 Councilman Horn: I don't think the time line... I don't know where that's an
issue.
Councilman Boyt: I think that Amoco has several different directions that it
I can go with this thing. I would like to leave the room with an agreement that
we can all live with. Recognizing that may not be possible because the City's
position here somewhat counterpoints to Amoco's. But recognizing that, I think
1 we might be able to negotiate this thing to a happier situation.
Councilman Horn: I guess what made me comfortable with what we're doing was Mr.
Finley's II definition of what you need to have a moratorium. While he correctly
stated that that item doesn't apply to us. Item 1, the fact that we're getting
a lot of development pressure. We need time to study it to find out what the
affect is for us, is exactly the situation we're in. We fit that definition
1 j perfectly and I feel what we're doing here is right in line with that.
Joe Pe
Finley: I don't want to speak for my client but I think Amoco's concern is
11 although the time line is part of the concern because they have plans and now
the plans are being disrupted, but the concern that I think drives them to call
me up and have me come down is not that they can't build for 4 months but that
there's a fundamental change going on in the zoning that will mean that a
,, facility that in their mind is obsolete, can not be brought forward to what
people what. That it will be frozen in time like a flying amber. That that
just isn' t what Amoco has planned for that station and that the role of zoning
;1 is to limit uses but not to force people to use their property in any one
specific way. I just don't know of any zoning predicate that forces people to
use property a certain way. It often says you can't use it this way but they
.I can't force you to do something. What I hear in this meeting is that we want to
force Amoco to do something that they don't want to do. You want to force them
to keep open bays even though they consider it not economically feasible.
II Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Amoco would like it if we woulde just throw our
ordinances out and they could do any darn thing they please. That's what you're
saying. Of course, they'd love it because they could come in here and do any
'II darn thing they want. We want to develop our town the way we want it to be
developed. Not the way Amoco wants it developed. If they want to be a good
person and a good neighbor in this community, you'd think they'd try to work
with us. That's all we're saying. Come on in here and work with us. We're
III saying that we know better what this community needs and wants better than Amoco
L does.
11
19
II
1r 2
City Council Meeting - December 19, 1988 r
Joe Finley: I think Amoco wants to work with you. I think there's a feeling
that when a moratorium like this comes up, at least out of the blue for them,
they feel like they're being sandbagged. They feel like they're being told we
don't want to work with you. We want to tell you what to do and we don't want
to work with you. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here but...
Mayor Hamilton: I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to say. 1
You're not listening.
Councilman Horn: The other problem is, if we're not telling them they can't do '
what they found economically feasible and do for the last 20 years, I don't
believe that station is losing money. Nobody's telling them they can't continue
doing what they're doing. They're going in there and saying hey, we're going to
take you out. That's a whole different story. That's not what we're doing.
There's nothing that prevents them from continuing their viable business that
they have going right now.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve an interim ordinance
temporarily prohibiting the issuance of land use approvals and building permits 1
for convenience stores in the CBD, BH and BN Districts. There are three
Sections. The intent for this ordinance is to allow the City to complete a
study concerning the appropriate land use controls for the regulation of
convenience stores. In the interim, to protect the planning process for the
safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. Section 2, keep the last
sentence and again say, no land use approvals or building permits shall be
issued for convenience stores in the CBD, BH or BN zoning districts. Section 3,
the date shall be changed to July 1, 1989. Section 4 would say, convenience
stores approved by the City Council prior to the effective date of this
ordinance are exempt from it. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager I
Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
20
I .
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 15 , 1988
11 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim vonLorenz , Candy Takkunen, Bill Bernjelm,
Craig Blechta, Wayne Wenzlaff
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Wing, Tom Hamilton
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director; Scott
Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director
VISITORS: Dave Pedersen, The Villager; Dave Harmeyer,
City Attorney
The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. by acting Chairman
It Jim vonLorenz .
MINUTES: Motion by Blechta, seconded by Takkunen to approve the
November minutes . All voted in favor.
ItVISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT: Jim Chaffee reported the new
scheduling will take effect February 1, 1989 . The Sheriff' s
Department will be hiring an additional investigator. Jim
vonLorenz commended the Sheriff' s Department for their quick
response to a recent incident that he had reported.
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT: Craig Blechta mentioned the
I onstruction on the fire department building will cease for two
weeks to enable the city hall building to continue on schedule.
This delay will not hamper the fire department' s estimated
completion date. Blechta reported the additional medical calls ,
fewer tire calls, being received this time of year. Discussion
followed concerning the many recent tragic house fires in other
communities . Chanhassen' s tire calls are down because of the
increased house inspections by our building inspectors . TaKKunen
asked about newspaper articles being submitted concerning the
fire safety precautions homeowners should be aware of .
IPJim McMahon, Assistant Fire Chief , and Don Stafford, Secretary,
were elected for another 2 year term.
11 Blecta also report the defibrilator is ready for use, although it
hasn' t been used in an actual situation .
11 CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: Blechta discussed the
recent suicide attempt at Chan Meadows Apts . Chaffee reported on
the military rocket that was recently uncovered in the southern
11 Chanhassen area. Mpls . bomb squad responded and removed the
object. The origin of the rocket has not been discovered as yet.
Harr reported on the 1989 Crime Prevention Grant that was awarded
to the City. The grant will be used for handout materials ,
videos, portable slide projector, slides, audio tape, salary com-
pensation, etc. Rod Peddycoart and Dec Rand are working together
11 . - II
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 15 , 1988
PAGE 2
11 II
on the Crime Prevention Program. Bob Zydowski also attended the I
recent Crime Prevention Seminar. Discussion followed on what
groups within the city would be targeted for the Crime Prevention
presentations . vonLorenz mentioned the need for the media to be II notified of the program and its availability to the citizens.
Al Harr stated that Rand is working on the goals of the program.
Chaffee discussed the full-time CSO to be hired for the City, II with part of the salary to be taken from the Crime Prevention
Grant.
Chaffee reported on the "district policing" schedule tnat will I
take effect February 1, 1989 . Shifts will be 10 hour days , 4
days on, 2 off , 4 days on, 4 off . This schedule will give the II county 2 additional cars between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. Chanhassen
will certainly benefit from these additional units .
AlHarr reported on the new campaign sign ordinance that will take II effect in the city. Takkunen and Wenzlaff were asked their com-
ments on the new policy. All agreed this was a much needed and
li clearly written ordinance. A copy of this ordinance should be
handed out to all candidates at the beginning of each campaign. I
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Chaffee discussed the numerous false alarm II calls the city has been receiving. The Sheriff' s Dept. has been
II responsible for enforcing the alarm ordinance but is unable to
keep up. Takkunen motioned, Wenzlaff seconded that the
,1 Chanhassen Public Safety Dept. accept the responsibility of I
enforcing the alarm ordinance. All voted in favor. Articles in
the paper and mailings to the residents on the alarm report will
notify citizens of the new policy and that violators will be
issued citations .
II
Chaffee reported that stop signs will be going up at Laredo Drive
II: and West 78th Street before the end of the year. This will II become a 3 way stop and will be monitored by the deputies .
11 NEW BUSINESS: Chaffee reported that Tom Hamilton' s term will II expire December 31, 1988 . Council needs to appoint a represen-
tative to take Hamilton' s chair - will be put on the Council' s
agenda for the first of the year . No date set for Takkunen' s - II II resignation . vonLorenz will resign at the end of the year but
was as,ced to stay on as an advisor/consultant with the Crime Pre
vention Program. Wenzlaff motioned, Blechta seconded to install
11 vonLorenz as a volunteer Crime Prevention Specialist for the Com-
mission. All voted in savor . A memo to City Council will be
sent aavising them of vonLorenz ' s expired term.
II II
I II
- -
rPUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 15 , 1988
PAGE 3
I
Blechta asked if the Public Safety Commission should designate
its goals for 1989 . Chaffee indicated that it would be a good
idea and that a memo will be forthcoming on some ideas .
Blechta stated that he recently graduated from basic life support
instructor school and now is a certified life support instructor.
I Chaffee reported that Tom Redmond, Sr. is donating a $15 ,000
police car to the City. The car will be used by the Public
Safety Department as a puolic relations , crime prevention car.
Takkunen motioned, Bernhjelm seconded to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be Thursday, January 19 , 1989 .
II
p
I
I
N
a
N
N
N
I
II 3
I CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 .m. .
II g P
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson, Ed
Hasek and Carol Watson
IISTAFF PRESENT: Lori. Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator ; Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor; Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant and Scott Harri
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Hasek moved , Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 22, 1988 as
presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
I
PUBLIC HEARING: BOAT MOORING AND DOCK ORDINANCE.
1 Public Present
Name Address
IILynn Hall 3980 Hawthorne Circle
Fred Osleschlager 7410 Chan Road
I Michael & Marie Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail
Cindy Gilman 6613 Horseshoe Curve
Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica Lane
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
IGerry W. Maher 7101 Utica Lane
Mary J. Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Jeff & Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral
I Roger Byrnes 6724 Lotus Trail
Mike Wegler 6630 Mohawk Drive
ISietsema : This item was presented to the City Council on September 12th.
