5. Review Near Mtn Issues •
CITY OF
----
CHANHASSEN
tT i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager = `---•�- -•-------
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer GO4 --�a= =- ---
' �e S's�r,,;::r. ,> ommisgkits
DATE: October 21 , 1988_____
' SUBJ: Response to Near Mountain Neighborhood Requests 1 a -
File No. PW088
The following discussion and attachments is meant to address the issues as
reviewed by the City Council with the Near Mountain Homeowners Association at
the October 10, 1988 City Council meeting and as requested by you in your
October 7, 1988 letter to Mr. James Wehrle. I would like to up front dispel the
impression that the Engineering and Public Works departments are not sensitive
to the requests of the neighborhood and that we indeed have been tackling these
issues as best we can with the limited staff available. Having a 31-year-old
' daughter and another child due in December, I personally am very sensitive to
the traffic concerns conveyed by the neighbors in this area. I likewise am con-
cerned that a false sense of security is not conveyed through improper signage.
Our responses to these concerns have therefore been prepared with the benefit of
the latest manuals and criteria for neighborhood signage available to us. I
hope that the actions we have taken to date and the following discussions will
convey our interest in addressing the neighborhood concerns while still
enforcing good public works and traffic engineering standards.
With that introduction, let me address the items as persented in Mr. Wehrle's
' September 30, 1988 correspondence. I direct you also to the attached memorandums
from Larry Brown and Jim Chaffee which will present further details and backup
as appropriate. I have not had the benefit of knowing the Public Safety Commission's
' action from Thursday night's meeting at the time of writing this memo.
1. Cascade Pass/Near Mountain Blvd. Pond Cleaning
' As stated in Larry Brown' s memo, we are awaiting one final waiver to enable us
to access the pond for cleaning of the inlet areas. I maintain, as documented
in my June 21, 1988 memorandum, that the debris in these ponds is not signifi-
cant and is somewhat aggravated by the low water condition that we have been
experiencing in all of our ponds due to the dry weather. City staff will exer-
cise all due care in accessing the pond area for excavation; however, since this
requires a track mounted backhoe and dump trucks, we want to be clear with the
neighbors that there will be restoration necessary from them on their lawns once
we are completed. Although undertaking this work during the winter when the
properties have experienced a good freeze may be more practical, we are prepared
to access the site as soon as the last waiver is provided.
11
Don Ashworth
October 21 , 1988
Page 2
2. 12-Inch Culvert Protector
Public Works personnel have constructed and installed a protective grate over
the 12-inch culvert outlet at 6240 Near Mountain Blvd. This pipe outlets at a
shallow grade into a lowland area which has caused some silting in of the flared
end section; however, the remainder of the pipe has significant grade to it and
is in satisfactory condition for carrying storm water. I have also been
informed that the day care center at this location apparently will be vacating
the premises in June. We have taken this opportunity to review the culverts
which connect to the pond in the vicinity of Mountain Way and Oxbow Bend and
although not indicated as a problem, we have installed protective grates on
these culverts also. We hope that the neighbors can help us in keeping these
grates clean of debris so that we do not experience any flooding ramifications
from these installations.
3. Speed Reduction
As has been indicated before, speed limit signage is governed by State statute
and requires the conducting of a speed study by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The City Council needs to pass a resolution requesting the
study to be conducted. The results of this study will then dictate the
allowable speed signage which can be placed by the City. It should be noted
that it was in part due to the curviness of the road network proposed by the
Developer, not the trail system needs, that wider road sections were constructed
for Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Blvd.
4. SLOW - CHILDREN AT PLAY Signs I
The attached material compiled by Larry Brown reflects the latest thinking in
these types of advisory signs. The bottom line is that more and more agencies
are getting away from utilizing signs of this nature in that they induce a false
sense of security to the neighborhood and also that these signs do not deter the
reckless driver who is a threat in the first place. In residential neigh-
borhoods, it goes without saying that there are children at play and therefore
these signs not only provide a redundancy, but also are just one more additional
sign which the driver needs to concentrate on as they travel through the neigh-
borhood. I refer you to the attached documents from MnDOT and other traffic
institutes concerning their use of this signage. I therefore would have to
advise against installation of these signs. City Council should consider
establishing a policy governing the use or non-use of these signs since the
actions taken on this matter for the Near Mountain neighborhood will obviously
be setting a precedent for future requests.
5. STOP Sign Requests '
It is clear from the attached information that none of the intersections listed
for STOP signs meet the traffic criteria for warranting stops. Again, we have
the false sense of security issue brought about by the installation of a sign
and a non-standard application. Signage placed at the requested locations
without proper enforcement will lead to frustrated drivers and "rolling stops".
With the extension of Near Mountain Blvd. into Shorewood this summer and with
the planned future expansion of Trappers Pass back to Pleasant View Road, the
1 ,
Don Ashworth
October 21 , 1988
Page 3
' intersection of Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Blvd. could eventually meet cri-
teria for STOP signs. This we will look at next year by installing traffic
counters to determine the need and install signs if appropriate.
' I therefore must conclude that under existing conditions, none of the requested
intersections warrant additional stop signage. I also refer you to the City
Attorney's memo on this item and the article on "Discretionary Immunity".
6. Ped-Bike Path
' We are having signs prepared to indicate Non-Motorized Vehicles. These will be
installed as soon as available and underground utilities have been cleared on
the recently constructed pathway connecting Near Mountain Blvd. with Pleasant
View Road. Temporary barricades are in place to temporarily restrict vehicular
traffic. Public Works is currently fabricating access control gates similar to
those used in other trailway areas such as Lake Ann Park which will be installed
as soon as they are completed. In the development plan attached to the develop-
' ment contract, this pathway was to be utilized as an emergency access route in
addition to a trail connection if needed.
Concerning the ped-bike path itself, I have talked with the Developer (Lundgren
Brothers) , previous City Planner, Park and Recreation Coordinator, and have
researched our files and in all cases have not found any direction that a ped-
' bike path had been approved for installation as indicated by Mr. Wehrle. In
fact, what I have found is the attached excerpt from the September, 1983
Development Contract which had indicated that the "trail system shall be
separate from the street bituminous surface.. ." and as shown on the attached
map, the concept at that time was for a trail along the west side of Near
Mountain Blvd. to the City limits and on the north side of Trappers Pass and
Trap Line Lane to the west. As mentioned earlier, the wider road section on
Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Blvd. was to address the curviness of the road
section and not to provide room for an on-road trail system.
I have reviewed this with the City Attorney and he concurs, similar to Lake Lucy
Road, that State statute prohibits a bike trail which would go against the flow
of traffic. In other words, if a bike trail were to be constructed on Near
Mountain Blvd. , we would have to have a trail on each side of the road which
would also require the roadway to be signed for NO PARKING on both sides where
the trail exists. This obviously is not practical.
Construction of the off-street trail as originally planned in the Development
Contract is the only reasonable alternative, although it does not come without
its impacts to abutting property owners and expense for moving/avoiding existing
obstacles such as mail boxes, hydrants, light poles , decorative planting/
landscaping and even a City pump station on Trappers Pass. This I believe needs
to be prioritized with the Park and Recreation system priorities and if desired,
Engineering will be happy to initiate a feasibility study to establish alignment
' and cost estimates.
7. Crosswalk Signage
The pedestrian crosswalk signs have been received and temporarily installed.
Awaiting utility clearances for final installation.
11
A II
Don Ashworth
October 21 , 1988 1
Page 4
8. Sign Framing
I have spoken with Peter and Michael Pflaum of Lundgren Brothers Construction
and they have indicated a willingness to do "some" additional sign framing but
were not willing to concede to doing every additional sign that may be required.
It is interesting to note that several of the existing signs in the Cascade Pass
and Castle Ridge area do not have framing. I had requested, and as of this
writing had not received, the cost associated with framing. Since this sign
framing is unique to the Near Mountain neighborhood and not required by with
City standards, the costs associated with construction of this framing beyond
the willingness of Lundgren Brothers, and likewise any repairs and maintenance
necessary to upkeep this framing, in my opinion would be the responsibility of
the neighborhood. We will coordinate with the neighborhood and Lundgren
Brothers to see that the additional signage is framed to the satisfaction of the
Association as directed by Council.
9. NO-TURN Signage
I apologize for the confusion in the placement of the signage at the intersec-
tion of Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View Road. As Council will recall,
staff was directed to place the NO TURN sign as a result of the review of the
intersection geometrics and the concern for liability. It had taken some time
to have the sign prepared to clarify that this restricted buses and trucks only.
Since that time, the proper sign restrictions have been installed in accordance
with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
10. Trunk Highway 101/Pleasant View Road Dropoff
The State had been previously contacted concerning the low spot which exists at
the northwest corner of Pleasant View Road and Trunk Highway 101. They unfor-
tunately had patched the southwest corner. We have been in contact with them
and if the northwest area is not leveled by this next week, City crews will take
care of it.
11. Street Lighting '
I have been in contact with Larry Fortun of NSP to review the street lighting in
general for the Near Mountain neighborhood. We have found that with minor
exceptions the lighting conforms with standards that the City has utilized in
similar subdivisions. I have directed him to add a light at the following
locations:
1 . Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View Road.
2. Near Mountain Blvd. and Trappers Pass.
3. Town Line Road and Castle Ridge (cobra light).
4. Ped-Crossing on Pleasant View Road.
The attached street light maps should provide a visual comparison of light den-
sity for the Near Mountain neighborhood versus Greenwood Shores and the
Chanhassen Estates/Hidden Valley area. NSP has been informed of the apparent
malfunction light at Mountain Way and Oxbow Bend and indicate that this has
already been repaired.
1
II
1 Don Ashworth
October 21 , 1988
Page 5
Attachments
1. June 21 , 1988 staff memo to Jim Chaffee.
' 2. Development Contract excerpt.
3. Trail Plan.
4. NSP Lighting Maps.
5. October 20, 1988 memo from Larry Brown.
6. October 18, 1988 memo from Jim Chaffee.
7. Memo from Jim Chaffee dated October 21, 1988.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,
' 1
CITYOF 1
, 1 ssEN
,i k
AL1 E i i N s = i
�N;/ .�,« 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
II
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jim Chaffee , Public Safety Director
FROM: Gary Warren, Director of Public Works 0_..
1
DATE: June 21, 1988 '
IISUBJ: Stormwater Detention Pond Maintenance
File No. PW152
In response to II
P your June 14 , 1988 memo , the City has maintained
ponds in the past if they are owned by the City and/or we have
drainage easement rights over these ponds. Since we currently do I
not have a stormwater management fund in place to generate reve-
nue for these types of activities , the maintenance is done on a
haphazard basis normally in response to complaints. We hope to
II
change this policy (in particular establish a stormwater manage-
ment fund) but it also is dependent on Watershed District
involvement.
II
Concerning the two pond areas in question, the South Lotus
Lake
ponds are under City ownership and we have done maintenance a
couple of times on these ponds as a result of last year ' s storm
I
damage. I have directed Jerry Schlenk to again clean out the
lower ponds to take advantage the dry weather which we are
currently experiencing . This will recapture the retention
II
volume. This should be accomplished within the next week.
Concerning the Near Mountain pond, I personally inspected the
site last week and did not observe any significant amounts of
II
debris and, in fact , the site looked relatively clean to me. I
had Jerry Schlenk investigate the ponding area ( 6/21/88) . He
observed that there is a large buildup of silt and sediment at
II
the storm sewer inlet ( see attached plan) . To remove this
material will require two things: equipment , which we can come
up with, and access. The City does have a drainage easement over
this area, however, the property remains in the ownership of the II
abutting property owners. To properly solve this problem we need
access across the back of lots 7 , 8 , 9, 10 and 11 . If we can get
access agreements from these property owners and their
II
willingness to replant any damaged lawn area , we will be glad to
clean out the silt/sediment deposits. Let me know your thoughts.
11
Jim Chaffee
June 21 , 1988
Page 2
11
Water quality apparently was not questioned by the neighborhood
' association, however, my site visit did note that we have several
areas of algae bloom or weed growth typical for these stagnant
pond areas with the severe warm weather we have been
experiencing. For your information , ponds of this nature are not
1 intended as pristine, swimmable, fishable waters. As such, while
we do not want them to be eyesores, their main purpose is to
control runoff rate and nutrients. The City therefore does not
' spend time or money treating and/or aerating these water areas to
address any water quality concerns , especially since significant
funds would be necessary to deal with these basins in that
regard. If you care to discuss this aspect further, I would be
happy to sit down with you .
cc: Jerry Schlenk, Street Superintendent
I
I
I
1
1
II
6-29-82
9-27-82 •
10-12-82 •1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ZU at day of
1 between NEAR MOUNTAIN
LIM TED PARTNERSHIP partnership of which PETER
PFLAUM and ROBERT L. MELAMED are General Partners,
(hereinafter the "Developer") , and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City") ;
WITNESSETH, that the City, in the exercise of its powers
pursuant to MSA §462. 358 and other applicable state laws , and
the Developer, in consideration of the mutual covenants
herein contained, recite and agree as follows :
SECTION 1. RECITALS . I
•
1. 01 . Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat
Approval. Developer has heretofore made application to the
City under the City Zoning Ordinance for the approval of a P-1,
Planned Residential Development District, for certain lands
comprising approximately 147 acres , more or less , identified as
Near Mountain , and more particularly described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof. The City Planning
Commission duly held a public hearing on October 17 , 1979 , on
the petition of the Developer for rezoning of the tracts of
land comprising the Plat from R-lA to P-1 , Planned Residential
Development District, under the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance and
for preliminary development plan and preliminary plat approval.
Thereafter , the City Council on May 11, 1981, granted final devel-
opment plan approval, including rezoning of the plat to P-1,
Planned Residential Development District and preliminary plat
approval, all said approvals being subject to the terms and con-
ditions
of the within agreement and on the further condition that
the Developer and Owners enter into this agreement.
1. 02 . Ownership Interests. The fee owner of the r0" I
tract of land comprising Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots through r
31 )4, Block 2, Lot 1 ��� Block 3, Lots 1 through R121Block 4,
Block 5 , and Outlot B in the plat of Near
II
Mountain is or shall be at the time of platting as follows :
Near Mountain Limited Partnership I, a Limited part-
nership consisting of Peter Pflaum and Robert L. Melamed
as General Partners; and Edmund M. Lundgren, Gerald T.
Lundgren, Allan D . Lundgren, Michael A. Pflaum, Eugene
S. Holderness , David N. Olson, Harry J. Jensen, and
Samuel L. Kaplan , as Trustee under the Trust created by
J.S. Melamed, as Limited Partners.
or O,i/?iv' I
Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
11
I 6-29-82
9-27-82
;.1 10-12-82
dECTION 4. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 10-18-82 .,-
II 4. 01 . Trail . ,
II a. e eveloper shall donate to the City a per-- ,
petual fifteen (15) foot wide easement for a pedestrian
trail system which shall conform to the Preliminary
II Development Plan previously submitted to the Planning
Commission on August 29 , 1979 and identified as "Site
Plan" prepared by Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect,
II showing the trail alignment and a proposed scenic
overlook. The trail system shall be separate from the
street bituminous surface, although where adjacent tom
hr e'r adway it is within the platted right-of-way, and-
II may be activated by the City at any time, regardless
of whether the phase of the project over which the
trail system extends has been finally platted or
II devel-oped. The obligation to furnish and install the
surfacing and to maintain the system shall be solely
that of the City.
.t.,'.-) ••.••,0 ••...r fV•••_4.4:•)::i. ...:►:4►..►_..:f:►:►∎►..::.:1::..•::,,.1.:•4•;
..1'.• , P451 r
rli
II 4. 02 . Covenants and Restrictions . Any proposed cove-
nants or restrictions to be placed upon the lots in the subject
plat shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording
II with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles . The zoning
ordinances and regulations of the City shall govern if incon-
sistent with said covenants and restrictions to the extent
actually inconsistent; but if not inconsistent therewith, the
II standards contained in said covenants and restrictions shall be
considered as requirements in addition to said City ordinances
and regulations .
II4. 03 . Setting of Lot and Block Monuments . Developer
shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at
all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall
I be placed after construction of improvements has been completed
in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners .
1 4. 04 . Street.
a. The North-South (Near Mountain Blvd. ) and East-West
(as yet unnamed) collector streets within the development
II plan shall have a right-of-way of 60 feet and a road surface
of 36 feet. All other residential streets shall have a
right-of-way of 50 feet and a road surface of 28 feet. All
I cul-de-sacs shall have a platted radius of 60 feet and a � �
paved surface with a 40 foot radius unless otherwise approved. P
Ib. All streets within the plat shall be constructed C; .-'with concrete curbs and gutters.
• 4. 05 . Street Maintenance During Construction. The
IDeveloper shall be responsible for all street maintenance until
streets are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed
-7-
, ,,,$ ,..„iii,.,, , ,,,.:,f _. .. \
,.
•
, . .
l _ `1
. ,
, .
. ,;.,:,.„..,.. .,,,,,,„,
. .,...