The Planning Department presented an amendment to the Water Surface Useage
Ordinance which would, basically it cleared up the language in the
I ordinance regarding mooring boats and putting out rafts in the lake.
Essentially what it does , and a copy of the amendment is on the screen
here, what the amendment would do is require that the boat, if you were
I going to moor a boat , would have to be registered in the name of the
lakeshore owner on the lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a
member of a household. Also , if moored in the waters overnight , it would
I have to be out directly in front of a home that is owned by the landowner
which has a house on the site . The other item on the amendment addressed
swimming rafts and similarly it would require that a swimming raft would
be launched out in front of the property that was owned by the lakeshore
I owner with the dwelling unit on it. In Barbara Dacy' s memo, she discussed
an alternative so there were a number of people that are affected by this
ordinance that do not have a dwelling unit on the property or have been
I mooring a boat in a situation that is different that would be affected by
this . What she recommended to the Council at that time is that an
amendment take place that would allow a variance situation to occur so
11
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 2 ,
that a person who had been mooring in the past could get a variance. 1
Another discussion has been that people currently mooring boats and can
show a history of having moored a boat in a spot could maybe be
grandfathered in. What we 're discussing here tonight, because the City
Council looked at all of these items and they were interested in knowing
if the Park and Recreation Commission had any problems with this
amendment , in looking at it strictly regarding the parkland and park use. II
So we brought it back to you, the Park Commission, to look at the
amendment and see how it affects our plans for parkland . This item will
be going back to the City Council and I believe that some of the other
issues will be addressed again at the City Council level .
Schroers: What about the raft that is currently moored out in front of
Carver Beach? Would that be grandfathered in?
Sietsema: According to what this amendment is , it would be grandfathered
in.
Mady: But that has to be part of our discussion.
Boyt: Yes , that' s part of our discussion. 1
Sietsema : But it would have to go by what ' s in the current ordinance. It
has to be so many feet up off the water and so big and out so deep. It
has to have certain structural standards as well and be registered . Then
the owner of the raft would have to be stated on the raft. Swimming rafts
left overnight in the waters on any lake must be anchored directly out
from and within 100 feet of the lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit
has been constructed and owned by the owner . All swimming rafts must have
identification plaque containing the name, address and phone number of the
owner so that would have to take place as well as the other stipulations
that are in the current ordinance.
Mady: We have really two distinct items in this ordinance being amended .
One dealing with the boat mooring issue and then the second dealing with
rafts , swimming rafts and docks and that kind of thing . We' re opening the
public hearing, actually open up a public discussion. Not just have a
public hearing but actually a full discussion. We ask you if you do want
to make a comment, present some information to the Commission, please come
up to the front to the podium. State your name and your address and make
your comment. We invite your comments at this time. I
Lynn Hall , 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I didn' t want to be first but I guess I
got elected first. I kind of walked into this issue and I 've learned a
lot about the Water Surface Useage here in Carver County, specifically on
Lake Minnewashta. My position is that I 'm supporting the amendment with
one exception. I feel that my situation , where I can back up and explain
or if anyone has any questions but as an overview, I 'm supporting it with
the exception that I feel that my position , no other hurdle should be put
in my path. That my existing non-conforming use which has been verified
and reverified not only by the City but by the people in the community.
Some actually, people that are in opposition have recognized it and it' s
use. . . 3 times . I feel that the current amendment is a good amendment . I
11
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIDecember 13 , 1988 - Page 3
IIknow 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 .
I guess at this point my point of concern is a discriminatory nature in
I 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
I 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.
I 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 .
ILynn Hall : My contention is simply that with a variance necessary to
continue my use, that' s a hurdle that I don' t think I should have to jump
I 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
II 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
1 handled , will be handled at the Council level versus . . .private property.
We don' t have any jurisdiction on that.
Lynn Hall : I understand .
IMady: I 'm surprised that maybe the Planning Commission might be getting
involved .
1 Boyt : We look at boat mooring as it pertains to all of the lakes in
Chanhassen and what our recommendation would be.
IRobinson : Is this your situation that you were before the Council on
September 12th?
ILynn Hall : Correct.
Mike Schroeder , 6600 Lotus Trail : I guess I 'm probably the reason you' re
I 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
II
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
I 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
I 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?
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - 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 II
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 .
Boyt: But they didn' t respond to. . . 1
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? 1
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 II 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? 111
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 on his condition.
Sietsema: Based on his condition, right . Does that answer your question?
I
II
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 is , can you have a non-conforming use when you don' t
actually own the property?
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.
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
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 lakeshore 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.
II
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 I
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 I
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 reason it 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. . . '
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIDecember 13 , 1988 - Page 7
IRoger Byrnes : Did somebody else try to put one out there?
Mady: We had a problem with them. To be honest with you, we do.
IRoger Byrnes : We' re the problem.
IMady: You' re not the problem. The raft is a problem.
Roger Byrnes : But we are the raft .
I 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.
IIRoger Byrnes : That ' s fine but why put restrictions on. To fix something,
you don' t restrict it, you just fix it. I don' t understand your train of
I 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
I problem and to be proactive, we want to take care of that before we have
the problem.
I Roger Byrnes : Yes , but the potential has been there for 30 years and it' s
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
I seriously injured there does not mean it won' t happen this summer. Now
the City recognizes that what' s happening there, we need to make sure that
we don' t cause a problem.
IRoger 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
I 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 .
I Mady: But if it' s out from a city beach you see, our understanding is
that it' s out from a city beach .
IRoger 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
I they have active knowledge of the situation. If it' s a problem situation ,
they can be liable sometimes .
I 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 .
II
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 . 1
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.
I .
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.
'L2Toger 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
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
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
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 .
II
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 I
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.
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
there for 13 years at the present location and Chanhassen for 16 years . I II
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
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
the boats. Also, 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
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 11
licensed . When I first put the boats out in the water , I kept them out a
substantial distance and under the circumstances, had problems with the
kids that went down at night and various other problems with parties and
' things at the beach. After doing a little further investigation I found
out that most other people that moored boats and the situations such as
that kept them close to shore for two obvious reasons. One is that if you
' kept them close to shore, nobody wanted to swim out to it and cause any
problems. The other reason being, if you worried about any of the small
kids getting out onto them or causing any problems you wouldn' t have to .
' So consequently both those boats are moored in less than 2 1/2 to 3 feet
of water depending on the water depth conditions . I purchased both of
those boats at the same time and after getting consent from Don Ashworth.
Lori , I also talked to you several years ago regarding it and under the
' circumstances, I kept those boats there for 6 years up until last August
when I was notified that I had to remove them because of an ordinance.
Mary Jo Moore: I 'd like to go on record that I do approve of the proposed
amendment to the ordinance. However , I object to the conditional approval
of non-conforming rafts , docks and boats. I think each one should be
reviewed on an individual basis . Currently on Lake Minnewashta just down
from us there is a raft that has been there all summer. I don' t know who
the owner is . It sits about 3 inches above the water . It ' s color is
blue. It has no reflectors. I keep thinking, somebody' s going to hit
' that raft because boats can hit it. You can hardly see it in the daytime
let alone at night . We' ve also had problems on 2 or 3 occasions so if we
have problems , once it' s approved, they' re not a conforming use , that
really hasn ' t even had a test of legality as far as the non-conforming, it
gets out of hand . The Council , the Planning Commission. . . , it ' s left up
to the neighbors and it does cause problems . They' re the ones who wind up
controlling what is passed through the Council and by the Mayor and
' Planning Commission. Nobody follows through on it so I want to be on
record that I do approve of this proposed ordinance amendment .
' Ray Roettger , 3221 Dartmouth Drive: I think I agree with Mary Jo. I
happen to be on the other side of an access of Sterling Estates that
really wasn' t intended to launch boats for the people living off the lake.
Number one, I 'd like to state that I think everybody has a freedom to buy
lakeshore property. If they want to pay the price and they want to pay
the taxes . I don' t think that everybody should have the same kind of
rights unless you acquire those rights. I think if you live on the lake,
you certainly should have the freedom to keep a boat there and if you
don' t live on the lake, you should be able to launch boats but there is a
public launch . I think that I certainly agree with Mary Jo. We ' ve had
' quite a problem in the access road because I think I was kind hearted. A
fella came down from across the road and put in a big , quite a large dock.
An L shaped dock. The contractor who was working on my house being a
rather wise fellow said that I would stop it right now and do something
' about it but I allowed it and I ' ve regretted it ever since. The trouble
was that the dock went in and he put his boat in. It was a nice expensive
dock but really there was very little maintenance but he did do some
'
maintenance like cut the grass . Since 1976 I have, you might say, other
than those few years when this fellow lived there, he since sold the
property. Ever since that time I have maintained it. Cut the grass .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 12 '
Helped with the City. Had the road repaired . We have a lot of water '
coming down which is another problem. It drains off of Dartmouth Drive so
all the water comes down and it has washed out and created just one heck
of a mess. The City Engineer has been down there. . . .came down a couple
years ago and put an underground pipe in to drain the water off of
Dartmouth Drive because the Sheriff got stuck and a school bus would go
through it and it would build up and be like a foot deep. So they kind of I
solved that problem. A couple years ago when we had the heavy rains ,
everything washed out. There' s a real delta built out there now. In
spite of that , the people that have moored their boats there , there were 4
of them and they ended up being 40 foot boats. They have never been out
there with a shovel or a rack or cleaned up or picked up cans . All of
that stuff I 've done. The problem with the delta and the reason I mention
that is because it constricts the water flow all along the shore and I
everything gets trapped really on Mary Jo Moore' s property. So there has
been help. They said , one fellow said he'd send somebody down. Well , I
never saw anybody down there. They piled up the dock. They put a boat
lift out there. They piled that up. . . What I 'm trying to tell you is,
since 1976 it has gone from bad to worse. Now they' re fighting between
themselves , the offshore people and the City said they could put the same
number of boats out there and a dock if there was one even though I had
the pictures to prove it. We' ve done a lot of work, Mary Jo and I , taking
pictures. Sending older pictures that I had of the property into Barbara
Dacy. We had documented it and verified it and I even had the air photos . I
There was no dock there but they allowed the dock and like I said, pretty
soon 4 boats , big pontoon, tied a couple of those that previously got
loose. It is a hazard because it' s an outlot and it belongs to Sterling
Estates . All of us are making it liable for them or it couldn' t happen.
There' s no reality so I 'm saying, if you do not do something to restrict,
and I guess I appreciate the people' s position here, that can be handled
on a situation by situation basis. Give them a permit. If they' ve had it I
out there for a long time, they maintain it , take care of it, issue them a
permit. . .but if you project this problem of allowing anybody to dock a
raft or a boat , they could come and put boats right along my shore can' t I
they? Lake Minnewashta Park, the people, they could launch a boat. They
could leave it there all night . They could circle that whole park with
boats. Rafts. So you do have to have some restrictions. I think that
those people that were there first or had something or want to get a
permit because they want to put some in there that meets the requirements
of the law, I think you should allow them but I don ' t think you can
possibly miss, you ' ll open the door . I 'm to the point where I 'm ready to
sell because unless the City does something , I 'm not going to put up with
it. I 'm paying the taxes so one of the people that feel deprive and they
think they can buy lakeshore. I think that getting on the lake is a right
and knowing the lake but I don' t think you can just have all the freedom
of doing whatever you want . I can ' t living on the shore and I don' t think
anybody else should.
Gerry Maher : I 'd like to make just one comment more if I may briefly to
what he had to say. For those of you who may have not been familiar with
what happened years ago with Christmas Lake . I can sympathize with his I
attitude concerning the fact that there are many people parked possibly in
front of his property or near his property or in a beach area that aren ' t
1
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 given
' 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 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
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
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
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
' 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?
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 .
1
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 II 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 II
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 I
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 I
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 . . . '
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
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
' 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
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 . . .
' 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
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 .
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 16
II
Roger Byrnes : Somebody told him he was parked illegally and he had to get II
out of there.
Mady: No , we told him he was parked illegally but we didn' t tell him to
I
leave. We asked him if he was catching fish.
Laura Bros : I live at 6771 Chaparral Lane but I grew up on Lake I
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,
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
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
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 II
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
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 II
individual basis, like he said, so that you can decide, yes there' s room
there and how it should be used so you don' t end up with all this . The
raft that' s been out there and placed so far out into the lake that it' s
I
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
going to have a raft , then maybe that needs to fall within the guidelines II
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
carefully and have some restrictions or some way of checking up to make
sure that things are being followed through on. I
Hasek: Where do your in-laws live on Minnewashta?
Laura Bros : My folks live right on Minnewashta Lows and my mother-in-law II
lives on Minnewashta Parkway. Is it Minnewashta 2nd Addition that has the
outlot there . It ' s been a real problem the last couple of summers . Thank
you.
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 I
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
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
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
II
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
to do is get ahold of the DNR. It' s going to be pulled out. If it' s not II
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
II
11
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
I
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 18
affect, we need to look a little bit harder this year and maybe more next II
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 I
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 II
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 if . . .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 II
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. II 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 II 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
I
11
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
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
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 .
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.
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
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 20 1
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 I
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 II
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 II
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
I
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 I
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 1
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 II
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 1
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
I
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 1
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 II
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 II
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 II 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
II
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 II
being made available to the people of Chanhassen on our lakes at our
parks. One possible way to do that i.s , there are a lot of ways to do it
II
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
1 specifically, with the entire group and invite the whole neighborhood but
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
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
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
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 moorings in 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 .
1 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
not so sure that if we did it as a park, the situation of allowing
moorings or that people felt they wanted them.
11
' !
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 22
I
II
Boyt : You can see on the parkways , the Minneapolis parkways , they have
P P Y Y
designated areas for boat moorings.
Mady: Minneapolis , the parks , the lakes are entirely, outside of a couple I
areas around Cedar Lake, those areas are entirely public so they have some
. . .situation. i
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.
I
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
I
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 I
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
I
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 .
I
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 I
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 I
grandfathered in.
Sietsema: This is allowing a variance for mooring of boats . The rafts
I
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 I
moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before
November 1st of each year . All non-conforming moorings and other
II
structures . . .
II
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIDecember 13 , 1988 - Page 23
ISietsema : 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. . .
I Sietsema : So the moorings would require, you either want to grandfather
those in or look at them on a case by case basis and have a variance .
I 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 . . .
ISietsema: I believe it' s outlined in Barbara Dacy' s letter.
Mady: I would like to see us allow for variances to the ordinance.
ISchroers : And will the variances allow us to address a specific
situation?
I 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.
ISietsema: 6-23 is variances .
I Mady: Yes , but that ' s only structures . Moorings would go under number 1.
Structures are a thing . . .
Sietsema: Okay, Roger would figure that out .
I
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I 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
I allow a variances section in the Ordinance to cover moorings. All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
IFred Oelschlager : I just had one question. Others brought this up a
while ago but the meeting went along pretty well as far as understanding
I 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 . . .
IBoyt : Sue .
I Fred Oelschlager : Sue , on the mooring of boats on park property. Can you
just explain that quickly?
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 24 '
Boyt : I want to look into it. I
Fred Oelschlager: Is it the numbers you' re talking about?
Boyt : We' re not talking about numbers yet. II
Fred Oelschlager : You' re going to open up a real can of worms there.
I
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 I
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.
I
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. 1
Fred Oelschlager : Alright , thank you.
Ray Roettger: That boat mooring business, you 'd better really be careful . I
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.
I
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 . II
Resident: . . .anybody from Lotus Lake could go and park their boat here.
The people don ' t do that .
II
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.
II
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 II 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? I
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
II
water, doesn' t have a permit, even though it' s non-conforming, it' s still
illegal .
II
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
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 . . .
Ray Roettger : No, that' s a dock.
' Sietsema: There ' s probably quite a few. We wouldn ' t know until they came
in and asked us .
Mady: Again , when we go to public hearing this thing is going to have to
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
issue comes up to take it away.
Resident: Wasn' t everybody ticketed?
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
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 .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 26 1
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 II
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, I
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 . II
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 .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' December 13 , 1988 - Page 27
Lynn Hall : I understand that but then the same case can be made,
because the raft has been there, or the dock has been there, does that
mean they should be grandfathered in? You' re making a differentiation
between moorings and dock that doesn' t, the logic falls through there.
Hasek : I think you' re maybe right .
Lynn Hall : I guess in my situation it ' s unique, completely in the County
as far as I 'm aware of and in this particular instance I will , this
' property is fee simple title owned by myself. We've talked about public
park property and mooring boats off of that property. Right now if your
recommendation lacks that grandfathering clause in, potentially with a
four-fifths vote, as I spoke earlier , there' s a hurdle that I 'm going to
have to jump once again for a use that' s been acknowledged and verified by
the City. In my situation, from a single owner and that property is
valued in accordance with the use of that property so it' s critical at
this point. Your position and your recommendation, obviously you hold
weight as a voting body to make a recommendation to the Council . The
point is made here that the difference between those two particular items ,
' the raft and that particular structure of a moored boat , I fail to see the
difference if a craft' s in the water , one' s moored and one isn' t but it' s
obviously from the standpoint that people like myself in this unique
situation that grandfathering is also very important.
Mady: In your situation, you' re a non-conforming use has been established
and you' re covered under the amendment.
' Sietsema: No .
Mady: I thought it was a non-conforming use?
Sietsema: No, he' s a mooring and not a raft though.
' Hasek : Would you help by just explaining exactly what your situation is?
Lynn Hall : Prior to the sale of the property, there was acknowledgement
from the City as an authorization . . .
Hasek : What is the property like? I mean how much shoreline do you own?
Lynn Hall : There' s 20 feet of shoreline.
Hasek : Is it a pie shaped piece of property? Do you own an outlot across
' the street?