..
0
• CHESTNUT RIDGE AT
u
NEAR MOUNTAIN N 141
CIT t OF SHORF.N•001) •
••• ,,, 11 .1
• a ;` GOVT �1+AI :o
•
•OF CIr PJN11S5 N I. 7. r I
' ..T- i ------CHESTN _ - • -..R1fGE_J CH E TNU R rGE .T E2 1 0 1 I ic,c,5,*
7 6 A-I 1 _ _...AT__.-. _ NE`s 2 `�
I J I ^.2--- �s _--+ �'�. CgSC •- 5 GpDE Fr
.
9 q" S
' 5 i 4 ; 3 / 2 i MO1JNTe __._ 3 OF$y��' GP ` PASS $
I
I \ 1 RT
8T ADDITION OUN AIN
4 ; 3 2 ;'I
�trQF-9i ,��.- ' , ' TRAFPERS i' PASS v • C!Es7NUr 4 l0 II 45 AgDI ION
1 Roc I 4
` ' 1 37 I 8 17 6 1 \ 2 I ; ar N 'RM 2 E y�1 2
e 5 • UU -�
Tg4 �' I34.5' 3B1' .'= ■ PiEl1M, t-CAIN ? 2 2.1,2 Ilk
C` 1 / <q �� I n or:ITION 3 /� ,00.5.0 Q g
I 6TH ADD 'L 4 �/�4
T 3 / 2 3 Ik �• 9/ P�% 1 AT NE 1 So MOUNTAI ��° 5 c� 6
p�' 9 5 TRAPPERS m r-m 2 ' '' 1`? o '• ti�j, 1 /'PQ7� 2�7 II\.
N f NEAR w� •2� 8 0� ;
i TRAP AT 3 :�`o., • ,,, S
OU!LOT P�0 IINE _ 2 0, ; 2 ,� 7 12
C,R f_E 3 MOUNTAIN . i 4O 9
1 0 / ALE
2 j'- 4 I • F' 5
6} 3 2ND o AUDITION 0 CHi
Cct /d2 ,° ' 19
2 3 1 .5 6 • y� I I •Si.•CH ST UT .RI rG �+�`) •a Si I <F
• -•: BL MO' 2
UUTLUT A 4�OUNTAIN WAYIN I • 6 o UN AIN/
' AR MOUNT • 5 �' ' / 4•u\I OFF STREET TRAIL= ...::•••AT N E I 2 3 4 5 2 6 ' ' 2 4 Yp3 2 I ,
�N`✓`�T DITI N
- 7TH A j
to, q na •
o ,
r,, i�%90o 33, ' Aso! —�---- - - • z :61!.33 - 315' 6 TN - -
— — — iiii ME iiii MN -AR r- Pa : ON 1— 'r C F : o
0 I
.f I ,
r _ //
171
grit I
/\‘
, , , . __ , _ _ __
' / / if '4. x.•
.<-, '' °;ffA ___ —7100
l
_y- -,,-- it- ----- .
1 (C'
_
liks404.),,r; L A K E \ -- --
b ■11: 011111 EA*
wr IMINITSittil ,..'
IG, -II
------ 16
ii w_pgrAlivalatvdriott ,)
,,._.
, >_
<
m
0
_
i _ _____7200
-- ---—730C
— 7400 r- ,
- r
1
'ai-I-4- WOOTiorrital •---\ / MI
17.-grajiLs ell ail IM:111111 0
t'' Plp.111W/L' r lik
410‘ .1mmi Pa& dEfini ,..„,, o
co co
.01.-44441411...4.4411,41441114 -- )411110iiii\_,_7 171
■ o
o co
SARA( 1.1../ n Stnima iftai 'Aiiff ..„ .0......1 III
fir2:•0 0 4••i 00•A•ofoolgoo•••go.•00 0.0.0•0 0 e°.#°
Qa.vtistarararg
I 1 .11M3- NE.3.nallEIR. Mai Millm*,„
2imocaTe'.17.-ali Illir• 1111W 0 .
.t'‘V
111111111P11 I" .I 111110 LU
I cc I owl NI am mirirl
..tz am IN- smia r.4
cn
I 13'
cr I
w 1 EN NI• um LA.: :-..:--4,_
!y up smigurvig.IN n7r1 c,-c;''' 4f-- <
=
aLm -7 --iiiiiiieavidtig,I IMS MI • 2 ris
co zi
.41,
— mom
_
Wih.- DR
li 0-1' Oil -
Minn s i
TH ST
wAs .....,.........-.10
MF-..,,,- 1.1 ..74 =_PNA:111.1.4 wiali i I P W./ /Id (..) 1
IS 1111 1.111011111EAWIP-oppr
I piRIT Ea Mg I
111
ist- __ AKE DRIV;,/ • .
lag, liormili,H.-A„101,.i.r)° A- 0-1 - -4"111P -
___F
mg
5 ", 1 111/WrA VOIVEMS11111111.1 ., Lt. t
0 (
ST141151 }- '
mor-wir-x-- ill _„igag\--.
,O.,..•
....
.....
01111 . 11fAr-04. Tal .
, HIGHwA'( :J1111111100.,Osill
arampr- .,,,i(ppaliff,' ,, i ,---,
i 8 0
0
....r*irl,
,. „....A. .... al 1„,,,,m„,„
c0 X/
V I MO 0j1.0 a 4Fla.._
; c0
- c0
.....
I Wilt 411,114... ...i,.. ,47
°,r I tt Attle4)LIAO __WOO
.,
il • e
., Altill")0;i111 ...1.41,,f1.,12411 //
ea
II 114161tareivi4lnola
I A 8200
- ) . ' '
•■■■■a•
--, , Ifiill 496 44 i
- ----T------:- ---8300
ciRcLE ,,/
/
-
4.:,4 - -–
- ------Blies-
.-.,-- - ., --4,-.., -/ •. . .,i,=,.:.,i•:,•,-.;,- .---, ,: \
. ,. . .,
' "ski. ' . ''''' ' • -----_.,'"-' . --- f'l..,.-SH LAKE
-41...:,,..,t.:;!,,',•r-- J-- --- :•,:,-:-. _;:,1,-, ,•
it
--.;i';',-.;'''-•,-.::_:.4
\ ;i''''•-•'.. _,--------N
, .
IIII 6 TH ST
.. . .
IIP"
---8600
pcwomp
m---.. L i kils../ 014-e-s• ----14-4'.
Y,'
0 0 0
F efr
o O o o n_
0
01 c0 O 0 O CASTLE L SCADE
1 I CASCADE I - _ CI• LE
�� I HENNEPIN OUNTY _ COURT }� "`
TAMS , «. 7 1111 :rte , STA CIRCLE
PICOU 1 ` 411414 , ' / ST
it' CARVE' ♦ter';._
E , ���t `"- 'MOW 1 SNA TA CIRCLE
ilk �� AT,*�� � . Wan OLYM IC CIRCLE 6300 vp.
N "i-a ' + CIRC E • • itle\ ` i,`T CAST E RIDGE or,,� 1).∎ .�� ��' ��1� 6400
iia,..40, �'" Yy BLUFF �drain
�,1,���t,�\` •, 1 RIDGE CT _`i�, �\ 1- : .,Q Fox ;�,►ir
�_1`��,r�, �'',,,, �:-Pilleill � 6500 '
trirallil0 # FOxTAII _1 3.41 14 , 1 6600 400' i . , ',. \� 1 COURT 1 _. ..•' - VIZ 4-1* '' PARK rcd, ' j
A , 7 �' I_ 6700
1 IF4\% li " .
a. T ,
,�,�71ENISIX� �i`:� �� / { z - _— 6800
v ,
•
*I* AMR•� AlliM3V
� �'.•,� - ,--� --- -- 6900
#4.6"M. HIL I Ru �• L OTUS - 4--irs
RRQW v"-co r Lib W
•� --- -- � � •-��'■ , --- —7000 1
Z �
1�1 �N r V1,► 7
t �+ -- - -
a Ile'' • �� , " 11 —7100 1
MR i
Ily
1
` -7200
o � i r
m , ,� LAKE � -
L
, .
_�o,M� r ii �r1i��n 1
�
Au:���'��v���;r!� .�,P � f- : 7--4-0 -0 -730C 7400
'� .. .
3.,at twoviiiii.
ill,a• . •
o
co
co
Cb. iii. 4� IT a ' �� oo -
SARA f l r. • �� \ Q)
__
• : L� f 1 01 \ u411 \ , 7 1 A
O O L 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0
0 O (0 0 0 0
00 0 O 0) m O
I I I I I (
I
I L�I L Ac LANE CHR_/STMAS D
„� ....!l ► cl L Ili- �.; , � ' LAKE
-K of.�'� c�"s�.1��� ��_ �/i' „ ,iv
ittuRsii- larintrel Me a mi 111. •-: *OW ' ' I
PHEASANT F, '
.jr ravioli's��,,. + CIRCLE , � � � - � � ,WA DRIVE 1� !�
' # A■sue ` � No,.
,1P41111314...\.,_ 1•
it iii LAKE ' ' }o . Q �'� _,
1
ROAD — �� '
III - Op i 1- ma I
■ E T
. - ' lik# v '
r►+J♦ p'
jr_ _ 11111111Miuramp\ 5 ,i(
R : a1i�_ km ,�
REST
9*1
til.tr- „ ,,Icittpillenimitk .
� r 9 1.4144...._.,\_b”' ) 7\ 1Pi Oc t. "Illiallhol0 Ilriortkr "'Irv'
,) , al 44.4111111 trat.14t . 41- *eta--1111111111.‘ -
n 1149 li_iii L ll LAKE LUG'Y B • -� � R w
dry � 'r'; ��.�� �� �Jst
r9► Iii rit 1 =_-�, -� - �Ea � :�.��'- at*
AA! amilimilik _.
1 1111 . c!. .C.#Vit. /
-lingtilk ____________714*.
MAN / I
A K E ANN
e--11/
..ii:,. ----__1 J.., ( -0-1-
r „, ....._/)
I
is-
•A
S4R4f II)
cc cilicCE
\ ‘ .
3
o
T::::-.1 a, , 1 , � `
W,
. , , 1
CITY OF
:F: 1
'` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
[ � (612) 937-1900
.....,_ ,. _ 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer II
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
J\
D
II
ATE: October 20, 1988
SUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Neighborhood Concerns II
File No. PW088
Pursuant to your request, this memorandum is in response to a few of the Near 1
Mountain Homeowners Association neighborhood concerns. This memorandum covers
the following issues: II 1 . STOP sign request for the following intersections:
Castle Ridge and Olympic Circle 1
Cascade Pass and Cascade Court
Near Mountain Blvd. and Mountain Way
Near Mountain Blvd. and Trappers Pass 11 Mountain Way and Oxbow Bend
2. Cleaning of the storm water retention pond located adjacent to Lots 7 II through 11 of Block 2, Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 3rd Addition.
3. Requests for SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs.
4. Low spot at intersection of State Highway 101 and Pleasant View Road. 1
Item No. 1 - STOP sign requests: As the Council is aware, staff has been con-
ducting a traffic study to determine the peak volumes of traffic through the
subject intersections. As pointed out in my previous memorandum dated October
6, 1988 (refer to Attachment No. 1), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) dictates that a) the total vehicular volume entering the inter-
section from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any
eight hours of the average day; and b) the combined vehicular and pedestrian
volume for the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour II
for the same eight hours with an average delay to minor street vehicles of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle; but c) when the 85th percentile approach speed of
the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume 1
warrant is 70% of the above requirements.
1
A-r-rAcAmeNT No . 51
Gary Warren
October 20, 1988
Page 2
The results from the traffic study have been tallied. The absolute peak traffic
volume through any of the intersections of the subdivision was tallied at 76
vehicles per hour. Again, this is for the peak rush hour. Under these cir-
cumstances, the counted volumes are well below the requirements of the MUTCD to
warrant the placement of a multi-way stop at any of the above intersections.
' I am in receipt of the memorandum from Public Safety Director Jim Chaffee dated
October 18, 1988 addressed to the Public Safety Commission (refer to Attachment
No. 2). A brief summary of this memorandum states "Purely from a public safety
' standpoint, notwithstanding engineering input, it would be conceiveable to make
Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge both north and south four-way stops. Mountain Way
and Near Mountain Blvd. could be made three-way stops and Trappers Pass and Near
' Mountain Blvd. could be made a four-way stop. This again is only a possible
solution and would only be suggested if it met engineering standards and the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices."
I would also like to refer back to the City Attorney' s memorandum included in my
previous staff report dated October 6, 1988 which recommends that the MUTCD be
strictly adhered to to insulate the City from liability claims. In researching
this item I have found other sources which indicate the same recommendation.
For your information, I have included an article taken from the periodical,
Minnesota Cities for the League of Minnesota Cities , dated October, 1988 which
states that the MUTCD should be followed to the letter such that the City may be
immune from liability (refer to Attachment No. 3). Based on this information
and the results of the traffic study, I must still conclude that the STOP signs
for the subject intersections are not warranted.
' Item No. 2 - Maintenance of storm water retention pond abutting Lots 6 through
11 , Block 2, Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 3rd Addition: The Homeowners
Association has requested that sedimentation be removed from 6226 Cascade Pass
(Lot 7, Block 2 - refer to Attachment No. 4) and at the storm sewer outlet at
Lot 1 , Block 4, Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 5th Addition. Due to the
topography, the machinery necessary to maintain the storm sewer inlet would have
to access through Lots 6 though 11 of Block 2 to get back to Lot 7. Each one of
these homeowners was contacted by mail with a letter of explanation and a Waiver
of Trespass and Damages (refer to Attachment No. 5). In light of trying to
attain the goal of completing this project this year, I requested that each
homeowner respond by 4:30 p.m on October 18, 1988. The letter also explained
that each resident for Lots 7 through 11 would have to agree to allowing the
' City to access the rear of their lots such that we would have a continuous
access path to the problem area. Although several of the Waivers of Trespass
have been executed and returned, we are awaiting the return of the remainder
needed to complete the project. Unless all of the property owners consent, we
will be unable to access the pond as requested.
Concerning the outlet located on the south side of the pond (further described
as Lot 1 , Block 4, Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 5th Addition) which was added
to the request, we have been provided the necessary waiver; however, since we
are going to have to rent a backhoe for this work we would prefer to do both
locations at the same time and are therefore awaiting the waivers mentioned
above.
Gary Warren
October 20, 1988
Page 3
Item No. 3 - SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs: Once again, we are faced with the 1
situation where the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) recommends
that these signs not be placed by local authorities. Attachment No. 6 from
MnDOT states that these signs are non-standard devices and that they give ,
parents a false sense of security that these signs do not provide, which provi-
des a great disservice to the community. For the Council's information, I have
included memorandums on several other warning devices that are often requested
in cities which also are suspect as to their application.
To date, these signs have been installed when requested at the applicant's
expense contrary to the above advice (refer to Attachment No. 7).
Mr. Wehrle was disturbed by the fact that Public Safety Director Jim Chaffee and
I quoted him two different prices for the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY sign. At this
time I would like to clarify the reasons for this. Our sign manufacturer does
quote two sizes of the sign, SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY. The sign sizes are 18" by
24" at a cost of $19.15 (reflective sheeting) and a 24" by 30" sign at a cost of
$35.25 (also reflective sheeting). The smaller signs could be used; however,
the thinking was the larger signs would be more appropriate if used as neigh-
borhood entry signs.
Item No. 4 Pleasant View Road and State Highway 101 Intersection: A sub-
sequent request from Mr. Wehrle indicated that there is a severe dip in the road
as you turn from the southbound lane of State Highway 101 onto the westbound
lane of Pleasant View Road resulting from the recent overlay work on Trunk
Highway 101. During that time, the State should have remedied this problem as
the dip is within State right-of-way. Public Safety Director Jim Chaffee has
notified the State of the problem and they have in turn indicated that they
would certainly take a look at this. The City eagerly awaits their response.
This concludes my comments on the above issues. If there are any other ,
questions of which I can be of help, please do not hesitate to ask.
Attachments 1
1 . Staff memorandum dated October 6, 1988.
2. Memo from Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director dated October 18, 1988.
3. Excerpt from Minnesota Cities; October 1988, Vol. 73, No. 10, Pages 10 & 11 .
4. Map.
5. Letters to property owners and Waiver of Trespass.
6. Memo from MnDOT dated May 7 , 1982.
7. "Tip Sheets".
1 r>
CITY ' OF WO O
.., . CHANHASSEN
1 .
\te-)'0 ,
...... , _,_
""' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: October 6 , 1988
ISUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowner' s Association Stop Sign Requests,
Jim Wehrle
File No. PW070
1
The president of the homeowner' s association for the Near
1 Mountain subdivision is requesting that stop signs be placed in
ALL directions at the following intersections:
II Castle Ridge and Olympic Circle
Cascade Pass and Cascade Court
Near Mountain Boulevard and Mountain Way
Near Mountain Boulevard and Trappers Pass
1 Mountain Way and Oxbow Bend
Attachment No. 1 depicts the existing stop signs that are in
1 place at this time, and the intersections where additional signs
are requested.