Lynn Hall : It ' s an outlot down at the end of a cul-de-sac between two
properties.
' Hasek : Then it' s an old fire access or something?
Lynn Hall : It used to be the old boat landing from my understanding years
gone by. The asphalt that I pulled out this summer , I 'd say there was a
road there at one time.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 28 ,
Hasek: How did that come to you for sale?
Lynn Hall : That was included in the parcel . It' s been attached quite '
some time ago to the property with the house that I own. It ' s fee simple
title.
Hasek: So the owner of that house must have subdivided the property and
kept that piece as an access for himself?
Lynn Hall : It was added onto the property at some point in time. It was $
separate years gone by but it' s not clear . The Abstract unfortunately was
lost on this property a number of years back and has been recreated .
Somebody did some recreation from what the attorney says at this point .
Nevertheless , the way it ' s titled currently, it is fee simple. But with
the current amendment, no, I am not grandfathered in so I would be
stripped of a use , a non-conforming use that I have. That gets into a
completely different situation again.
Hasek: Not in terms by virtue of the fact that you only own 20 feet of
shoreline instead of 100 feet and you don' t have a residence on the
property?
Lynn Hall : Yes . '
Boyt : It was my understanding that part of the public hearing tonight is
to discuss boat mooring and I don' t think we' ve done enough of that as a
commission.
Mady: I don' t know. I guess my feelings are that we' ve handled boat
moorings. I feel sorry for you. I don' t want to open up a can of worms
however in the mooring situation right now. I think the City needs to
address it as a whole instead of allowing 1 or 2 moorings to take place.
I think there ' s a better way that would be fair to all parties . Not to
discriminate. Just because somebody has been, and this is my feeling ,
just because one person has been doing something and this mooring issue
came to us , we didn' t go to it.
Lynn Hall : I understand .
Mady: If there are people who have problems and it ' s going to affect you II
but it also affects the people who live next door to you, according to
everything I ' ve read here. They have a real concern too . My opinion is ,
I fall on the side that I don' t want to open a can of worms right now for II just a couple of people. I 'd rather see us deal with the whole issue for
the entire city.
Lynn Hall : I 'm in agreeance in the amendment change with the exception of II
the grandfathering. I 'm not asking you to open a can of worms and take a
public vote on who would like it and who wouldn ' t like to begin mooring
their boats. The ramifications are far beyond us sitting here today. If II
I 'm stripped of a right , obviously a devaluation of my property, then
we' ll be forced to take issue with that. That' s where it comes in. 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
1 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
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
' 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
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
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 30 '
Lynn Hall : Are you specifically statin g 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 I
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 it' s a cousin? '
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 31
Hasek : I don ' t know if you made all the discussions with the LMCD but on
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
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
immediate family.
Hasek : I guess I would differ with you on that but I don' t have the
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.
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
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 .
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW CHANGES AND PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD AND LAREDO
DRIVE.
Public Present
' Name Address
' Ron and Ann Kleve 6770 Penamint Lane
Jeff and Cathy Clem 1011 Carver Beach Road
Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Joy Javurek 6780 Redwing Lane
Chuck Snyder 500 Highland Drive
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Jeff and Anne Keeler 6771 Penamint Lane
Dave Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Jeff and Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral
Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road
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
he ' s prepared them.
' Scott Harri : Thank you. I 'm going to be making a presentation this way
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
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 32 I
tonight to present to you our findings of the final design for the two
sidewalk segments. One on Laredo Drive in front of Chan Elementary to
Frontier Trail and then also the other segment on Carver Beach Road
from Powers Blvd. over to the park. I wrote my staff report with the
Laredo Drive first so I have a hard time laying out the order so I ' ll
start with this thing. What I intend to do I guess is to simply highlight
some of the design features . Some of the construction related, I guess
some of the replacement things that we discovered in both surveying the
alignments and also trying to fit the sidewalk in amongst trees , shrubs,
bushes, retaining walls, fences , hydrants , etc . so with that as a prelude,
the Laredo Drive trail is in general located on the west side of Laredo
Drive all the way from Chan Elementary over to Frontier Trail down in this
location. Some of the specific, it' s a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as
you perhaps have been earlier led to believe. Some of the specific design
features will be, there' s a group of Russian Olive trees here located by
the apartment complex that are somewhat overhanging the sidewalk alignment
and we propose trimming some of the overhanging branches to allow for an
adequate and safe head room for the users of the sidewalk. Then along
this location we have to extend the retaining wall in this location to
provide a ladder or level surface to install the sidewalk over here. A II very minor repair job to an existing catch basin to permit the pedestrian
or handicap access ramp at this intersection with Long View Circle. Then
following down to almost the northern end of the project, right here on
the intersection of Highland and Laredo , the sideyard here has a fairly
steep slope to it and what we propose to do is simply cut a little bench
in there so that the sidewalk will lay more level than would be installing
a sidewalk in that manner right there. And then terminating it over at
Frontier Trail . Some of the consistent things that we ' re going to be
doing is painting cross striping at each one of the street intersections
over here to denote that it is a pedestrian crosswalk and all areas
disturbed by this construction would be sodded. Thirdly, all the '
improvements that we' ve got shown here are going to be made available
right away. Essentially what that means is , from the back of the curb in
the public right-of-way which is a distance of about 12 to 13 feet , all of
the regrading, sidewalk improvements, etc. will be installed in that
location. Some additional things regarding the project , each cross street
intersection has a stop sign on it so all, I guess motorists traveling and '
intersecting with Laredo Drive will be stopping at that to further insure
that there will be at least the cross traffic stopping the automobile
traffic . Does anybody have any questions right now on Laredo Drive based
on this comments? I can go through and then open it up for discussion
and afterwards or if anybody has any questions now.
Ed Hyland: Yes, I have a question. Ed Hyland. Where you ' re going to be
recreating that sloped area , you don' t have any indication as to how much
of a slope you' re going to be putting in there?
Scott Harri : The grade, there' s a small typical section shown kind of in II
the center of the plant just left of the north there on the scale and we'd
be providing a 3 to 1 slope starting at the right-of-way line going then ,
I guess it would be towards the street and then just follow this sidewalk I
and continuing a variable slope then down to the top of the curb or the
edge of the street there. A 3 to 1 slope would be I guess maintainable
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' December 13 , 1988 - Page 33
with the lawnmower and stuff , like that .
Boyt: Is the electrical box at the Elementary school in the way?
Scott Harri : No . The existing sidewalk has been installed just past it
or north of it so it would be connecting on right there.
Mady: . . . Kerber ' s retaining wall at all . You' re going to be abutting up
to it. Do you anticipate having to disturb what' s there?
Scott Harri : No we don' t . All the construction work will be up kind of
close to it. It' s stuff we don' t anticipate to do to the depth of the
excavation or any of the reworking in the area that will actually disturb
' it at all . This segment of the sidewalk system is proposed from Powers
Drive over to a general , the park. The park starts about right here on
the plan and goes all the way to Nez Perce over in this location right
' here. Our proposal is to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk entirely
along the southern alignment of Carver Beach Road all the way from Powers
over to the park. Some of the specific features that we would be looking
' at is we would be making some jogs in the trail to avoid a hydrant in this
location. To avoid a very, very large tree over in this location and then
running along the edge of this steep embankment where we would be
proposing a rail on the edge of the sidewalk to prevent anybody from
I guess going over the edge and down into the abyss down in here. Some of
the other features of the system and perhaps some of the reasons why the
trail was actually originally contemplated in initial discussions to jog
' and to cross Carver Beach here, some location at Redwing Drive and then be
constructed along the northern right-of-way. We found through the survey
that there ' s only about 8 to 9 feet of space from the curb to the
right-of-way line over here and with the existing mailboxes, hydrants ,
' hedges , trees , there ' s storm sewer in this and some other features , that
it required additional right-of-way either to be acquired, purchased, or
negotiated or something in order to get the trail to be constructed over
' along the north side. We discovered that initially when we first got the
survey and plotted out all the data , so we looked for an alternative. A
way that we could still , I guess meet the attention of getting both
' bicycle and pedestrian movement over to the park from where I guess I
would consider dominant residential neighborhoods here to the south. Get
them to move them safely over here . Now in addition to that, the
crosswalk that we are proposing over here, we' re proposing a number of
' warning devices and also what we hope will be a security device in that
we'd have two pedestrian warning signs erected for both eastbound and
westbound traffic and also two pedestrian crossing signs to be erected
' right on the trail crossing. In addition to that, we are working with NSP
to get a street light installed over here that would obviously be
compatible with the type of small area security lighting and still be
compatible with the residential neighborhood back over in this location.
'
Additionally we'd be doing some drainage improvement work. There' s the
large I guess impression in the front of this yard right here . We'd be
filling it in and hauling it in the street and we'd have to relocate this
' catch basin over here. There are a number of cable TV boxes and telephone
boxes along. Some of them will have to be moved a foot or two to permit
the sidewalk to be constructed . Again , all areas disturbed by
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 34 '
construction would be sodded following completion of the sidewalk and all
of the improvements that we do have shown on here would be made within the
available right-of-way. I guess with that I 'd open it up for questions.
Jeff Keeler: I have a question. My name is Jeff Keeler at 6771 Penamint
Lane. My particular question is , I have a watering system, sprinkling
system that I had installed quite some time ago which enables the lawn to 1
be watered automatically for my particular needs. With what you' re
proposing , I 'm going to have to be moving all my sprinkling heads . Who ' s
going to pay for that?
Scott Harri : I guess we were unaware that you had a sprinkler system but
that would be the type of cost that would be born by this project is to
accommodate I guess relocation of the sprinkling lines to facilitate the
installation of the sidewalk.
Hasek: Are the sprinkler heads in the public right-of-way or on your own I
property?
Jeff Keeler : They' re on my own property.
Hasek: And does your sprinkler sprinkle at night or in the morning?
Anne Keeler : It' s an automatic sprinkler system and it was put in to make
maintenance of our lawn easier . . .
Hasek : Sure , absolutely. I understand that .
Anne Keeler: There are extensions below the ground. It extends out
toward the edge of the street. We have had problems in the past with the
street being reblacktopped and whatever and destroying our sod and we' ve
had to fight with the City to get even our lawn repaired from the damage
done already.
Hasek: That' s a city problem. Am I to understand that maybe you do have 1
some sprinkle heads that are on public property?
Anne Keeler : They' re at the edge of our green lawn. '
Hasek: Along the street?
Anne Keeler : They' re at the edge of the lawn , yes .
Sietsema: So that isn ' t the right-of-way. '
Scott Harri : We will be replacing those as needed .
Anne Keeler : It wouldn' t be logical for us to put a sprinkler head '
however , 5 feet in from the lawn to water our lawn.
Scott Harri : What was your address Jeff? '
Jeff Keeler : 6771 Penamint Lane .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
1 December 13, 1988 - Page 35
I
Anne Keeler : We ' re at the corner of Penamint and Carver Beach Road . It' s
I the property which is half of the woods in addition to the corner. So we
go halfway down where you' ve proposed construction . Right after the
drainage easement there.
1 Scott Harri : Here' s the culvert and the drainage easement. Okay, and
then back over here. Fine. We' ll certainly take a look at that and make
sure that there is, in most cases along the trail system or the sidewalk
I system, a variable boulevard between the sidewalk and the edge of the curb
and it varies depending upon what types of improvements were already
existing now. We' re trying to avoid what in general along the property,
II we' re prosposing about a 2 1/2 foot sodded boulevard between the edge of
the sidewalk and the street. It' s extremely likely that your sprinkler
heads may, from what you describe , fall within that zone already and
therefore maybe all we have to do is lower the pipes down so that when we
I install the sidewalk it wouldn' t be a problem but we' ll certainly want to
look at it and find out where they' ve been installed and there will be
some, I guess minor inconvenience during the construction but we' ll work
I with you on getting them relocated so that you still have the same type of
combination and effective watering that you have right now.
Cathy Clem: My name is Cathy Clem and I live at 1011 Carver Beach Road
1 where the giant cottonwood tree is . That great big tree that you plan to
go around. Now you say that there ' s going to be a boulevard. Is that
going to be all the way along the length of the sidewalk?
IScott Harri : Yes .
Cathy Clem: How big of a boulevard?
IScott Harri : If this is your residence right here?
ICathy Clem: 1011. Big trees and the . . .
Scott Harri : Yes . Okay, it varies . Into the west side of your driveway
I will be very narrow. In fact , perhaps about zero feet in that location
and then on the east side of the driveway it will start off the . . .back to
perhaps about 10 feet back from the curb as it goes behind the tree there .
So it kind of takes a circuitous route.
IJeff Clem: That dead box elder , you ' re going to be taking that out of
there aren' t you?
Cathy Clem: I worry about -it falling on someone.
IJeff Clem: On the west side. That has to be taken out.
Cathy Clem: It ' s like about 3 feet from the road and I was worried , with
I the sidewalk running there, we were planning on checking into how they
handle that anyway. I don ' t know i.f the City' s responsible or what but we
have had branches fall .
1
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 36 1
Boyt: Is this on your property you say?
Cathy Clem: Yes, it' s on our property within the right-of-way.
Mady: What they do in Minneapolis , even with boulevard trees, it ' s your
responsibility for the trees. If we' re doing this, it might be an
opportunity for us . I
Boyt : Taking down trees is really expensive. . .
Jeff Clem: Another thing on that cottonwood, when you' re coming west,
that cottonwood sits right at the bottom of the hill . The kids are going
to be kids and there' s going to be more than 1 of the kids that are going
to be able to make the turn and they' re going to smack right into that
bottom.
Cathy Clem: We worry about the bikes coming down that hill . We' re real
concerned about our kids on the sidewalk or anybody' s kids on their bikes
coming down that wonderful steep sidewalk. . . I realize that would be a
problem on either side.
Resident : While we' re talking about the big hill , . . .we wanted the
sidewalk on the other side of the road across from Redwing Lane. The
crosswalk is at the top of the hill . Cars come around the road . . .going I
into Powers Blvd . . Anyway, people whip around that corner and they go, no
lie, 60 mph to book up that hill . You can ' t see anybody at the top of
that hill . Going up or coming down and the kids at the top aren' t going
to see them coming either .
Cathy Clem: When we' re walking we have to come all the way up to the edge
of the hill and look down before you can see and that' s an adult. You
can ' t see. It ' s very bad .
Wally Schwab: My name is Wally Schwab at 950. I am at the property
adjacent to the park on the north side. These people are talking about
people coming from Powers Blvd. and the kids tearing up the street that
way. I have an opportunity living where I live to see all the kids 111 tearing down the street and they can ' t see the people down at the park so
it' s a two fold situation. Where we've got to do something about
controlling the speed of the traffic going . . .
Mady: Can I ask a question on that? I know when we looked at this
originally we referred you to the Public Safety. Have they dealt with
that at all? I
Wally Schwab: No .
Mady: That ' s their job. We can recommend that they do something but . . .
Resident: They will if someone dies .
Mady: Unfortunately, that ' s why the trails didn ' t pass is that people
don' t feel there' s a problem yet and we' ll probably have to kill somebody
1
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 37
to get the problem. I feel sorry about that .
' Resident: I 've almost been hit on Carver Beach twice myself. Once
Halloween night and there happen to be a police officer who lives on our
block. It happened that he was right there and we told him and he went
after and arrested 3 kids and they ended up in jail . But there were about
6 of us adults there that almost got wiped out.
Anne Keeler : Could I also make a comment , being that we are unsatisfied
' with the street and I 'm out frequently at night with our dog. It' s very
dangerous on that side of the street. As a matter of fact, there is often
automobile tracks on our grass because people are so careless. When they
whip over the hill , they' re driving onto our property. They've also
' driven onto our property in the wooded area. The minute they pass that
drainage easment , there ' s also tracks there on the grass . I don ' t know
that people are going to see that when they come over that hill . The
' problem is really terribly dangerous at that corner and our side in
particular is dangerous . I find it safer to cross the street to walk out
at night than to be on our side of the street. Also , the other concern
was the fact that the woods , if you ' ve looked at that area where the
' drainage easement begins , it drops off immediately into a steep hill . I
don' t see where you' re going to find 5 feet even to put in a sidewalk
without it dropping off.
' Hasek: Is that station 1250-1415 that you' re kind of addressing here?
' Scott Harri : Right.
Cathy Clem: I have a question. I 'm the one who started the petition
originally. . .and I went specifically to the homeowners on the north side
' of Carver Beach Road and every single one of them signed the petition and
said if you have to cut through my hedge or cut my hedge back a little
bit, if I have to do this , I don' t care. I 'm in favor of putting a
' trailway in here. So my question to you is , did you check with any of the
homeowners on that side?
' Mady: No.
Resident : . . .As first time homeowners , I didn' t know about right-of-ways .
I 'm sorry. Now I do.
' Cathy Clem: How are you going to put 5 foot concrete sidewalk in there
and not disturb our trees? And there ' s a watermain right there. What do
they do with those? Do they just move them closer and repipe them and all
that? I don' t know.
' Anne Keeler : There ' s no corners on the other side of the street. We have
3 blocks . . .
Mady: The concerns we have, we recognize the safety problem. Unless we
can get those right-of-ways given to us , the bottom line is budget. The
trail thing failed . We don ' t have any money. We scraped this thing
through last year . We just stole a tennis court out of another park and
1
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 38
I
that ' s where this came from. Sorry Curt. That ' s where we got the money I
last year because it' s such a serious problem and we recognize it but to
have to go out and buy additional easements , I don' t know if we' ve got, we I
really don' t have the money to do that.
Jeff Keeler : So what you' re saying is money is worth more than life?
Mady: No. I
Jeff Keeler : That' s what you ' re saying .
I
Hasek: That' s what the people of this community told you.