II The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum which states that
State Statute 169. 06 dictates that each municipality adopt the
State' s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) , and
such devices shall be installed in accordance with this manual
1 (refer to Attachment No. 2) . ,.. - - -'"—-• ' x --
Because the stop sign is classified as a regulatory sign, the
1 MUTCD specifies the criteria , or warrants, before such traffic
signs are to be placed. The manual states "Because the stop sign
causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, it should be
used only where warranted. " The placement of a stop sign where
1 it is not warranted not only has the potential to cause more
damage than good ( refer to Attachment No. 3 ) , but may present a
liability for the City as per the City Attorney' s memorandum.
1
I
I
• • ( ' I
Don Ashworth 11 October 6 , 1988
Page 2
The multi-way stop installation should be used only where the 1
volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately
equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an
intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any one of the
following conditions may warrant a multi-way stop sign installa-
tion:
1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the ,
multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed
quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made
for the signal installation. I
2. An accident problem as indicated by five or more reported
accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a multi-way
stop installation in a 12-month period. Such accidents
include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-
angle collisions.
3 . Minimum Traffic Volumes
A. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from
all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per
hour for any eight hours of the average day; and
B. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume for the '
minor street or highway must average at least 200 units
per hour for the same eight hours , with an average delay
to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds '
per vehicle during the maximum hour; but
C. When the 85th percentile approach speed of the major
street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour , the minimum
vehicular volume warrant is 70% of the above
requirements.
Prior knowledge of this subdivision indicates that traffic
volumes for the subdivision do not meet any of the warrants for
the installation of these signs. In addition , an analysis using
the Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers resulted in a maximum intersection volume of 71
vehicles per hour during the peak times for the entrances into 11 the subdivision which receive the greatest volume. To verify
these results, staff is conducting a traffic count for the Near
Mountain subdivision at this time. We would expect to have the
results from the traffic study tallied in time to present a
final report at the October 24 , 1988 Council meeting.
Attachments 1
1. Map.
2. Memorandum from City Attorney dated October 7 , 1988 .
3 . Institute of Transportation Engineers memorandum on Stop Signs.
I
Or Mr NM - • r NM M = - NM MN r r MI --- -= IIIIN
■
. CHESTNUT RIDGE ATI
I 1 NEAR MOUNTAIN A N CITY OF MINNETONKA•
� CITY OF SHOREW000 •
��� ��� 1 �� AD ^
...H ...
G TY OF CH NHASSI •19735 GOV CHAIN' ••• I 1• I
H . • CH • 2 1 ',44, s 6
QPg`° 1 3 8 'illp 6R ' • EA • 41 I 2 3 4
1 AT NEAR
( I 2 ,_ - C 9,p .... „DE I so n'CASCAOE� IRCLE• 7
S 4 3 2 I • - • • N 4:90 .o :ASS 2
• 1 1 : 12 II 10 9 ,c P�C1•5 R I 8TH ADDITION dUN AT IbN
•QVI'� , NAP 1 TRA•PERS a • OHES NUr BOG u • •• 4 �� 14 16 i 17 /
8 7 6 N ., 04p2
i s U,
:: N y{ASTA gCIR. E 18
'S TR4p. ( • •:::.5� am.olt 3
<q TRA•,PERS R PpgS ..� i 22 . 19 )P 040 tiE. �p 9 s , ` AT 3 so ® 2 ' � SFr 1 '
MOUNTA • o 23 26
5 4
v��P\ TRAPPERS m 1�'OG 01041111. y�7 10 :11tYMPIC: SI '27�O • °Ilk,/ p �j .o. 0:-:` coca[ MOUNTAIN .� J Z• 3
4
I" Ahhtli. ADDITION jw CP9�� 14 13 12 40
3 2ND o F2 ' RID A' NEAR Z
c
'•CHI ��. ::. C14 1�0 2 :WAY •a o-. • S; q 8lV R 10,,
UNTgIN COURS. p P ` .-u t � .I► T1�1 F •DI • 9 :
ao a —I*Adirit167.44ta.--
1i,,,� •� i not W. 'brill'— ---5jy-- — ' . !. RT
NEAR MTN. ; o C.f MCNUTT LEGEND 1„, PROP. •7 I •� .•.ea,rfu N '
9', ;• L ROJIN• • w,►aa i 4 `r 3I5
o • . .n,ra•e t
•'TH ,•; - A.feSC�ROEE R po
0; ' , 1�1 T Vi 3 • LxItING alt,P :tlt,h LOCAII•.r.
A--
`•0��1 i' 1_583_°23_. „ au t 30X
b •.: 1 416 7 --• 1
251.9• iI - I I :13,
/ B •e t ADDITIONAL t,f LIP SIGNS RL:�;�L >., 1
■o: 7 •Y,-/- olo
e
• I^ I Nih F0 a It w
0 1 , k W
NAROLO S ROdiIA ^ __ EST 1 2 16 17 6 5 2 I ; OUTLOT �I..-.4tOlv 3\ :.1.-
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GR9NNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID Z. GR#NNIS- 1874-196I PorEssioNAL AssoCInTON TELECAPR '
' DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWESZ BANK BUILDING am=B.TCIaelscx
VANCE B.GRANNIS,JR• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHA-*IGE MICHAEL J.BAYER
TIMOTHY J,BERG
PATRICK A. 1 AItREIL SOUTH ST,PALx, MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L GRANNIS,IIT
Roux N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L.HARDfEYER
October 7, 1988
_ 1
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Mr. Larry Brown
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices '
Dear Larry:
Minnesota Statutes § 169. 06 , subd. ( 1 ) , authorizes the 1
Commissioner of Transportation to adopt a manual and
specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices.
The Commissioner has adopted the "Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices", revised 1986. Minn. Stats. § 169. 06, subd. (3 ) ,
mandates that all "traffic--control devices hereafter erected
shall conform to the state manual and specifications." The City
is therefore required by statute to abide by the manual.
Section 1A-4 of the manual provides "the decision to use a
particular device at a particular location should be made on the
basis of an engineering study of the location. " Although the City
generally has discretionary immunity from liability over the
placement of signs, the courts have left the door ajar for
potential liability. Gonzalas v. Hollins, 386 N.W.2d 842 (Minn.
App. 1986 ) . My recommendation is that the manual be strictly
adhered to. This will go a long way to insulate the City from
liability claims.
Very tru yours,
~•� IS, GRANNIS, 'RELL
& N? ■. p.A.i/
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn ,
cc: Don Ashworth
I/
1
I
'F - ,_.
1 NFORM TION - - ..•
I ?,.,. n
rROGRAN TOPIG _: z
SERIES = %. ---_
IWHY DON'T THEY PUT 1741 MORE STOP SIGNS? - =' -
I A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the _
right place and under the right conditions. it is,intended to help drivers and pedestrians at ___
intersection decide wh r o has the right o war_Ian
- __ One common misuse of stop signs is to.ar trarily interrupt through traffic, either by .- = -_ = -j
.-= ". causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other -...,•--,._% s
_ routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisance?' or "speed breakers," there is a high '-'. .-.7-27:7:=:,.!= =-
- ' incidence of intentional violation. in those 'ecations where vehicles do stop, the speed - . -- - :-_-_-
' reduction is effective only-in the .imrnedia-M vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently - _ gip=`--„= l.=
" - -- : ; speeds are actually higher between interractions. For these reasons, it should not be used -•
as a speed control device. -- _ _ --- -_ -"• - r _w -�� � .-
A school crossing may lock dangerous f..-...7 :2-' e^ to use, c2usirn parents tc demand a _ :'.1,..--..-_---..=,..2.:-.---- --_ Y
- stop sign to halt traffic.- Now a vehicle v:hiirh had been a problem for 3 seconds while -- _ -i-=- --_-: ---
approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a. much long_ period. •_
' - A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as • -- -_
- a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no longer _ _ -_
exist. An intersection which previously v.es not busy now looks like a major intersection. - : _ _
IIt really isn't— it just looks like it. it doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't. - _ tix_}
Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic _ - : _-
regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in __ _- •
flagrant violations. In such cases, the s:cp Sign can create a false sense of security in a _
pedestrian and an'attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often
do conflict with tragic results. - -. - . = '.
Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls !
I : become necessary. These guidelines take irtto consideration, among other things, the - _-
•
probability of vehicle: er riving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time -. -
traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities. -.-
ii
i
'. I.L3 09ce. ql r .1, :-.: '-
' \\ .. / - -
I/ .;� . .,� -
lh1�l-n _
1 ' Southern Calf forma Section - _ ,"""-
CITYOF
, i
.1 1
\ � , - II
�� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
"` (612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission 1
FROM: Jim Chaffee , Public Safety Director i
DATE: October 18 , 1988
SUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Public Safety Concerns 1
Hopefully, by now you should have received the memo from
II
Councilman Jay Johnson addressing the letter from Jim Wehrle,
President of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association. There are
several areas of concern regarding public safety issues in Mr.
Wehrle ' s letter , some of which have been addressed and others
II
that are seeking City Engineer input . Of the highest concern is
the vehicular traffic and the speed of such going through the
development. They are requesting signs of several types to
II
include SLOW CHILDREN signs , STOP signs and directional signs.
Obviously since speed is a concern, Public Safety would have
input towards a solution. The streets are posted 30 miles per II hour which, from a public safety standpoint, would appear to be
high for a residential area of narrow and winding roads.
Unfortunately, Mr . Wehrle 's concerns about the speed limits were
addressed at an earlier point in time and it appears that the
II
City ' s options are limited.
Speed limits are decided for the most part by the Minnesota II
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and for a residential area
of this type, MnDOT requires a 30 mile per hour maximum speed.
We had explored possibilities of lowering the speed to 25 miles
per hour and at one point even considered lowering the speed to 1
17 miles per hour. The 17 mile per hour speed limit came out of
a Public Safety meeting of the Near Mountain Homeowners
Association and it was meant mainly to be an eye-catcher rather
II
than an enforceable speed limit . Our City Attorney was contacted
regarding these issues and he basically stated that there are
only two ways to get the speed limit lowered. First would be to II
declare and establish bike-ped lanes on all the residential
streets. If this is done by City Council mandate, the City
Council can direct the speed limit to be lowered to 25 miles per
hour without MnDOT approval. The other option is for the City
II
Engineer to petition the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation to conduct an engineering study to include
traffic counts and in that way possibly get his approval to lower 1
the speed limit.
1
II
' Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 2
From a Public Safety standpoint , it certainly would be desirable
to have lower speed limits in the area; however , Public Safety
cannot support the placement of stop signs to slow down traffic.
I have attached several documents explaining why stop signs
should not be used to control the speed of vehicles on roadways.
1 I took the opportunity to travel the area with Deputy Mike
Douglas of the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department. We went over
Councilman Jay Johnson ' s memo concerning the placement of stop
' signs. Purely from a public safety standpoint , notwithstanding
engineering input , it would be conceiveable to make Cascade Pass
and Castle Ridge both north and south four-way stops. Mountain
Way and Near Mountain Boulevard could be made a three-way stop
and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard could be made a
four-way stop. This again is only a possible solution and would
only be suggested if it met engineering standards and the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
On the subject of street lighting , Public Safety would recommend
' the placement of a street light at Pleasant View Road and Near
Mountain Boulevard, and again at Trappers Pass and Near Mountain
Boulevard. This would then make it consistent with other new
' developments and the placement of street lights .
On the issue of the intersection of Near Mountain Boulevard and
Pleasant View Road, it has already been supported by the Public
' Safety Commission to a realignment of the intersection allowing
turns by all vehicles. The Council decided that , at least for
1988 , signage of that intersection to prohibit the turning of
trucks and buses would suffice. 1989 then could bring a recon-
sideration as to the realignment of the intersection. The
signage of that area at this time appears to be sufficient after
several attempts at proper signage.
Point C in Mr. Wehrle' s letter addresses the new bike path that
was paved going from Mountain Way to Pleasant View Road. It
would certainly be staff ' s recommendation to provide some type of
barriers on the path to prevent motor vehicles from utilizing
same.
Point D in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter concerns an open drainage pipe at
the back of a residence operating as a day care center . Shortly
' after a meeting last spring concerning this open pipe, I went out
there with Staff Engineer Larry Brown to take a look at the
drainage pipe. At that time, I concluded that a barrier of some
sort would be desirable to prevent small children from going into
the pipe.
Point E in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter requests SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY
SIGNS and although not highly recommended, we have in the past
installed these signs if the residential areas requesting them
paid for them.
I
Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 3
Further on in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter he recapped some of the issues
previously mentioned in other memos . Item No. 1 is strictly an
engineering problem and will be handled by the Engineering
Department . Item No. 2 concerns the open pipe which I have just
addressed. Item No. 3 concerns the speed limit and the proper
speed limit for safety concerns which I have previously
addressed. Item No. 4 concerns the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs
which I have already addressed. Item No. 5 concerns the placing
of STOP signs at requested intersections in the area. As I pre-
viously stated, we could support STOP signs at the aforementioned
intersections based on engineering recommendations. Item No. 6
concerns the bike-ped lane and the placing of posts to prohibit
motorized vehicles. Item No. 7 concerns the crosswalk which has
been painted but does not have corresponding signage to advise
motorists. Public Safety certainly recommends the placing of
these signs , and upon conversations with the City Engineer, these
signs will in fact be erected. Item No. 8 is strictly and engi-
neering function. Item No. 9 I have already addressed. Although
Item No. 10 would appear to be a engineering problem, I did con-
tact MnDOT and spoke to Burt Williams who indicated that they
would have somebody out to take a look at it. As of this
writing , I do not believe it has been corrected. Item No. 11
concerns street lights which I have already addressed. Item No.
12 concerns the volleyball courts which have already been taken
care of.
The hot public safety issues at this moment are the placing of
stop signs at various locations and speed limits. As I have
stated, staff would support the placing of stop signs at the
intersections of Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge Court both north
and south, and the intersections of Mountain Way and Near
Mountain Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard
only based upon engineering recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of Public Safety to pursue all avenues
in seeking a reduction of the speed limit for the Near Mountain
area. It is also our recommendation to follow engineering guide-
lines in the placement of stop signs for the Near Mountain area.
Public Safety staff also recommends the placing of street lights
at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain
Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard. We
would also recommend based on engineering input the placement of
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs on Near Mountain Boulevard at
Pleasant View Road and once again , on Near Mountain Boulevard
just south of the City line. In addition, we would recommend
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs at the intersection of Castle Ridge
and Town Line Road. Again, the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs are
being recommended based upon engineering input . It is also
recommended that signage be placed indicating CROSSWALK AHEAD at
II
1 Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 4
1
the newly painted crosswalk going over Pleasant View Road and the
1 placing of some sort of grate over the open drainage culvert near
6240 Near Mountain Boulevard. All other recommendations as pre-
viously discussed in this memo are suggested.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
' 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
From Councilman Jay Johnson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission
Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
Larry Brown, Staff Engineer 1
FROM: Jay Johnson, Councilman
DATE: October 12, 1988 1
SUBJ: Near Mountain Traffic Safety
1
These are Jay Johnson' s opinions and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of the entire City Council.
Several issues of concern to the residents of Near Mountain are
being referred to the Public Safety Commission for review and
recommendations. The Council is requesting that your recommen-
dations be returned to us on Monday, October 24 . This is a very
short time frame to saddle you with this much work. In order for
you to accomplish this assignment, staff will need to provide you
with a thorough and unbiased evaluation of each intersection,
sign proposal, and speed limit proposal.
Hopefully, this memo and information which describes each propo- 1
sal will be provided to you by October 14th, so you will be able
to visit the neighborhood prior to your October 20th meeting.
The detailed staff analysis will hopefully follow soon. 1
1 . Speed Limit and Stop Signs: The speed limit in the area is
currently 30 mph. I spent part of last weekend with the City
radar gun checking speeds . Saturday night on Castle Ridge,
from Olympic Circle to Castle Ridge Court, the average speed
was 25 .4 mph, the maximum was 28 mph and the minimum was 23
mph. I believe the curve prior to Olympic Circle prevented
any speed in excess of this and cars were taking the curve
"wide" .
Near Mountain Boulevard, from Castle Ridge to Mountain Way, 1
was monitored Saturday night with an average speed of 26 .6
mph, with a maximum speed of 32 mph. On Monday evening, the
1
1
' Public Safety Commission
Mr. Jim Chaffee
Mr. Larry Brown
October 12, 1988
Page 2
' average speeds were 26 . 8 mph westbound and 28 .5 eastbound,
the maximum speeds were 31 westbound and 35 eastbound. Many
of the eastbound drivers were in the left hand lane as they
passed Mountain Way. Also, several drivers rolled through
the stop sign. on Mountain Way. I support a stop sign at—this
location. 4
' I believe that 30 mph is too high for this neighborhood of
* curved streets.