Mady: We don ' t have an opportunity to spend anymore than we' ve got.
I
That 's what I 'm telling you. That ' s it right there. Could we maybe put
it on both sides ultimately but this is an opportunity, if we can get kids
off the street that we can do. We don' t know when we' ll have the money I
honestly. We tried the trail thing twice and it' s failed twice.
Resident: I don' t understand. When you've got 9 feet and the sidewalk
Iis only 5 feet wide, that gives you an extra 4 feet to play with
so I don' t understand where you' re having problems when you've got 9 feet
of existing right-of-way right? The sidewalk is only 5 feet and that
gives you 4 feet of play. My recollection of that north side of Carver I
Beach Road , that 4 feet should be more than enough play in there. More so
than on the south side.
Scott Harri : I think your recollection is quite accurate. There is a lot I
of space that is available. The biggest stumbling block is coming with
this hydrant that' s located over here. With this , I guess a monument type
mailbox. There are a number of real large evergreen trees here. That II
trunk and stuff is perhaps 15 to 18 feet behind the curb but they' re so
humongous that we'd have to just literally chop half the tree away in
order to put the sidewalk there . I 'm looking , personally I 'm looking at
those things as far as some of my decision making and recommendation. I 'd
like to perhaps address some of the philosophy about why I guess we were
recommending that this be the preferred alternative. Even though
I recognize, I think your arguments and your suggestions , I feel that the
predominant location is going to come from people traveling from the south
to the north up these three streets . If we propose a crossing here, that
doesn' t permit necessarily a safe crossing for people using Penamint over
here. By placing the sidewalk entirely on the south side, it allows for
the majority of the users to have direct access without having to cross
Carver Beach Road at anyplace except over here where there really is a
more formal designated location. The traveling motorists , it would be my
hope that they would recognize this as a more predominant pedestrian area
seeing as that is located. . .
IIResident : We have cars . . .
Resident : Why wouldn' t you bring it all the way up to Nez Perce where I
there' s a 4 way stop so that all traffic has to stop there anyway and have
people crossing there?
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 39
Scott Harri : The location of most of the child active la
p y equipment sits
down here on the west side so it' s most likely that, and here' s the fence,
' the end of the fence is right here, it' s more likely that people would
jump off, cross Carver Beach Road, sneak around in to come and use the
park over in this location as opposed to coming around . . .
Jeff Clem: That' s a park so the old lady. . .
' Scott Harri : That would be the place to park. That ' s correct. That' s
where you'd park.
Resident : First there was Lori ' s petition and hopefully we got a lot of
this started and everybody agreed. . .
Mady: We spent a lot of time looking at that street. Specifically about
' this trail and we need to do whatever we can do. Whoever wants to do
something and you' re looking for the best thing . We may not be able to do
the number one best thing this year but by god, if we can get those kids
off the street because right now they' re on the street. They have no
' choice. Anything is better than what we've got right now. We' re not
looking to create a problem situation but we definitely will be giving
them something that they don' t have right now. That ' s where I know I 'm
coming from. I feel sorry for those kids every day and we' ve got to do
something about them.
Boyt : . . .bends around the corner . Continue the sidewalk, not all the way
to Nez Perce. A little further so it' s over the crest of the hill. Make
a nice entrance into the park for the kids a third of the way down, half
the way down. Something that' s very inviting for them to go into .
' Resident : So they' re crossing at a 4 way stop. So all traffic stops . Is
that what you' re saying?
Boyt : We' re not allowed to put stop signs I don ' t think. I wasn ' t
talking about going all the way to Nez Perce but we could . We could send
' it down there. Make a new entrance into the park there. We' ve talked
about landscaping needs to be done at that park. Move the entrance down
there for the kids . Make it very exciting .
' Resident: I do have a trail for people taking the shortcut from the
street up into the park. We ' re talking here about a path to make things
safer for the kids, which I 'm all in favor of as I ' ve got a kid myself but
the one thing I keep hearing over and over again is controlling the
traffic on that street.
Boyt : But we can ' t control that here .
' Resident: . . . if we can' t control that, all the sidewalks isn' t going
is . . .
tResident : But if you ' re going to plan a sidewalk that requires
crosswalks, than it would be better to have the stop signs as a part of
r
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 40 1
the proposed plan wouldn' t you think?
Boyt : We can make the recommendation about those stop signs but from what
I 've heard, they don' t like you to put them in the middle of the road 1
where there ' s not an intersection. It' s real tough to get one there so
we'd have to go down to the corner .
Hasek: What ' s wrong with the corner of Penamint Lane here?
Mady: I know Jim Chaffee' s talked about this. It' s been in, not this 1
particular street maybe but other streets . They won' t put a stop sign in
to control traffic. To slow traffic down.
Resident: Why not? 1
Mady: I don ' t know but that' s what we' re told .
Resident: But Near Mountain got all these stop signs . . . 1
Mady: I feel sorry for you and I agree with you 100%. We don ' t have the
opportunity to do anything about it. That' s a public safety. I 'm
surprised they have not. . .
Sietsema : Well , it isn' t exactly public safety. Stop signs and traffic 1
is really engineering and that' s probably why Public Safety Commission has
not seen it because it ' s really an engineering issue because it' s got to
go by what MnDot' s standards are. We can' t just arbitrarily go up and say 1
this is a busy street , let ' s put a stop sign to slow down traffic . MnDot
mandates when and where and how you can put up stop signs. To put it up
on a through street . . .
Resident : . . .people who need to know, listen to the tape of this
conversation and see if we can convince them that something needs to be
done .
Resident : Or just tell us to show up someplace and we' ll show up .
Boyt: We did. We asked you to go to the Public Safety Commission. It' s 1
a group of volunteer people like us . They need to hear your concerns
about fast cars . You need to go to the volunteers . You need to go to the
Commission so the can make a recommendation on what can be done in your
neighborhood.
Sietsema : I will talk to Jim Chaffee and ask him where that petition is
and what the status is and I will also talk to Gary Warren who is the City
Engineer and ask him what the status of this is as well .
Hasek: Can we get back to the trails then. The sidewalks. 1
Resident: Than it seems to me that it' s not in the best interest to
approve the sidewalk on the south side until we have addressed the real
concerns which is the safety, just because it ' s more cost effective.
Safety is the issue.
I
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
1 December 13 , 1988 - Page 41
Mady: You' re right but what I 'm trying to tell you is that we' re not
g Y g Y
going to have any extra money this summer .
Resident : Than don' t do it . Wait .
tSietsema: You'd rather have no trail?
Mady: You'd rather have no trail and have kids in the street?
' Resident: I 'd rather have you look seriously into the north side of it
and the cost comparatives.
' Hasek: What you understand is you' re bypassing an opportunity here
because your opportunity is gone. You've turned down an opportunity that
you had . There are other places in the City where this needs to be done
' and the money which was slated for this is going to go someplace else. Do
you want to wait? I 'm talking years for this to happen again because
that' s what it' s going to be. I 've got a trail that doesn' t exist in my
neighborhood and I 'm not going to sit around and wait. I 'm pushing very,
very hard to get it done. This tells me that if you don' t want it, that
this is dollars available for me .
' Resident : This tells me that somebody is still going to be killed
whethere there' s a sidewalk or not.
Hasek: What we' re trying to do is to put it in. It' s an opportunity that
we have and we' re trying to get it done to the best of our ability right
now. I certainly don' t want to recommend not approving the trail simply
because there' s an issue that we have no control over .
' Resident : But you've got the right to qualify it right?
' Hasek: Qualify what? Certainly, we' ll make recommendations . Absolutely.
Resident: I have a question for you . Do you feel that you have
adequately checked the north side that you would have the right not even
saying that the . . . is unfeasible to run it on the north side?
Scott Harri : Well, without acquiring additional some right-of-way.
' Hasek: We don ' t have the money.
Mady: Unless the people are willing to give it to us , we don ' t have the
money to acquire it.
Resident : Do you have the time to check on that? To get together with
any neighbors to see?
Mady: Sure. Certainly.
Resident : I understand if we can ' t run it up the north side, than I guess
I would feel most comfortable with it crossing where we've got a
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 42
II
controlled cross and not just arbitrarily across Carver Beach Road I
someplace and relying on flashing signs. If we' re going to do it, if it' s
going to go on the south side, let' s run it all the way to Nez Perce where
it' s a 4 way stop. Everybody has to stop and let 's let our kids cross '
safely and let' s put a park entrance around the back. We' re not cutting
across his lawn down and get them that way. Rather than not doing the
trail at all , then let' s do it that way but I really feel like I 'd like to I
have them check into the north side if at all possible. If that is not
feasible, then let' s run it up the south side and up to that 4 way stop.
Hasek: Scott?
I
Scott Harri : Yes .
Hasek: What ' s the possibility, I guess I didn' t track all of this , what ' s I
the possibility of crossing at, I mean is that a real bad vertical
elevation right there?
I
Scott Harri : The actual top of the hill is right at Penamint right now.