I also__ support the stop sign request at Near Mountain and
-4 Trappers Pass:— I did not radar-this section, but based on
the eastbound speeds and the numerous cars cutting the
corner at Mountain Way, I suspect the speeds will be
excessive in this area. This road is now connected to
Minnetonka and will become another cut-through street.
' I would also like the Commission to look at other intersec-
tions in the area including_ Castle Ridge_both ends of
Cascade Pass. _—
' I disagree with all way_ stop_ signs at Castle Ridge/Olympic
-71- Circle and Cascade pass/CascadeCourt.
3 . Children Signs: This subdivision was designed by the develo-
pers and approved by the former City Council with on-street
paths and short setbacks . The subdivision attracts young
couples with children. I fully support caution signs for
children in this neighborhood. The cut=through _streets of
- ---- -----
Castle Ridge-arid^Near- Mountainshould be a priority. _4 . Trail Designation Signs: I also support trail designation
signs that caution motorists .
If you have any questions , please call me.
Enclosures: Jim Wehrle' s
letters to Don Ashworth and Larry
Brown dated September 30 , 1988 .
Don Ashworth' s Letter to Jim Wehrle dated October 7 ,
1988.
•
I
1
4
,
1-
160.262 ROADS,GENERAL PROVISIONS 3584
of transportation: the departments of agriculture, transportation, natural resources,
public service,energy and economic development,and the state soil and water conser-
vation board. The commissioner may cooperate with and enter into agreements with
the United States government, any department of the state of Minnesota, any unit of
i
local government and any public or private corporation in order to effect the purposes
of this section.
History: 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 620 s 1; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1976 c 149 s 59; 1976
i
C 166 s 7; 1981 c 356 s 177,178; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1983 c 289 s 115 subd 1; 1986 c 444
160.263 BICYCLE LANES AND WAYS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section, "bicycle lane" means that I
portion of a roadway set aside by the governing body of a political subdivision having
jurisdiction over the roadway for the exclusive use of bicycles or other vehicles i
= propelled by human power and so designated by appropriate signs and markings;and
t. "bicycle way" means any path or sidewalk or portion thereof designated for the use of I
- bicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power by the governing body of a 7
political subdivision. A
- Subd. 2. Powers of political subdivisions. The governing body of any political
I
subdivision may by ordinance:
(a) Designate any roadway or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle }
lane.
(b) Designate any sidewalk or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle
I
way provided that the designation does not destroy a pedestrian way or pedestrian
access.
+. Subd. 3. Designation of lane. A governing body designating a sidewalk or portion
I
thereof as a bicycle way, or a highway or portion thereof as a bicycle lane under this
section may:
(a) Designate the type and character of vehicles or other modes of travel which
may be operated on a bicycle lane or bicycle way, provided that the operation of such
- - vehicle or other mode of travel is not inconsistent with the safe use and enjoyment of
the bicycle lane or bicycle way by bicycle traffic.
(b) Establish priority of right-of-way on the bicycle lane or bicycle way and
I
otherwise regulate the use of the bicycle lane or bicycle way as it deems necessary.
(c) Paint lines or construct curbs or establish other physical separations to exclude
the use of the bicycle lane or bicycle way by vehicles other than those specifically
permitted to operate thereon. I
The designating governing body may, after public hearing, prohibit through traffic
on any highway or portion thereof designated as a bicycle lane, except that through
traffic may not be prohibited on a trunk highway. The designating governing body shall
erect and maintain official signs giving notice of the regulations and priorities estab- '
lished under this subdivision, and shall mark all bicycle lanes and bicycle ways with
appropriate signs.
Subd. 4. Speed on street with bicycle lane. Notwithstanding section 169.14,
subdivision 5, the governing body of any political subdivision, by resolution or ordi- ,
nance and without an engineering or traffic investigation, may designate a safe speed
• for any street or highway under its authority upon which it has established a bicycle
•
lane; provided that such safe speed shall not be lower than 25 miles per hour. The
I
ordinance or resolution designating a safe speed is effective when appropriate signs
• . - designating the speed are erected along the street or highway, as provided by the
governing body.
History: 1976 c 199 s 15
I
•
160.264 REPLACEMENT OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS. +.
. Whenever an existing bicycle lane, bicycle way, pedestrian way or roadway used
. .
I
•
..
CITYOF
74-.A C s AssEN
s... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 27, 1988
' Mr. Jim Wehrle, President
Near Mountain Homeowners Association
241 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim:
tI am in receipt of your letter dated July 22, 1988 and I have
forwarded it to Gary Warren for his response. All the issues
' that you mentioned in your letter requires Engineering Department
input.
As you are aware, the Public Safety Department supports the
lowering of the speed limit in the residential areas . However,
as I related to you and your group, it would appear that the
MnDOT Commissioner must approve the lower speed limit based on an
' engineering study. This , too, is coordinated through the Engi-
neering Department.
Please feel free to use myself or Scott Harr as your conduit to
' City Hall when concerns or issues arise. We will direct your
inquiries to the right department.
Please call if you have any questions .
Sincerely,
i
( ChafJim
f;1
' Public Safety Director
JC:cd
' cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Gary Warren, City Engineer
Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director
S
! , II
Mr. Jim Chaffee 7/22/88
Public Safety Director
City of Chanhassen
609 Coulter Dr. - PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim:
Thank you for forwarding me a copy of Gary Warren's letter of June 21 re the
cleaning out of silt deposits at the intake pipes in the main pond here in Near
Mountain. Our community appreciates your offer of help with this 1987
flood-related problem, and has the following commments and questions on this
and other subjects about which we have been talking:
1 . The homeowner at 6391 Near Mountain Blvd, where the pond comes closest to
the street , would like to have the silt build-up at his intake pipe taken away,
as soon as possible. This is easily accessed from the street and does not
require your crossing anyone else's property , which was one of the concerns at
the other intake pipe. Have someone contact the owners , Bob or Jan Schulte, at
the address above or by phone at 470-9248.
2. One of the homeowners at the other intake, Jim Pahl at 6226 Cascade Pass
( see lot #7 in Gary's letter of 6/21/88 ) , has several questions to ask before
deciding whether to pursue this:
A. What sort of equipment would drive through these yards to do this?
B. Could the equipment reach the pond without tearing-up his bank?
C. Would the "planter walls" in lot #8 prevent access?
Please contact him by letter or at home at 470-0655.
3. On a related matter , what has become of the inquiry into this pond's outlet
pipe behind 6240 Near Mountain Blvd, which has no grate or other protective
covering? Many children live in this area , and there is a daycare center
operated at this address. A small child could crawl up into this and get stuck
or potentially come upon snakes or other animals. I recall that you know the
owners , Gary & Mary McGlennen ( he's the Asst Hennepin. Co Prosecutor ). Please
write them or call at 470-0564. If this is the developer's responsibility ,
please so notify. There is more potential liability here, than there is at our
infamous "no turn" intersection. Quick action should be taken in this case!
4. On behalf of the Near Mountain Homeowners' Assn, and upon the unanimous
recommendation of our Public Safety Committee , we hereby officially ask for the
following changes in traffic signs in our neighborhood: '
A. Speed limit signs now posted at 30, should be reduced to 15 or 20 , in
relation to the 25 mph speed limit signs posted all around us on
Pleasantview. Our short , little residential streets are mostly dead-end
and full of curves , hills and dozens of children. Our speed limit
should be far less than that of the long and well-travelled Pleasantview.
Our speeding problems have gotten much worse since the 30 mph signs went
up , and it is only a matter of time before a child is seriously injured or
killed! We ask that they be changed, immediately.
vii) '
JUL 2 6 1988
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
r ,
6. We ask that "SLOW - CHILDREN AT PLAY" signs be place at all entrances
to our development .
C. We ask that stop signs be placed in ALL directions at the following
intersections:
Castle Ridge & Olympic Circle
Cascade Pass & Cascade Court
Near Mountain Blvd. & Mountain Way
Near Mountain Blvd. & Trapper's Pass
Mountain Way & Oxbow Bend
D. When you speak to Gary Warren about the ponds , please ask why our
ped-bike path has not been completed. Laurie Sietsema assured us many
months ago that this had been approved and only awaited Gary seeing to it
' that the work crew put the bituminous path down on the outlot and then
paint/post the four foot lanes on the street . We specifically ask that
the street signs say "ped-bike" , as is done in many other communities.
' E. A crosswalk should be painted across Pleasantview where our ped-bike
path crosses it to connect to the existing path on the far side of the
' street . This should be properly signed/posted, preferably with a stop
sign , but at least with a "crosswalk" sign.
F. Lastly, we ask that all of the above signs that are within Near
Mountain , be coordinated with Peter Pflaum , President of Lundgren
Bros Construction , who has agreed to frame them in wood (as now at Near
Mountain Blvd. & Pleasantview ) , in keeping with the beauty of our
' development.
Thank you very much for all of your ongoing assistance and cooperation. We in
' Near Mountain greatly appreciate it . Please get back to me as soon as possible
on the above issues , and I will relay needed information to our members. If we
are going to have to take any of these issues before City Council , please so
advise by Friday , August 5, so that we can pursue this at the Council Meeting
on Monday , August 8. As always , feel free to call me at home at 470-1521 or at
work at 548-4041 .
' Sincerely ,
„y„iseat.../ln Wehrle , President
Near Mountain Homeowners Assn
1
I
. r
. .CITY OF
,,-
._, .
..,,. 0 4. .,. ANBAssEs
t_i
A 1/41‘,„
'-‘4..... ....„!,,,.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer
FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
II
DATE: June 14 , 1988
SUBJ: Holding Ponds & Speed Limit Signs I
II
The past few weeks I have received complaints about debris being
washed into holding ponds. Obviously debris from this year would
II
not be an issue since it hasn't rained very much but most of the
complaints have centered on the debris that was washed into the
holding ponds during the storm of the century last year. The two II specific complaints that I have received involve the holding pond
by the south Lotus Lake boat access and the holding pond behind
6228 and 6226 Cascade Pass. The complaint on the south Lotus
Lake boat access stem from the president of the Lotus Lake
II
Homeowners Association asking that the City clean out the debris
and the complaint from the pond behind 6228 and 6226 Cascade Pass
came from the Near Mountain Homeowners Association requesting the
II
same thing. My question for you is who is responsible for these
ponds? If the city is responsible for these two ponds please let
me know and I will be more than happy to get back with these
II
people and indicate that we will do whatever we can to help solve
the problem. If we are not responsible let me know who is and I
will attempt to get some sort of action to respond to these
II
�,6. -
_ �.a.M.,! -concerns. �:,1-'-�4i-..4-,;.7.-•.. - �.z.>.,..:,..- _7,.. . , .
My second request stems from the complaint I had on speed limit
signs for Pleasant View Road, specifically as Pleasant View
II
intersects with Powers Boulevard. The request is for more speed
limit signs going east from Powers Boulevard on Pleasant View
Road. Could you see that speed limit signs are placed on
Pleasant View Road if in fact there are none.
II
Thank you.
I
II
I
CITY
i
.. OF
.. .
G CHANHASSEN
1 A ,
1 .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
ITO: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director
1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: June 3 , 1988
1 SUBJ: Near Mountain Development
1 On Monday morning, June 6 , we will have a number of engineering
issues to address. On June 8 , the Near Mountain Homeowners
1 Assocation and Public Safety Committee will be meeting to talk
about some of the following problems :
1 . Intersection of Near Mountain and Pleasant View Roads .
I Specifically, what does engineering plan to do with the
intersection if the Council approves the realignment?
1 2 . Can a crosswalk and stop sign be erected where the trail
(bike path) crosses Pleasant View to go over to the new
park?
I 3 . Can signs be placed at Pleasant View and Near Mountain
and Townline and Castle Ridge indicating "no thru
traffic"?
I4 . Can speed limits be lowered to 20 mph in the residential
areas (all of Near Mountain development) ?
1 Please be prepared to discuss these items on Monday morning, June
6 , in addition to the South Lotus Lake Boat Access concerns .
1 Please contact Scott Harr if you have any questions . We would
like to have answers for� the Association on Wednesday night.
l ,&,.___ \-(1;;Lf2.Y� 2
1 / /
I
. 7____,,j
e. :11C--- '-/---- CA...7/ Z ccit--3
I ''''.. is.--'st,--\ ' •■•-- . c:c47-112
CITY OF
»14$('(11.4
\\\I
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 1, 1988 i
Mr. Jim Wherle, President
Near Mountain Homeowners Association
241 Mountain Way 11 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim:
Please find attached a copy of a memo from Gary Warren to me
addressing the stormwater retention pond maintenance. This issue
was brought up at the last homeowners association meeting that I
attended. You may wish to copy this and distribute them with
your next mailing.
In speaking with Mayor Hamilton, he indicated that he would 1
attempt to get the public hearing changed from July 25 , 1988 to
August 8th. On recollection, I believe that the Council did not
vote on the date, just on the public hearing, therefore it would
seem to me that the date could reasonably be changed to August
8th. I will let you know when this is finalized. In the mean-
time, we are publishing the notice of public hearing for July
25th and we can always re-publish it if required. I will keep
you posted on this item.
As always, if you have any questions, please call. '
Sincerely,
im Chaffe
ublic Safety Director
JC:k
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1
I
II
I 4''
CITYOF ssEN
c ! t ti, NR, . .
,,,,
1
,L, s 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
�, (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
tFROM: Gary Warren, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 21, 1988 '
tSUBJ: Stormwater Detention Pond Maintenance
File No. PW152
111 In response to your June 14, 1988 memo , the it
C y has maintained
ponds in the past if they are owned by the City and/or we have
I drainage easement rights over these ponds. Since we currently do
not have a stormwater management fund in place to generate reve-
nue for these types of activities , the maintenance is done on a
I haphazard basis normally in response to complaints. We hope to
change this policy (in particular establish a stormwater manage-
ment fund) but it also is dependent on Watershed District
involvement.
IConcerning the two pond areas in question , the South Lotus Lake
ponds are under City ownership and we have done maintenance a
I couple of times on these ponds as a result of last year ' s storm
damage. I have directed Jerry Schlenk to again clean out the
lower ponds to take advantage the dry weather which we are
currently experiencing . This will recapture the retention
I volume. This should be accomplished within the next week.
Concerning the Near Mountain pond, I personally inspected the
I site last week and did not observe any significant amounts of
debris and, in fact , the site looked relatively clean to me. I
had Jerry Schlenk investigate the ponding area ( 6/21/88) . He
I observed that there is a large buildup of silt and sediment at
the storm sewer inlet (see attached plan) . To remove this
material will require two things: equipment , which we can come
up with, and access . The City does have a drainage easement over
tthis area, however, the property remains in the ownership of the
abutting property owners. To properly solve this problem we need
access across the back of lots 7 , 8, 9 , 10 and 11 . If we can get
I access agreements from these property owners and their
willingness to replant any damaged lawn area, we will be glad to
clean out the silt/sediment deposits. Let me know your thoughts.
t
11
Jim Chaffee
June 21 , 1988
Page 2
1
Water quality apparently was not questioned by the neighborhood
association, however, my site visit did note that we have several
areas of algae bloom or weed growth typical for these stagnant
pond areas with the severe warm weather we have been
experiencing. For your information , ponds of this nature are not
intended as pristine, swimmable, fishable waters. As such, while 1
we do not want them to be eyesores , their main purpose is to
control runoff rate and nutrients. The City therefore does not
spend time or money treating and/or aerating these water areas to
address any water quality concerns , especially since significant
funds would be necessary to deal with these basins in that
regard. If you care to discuss this aspect further, I would be
happy to sit down with you .
cc: Jerry Schlenk , Street Superintendent 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
I ' \\/_______ --- --\\ \\
1 \_______ ------------
/ o '''' c'
• Scp,l.E IN T
, _ . _ _ _I 6:\K . _ . .
1
\CI / ,
\ � ♦k‘ - -
J • /-
4011 s •r \E XI C \ I
? 1/ '/—j-,. \<Is9 r--: . /
p∎ND \
/-
- \ tro 8 / \ IP -
, .
iiii ,
4
gul�Q ,' / o \
"/ *\' ('‘'v, 71 411":X
9i 2 \ / \ a
111 6 `‘ `� I \ i 2 i...M • — — e 3 /Aill BLtVD.
1 e-. t ` i
e O� \\ 54 CB 2 : M H.6 : - i■
I
1 2
-.
1 W —�
1___ �2 " 8" 'EST g 4TH STREET
Ilt_ W
_ EX.MH•
�_ sw...-.r_ . . __ .tea: • .. .7'fk1_. j 1.r.irir7•y L'v
1 , . . 1
. ,-,„._
II
Did y ou know? Peter Tritz
Immunity from liability
What can cities do to help preserve their immunity from liability for
discretionary acts? (or"Meeting Minutes that Saved the City").