So therefore, if we propose a crossing to get them north across at that
location, the hydrant just on the north side and east of Penamint and the I
large evergreens that exist right there on that piece of property, that' s
the major obstacle on the north side is this area right in here with the
hedge and the mailbox are and the hydrant and the large evergreen trees
I
right there. . . . there' s the one evergreen and when you chop it. . .
Resident: . . .chop that much, it would be right next to the sidewalk would I
be right next to the road?
Scott Harri : There would be a. . .would have to come off .
Resident: The City of Minneapolis has sidewalks going right around fire I
hydrants on both sides . Why couldn' t that be done here?
Scott Harri : I guess we never did consider putting a dual thing like that I
but it' s. . .close enough to the street where we could possibly go behind
it.
I
Resident: . . . I ' ve been aware of this situation for quite some time, about
the sidewalk situation. I ' ve done a lot of this work as far as sidewalks
and dirt work and everything and this is really the best feasible plan to
111
do. On the south side you ' re going to butcher up, just like you said ,
that evergreen , moving fire hydrants , acquiring land is much, much more
costly. This way you ' re going to get it in and I agree with stopping it I
there is very bad . This is true. There' s nothing we can do right now but
I can see it going up to Nez Perce. It' s not hard to do. It isn ' t that
hard . If I would have time, I could have probably gotten you enough fill
to do that whole run all the way up there. . .where you wouldn' t need a
I
handrail . I could have sloped it and whatever . I ' ve done it all over the
place in a lot of different situations here in the city. You 've got to go
with it and it ' s going to take time but this is the way it should be done. I
All of your kids are on the south side. You' re going to have them cross
the street? Kids aren' t going to cross the street ever . They go across
II
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 43
there and then go down Penamint and then they' re going to go down to
Redwing and cross at the crossing? They' re going to go right across .
' This way they' re on the south side. There' s only a few on the north side.
Resident: Do you live facing the street? Because you' re saying all the
kids are on the south side and I guess I wouldn' t agree with that based on
the observation. . .
Resident : The concentration of kids.
Mady: Yes , where are the kids coming from that will go to that park?
Resident : That black area where he' s got it going across to the park now,
' that ' s a flat area for the kids . On their bikes , they can go right
straight down if it ' s easy for them to do . If it ' s hard, they' re not
going to do it until it gets flat and that is a flat area . . . .keep going,
' you go up to Nez Perce and then cross them there later . At least for now
you' re getting them off the road in a very bad situation on that hill .
Resident: It says in here that you propose to put up a 30 mph speed limit
sign west of the Nez Perce intersection. Why would you want 30 mph?
That ' s way too fast .
' Mady: Because we can' t post less than that. Legally you can ' t post less
than 30.
Resident : Why?
Mady: It ' s a State law.
Resident: 30 mph is too fast down that hill .
' Resident : Then don ' t post anything at all . Put a safety sign up.
Caution, Children Playing. You don' t even post the speed.
Resident: Tonka Bay has them.
Resident: I 've seen signs with 20 and 25 before.
' Mady: You' ll have to go to Council . You' ll have to take this to Council .
If we get back to this subject again , that again is a public safety
1 situation.
Resident : It ' s still part of this . I just wanted to bring that up. I
live at the bottom of that hill and if the speed limit is 30, they' re
going to go 40.
Resident : A recommendation looks better for 20 from you guys than it does
30. Even though. . .
I
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 44 I
Mady: Don' t misinterrupt that. It' s not going to do any good from us. 1
You' re going to have to go to Public Safety for that. We' ll try for you
but don ' t get your hopes up based on us.
Resident: What is the propose. . .on whole area along the sidewalk? Is it II
basically 3 feet feet along the whole thing?
Scott Harri : It' s about 2 feet across over here to Chaparral . It varies II
from 3 feet and in general about 4 feet with one exception over at this
location. All the way across here to this point is 4 feet and in here it II
narrows down to 2 feet and gets right along adjoining the street at about
zero feet here. Then it varies back at this location from 3 feet to 10
feet as it jobs around the large tree and it follows about 3 1/2 feet to
this point where it jobs back to the street at about 0 feet. Follows at 0 II
feet to avoid a very large tree over in this location and then jogs back
to about 3 feet and 2 1/2 the rest of the way until it gets right along
the street here again . I
Resident : How will you handle that going around the. . .and you' re moving
our fence.
IIScott Harri : We are proposing, yes your fence to be moved back, it ' s
about 3 feet so it moves back up against that existing tree. You' ll still
the same alignment there but we' ll have enough space in front of it
II
between the fence and the street to put the sidewalk in.
Resident : And that tree, you say it will fit?
II
Scott Harri : Yes, that tree will stay. We don' t have to take that tree
as a result of this construction. In fact , not along any of this corridor
are we proposing to taking any trees . I
Resident : I don' t know how you can fit it in by our Spruce. It' s close .
I hope you can. . .great. We don' t have a backyard. If you take over our
frontyard , what do we have? I want a sidewalk, believe me but the closer II
to the road it is, the happier we' ll be.
Scott Harri : Exactly and that' s one of our desires also is to keep the
II
sidewalks as close to the road but still at a reasonably safe distance
from the existing road . But we don' t want to see the sidewalk run so it ' s
like right outside your front window. That' s defeating the whole purpose
I
also .
Resident : Why did you have concrete proposal over asphalt? I
Scott Harri : Concrete is proposed in all urban built up areas .
Sietsema: Because it goes in the front of homes , it was felt that it was
II
a more attractive surface.
Mady: In previous public meetings, one of the concerns was people didn' t
II
want blacktop in front of their house. They didn' t mind cement sidewalks
so much but blacktop.
1
r •
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' December 13 , 1988 - Page 45
Resident : I 'd probably have to agree with you but I think it' s also
P Y g Y also . . .
' concrete sidewalks with creases every 10 feet .
Scott Harri : There will be joints in the sidewalk every 5 feet. Because
this will be new construction, perhaps it ' s not like you found where the
joints are really faulted and these are terribly large bumps and things.
This should be a fairly smooth transition across each one.
' Schroers : I have a question that hasn' t been brought up yet . When you
cross the driveways with the sidewalk, particularly at just west of
Redwing Lane, the corner house there has a driveway that' s at a very steep
angle. When you run your sidewalk across there, do you run it across or
' do you just come up to the driveway and then taper it off and then start
the sidewalk again on the other side of the driveway?
Scott Harri : I guess this plan actually depicts the sidewalk starting and
stopping on each driveway. I guess taking different recommendations to
the Commission and you right now, for a number of reasons , what we ' ve
' proposed, constructing the sidewalk through everyone' s driveway and there
is , I guess some really good reasons to do that. Number one , and this has
to do really with the maintenance of the sidewalk. If we stop the
sidewalk in everybody' s driveway, who ' s going to be responsible then for
' the upkeep of what would be kind of a private driveway in the public
sidewalk area so our recommendation would be to extend the sidewalk
through there. Then when the snowplowing and. . .things occur , there' s less
' chance to damage that portion of the driveway and other things. We would
prefer to see, let' s say for instance if a puddle developed in your
driveway for instance , where it' s along the alignment of this thing , who
would have to come out and repair the pothole in your driveway? If we
come in now and install a sidewalk through there , I guess the City would
be in a position to respond. . .
' Resident : You mean there' s going to be a lip that we have to drive our
car over?
Scott Harri : No , there wouldn ' t be. It would all be constructed to match
the grade and be very level with your present driveway.
Schroers : So on that driveway that has a very steep angle, on that
' driveway the sidewalk would conform to that angle?
Scott Harri : Exactly. That ' s correct.
Schroers: So he' s not going to have to go up over a bump?
Scott Harri : No . It wouldn ' t be this real bumpy thing . Now there may be
some slight transition in there if the crossload gets too expensive on the
thing . We don' t anticipate that happening though.
' Resident: Is this entire trail going to be wheelchair accessible?
Scott Harri : Yes .
11
' r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 46 1
Jerry Paulsen , 7305 Laredo: I live at the end of Laredo. I anxiously
wait the installation of the sidewalk. I have children who have to walk
to school , or they can not be bused. I think it' s a very critical issue
for the City. I hope the next time the referendum comes up it passess by
2 votes or whatever . I think even in the winter if they' re not shoveled,
I think it' s a good feature. I
Resident: One of her question about the split rail fence and that would
be replaced. Will our hedge also be replaced? '
Scott Harri : There' s a hedge there too? Underneath the fence? Yes .
That will be. . .
Resident: Also , you said the money is there already. Will there be any
assessments?
Mady: No. None. Zero .
Resident: Is there two sidewalks . . .
Mady: Yes .
Resident : This may sound stupid but what can I say. We' ve got the baby
hill that goes down right across from the park that we' re all talking
about okay. The way I understand it , as years go by, they' ll get steeper .
They do. They wash away. The ground washes away and stuff will squash
right down the hill .
Mady: With that situation, what the City has. . . the City has a continuing
process where they fill in those things. They fix them. They repair them II
as they occur . They try to watch out .