In 1963 cities lost their sovereign decide what is and what is not a In Holmquist v. State of Minnesota. I
immunity from tort liability when the discretionary function. Beginning in the 425 N.W.2d 230 (Minn.1988), the a
municipal tort liability act (M.S. Chap- mid-1970s, the courts drew a line issue concerned the installation of a -'
ter 466) made a city liable for its torts between decisions at a "planning" warning sign at a particular spot. The
in a way similar to a private entity. level, which were protected by discre- Court further elaborated on the differ-
But, the Legislature recognized that tionary immunity, and those at an ence between a discretionary policy-
political subdivisions are not exactly "operational" level, which were not. making decision and a professional
like private persons or corporations, While this distinction was difficult to judgment. The Court concluded that
and that the rules governing liability for draw in many specific cases, generally discretionary immunity couldn't apply,
governmental entities must be different the idea was that if the decision because it didn't know if the decision
in some ways from those that govern involved judgment or discretion at a was discretionary in nature or not; the
liability in the private sector. planning level, the government would state hadn't presented any evidence
One of the ways the rules on liability be protected from immunity. that its decision involved evaluating 1
differ for cities is that the Legislature economic, social, and political rather x
and the courts recognize a number of Cases define immunity than scientific, professional, or techni-
areas where the city is immune from The Minnesota Supreme Court cal factors.
liability. Among the most important of refined the concept of discretionary In Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids,
these exceptions is "discretionary immunity with its decisions in a series 422 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1988), the
immunity." A city is immune from of cases this past year. It is now clear Court said that a city council's decision
liability for "any claim based upon the that not every instance where a city not to immediately correct a known
performance or the failure to exercise officer or employee is exercising judg- flooding problem with a holding pond
or perform a discretionary function or ment or discretion will be protected by came under discretionary immunity I
duty, whether or not the discretion is immunity. Rather, the key issue is protection. The city was able to show
abused" (M.S. 466.03, subd. 6). whether the challenged action involves that it decided not to correct the prob-
Immunities are important to cities in ". . . the evaluation and weighing of lem immediately because the city was
I
several ways. The first and most social, political and economic consider- not financially able to correct all drain-
obvious is that cities don't have to bear ations and [is] thus a public policy age problems immediately and there
the burden of paying damage awards decision . . ." If so, the protection will was strong public opposition to
for these types of acts. Second, and apply. On the other hand, if the deci- increased expenditures.
I
perhaps as important, these immunities sion involves ". . . merely a profes- In Abbett v. County of St. Louis,
can be used to get a claim against the sional or scientific judgment," then the 424 N.W. 2d 82 (Minn. App. 1988),
city dismissed on a summary judgment immunity does not apply. the appeals court said that a decision
motion. A summary judgment motion Some examples might help clarify not to place a guardrail at an accident
I
can be brought before the case goes to the kind of distinction the court has in site was not protected by discretionary
trial. By bringing this kind of motion, mind. In Nusbaum v. County of Blue immunity. The court reasoned that
the city in effect says to the court Earth, 422 N.W. 2d 713, (Minn., since the Manual on Uniform Traffic
"Look, even if everything the plaintiff 1988), the Court said that a decision as Control Devices only specifies where
I
claims is true, the law says that cities to where a speed zone should begin guardrails may be installed, the deci-
simply aren't liable in this kind of and end, and a decision of whether to sion not to install a guardrail at a
situation, so there's no point in going place a warning sign before a curve particular location is a matter of profes-
I
through the time and expense of a were matters of professional judgment sional judgment, to which discretionary
trial." Getting a claim dismissed at rather than policy so that discretionary immunity does not apply.
summary judgment can substantially immunity did not apply. But a decision In Johnson v. Michael Shea and
i reduce defense costs. not to place a new speed limit sign at Associates, 425 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. '
I The intention of immunity from liabil- the end of a speed zone was a pro- App. 1988), the appeals court said that
ity for discretionary functions is to tected immunity, because it was discretionary immunity did protect the
preserve the separation of powers—to merely a matter of following the Min- county's decision about how to investi-
prevent the courts from second-guess- nesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Con- gate an allegation of child abuse. The I
ing legislative or executive policy-mak- trol Devices, which is an expression of statutes specifying how to conduct such
ing activities. However, it is difficult to public policy. investigations embody a balancing of t:1 1
10 Minnesota Cities
I
I competing policy objectives. Because shows that the council considered the cials or employees don't follow the
the county officials acted in accordance costs and the benefits to the public city's own policies, that in itself could
with those statutes, the county was before adopting a policy specifying the establish negligence and liability.
I protected by discretionary immunity. conditions and location of stop signs, Fifth,keep records. Remember that
and proves that the reason there was it's not enough just to have followed
Reducing liability not a stop sign at this particular location the applicable statute, regulation, or
Discretionary immunity is a develop- was because of an application of that ordinance. Cities must be able to show
I ing area of law. The facts of every case policy, discretionary immunity might be that they followed the policy. That
are different, and much will depend on available. means keeping records so that in sev-
the ability of the city's lawyer to char- Third, it may be useful for the eral years the city will be able to
acterize the individual decision as council to formally recognize areas in document any actions. Similarly, a brief
I involving a balancing of competing pout- which specific officers and employees record of the reasons for a particular
ical, economic, and social factors as are expected to make discretionary decision, such as a decision whether or
opposed to an application of "profes- decisions. There are many situations in not to immediately repair a reported
I sional judgment." But there are things which it's not feasible to develop a street defect, can help show that the
the city can do to make it easier for formal policy to guide the individual's individual was in fact making a discre-
the city's defense attorney to make action in every possible situation. An tionary decision.
that argument. example might be a decision on corn- Obviously there's no guarantee that
First, make the council minutes as mitting personnel and equipment to these steps will always result in discre- !
complete as possible. In some cities, fighting a particular fire. The council tionary immunity for the city. But there
the practice is to make the meeting could adopt a formal policy delegating are areas in which the city officials
I minutes a "bare bones" summary that that decision to the fire chief and must use their discretion in balancing
shows only the actual motions council directing the chief to consider and competing public policy considerations
members made and the votes the coun- evaluate factors such as the threat the in order to make decisions. The courts
cil took. It can be useful also to include fire poses to life and property, the risk recognize that it is inappropriate to
I in the minutes a summary of the discus- it would pose to the firefighters, the second-guess these kinds of decisions
sion leading up to a decision—the points need to have personnel rested and that city officials make. But in order for
for and against, concerns and opinions equipment serviced and available to the city to receive the protection of
people voiced about the cost versus fight other fires that might pose a discretionary immunity for these kinds
I the benefits, and so on. Taping council greater threat, and so on. Such a policy of decisions, it will have to be clear j
meetings can accomplish the same might help convince a court to evaluate from the record that city officials were
result. The point is not so much to the chief's decision as discretionary, in fact making that kind of evaluation
record verbatim every comment every rather than as a technical or profes- and decision.
I council member makes, but rather to sional judgment. Similarly, the council
clarify that the council was weighing might formally recognize the need for NOTE: In preparing this discussion
and balancing costs, benefits to the the public works director to evaluate I relied heavily on an excellent and
public, political considerations, and so the seriousness of the risk that partic- more in-depth article by Peggy Flicker
I on. ular street defects pose, to prioritize Addicks, general counsel of the Asso-
Second, where feasible have the needed street repairs, to decide ciation of Minnesota Counties. Many
council adopt formal written policies to whether a particular condition can wait thanks to Peggy for the permission to
I guide city officers' and employees' until later or whether it warrants work- do so. •
actions. For example, it can be helpful ing overtime to fix.
to show that the council made a delib- Fourth, if a statute or regulation Y
erate decision to carry out a particular spells out how to perform a particular i
I responsibility on a staged basis over activity, follow it to the letter. The
time, either for economic or for political Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic HOLMES & GRAVEN
reasons. If the city has and follows a Control Devices is an example of this Chartered
I plan or schedule showing when partic- kind of regulation. The courts seem to Attorneys at Law
ular segments of streets are due for be willing to accept that these kinds of Practicing primarily in the areas of
maintenance, repair, or replacement, statutes and regulations embody a leg- • Municipal Financing*
the city may argue for discretionary islative balancing of the relevant eco-
' immunity on some claims arising out of nomic, social, and political factors. This •Tax Increment Financing
the condition of streets. A capital balancing is the essence of discretion- Analysis
improvements plan may be useful in a ary decision-making, and by following • General Government
similar way. that direction, the city can receive the • Litigation
Another example might be a claim benefit of discretionary immunity. .Condemnation
which alleges that the city should have The same reasoning applies to local ;
had a stop sign in a particular location. ordinances or policies to guide city •Computer Law
I A city engineer deciding that this con- employees'actions. Official written pol- 470 Pillsbury Center
dition doesn't warrant a stop sign prob- icies can be a two-edged sword. If Minneapolis, MN 55402
ably won't fall under discretionary followed, they may be the basis for (612) 337-9300
immunity protection. But if the city discretionary immunity. But if city offi-
`Listed in Bond Buyer's Directory
I
October 1988 11
, ------ ----\ t \_________ ..-------- . 1
1 I ' /\\\/------'-'--.---> • N tts C3'
I
/ Cl.111-Al I
�� /
. 7: J 0, ,
\\00.1
4 --____ .1 -/3
\ •./ \j .
,! X. •- \ / 1
6 , \ EXI \ 6
G \ 22 410 J /
6
ti?csq,
� ,.jjrj� k
4 f O r
/ 3
'H. 4 \ t9 6� s
•
cP, \ (2, \
n
1/INAF
• .N, v, ,
\ \ .,-
-A\ , J
�, /1 ,70 ,a M - I f`f�— 6340 C�
1 1' 6391 B VD. �OP 6" (9,"— CB I.... A -' -111- -------■■■•../ ‘, / .CB2 I\\,
1 •, __\
N ' W
12 " 80 •S-�-V EST 1 WEST 64TH
a." X.MN
..
t , 4
I , ...
CITY OF
....y .
... .
, N t , �
,_\_, ,_. : 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
ts (612) 937-1900
1 October 10, 1988
tDear Property Owner:
The Near Mountain Homeowner' s Association has contacted the City
tand requested that the City remove the excess silt that has accu-
mulated at the storm sewer outlets for the pond.
t The attached drawing shows the location of the work that has been
requested. Due to the topographical constraints in the immediate
area, access would have to be obtained through the rear of your
II lot if this project were to proceed as shown on the drawing.
Again, this is not a regular City project; however, the City pro-
mised the Homeowner' s Association that we would clean out the
silt if, and only if, the neighbors granted the City a temporary
I easement to cross their property. if one of the neighbors
declines access, the project would NOT be pursued by the City.
t Although the City is willing to dedicate the time and equipment
necessary for this project, the restoration that may be required
to cross the properties would be the responsibility of each lot
I owner. Again, this project will not be pursued by the City if
any of the homeowners decline the temporary easement.
I would appreciate hearing any and all comments from you. In
light of the short time left in the season, I would appreciate
I ; receiving all responses by October 18, 1988. I will notify all
the affected property owners of the final outcome. If you have
t any questions or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
II
tLarry Brown
Staff Engineer
ILB:ktm
Attachments: Map
tWaiver of Trespass and Damages
;It'
5
1 . _
C
-&-1-b'44e. a-\- N-e-ac Mouth(n 8d.yl
;■;:f!Rb
James & Carol A. Pahl
2..
6226 Cascade Pass L.04- '1 1310c-L
1ES:=8 Chanhassen, MN . 55317
7
Robert M. & Cheryl L. Newton L_cy4- , :2_ ;
6228 Cascade Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
It
Larry & Julia Schlupp
• 6230 Cascade Pass L0-1- t -e)loc-IC''
Chanhassen, MN 55317
11 Robert J. & Margaret J. Seeley
6232 Cascade Pass LOA- I C) 1 Z
Chanhassen, MN 55317 1
Russell & M. Schneiderman 1
6340 Castle Ridge
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lo B I CC_L. -2_
!I
- _-
Robert E. & Janice G. Schulte 111
4
6391 Near Mountain Blvd. 0-1- ■
iim
Chanhassen, MN 55317
E \ c(8
4
1
'
I : .
WAIVER OF TRESPASS AND DAMAGES
The undersigned, owner, tenant or contract for deed
vendee, of certain land in the City of Chanhassen, does hereby
consent and grant unto the City of Chanhassen, its agents and
' ' assigns, the right to enter upon the property described as Lot
11, Block 2 , for the plat filed at the Carver County Recorder' s
office known as Chestnut Ridge at Near Moutain 3rd Addition and
shown on the attached Exhibit "A" for the following purpose:
To gain access to Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 for the removal of
silt and pond maintenance.
' It is further understood that this Waiver constitutes a
waiver on behalf of the owner or tenant to any claim for damages
because of the entry on the property.
Dated this day of , 1988.
1
WAIVER OF TRESPASS AND DAMAGES 1
The undersigned, owner, tenant or contract for deed II
1 vendee, of certain land in the City of Chanhassen, does hereby
consent and grant unto the City of Chanhassen, its agents and II
assigns, the right to enter upon the property described as Lot
I
1 , Block 4 , for the plat filed at the Carver County Recorder' s
office known as Chestnut Ridge at Near Moutain 5th Addition and II
shown on the attached Exhibit "A" for the following purpose:
II
To remove silt that has accumulated near the existing storm
sewer flared end section located at the north side of the
II
subject lot.
It is further understood that this Waiver constitutes a 1
waiver on behalf of the owner or tenant to any claim for damages
because of the entry on the property. II
Dated this day of , 1988 . II
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
--- ..,. ld.FNan/.'•Yei5r 1. ..__.a,_,..:.,e .`1L`tt'*g.i7?e
3
lit
II f
(
1
IIG12/n6-6164
7, 1)
I
I
The Honorable Ronald R. iiicrlicis
II 1b22 East 25th Sereet
i,i,:ainy, ,,innesot; 55745
li F;e: Miscellaneous Warning Signs
Jear Senator Lickiich:
II As a follow-up to our telephone conversation of last Friday, April 30th,
rttachea is the portion of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
( Devices concerning miscellaneous warning signs . It is very brief
II (paragraph 26 - 40 on page 83) but does mention "Other Crossing Signs"
(W11 Series) on page 73.
'sn/dd T's practice for the trunk highway system has been to prohibit their
I use. xa �; tl
us,,. An example would be a "Slow - Children At Play Sign. Also, Mn/DOT
discourages usage of these signs by local road authorities. The city/county
deficient regulatory and warning sign program, which you indicated a know-
ledge of, was an example of this practice. An additional consideration was
that limited signing funds should be used for the proven and most effective
signs .
I Attached is a copy of an Office of State Aid letter dated August 16, 1979,
(prepared by the Office of Traffic Engineering) that instituted the controls
on miscellaneous warning signs in the aforementioned City/County Sign
IIProgram. ' It indicates the basis of Mn/DOT's position on the subject.
I trust the above information answers your basic concerns about miscellaneous
IIwarning signs. If not, please contact me at (612)296-6164.
Sincerely, cc: John Pawlak
ii—
W. VanLoon
;. j, 1. /� Gene Ofstead
K. K. McRae/K. L. Olson
R. A. Kirpius, P.G.
ii- Asst. Traffic Engineer, Operations
Enclosures:
.i::ii l lea (i)L'. / , 7'i 'c ::3)
I ,,u5ast 1.., 17) Lettcr
111 5144%
( ' F-1n/DOT - Office of State Aid
Room 420
II
( All Participants in the Traffic Control Device August 16, 1979
Inventory and Project for Correcting Regulatory
II
and Warning Sign, Delineator and Object Marker
Deficiencies Program - SRS 0005(5)
Gordon M. Fay 296-9872 II
Director.
Office of State Aid
( Non-Standard "Slow:Children at Play" Signs II
1
It comes to our attention periodically that rectangular
"Slow-Children" or "Slow-Children at Play" signs have been
II
installed by local road authorities. These signs are non-
standard devices cod are not eligible for installation under
this program.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street
travelways. The subject signs have long been rejected, since
i they give a direct and open suggestion that such behavior is II acceptable. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting
to warn of conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the
' desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children
to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do ; -_
not and cannot provide, a great disservice results.
Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other
II
recreational facilities are available for use where clearly
( jtstified. Also, the "Watch for Children" warning sign (WII-X5)
is a standard device which may be used where unusual circumstances
warrant and where this program's traffic sign inventory shows a
I
definite need. To insure effectiveness of any of the above warning
signs, usage should be limited.
cc: District State Aid Engineers II
District Traffic Engineers
Traffic Engineering Consultants II( Industry Representatives
GF :cw
( Ed Shea I
II
II
1
1
I' '' ,
. ,, .•
•
. . .
4 I •
MANUAL
ON ••
1111 ,
UNIFORM
TRAFFIC
' CONTROL
DEVICES
FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS •
I 1971 . '
• I Q, .
•
4 c ..
,,, , .
ii . OFFICIAL RULINGS ON REQUESTS
ill • .
C for Interpretations, Changes,
ill and Experimentations . •
• •
• 0 .