Resident: Does it have to be a 5 foot sidewalk? If you went to a
narrower sidewalk on the north side , would that. . .
Scott Harri : The safe recommended separation, or I shouldn' t say safe but
a good use width for two people passing and the walking space is 5 feet.
Allow 2 1/2 feet per person. Anything narrower and you' re likely going to
find people walking on the trails . And interestingly, the standards, the
more you give to a person, the less space you actually need . 1
Hasek: I guess I have a quick question related to that. You' ve got,
apparently where there' s a fairly steep area you' ve got a handrail running
alongside which effectively decreases the width of that sidewalk. Is that
something that we should maybe take a second look at?
Scott Harri : I think there' s 6 inches that we could expand that out to to I
insure that there ' s a nominal of 5 foot width in there. This is one of
those areas that compromises . It' s an area that' s a little bit more
difficult. I believe that there is 6 inches that we could expand out II because that actual flash brought up there varies from about 5 to about 7
feet wide before it actually drops off so there' s an adequate space up
I
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IDecember 13, 1988 - Page 47
1 there that we can get a few more inches .
Resident : Now that you mention that handrail , what ' s the handrail going
I to be like? Is it going to be a rail that' s only like 2 1/2 feet off the
ground or is it going to have a spot there that kids won' t fall through?
I Scott Harri : It will be a regular round, inch and a half diameter pipe
handrail that will be about 42 inches high. . . It will be fairly strudy.
I Mady: That' s one of the things . . .and I think I mentioned it to Lori when
we were talking about this . Maybe you want to consider a chainlink fence
there instead of a handrail .
I Hasek: I don ' t want to see a chainlink fence . I 'd rather see another
couple of rails woven into the railing than a chainlink fence.
I Resident : That is a steep hill and we do have small children walking
around there that just, I ' ve got them too.
I Resident : Maybe if the top rail was a little wider so it'd be a problem
for kids to hang onto , maybe it'd be a little bit less attractive. You
know 1 1/2, 2 inch pipe , a kid can wrap their hand around pretty well .
I Mady: I think we need to maybe move a little bit on this . The
Commissioners need some discussion. See what their thoughts are.
I Resident : Can I toss one more question in about that portion of the
sidewalk. Apparently sir you feel confident that there is not a flat
surface there. That down the road a few years that sidewalk isn ' t going
to start sliding on down the hill? You aren' t going to have to do a lot
Iof filling in down along the hill there?
Boyt: I think we ought to go with the sidewalk that ' s proposed .
IRobinson : It sounded like the majority recommends going down here on the
south side and then go across . Oh, is that what you' re saying?
IBoyt : Yes . . .
Robinson : That ' s what I would prefer .
IHasek: I think we ought to go with it as proposed with the extension down
to Nez Perce and I think we ought to send along a little comment about the
I traffic hazards to the Council just to let them know that we' re concerned
about it.
Mady: I have a question of staff . Do you feel that there' s just no way
Iof going up the other side?
Sietsema : Not if we have to acquire easements .
IMady: Do you think if we allow the residents a month , 6 weeks to contact
those residents to see what they can work out with them, that we might be
r
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 48 '
better ahead if it doesn' t cost us anything? Obviously we' re not going to II
be able to do anything with this until April anyway, actually putting it
in.
Sietsema: If you want to let bids so you can construct in April , you 've
got to move along with this. Unless you want to start construction later
in the year . '
Mady: If we can move the other side without costing any money and it ' s
just going to cost us a month, hopefully we won' t lose any kids between
that. That' s been the primary concern but recognizing their safety
concerns. Maybe there' s an opportunity there that they can work on that
we don ' t know.
Sietsema: What is your feeling on that Scott?
Scott Harri : The issue regarding additional of how soon you apply for
right-of-way acquisition. The trail will cost approximately the same
amount of money irrespective of what side.
Mady: What they'd like to do is talk to the neighbors and get a '
right-of-way there or get a dedication to us without costing the City.
Sietsema: Okay, what I would recommend doing then is I will put this on
the City Council agenda for the first meeting in February and that will
give them a month and a half to come back to me with something that says
we have people that are willing to give the easements and put it back on
the residents shoulders to do that .
Mady: That ' s only delaying this a month because the Council will not act
on this until January anyway. ,
Resident: Jim, just a comment on that . First of all , we appreciate your
consideration on that but I think the key element for running it on the
north side of the street is again , it' s going to be up to the Safety
Commission and the stop sign at Redwing Lane. That is the whole idea
behind this from a neighborhood standpoint was to try and kill two birds
with one stone. Slow the traffic down and get the trail in there. As far II
as Laura and I are concerned , if we can' t have the stop signs , I don' t
think we want the kids crossing at Redwing either .
Mady: Well , it might be an opportunity to talk to Dick Wing of the Public II
Safety Commission and possibly. . .
Resident : Yes , if we could get a recommendation from you that they '
definitely look into that. Otherwise, I think instead of waiting another
year or at least knowing that it would get done this summer , we 'd like to
have that and run it on the south side. If we can' t have the traffic
control , than I think we'd rather stick with the south side all the way up
to Nez Perce.
Schroers : I have been in favor of this proposal from the beginning . I I
live on the north side of Carver Beach Road. As the trail was originally
I
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13, 1988 - Page 49
proposed , it would have gone across the front of my yard . I 'm in favor of
that still . I would support if everyone is willing to grant the easement
and I personally will . However , if that' s not possible, if there ' s a
problem, I would rather see the trail go in on the south side and run up
to Nez Perce and cross over to the park at a new entrance rather than not
have it at all . The whole issue of safety, as you said over and over
' again and I don ' t care where you put that trail , it' s going to be safer
than having them in the street. So I don' t want to lose the opportunity
of getting that trail in. If it' s not feasible and if it' s going to
' create problems and it' s going to jeopardize the trail by trying to get it
in on the north side , than I want it on the south .
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
' recommend to the City Council at their January meeting to approve the
Laredo Drive trail as shown on the plans and specifications as presented
tonight. Direct staff to work with the residents to investigate the other
' possibilities of the north side and come to us in our first meeting in
January with their findings and that we will then make a recommendation on
Carver Beach sidewalk plan to the City Council for their action in the
first meeting in February. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
' recommend that the Public Safety Commission review the traffic safety
issues relating to Carver Beach Road . All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR LAKE SUSAN PARK.
' Mady: My concerns are this is in the industrial park. We have limited
ballfields currently. Even though Lake Ann is expanding, we' ll still have
limited ballfields. If there' s an opportunity to put another ballfield
' down here for the industrial people , then we need to investigate that. We
all know there' s a lot of space and I don' t know, since they' re grading it
anyway, I want to know.
Mark Koegler : It ' s all very low wet area and the configuration of this
pond has not been set yet. That will come as part of the. . . Lake Drive and
the drainage study that ' s being done . There is even consideration of
routing the creek through this pond for the purpose of water . . . for Lake
Susan to allow for the retention of some of the solids and agricultural
runoff that comes off that stream. I wouldn ' t want to lead you astray and
be very optimistic that you have a chance to expand at all down into this
area. That area is largely within the open space. What really remains as
developable property, will only support one ball diamond . Now the change
in property lines that occurred as a result of Rosemount coming in, which
' is on this plan which differs from what you' ve seen before , does allow for
a full sized field in there. Right now I think it ' s 285 foot of diamond
where before it was 250.
Robinson : Where is Rosemount again?
x .
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
December 13 , 1988 - Page 50
II
Mark Koegler : They' re immediately east . This property line right here is I
the common property line of Rosemount. The road sits about over in here.
there will be a wooded area between the two, that it' s my understanding
won' t be disturbed.
II
Mady: And we also own all that land . The City has all that land between
Rosemount and the lake. Right at the bottom. I
Mark Koegler : This segment here which hooks up on this side of the plan.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II
recommend to approve the site plan for Lake Susan Park as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
Schroers : I just have one quick question for staff . Could staff check
I
with maintenance to see if they could flood a small area in the south
Lotus park area , Curt' s neighborhood, just for small kids in that area?
Boyt: It looks so flat out by the football . I
Schroers : Yes , right out in that area . If we could get just a little
rink to pacify some of those kids in the area.
II
Hoffman : We' ve all three taken a look at that area and Dale has stated
that there' s a possibly that he could get a real low grade, small , not a II real satisfying job done out there . If you choose to tell him to do that ,
to recommend that he do that, he probably would. He just doesn' t feel
real comfortable about it because he went out there and walked it and you
can see it. First of all , it' s an uneven grade. It ' s a slope and then
I
it ' s got hills and dales and that type of thing .
Schroers: Actually we would be better off looking ahead at doing some
I
minor grading work there in the summer and then possibly doing it next
year .
Hoffman : Yes .
I
Schroers : I did have some residents contact me in regards to that and I
would like to be able to give them some kind of a reasonably positive '
information .
Sietsema: The other thing is that we' ve added quite a few rinks this year II
and our staff is really. . .
Robinson moved , Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. I
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator I
Prepared by Nann Opheim
II