IVOLUME VII - SEPTEMBER 1976
I t . .
t'
1lI '
li • '
t' ,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
II -
Federal Highway Administration
i1 .
- ! R
-20-
Symbol signing should convey an immediately understandable message Section 2C-40 allows the use of warning signs other than those specified
that will facilitate greater safety and more efficient movement of in the Manual, however, they should conform with the general specifications
traffic. The Rail Station symbol sign approved under Ruling
for shape, color, and placement. Therefore, they should be black on
Sn-173 (Chng.) does more clearly depict the intended message and yellow, diamond shaped signs. Many areas have erected CHILDREN AT
will be the guiding symbol to all stations not just Amtrak. PLAY signs not in conformance with the Manual requirements.
The proposed Amtrak design was denied in favor of the symbol recommended
by the Symbols Task Force. Furthermore, signs like this may give a false sense of security and
may raise the question of tort liability. Thus signs of this type
and those with similar legends should be discouraged from use.
ACTION: Denied DATE: 4/26/76 The following interpretation of Section 2C-40 was rendered:
Section 2C-40 does permit the use of diamond shaped, black on yellow
signs with a legend CHILDREN AT PLAY when needed for a particular
condition. Signs such as this and other warning signs are not
intended to regulate the speed of vehicles, but to warn motorists
of a potentially hazardous condition that may call for a reduction
Sn-153 (Chng.) - South Carolina State Highway Department, Gas Service in speed. Regulation of speed is the function of speed limit signs
Sign Criteria in conjunction with proper law enforcement.
The State requested a reduction in the hours of operation criteria
recommended in Section 2F-32 for determining if "GAS" service signing ACTION: Clarification DATE: 5/4/76
can be included on the motorist service sign.
South Carolina indicates that because of the general fuel shortage,
many service stations have in recent months shortened the number of
hours during which they are open to service customers. In keeping
with this practice, it would appear desirable to reduce the number Sn-155 (Intr.) - City of Birmingham, Alabama, Overhead Horizontal NO
of hours of operations specified in the MUTCD to be eligible for RIGHT (LEFT) TURN and DO NOT ENTER Regulatory Signs
"GAS" service signing. The State's suggested change is: "Continuous
operations at least 12 hours per day, Monday through Saturday and at
least 8 hours per day on Sunday." The present criteria is 16 hours The city requested official action concerning the use of a horizontal
per day, 7 days a week. •/ format for overhead mounting of supplemental NO RIGHT (LEFT) TURN
sir and DO NOT ENTER regulatory signs.
Section 2F-32 states "Where road authorities elect to providenserriteria The city is currently using 72" x 24" R6-1 (ONE WAY) signs on all
signing there should be a statement types of services." Thus, individual policy
for the availability of the various typ mast arms to indicate one-way streets and is using the same size
States may determine their own criteria, however, they are encouraged sign blank at the termination of one-way streets to help warn motorists.
to fo,low the criteria set forth in this section in order that the These signs are used in addition to the standard post mounted signs
motorists have some uniformity in expectancy of service availability. required by the MUTCD. The city's experience has been that these
Therefore, Section 2F-32 should not be changed. signs provide better target value among the competition with other
commercial signs and have been effective in reducing the number of
violations. Enlarging the standard signs would result in problems
of clearance and stability in mounting on the mast arm.
DATE: 4/29/76
ACTION: Denied This request was denied for the following reasons:
a. The horizontal format would be a new recognition pattern for
the motorist and essentially a new sign.
b. We have recently started using the solid red circle for DO
Sn-154 (Intr.) - Traffic Engineer, City of Mobile, Alabama, CHILDREN AI NOT ENTER and this would be a step backward as well as create
PLAY Sign further nonuniformity.
c. Post mounted signs, standard or oversized, should have been
The Traffic engineer requested an interpretation concerning the use of considered. •
the CHILDREN AT PLAY sign as a means of reducing vehicle speeds and if
the sign can be warranted under Section 2C-40. ,\
Many citizens believe the CHILDREN AT PLAY sign to be a panacea for DATE: 4/23/76
solving the problem of speeding vehicles in residential areas. An ACTION: Denied
indiscriminate use with an attendant proliferation of such signs
would likely lead to a general disregard for those signs placed in
areas of real need.
•
Rather than try to control problem speeding by signs such as this, it
CAP
v01111.11 more a propriate to use regulatory speed limit signs with
IMO st enf�it. - - -IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM MI NM = 1111111 IIII 11.11
1 .., ,
I
I
frtinnesota MANUAL
ON
I UNIFORM
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
DEVICES
FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
1
F
1986
I
[I ' : '
s
ll : ,
iI COUNTY
! ,
! , ,)
i .
ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i
•
7
2C-40 Playground Sign (W15-1)
I
The W15-1 Playground Sign may be used only in advance of a desig-
t 1 nated children's play area to warn of the potential high concentration of
young children in that area. This sign is not intended to regulate the
I
speed of vehicles but to warn motorists of a potential hazardous condi-
tion that may call for a reduction in speed. ) .
t 4
'
sti k.
rw
I
w15-1 '
36"X 36"
2C-41 Other Warning Signs ,
Warning signs other than those specified above may be required un- '
der special conditions.Such signs should conform with the general speci-
fications for shape, color, and placement of warning signs (sec.2C-1 to
2C-3).
I
Special warning signs for highway construction and maintenance op-
erations,school areas,railroad grade crossings,and bicycle facilities can
be found in Parts VI through IX of this Manual. I
D . - ,
, . . .
I
I
I
I
I
I
2C-22 J
I
. . I
;'T
TRAFFIC
NFORMATION
PROGRAM
CIIILDQEY
I)
WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP"CHILDREN AT PLAY"SIGNS?
IP An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs
with "SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the
Y
safet of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith
-) in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
' Although some other states have posted such signs widely in residential areas, no factual
evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents,
operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs
attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the
desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an
Iadded degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice
results.
I Because of these serious considerations, California taw does not recognize, and Federal
Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools,
playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly
Ij justified.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travelways. The sign has
1.) long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
111) .
P Ow
II
children
ditplay
1 i
I . i %,
1 . ;t��U
IM/1-77
Poll .
Southern California Section
I ) .
NFORMATI ON ,
!PRGGRAM &IGNAL
- _
t
TQAFflC .
SERIES , ,_
J DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL -
WILL BE INSTALLED?
i -
Traffic signals don't always prevent accidents. They are not always an asset to traffic - _
control. In some instances, total accidents and severe injuries increased after signals were - •
installed. Usually, in such instances, right angle collisions were reduced by the traffic "
signals,but the total number of collisions, especially the rear-end type, increased.
A --=-- = There are times when the installation of signals results in an increase in pedestrian 7..--,-.:,.-__-_-____-: accidents. Many pedestrians feel secure with a painted crosswalk and a red light between
-_ , them and an approaching vehicle_The motorist, on the other hand, is not always so quick _ -
-- - - to recognize these"barriers." _
_ : = o
- = When can a traffic signal be an asset instead of a liability to safety? In order to answer _ _ _ _
T` ` .
this traffic engineers have to ask and answer a series of questions:
.- _ _-- _:,:_1.: Are there so many cars on both streets that signal controls are necessary to =-
- --clear up the confusion or relieve the congestion? . _ --__
" - 2. Is the traffic on the main street so heavy that drivers on the side street will ?__ •-
• try to cross when it is unsafe? - , - -_
-- 3. Are there so many pedestrians trying to cross a busy main street That - °,
confusing,congested or hazardous conditions result? - - ---., - -
. _ '. _ -4. Are there so many school children trying to cross the street at the same - .
, -time that they need special controls for their protection? If so, is a traffic signal -
- the best solution? - .-
5. Are signals at this location going to help drivers maintain a uniform pace ,
along the route without stopping unnecessarily? -
Cn AUG 1984 .
��.w Hr r c� O �,, �"
��„R,/IMr� l- r !/1LLAGE I_ - i
• t ! CHANHASs 1) _c_,.,,,-71 t : -
- IM/1-77 _ =.
Southern California Section _ ` ' _
6. Does the collision history indicate that signal controls ill reduce the
probability of collisions? - - - _ . -
7. Do two arterials intersect at this location and will a signal help improve the
Iflow of traffic?
8. Is there a combination of the above conditions which indicates that a signal
will be an improvement rather than a detriment?
To aid them in answering these questions, engineers compare the existing conditions
I against nationally accepted minimum guidelines. These guidelines (often called -_
"Warrants") were established from many observations at intersections throughout the - - _
_ country by experienced traffic engineers. Where the guidelines were met, the signals -- _
generally were operating effectively with good public compliance. Where the guidelines
were not met,public compliance was reduced, and additional hazards resulted.
- - - -, A traffic signal that decreases accidents and improves the flow of traffic is an asset to any
I " _- _community. On the other hand, an ill-advised or poorly designed signal can be a source j
� -
- - : of dancer and annoyance to all who use the intersection;pedestrians,cyclists and drivers - - -_ !
I -_ alike. _ :. _ -
I .
1 ._ -
I
I
1M/1-77 - -�
- � }.s�`
IlLass.'..- iaers......-..... r”...........1■•■■■••••■■••• .
. - - - . .#, ;.;qtr 1
__---- ---.-- - -- - - -- - -
TRAFFIC -
_ INFORMATION - =
PROGRAM
bIKE A_
- SERIES • '
. 1
WHEN ARE WE"GOING TO GET SOME BIKEWAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? .
Bikeways have raised a lot of interest in the past few years. Some cities have built_ I
- - separate off-road bike paths. Many more have painted bike lanes on streets. Others have
installed green "Bike Route"signs without the special lanes. - --^=- I
The cost of both building and maintaining bikeways can be a deterrent to many city bike
programs. Initial cost can range from a few dollars to paint a lane to a small fortune to - -
- - --_ = build a separate path including special bridges where needed. - -
_ - Before plunging into a bikeway-program, your city or county should look at the total
problem of bicycle operation and safety. Bike lanes and signs alone cannot solve the - _ _-_-�
- - =: problem of bicycle accidents; in some places they have increased the problem by giving •-
riders a false sense of security. _
. _• -An over-a-11 bicycle safety program should include: enforcement of traffic laws;bike safety - --= ---
training,in the schools at an early age; follow-up training every year in the schools; and -
invo"lvement of the parents of minor children who violate traffic laws or exhibit
- -_ - - dangerous riding habits. The overwhelming cause of bicycle accidents is violation of the _ -
- } _ RULES OF THE ROAD. _
- ,- If these recommendations seem to be oriented toward the younger set, there is good
reason. Over 70 percent of cyclists involved in accidents were violating-a traffic law;
_ over 60 percent were age 17 or under. It only makes good sense to emphasize the
children in training programs,since they are the principal users of bicycles.
The bike program for your community should include three principal points: _
- . 1. Education in safe riding. ._
2. Enforcement of rules of the road. - - :
3. Development of well-engineered bike lanes and bike paths.
This will involve the active participation of:
1. The schools.
2. The police or sheriff. -1-
3. The traffic engineers; and, of course, you, the citizen. - t-•J 1 `
,�7.-.
s ,` Q` ' .
. t rr--
r 1110/1.'n
. = Southern California Section
il
- - -
_
2
.....
. -;- -T
I • -
• . -
. . __ . .
_..,-
---
. .. __ .
. _ - - TRAFFIC . ( -
III ORMATION
• , NF
OGRAM R
P -
I .
SERIES - •
, - -
I ,
. • _
.
. WHEN IS A CROSSWALK UNSAFE? -
_ . - -
Apparently,whenever it is painted on the street! - - - -
_ . - - - .
I . _ . . _ .
_ - A number of years back, the City of San Diego published some startling results of a very -_
extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego -
I . - looked at 400 intersections for five years (without signals or four-way stops) that had a _
- marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other.-About two and _
.
• . _.-:._ one half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk;but about six times as -
11 -- / -7 many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks! Long Beach studied pedestrian
! _ safety for three years (1972 through 1974) and found eight times as many reported -.----- .. - - -
- _ - pedestrian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without
I - - - -- One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security- _- --- -- -- -
...--
pedestrians feel at the marked crosswalk. Two painted lines do:not provide protection - - ---
- _
I . - - against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safetyon-the has to be on pedestrian - - -7—'---------- ----
_- __
to be alert and cautious white crossing any street.A pedestrian can stop in less than three
._
feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 MPH will require 60 feet and at 35 MPH
approximately 100 feet. - - _ _ _
_ _
- --
_ •
I
- The California Vehicle Code says that a crosswalk-exists at all intersections unless -
pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signs. Some of these crosswalks are marked with
I . _- .... _
__ _- -_ painted lines, but most of them are not. Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of _
.
encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be
as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be _
Imarked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians,to direct them
to the safest of several potential routes. - .
_ -
I : - -
- - - .
7 - . .• _ . _,,
_ .
,
I ' ... •■ . .
• )t1-... \\-------- -- _ —,,
_
•
I .. . .............,..
_, ...." ..••••••
-CT"-------------% .... -
1 - --
....■
..\
\
,.
\
I - Alitl
V. .< ___ •,_\_‘*\ —
,--
- • 1M/1-77
I/ „ •-• : —
_.. - _
- = --: Southern California Section -- -. .:.r.- •.....-T.-:-:-=
.
• _. _., _ . _ _.. .. .
-,,.. ..,,,,,,-....-....T.0.FFIc_ ..1_.: ____.: ,.....„_.,. _. .
. . ._ _
..,
,--
.„-....., 1
. NFORMATION , - A, -,..: -- ----::?.. •
,-,
._ .
t.--..-_%•• ROGRAM 1-...
_ .
F'------:---- --- e ._ CHILDQEIN AT PLAY :-
.. _.• UERIES ------ _
. -- - . t•
--- _— -:.-
, .
. -- :•_7_
- -• -. .
,- • ,
. ,
r
L ..- . . WHY WONT THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY"SIGNS?
_ . • _
An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs
with "SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the • - I
- - -- - --- -- safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith - T. , -._. _
in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
.. -, .
Although some. other-states have posted such signs widely in residential areas,no factual
-•_,_-,_,-_-;-----_;:,- evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents, - :•--_ •-_ - ---
7.-.---••:!-------- . operating speeds or-legal liability_ -Studies have shown that many types of signs -- - - -
. ._
attempting to 'va' of normal conditions in resider,-!ial areas have failed to achieve the - - - ,-.,--- -
---, --••=-•.---.=• - desired safety benefits. if signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an - ----,----.._-:- --
added degree of protection,_which the signs do not and cannot provide,a great disservice :z _-.,----,'--",:.::.*,::::,-;f_ --
--- .- -_.
results.
__,
-
- - - -
Because
_•__
of these serious.considerations law does not recognize, and Federal - - --_-- '_.-_. __
. _ I
: -Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools, - ----- 7--- '_
,_.... .- # --
--'-- -- -- - --playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly - „ - -
justified. ,..._..„ _ ___-, _...__.,,._ , ,.._L_,._ __._
--- ---- - .
. _- _ ._ -_ ,-_---- -„ _-_ .- _ - _ - •---- :-
Children should rot be encouraged to play within the street travelways. The sign has
.7..---:-- - - - --• --- '-,
------ -*_7*•"::':-----•-: long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
.:- ---- .:
----...-_,
.- ..--,. _ • --- --
- ----- — - . _ - _:•-_,---_- ..- :.---_:-....-,.-
---- - ---=-_---_
- --
_ _ - -- --- -- -
_— -- - -- _ - = - - - .... , •
- -- _-
; - --- 7 --.-:,- • ,. i ow - - --
.._
- - - - . - • ..'. _
children
.1
.,. .__..,
..__ ,, _ • . .
= - - - - .t play -- - ---1
. _
. .„_
_
.. . -
_ 2)
__
,.....„...f i - - .
-
. .
-- .. $.77,
...____ II
T. *-411111116-'1
ft
•? \. •••■ 1 b//'
' 11
..; -i. • •,,, .
,
. . . :,
. - - ,
_ , -...-, -..-_ ...- ..-:'.—-_,---,—•_
. .
.... --- -
1-
I
2 - - IM/1-77 -. Southern Californi Section
. •
- -.-.-------..i-..--::•.-."--+,-,"7•-51.rc-.-•..:-.--.-..--4..,•,„Y-0-:.--0z-,-,,-7i--.---.,.3----..-,----n.'
--.-.--
..-_
_
}
RAF. FIC .1- - :Z-¢
INFORMATION --
PROGRAM 8 D LIMITS . __
.__ ,
SERIES -
1 -
WHEN WILL A LOWER SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ON MY STREET?
A common belief is that posting a speed limit will influence drivers to drive at that speed. -
The facts indicate otherwise. i
- -- Research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades has
shown that drivers are influenced more by the appearance of the highway itself and the - - - --
prevailing traffic conditions than by the-posted speed limit. -
California's Basic Speed Law requires that: - - _
-- � "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is responsible or ==
prudent having due regard for weather,visibility,the traffic on,and the surface and width _
r
I'' - -- and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or _ __
of the highway,
property.• - ___
a .... __ .. ... _. - . - -- . -
- Under California`law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is now 55 miles
per hour, All other speed limits are called prima facie limits,which "on the face of-it" are
'- safe-and prudent under normal conditions. Certain prima facie limits are established by
- • - law and include the 25 MPH limit in business and residential districts, the 15 MPH limit in _
alleys, at blind intersections and blind railroad crossings and a part-time 25 MPH limit in
I _ school zones when children are going to and from school. These speeds are not always
posted but all California motorists are required to know these basic 15, 25, and 55 mile
per hour speed laws.
IIntermediate speed limits between 25 and 55 miles per hour may be established by local
authorities on the basis of traffic engineering surveys. These surveys include an analysis
of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers. If
- ' speed limit signs are posted for a lower limit than is needed to safely meet these
.. r any drivers will simply ignore,the signs. At the same time, other drivers will
Iconditions,
stay within the posted limits. This generally increases the conflicts between faster and
slower drivers, reduces the gaps in traffic through which
I crossings could be made safely and increases the difficulty for
pedestrians to judge the speed of approaching vehicles. ��p
Studies have shown that where uniformity of speed is not SQ\.-\�
maintained, accidents generally increase. v
/Q v� O D
��\1�Kr >� • \ L
- .... -. L:,
SPE
.
L.1-A4
IM/1-77 l ., ���. 730 \
_
_ _IV - - . Southern California Section -=v,
_ ,I
�_ R. . - ., - r.-- -_ ' -.- _ ._r._�.∎∎.ar:�L.
OM
- -
''' - • . --I - " - i.. 7 f,.=:-.7",.:r.:, -
• . : ,4"- '.:
T RAFFIC _
- ----- - -,--,.-e-_-,-.6,
1 ' -1( - -
, -
I NFORMATION
..„
b
PROGRAM PEE D . _ . _
. - SERIES
UM 8 ',•.-
___._
,
. . ,
. . . ....
. _
WHY SHOULDN'T WE HAVE SPEED BUMPS TO SLOW DOWN THE - -
HOTRODDERS? _
- •
- .
- The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while maintaining acceptably safe - -.-7- --- ' --
street and roadway conditions, is a wide-spread concern which requires persistent law _
. -- enforcement effort The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the intentional
- _ --.
violatbr, leads to frequent demands for installation of "speed bumps" in public streets _
,-; -- and alleys. However, actual tests of various experimental designs have demonstrated the = • L.7..--i'•--=-7-----f--'
--, = --i- physical inability of a speed bump to control all types of light weight and heavy-weight - -_-- - --",----' '
vehicles successfully. In fact, a .softsprung sedan is encouraged to increase speed for a _
better ride,while some vehicles may lose control.
--,-• -..m- - California courts- have held public agencies Ti?.1.-•.!e for.personal'injuries resulting from_
faulty designs. Increased hazard to the unwary;challenges to the dare-devils;disruption of
- - . the movement., of both emergency and service vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise,
-- have caused speed burnps to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control device on
_.
public streets and alleys. -, _.__.
__ __
___ _
-. • . .
----:—_,:f_=_:.;
... _
. _ .
- . -
. - .
- . .
_. •
, . _ ._•.__._•,.
-'
. _
1
-----.1N1‘,
, • .
Ilk • i _ _ t
•••■ .
et
4
. . ,„:„...
._ - I, _
• - IM/1-77..
. -
Southern California Section . . .
S i 4 i�; e , s9 ;n awl;• ; - s•—,,-4,—,„,.,. ,4c 4,'� , ng,. 4 r. ' vtw. -,
1
, }
c::; ITY OF
.\
I y ,_
CHANHASSEN
1 r '
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I �-
~."'�� (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
IITO: Public Safety Commission
1 FROM: Jim Chaffee , Public Safety Director
DATE: October 18 , 1988
1 SUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Public Safety Concerns
1 Hopefully, by now you should have received the memo from
Councilman Jay Johnson addressing the letter from Jim Wehrle ,
President of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association. There are
several areas of concern regarding public safety issues in Mr.
Wehrle 's letter, some of which have been addressed and others
that are seeking City Engineer input . Of the highest concern is
the vehicular traffic and the speed of such going through the
1 development. They are requesting signs of several types to
include SLOW CHILDREN signs , STOP signs and directional signs.
Obviously since speed is a concern , Public Safety would have
I input towards a solution. The streets are posted 30 miles per
hour which, from a public safety standpoint, would appear to be
high for a residential area of narrow and winding roads.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wehrle 's concerns about the speed limits were
I addressed at an earlier point in time and it appears that the
City' s options are limited.
IISpeed limits are decided for the most part by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and for a residential area
of this type, MnDOT requires a 30 mile per hour maximum speed.
I We had explored possibilities of lowering the speed to 25 miles
per hour and at one point even considered lowering the speed to
17 miles per hour. The 17 mile per hour speed limit came out of
a Public Safety meeting of the Near Mountain Homeowners
I Association and it was meant mainly to be an eye-catcher rather
than an enforceable speed limit . Our City Attorney was contacted
regarding these issues and he basically stated that there are
I only two ways to get the speed limit lowered. First would be to
declare and establish bike-ped lanes on all the residential
streets . If this is done by City Council mandate, the City
Council can direct the speed limit to be lowered to 25 miles per
hour without MnDOT approval. The other option is for the City
Engineer to petition the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation to conduct an engineering study to include
I traffic counts and in that way possibly get his approval to lower
the speed limit.
6 _ ______
. „
Wiz;.. - r_;
. ` "'a'r. �CK' ? `# .'�'sK. e.. '=-< }- r_ ,,, --,,,,,--,,:y,;-,-:-, _ _ ' '4,-.:
Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 3
' Further on in Mr . Wehrle ' s letter he recapped some of the issues
previously mentioned in other memos . Item No. 1 is strictly an
I engineering problem and will be handled by the Engineering
Department . Item No. 2 concerns the open pipe which I have just
addressed. Item No. 3 concerns the speed limit and the proper
I speed limit for safety concerns which I have previously
addressed. Item No. 4 concerns the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs
which I have already addressed. Item No. 5 concerns the placing
' of STOP signs at requested intersections in the area. As I pre-
viously stated, we could support STOP signs at the aforementioned
intersections based on engineering recommendations. Item No. 6
concerns the bike-ped lane and the placing of posts to prohibit
I motorized vehicles. Item No. 7 concerns the crosswalk which has
been painted but does not have corresponding signage to advise
motorists. Public Safety certainly recommends the placing of
I these signs , and upon conversations with the City Engineer, these
signs will in fact be erected. Item No. 8 is strictly and engi-
neering function. Item No. 9 I have already addressed. Although
Item No. 10 would appear to be a engineering problem, I did con-
, tact MnDOT and spoke to Burt Williams who indicated that they
would have somebody out to take a look at it. As of this
writing , I do not believe it has been corrected. Item No. 11
II concerns street lights which I have already addressed. Item No.
12 concerns the volleyball courts which have already been taken
care of.
1 The hot public safety issues at this moment are the placing of
stop signs at various locations and speed limits. As I have
stated, staff would support the placing of stop signs at the
I intersections of Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge Court both north
and south, and the intersections of Mountain Way and Near
Mountain Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard
I , only based upon engineering recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
1 It is the recommendation of Public Safety to pursue all avenues
in seeking a reduction of the speed limit for the Near Mountain
area. It is also our recommendation to follow engineering guide-
I lines in the placement of stop signs for the Near Mountain area.
Public Safety staff also recommends the placing of street lights
at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain
I Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard. We
would also recommend based on engineering input the placement of
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs -on Near Mountain Boulevard at
Pleasant View Road and once again , on Near Mountain Boulevard
I ; just south of the City line. In addition , we would recommend
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs at the intersection of Castle Ridge
and Town Line Road.- Again•,--the SLOW CHILDREN -AT PLAY signs are ---- ---
I being recommended based upon engineering input . It is also
recommended that signage be placed indicating CROSSWALK AHEAD at
IMI
--- - -- ---
---z*, ,- -. -
-r---ssa„:--,----;:_::::_-7.!::zi- r--4:-.1,',',.-4:7.2.:77:;-,----_-._--..y.--,-,,,,---z- --.,...:-!,;:z -'_',.-----.--v-4.2-..4-z—i-rulvir!•:*"1,46.;", *--' •
".j..i0.4.7Z,17 .. -',.g.,-N."4.‘"Aar,:,....,i7,z,S.71,. . ---.C. -A,.;,-.. .,.,;1,7"."it.V,?at'Z'r,....,...W'-..".:,,,,,,...e --,,,..R,,,,,,,,i ,a7',7 7.•,....„.:,0:,1,t:-• • ' '. --.•“,
...... . . .„.
•'.^..-1. 4...,...i.,,,,V-:,.',,,,t,..4.:140..**7...1_,-.":..,.'&1':W.....-- - .
- •
••••,•;,....,,,-;..C.,,,,,-,r, • _
•
/
//
Public Safety Commission
II
October 18 , 1988
1 . Page 4
II
the newly painted crosswalk going over Pleasant View Road and the
placing of some sort of grate over the open drainage culvert near
II
6240 Near Mountain Boulevard. All other recommendations as pre-
viously discussed in this memo are suggested.
- --
II
, - -
. _
. _. .
I
... ._ „
I
I. .
I
. _
..
I
I
_
.
-
I
,
•
. '
I
I_ ... ,
. . ,._
. _
I
.•
•
I
•---,....,,, , ;A...-.4:4-7,-*"i:-$‘.?,*--..SZ4--.4,-.,--,b....., - ,...:.,..4,;-4.,:.; ..-',..,........7..._. ■.-., _.-..1.-•• ..,-- ...
, ' ■••-; - - ., , . .
•-,•••••••••,•,•■••••■i••••••••'1..e.t■...........,,,...,i**.11.-1..P.A.S•#,,..,,,4-4.i■■■••••••••....OA•,••f-X•,•PAS- '`.....4.44.••••■•••r•*1•••■••-••■•?“•.••••••,,-••:....1....,,,...••1 S .{Avg;3.4........-11-,-••-•-.-.....••••••;
A:•',11,-"v...-4 4::eltirme,s14...-"oii.w...1,111.iCAipiasra ot;:ir'tilit4i71-41'•i.t':40.4 im*I iii.:).i‘1,11.0,....'',I ar,,.Ir.4.-1,e,...1,•1.,,.....‘;',,..'lity.a...a.bi...,....-;.:44.410......,...,.-:.,Aeatera4,,,
,,,,,, •-•.',.• --- --,,,,or—t- _.,.„.....,,,
.1 s_a,4.- , --a 11...41•-t, - ----......-- .1
.•,,-.,, ,
-.,
mml
I .
CITY OF
II CHANHASSEN
, ,,,
I L,,,:,
690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
`;�' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: October 21, 1988
ISUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Public Safety Concerns
I Please find attached a memo from me to the Public Safety
Commission with attachments that was presented at the Commission
meeting on October 20, 1988 . The memo addresses concerns
I expressed by Jim Wehrle, President of the Near Mountain
Homeowners Association in a letter to Don Ashworth dated
September 30, 1988 . Mr. Wehrle was present at the Commission
meeting to address these concerns . After discussing the issues
1 with Mr. Wehrle, the Commission moved to approve my recommen-
dations as outlined in my memo to wit:
1 It is the recommendation of Public Safety to pursue all avenues
in seeking a reduction of the speed limit for the Near Mountain
area. It is also our recommendation to follow engineering guide-
lines in the placement of stop signs for the Near Mountain area.
1 Public Safety staff also recommends the placing of street lights
at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd.
and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Blvd. We would also recom-
I mend, based on engineering input, the placement of "slow children
at play" signs on Near Mountain Blvd. at Pleasant View Road and
once again on Near Mountain Blvd. just south of the City line.
1 In addition, we would recommend "slow children at play" signs at
the intersection of Castle Ridge and Townline Road. Again, the
"slow children at play" signs are being recommended based upon
engineering input. It is also recommended that signage be placed
I indicating crosswalk ahead at the newly painted crosswalk going
over Pleasant View Road and the placing of some sort of grate
over the open drainage culvert near 6240 Near Mountain Blvd. All
I other recommendations as previously discussed in this memo are
recommended. [Note: "Based on engineering input" as used in
this memo means that we are awaiting engineering guidelines con-
' cerning the placement of all noted signage. We cannot agree to
the placement of signs contrary to engineering guidelines and the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ]
1
1
Mr. Don Ashworth '
October 21, 1988
Page 2
In addition, the motion included the placement of an additional
street light at Townline Road and Castle Ridge and the suggested
widening of the new Trappers Pass Addition roadway system to
include on street ped bike lanes. The motion also included placement
of curve warning signs with cautionary speeds attached in the
Near Mountain Development and the pursuit of the lowest possible
speed limit allowable by law for the entire development. The
motion also included the designation of Near Mountain Blvd. as a
ped/bike lane/street and the placement of 25 mph signs at the
intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd. and
again on Near Mountain Blvd. at the northern boundaries of our
City. Also, the designation of a ped/bike lane on Castle Ridge
between Town Line and Cascade Pass and the subsequent placing of
a 25 mph sign at the intersection of Townline Road and Castle
Ridge. All other 30 mph signs are to be removed.
The motion was seconded and unanimously approved by the Public
Safety Commission to go to Council on October 24, 1988 with the
recommendations as outlined herein.
11
1
CITY OF
1 - CHANHASSEN
s 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
tip""
W2) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: October 21, 1988
1 SUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Public Safety Concerns
Please find attached a memo from me to the Public Safety
Commission with attachments that was presented at the Commission
meeting on October 20, 1988 . The memo addresses concerns
' expressed by Jim Wehrle, President of the Near Mountain
Homeowners Association in a letter to Don Ashworth dated
September 30 , 1988 . Mr. Wehrle was present at the Commission
1 meeting to address these concerns . After discussing the issues
with Mr. Wehrle, the Commission moved to approve my recommen-
dations as outlined in my memo to wit:
It is the recommendation of Public Safety to pursue all avenues
in seeking a reduction of the speed limit for the Near Mountain
area. It is also our recommendation to follow engineering guide-
lines in the placement of stop signs for the Near Mountain area.
Public Safety staff also recommends the placing of street lights
at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd.
1 and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Blvd. We would also recom-
mend, based on engineering input, the placement of "slow children
at play" signs on Near Mountain Blvd. at Pleasant View Road and
once again on Near Mountain Blvd. just south of the City line.
' In addition, we would recommend "slow children at play" signs at
the intersection of Castle Ridge and Townline Road. Again, the
"slow children at play" signs are being recommended based upon
' engineering input. It is also recommended that signage be placed
indicating crosswalk ahead at the newly painted crosswalk going
over Pleasant View Road and the placing of some sort of grate
' over the open drainage culvert near 6240 Near Mountain Blvd. All
other recommendations as previously discussed in this memo are
recommended.
1 In addition, the motion included the placement of an additional
street light at Townline Road and Castle Ridge and the suggested
widening of the new Trappers Pass Addition roadway system to
include on street ped bike lanes. The motion also included placement
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 21, 1988
Page 2
of curve warning signs with cautionary speeds attached in the
Near Mountain Development and the pursuit of the lowest possible
speed limit allowable by law for the entire development. The
motion also included the designation of Near Mountain Blvd. as a
ped/bike lane/street and the placement of 25 mph signs at the
intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd. and
again on Near Mountain Blvd. at the northern boundaries of our
City. Also, the designation of a ped/bike lane on Castle Ridge
between Town Line and Cascade Pass and the subsequent placing of
a 25 mph sign at the intersection of Townline Road and Castle
Ridge. All other 30 mph signs are to be removed.
The motion was seconded and unanimously approved by the Public
Safety Commission to go to Council on October 24, 1988 with the
recommendations as outlined herein.
i
1
1
I
r
II -
II '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
\ l Vo
4. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 <
MEMORANDUM
IITO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: Jim Chaffee , Public Safety Director
IIDATE: October 18 , 1988
1 SUBJ: Near Mountain Homeowners Association Public Safety Concerns
1 Hopefully, by now you should have received the memo from
Councilman Jay Johnson addressing the letter from Jim Wehrle ,
President of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association. There are
several areas of concern regarding public safety issues in Mr.
1 Wehrle ' s letter , some of which have been addressed and others
that are seeking City Engineer input . Of the highest concern is
the vehicular traffic and the speed of such going through the
I development. They are requesting signs of several types to
include SLOW CHILDREN signs , STOP signs and directional signs.
Obviously since speed is a concern , Public Safety would have
1 input towards a solution. The streets are posted 30 miles per
hour which, from a public safety standpoint, would appear to be
high for a residential area of narrow and winding roads.
Unfortunately , Mr . Wehrle 's concerns about the speed limits were
1 addressed at an earlier point in time and it appears that the
City' s options are limited.
II Speed limits are decided for the most part by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and for a residential area
of this type, MnDOT requires a 30 mile per hour maximum speed.
We had explored possibilities of lowering the speed to 25 miles
II per hour and at one point even considered lowering the speed to
17 miles per hour. The 17 mile per hour speed limit came out of
a Public Safety meeting of the Near Mountain Homeowners
1 Association and it was meant mainly to be an eye-catcher rather
than an enforceable speed limit . Our City Attorney was contacted
regarding these issues and he basically stated that there are
1 only two ways to get the speed limit lowered. First would be to
declare and establish bike-ped lanes on all the residential
streets. If this is done by City Council mandate, the City
Council can direct the speed limit to be lowered to 25 miles per
1 hour without MnDOT approval. The other option is for the City
Engineer to petition the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation to conduct an engineering study to include
I traffic counts and in that way possibly get his approval to lower
the speed limit.
11
Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 2
From a Public Safety standpoint , it certainly would be desirable
to have lower speed limits in the area; however , Public Safety
cannot support the placement of stop signs to slow down traffic.
I have attached several documents explaining why stop signs
should not be used to control the speed of vehicles on roadways.
I took the opportunity to travel the area with Deputy Mike I
Douglas of the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department. We went over
Councilman Jay Johnson 's memo concerning the placement of stop
signs. Purely from a public safety standpoint , notwithstanding
engineering input , it would be conceiveable to make Cascade Pass
and Castle Ridge both north and south four-way stops. Mountain
Way and Near Mountain Boulevard could be made a three-way stop
and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard could be made a
four-way stop. This again is only a possible solution and would
only be suggested if it met engineering standards and the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
On the subject of street lighting , Public Safety would recommend
the placement of a street light at Pleasant View Road and Near
Mountain Boulevard, and again at Trappers Pass and Near Mountain
Boulevard. This would then make it consistent with other new
developments and the placement of street lights .
On the issue of the intersection of Near Mountain Boulevard and
Pleasant View Road, it has already been supported by the Public
Safety Commission to a realignment of the intersection allowing
turns by all vehicles. The Council decided that , at least for
1988 , signage of that intersection to prohibit the turning of
trucks and buses would suffice. 1989 then could bring a recon-
sideration as to the realignment of the intersection. The
signage of that area at this time appears to be sufficient after
several attempts at proper signage.
Point C in Mr . Wehrle' s letter addresses the new bike path that
was paved going from Mountain Way to Pleasant View Road. It
would certainly be staff ' s recommendation to provide some type of
barriers on the path to prevent motor vehicles from utilizing
same.
Point D in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter concerns an open drainage pipe at r
the back of a residence operating as a day care center. Shortly
after a meeting last spring concerning this open pipe, I went out
there with Staff Engineer Larry Brown to take a look at the I
drainage pipe. At that time, I concluded that a barrier of some
sort would be desirable to prevent small children from going into
the pipe. I
Point E in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter requests SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY
SIGNS and although not highly recommended, we have in the past
installed these signs if the residential areas requesting them
paid for them.
I
II
' Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 3
Further on in Mr. Wehrle ' s letter he recapped some of the issues
previously mentioned in other memos . Item No. 1 is strictly an
' engineering problem and will be handled by the Engineering
Department . Item No. 2 concerns the open pipe which I have just
addressed. Item No. 3 concerns the speed limit and the proper
' speed limit for safety concerns which I have previously
addressed. Item No. 4 concerns the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs
which I have already addressed. Item No. 5 concerns the placing
of STOP signs at requested intersections in the area. As I pre-
viously stated, we could support STOP signs at the aforementioned
intersections based on engineering recommendations. Item No. 6
concerns the bike-ped lane and the placing of posts to prohibit
' motorized vehicles. Item No. 7 concerns the crosswalk which has
been painted but does not have corresponding signage to advise
motorists. Public Safety certainly recommends the placing of
these signs , and upon conversations with the City Engineer, these
signs will in fact be erected. Item No. 8 is strictly and engi-
neering function. Item No. 9 I have already addressed. Although
Item No. 10 would appear to be a engineering problem, I did con-
tact MnDOT and spoke to Burt Williams who indicated that they
would have somebody out to take a look at it . As of this
writing , I do not believe it has been corrected. Item No. 11
concerns street lights which I have already addressed. Item No.
12 concerns the volleyball courts which have already been taken
care of.
' The hot public safety issues at this moment are the placing of
stop signs at various locations and speed limits. As I have
stated, staff would support the placing of stop signs at the
intersections of Cascade Pass and Castle Ridge Court both north
and south , and the intersections of Mountain Way and Near
Mountain Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard
only based upon engineering recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of Public Safety to pursue all avenues
in seeking a reduction of the speed limit for the Near Mountain
area. It is also our recommendation to follow engineering guide-
lines in the placement of stop signs for the Near Mountain area.
Public Safety staff also recommends the placing of street lights
at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain
Boulevard and Trappers Pass and Near Mountain Boulevard. We
would also recommend based on engineering input the placement of
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs on Near Mountain Boulevard at
Pleasant View Road and once again , on Near Mountain Boulevard
just south of the City line. In addition , we would recommend
SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs at the intersection of Castle Ridge
and Town Line Road. Again, the SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY signs are
being recommended based upon engineering input . It is also
recommended that signage be placed indicating CROSSWALK AHEAD at
II
Public Safety Commission
October 18 , 1988
Page 4
the newly painted crosswalk going over Pleasant View Road and the I
placing of some sort of grate over the open drainage culvert near
6240 Near Mountain Boulevard. All other recommendations as pre-
viously discussed in this memo are suggested.
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I/ ' ' '
II
II
1 NEAR MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS ASSN
241 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
IDon Ashworth - September 30, 1988
City Manager
City of Channassen
11 690 Coulter St .
Channassen , MN 55317
Dear Don:
My attached letter to Larry Brown is being copied to you and others because of
the disturbing attitude that it depicts in a memoer of your staff toward the
I Channassen taxpayers that employ Aim , and our little community of Near
Mountain, in particular. This is of greater concern in that it is not an
isoiateo event . Our Assn' s members frequently q y get the impression that we are
consioereo to be "troublesome newcomers ' . This is disappointing , :n that my
main goal as our first President has been to participate and help in the City
•
Government process in any way that we can , so as to be assimilated into
II Channassen as a positive, integral part of the community. Other than just
taxes , we contribute part-time firemen & police officers , committee members ,
etc, to the City , and we sponsor meetings such as our public forum in October
' for all City Council candidates. We do not want to be "outsiders" , nor do we
II
want to come in and change everything and cause problems.
The City has encouraged high quality housing developments such as ours , and
Ishould hopefully work hard to welcome us into the community , not portray us as
trouciemaKers. I 'm sure that new deveiopment causes work for City employees ,
but :t snouid be understood that that nice , new housing projects will also
II bring the need for increased services (especially in getting us started, as per
our requests of July 22 , 1988 ). Hopefully this negative attitude is not
widespread, but I was sure that you would want to be made aware of our
Iperception of this.
Also , as I am sure that you have noticed, this entire affair is indicative of a
pathetic lack of communication and follow-through at City Hall . We were
I literally given the run-around for a year on many of these issues , and when we
felt that it was finally being taken care of , we found that many of the
pertinent parties still weren' t involved and communicating/progressing on these
II issues.
Some examples of communication problems that we have experienced:
IIA. I was told by Parks & Rec in late 1987 that our ped-bike path was fully
approved and would be done in the spring of 1988. Early this summer , when I
n questioned Gary Warren about the lack of progress , he said he had not heard
I o of it . In the months since , this simple paint job still has not been done.
Ca
o ---1 � - B. I 'm sure that we are all now woefully aware of the no-turn controversy at
n a our main entrance. This sign suddenly a
I
= 9 y ppeared one day , and I have yet to ever
hear who, if anyone , suddenly authorized this after four
years. We were
2 ,l certainly not contacted. Also , since then , whoever in Public Works ordered the
I of co revised signs has not followed through on Council 's intent for this signage,
z and has now put up three signs on one side of the street (which are confusing
' JII..
II
and do not acnieve the desired statement ) , and only two ( similarly confusing 11
ones ) an the other side of the street. The Public Safety Director agrees that
i these signs are ridiculous , and had not seen them until they went upl I've
seen the perfect sign (a single rectangle ) in Chaska , but of course no one II
asked me, despite my lead role in this controversy,
IIC. I made a point of reminding both Parks & Rec and Engineering that when the
outlot connecting us to the Pleasantview bike path was paved, it must have
poles of some sort sunk into the middle of either end, to keep cars off. I
even called and left a message for Gary Warren the morning of the pavin II g
reminding him of the need for this , but it was not done. Now cars full of
teenagers are flying down this pad-bike path where kids play! After I
complained, temporary plastic barrels were put in place , but they are easily
rolled away (on a regular basis ). Larry Brown now indicates that it's too much
to ask that these two poles still be put in place this year.
D. Gary Warren and Larry Brown say they did not receive copies of our July 22 I
memo , but Jim Chaffee told me in July that he had given copies to them.
Whether they received copies or not I can't say , but I did verbally reference
it with them in discussions , and assumed that they had seen it. I specifically
discussed the open drain pipe at the Day Care Center with Gary, who said that
he would look into it , but I never heard a final decision until recently (after
you ordered that I be contacted about all the unanswered issues ). By the way ,
the decision was made not to protect the open pipe, because it's only 12 inches
in diameter , but this still scares people , especially after the nationally
prominent incident of the little girl stuck in a small hole for several days
II
last year.
E. I specifically discussed our request for "Slow - Children At Play" signs
and a reduction in our speed limit with Larry. He rejected the signs out-of- 11
•
hang as undesireable , but promised to initiate a necessary MNDOT survey to see
if we qualified for a 25 mph speed limit. Apparently, such Signs ARE
permitted , .and apparently our survey has NOT been requested.
F. I came to the last Council II Meeting prepared to address these issues in the
open-forum portion of the agenda , but was told by Larry Brown that it was all
being taken care of , and that our stop signs would be II October 24. Next , I heard from a Councilman that this issue pneedn't ewait9
till then, and that I should present this at the Council Meeting on October 10,
without a hearing. The following day , Larry told me that this was wrong and
that there had to be a hearing on October 24 , but that he would let me know if
it somehow did change. Then I heard from yet another Councilman , saying that
it was , indeed, now moving up to October 10. As of this writing, I am still in
the dark , as are many others!
G. There is an unrelated issue that is a good example of a very significant
communication problem in the City , on a much grander scale: Near Mountain was
primarily responsible for the Community Center being voted down in our recent
referendum, because of a lack of communication. The City simply did not allow
enough time for public "give and take" on this topic. How can you schedule
public hearings requesting community input and criticism within a month of an
election on the subject , and expect to be able to react and respond
satisfactorily to those concerns before the election? The City stirred up a
"hornets nest" , and appeared to be "railroading" a controversial item through, II
11 . .,
1
I
1 all because communication with the taxpayers was not properly considerea. If
you nao had just a few more weeks to refute the misinformation ana explain your
It last-minute ideas ( sucn as moving the hockey rink to serve as a buffer to
1 Philly's , etc ) , we may now have had constuction under way! I'm sure that an
acceotable accemooation of legitimate concerns could have been reacned through
viable two-way communication and not taking voters for granted, which is what
this situation did. Instead, thousands of residents are now deprived of this
1 attainable goal , simply because the importance of good communication was
overlooked.
1 H. On a much more basic level , as you know, I contacted you recently on much
of the above , because I could not get calls returned from Gary Warren and Larry
Brown. I don't know if this is a switchboard problem or a secretarial problem,
or what. I did , however, greatly appreciate your recent memo to City staff
demanding that I be contacted to resolve these issues. It 's just a shame that
it had to come to that , and it makes you wonder how many less-persistent
Channassen residents simply give up.
II
IOn a more positive note, and for the record, I must say that I have been
repeatedly impressed with the consistent hard work and cooperation that I have
gotten from most of the staff at City Hall , including yourself, Jim Chaffee,
li 1 ' Scott Harr, Barb Oacy, Laurie Sietsema, Todd Hoffman, and others. Better
communication could only enhance this.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1 In an effort to improve our communication , I am herein recapping all the
various requests that we now have outstanding with City Hall. This has
admittedly grown since our memo of July 22 , primarily due to problems with
1 action taken on some of those earlier requests:
1 . As per our items 41 and 42 in the memo , the pond owners still haven' t been
II contacted (unless it happened very recently ) , nor has there been
follow-through.
2. As per item 43 in the memo , the open pipe is still a concern, but if the
1 rules do not allow for protecting 12 inch pipes , we will have to accept that.
If , however , something can be done , it would be appreciated.
1 3. As per item 44A in the memo (all items in #4 are recommended by our safety
committee) , we feel that 30 MPH is ridiculous for a small , curvy , hilly ,
dead-end residential street full of kids ! Some of our major streets around
II here are 30 MPH in places , and that is inappropriate for our development . Is
there nothing to be done before a child is killed? I understand from Jim
Chaffee that Council could designate our development a bike path area for
purposes of speea limits , thereby easily accomplishing a 25 MPH speed limit.
1 Please consider this an official request from our Assn for such designation,
hopefully to be approved at the October 10 Council Meeting.
I 4. As for item 448 in the memo, we have now been given the go-ahead on our
"SLOW - CHILDREN AT PLAY" signs , but the price quoted has shot up from $12.65,
without posts , when quoted (and verified ) by Jim Chaffee this week , to $35.25,
when quoted by Larry Brown this week. This would clearly cripple our ability
1 to put up the approximately eight signs that we feel are needed for our
safety , not counting the fact that we are having the posts supplies to you.
HELP!
5. As per 44C in the memo , we feei very strongly that these stop signs should
be approved on the basis of public safety (especially after many near-
fatalities ) , and that the City snould provide them. According to Jim Chaffee,
the City ALWAYS pays for stop signs that they approve, and we feel that such
basic necessities should definitely be considered part of the City's start-up
for a new development. Had these signs gone in when requested in July, we may
have avoided a terrible wreck just two weekends ago! According to the Public
Safety Director, this would only cost the City $126.50 (plus a few dollars for
shipping) , since we will have the posts supplied to you.
6. As per 440 in the memo , we stil need our long-approved and long-overdue
,, ped-bike path to be painted , ano the signs so indicating. We also need posts
to be out in the small bituminous Dart of the path already installed, to stop
cars. This could not take that long to do , and it snould have been done months
ago. Rememoer that our development has no sidewalks , making this an important
safety issue. The painted path is to be four feet wide and goes on the west
side of Near Mountain Blvd. from Mountain Way to Trapper's Pass , and then on
the south side of Trapper's Pass till it dead-ends (perhaps 2/10 of a mile,
total ). These streets were made extra wide to accomodate this , per plan.
7. As per t4E in the memo , the crosswalk has now (belatedly ) been painted, but
drivers do not realize what it is because the accompanying signs weren't put
up , per MNOOT regulations. This is a greet potential problem , now that you
have a pea-bike crossing a street , encouraging kids to follow it into danger.
8. As per 44F in the memo , we still ask that signs in Near Mountain
coordinated with our Assn for placement and for the decorative posts that
are having supplied. posts that we
9. As for the Right Turn Issue , please see "B" , above.
10. We have a new concern now that Highway 101 has been resurfaced. The
intersection of 101 and Pleasantview now has quite a drop off on the outside
edge , especially when you are southbound on 101 and turning west into
Pleasantview, but also on the other outside edge , as well . Perhaps this is
intentional for drainage, but it seems excessive for us to drop into an 8 inch
ditch in the blacktop. Jim Chaffee nos said that he will bring this to the
attention of the State , and Larry Brown promised to look into it as well . ,
11 . Another safety concern has come to our attention regarding streetlights .
One of ours has never worked , at the intersection of Mountain Way & Oxbow Bend.
Also, somehow, two of our major intersections were overlooked when our
streetlights were put in: the main entrance at Pleasantview & Near Mountain
Blvd. (where there has been so much controversy about poor visibility and the
difficulty of negotiating the turn) and the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd.
& Trappers Pass ( this one is especially important since Near Mountain is about
to be put through into Shorewood , plus the ped-bike path wraps around this
corner ). '
11 . Lastly , the volleyball courts at North Lotus Lake Park are much
appreciated (we play games there vs Fox Hollow and they make great sandboxes
for kids at the playground) , but we were assured that they would be regulation
II
1 size to coordinate with the Channassen Rec leagues in which we have teams.
When we play there , we measure in the sena and then anchor some ropes for the
1 out-of-bounds. We always come up short of the required 30 feet of depth on the
1 west side. We actually have to steno in the gravel that has been put down for
the parking lot , in order to serve or play back-court on that side. This could
be corrected in minutes with a few passes by a Bobcat and a little more sand.
Obviously , this is not a high priority safety-related issue , as are most of the
above , but if someone did this work for the City , they should be made to do it
. right.
1
I hope that all of the above is of some help. Please do not hesitate to
I contact me with any questions or responses , and PLEASE DO cony this to the
appropriate parties at City Hall to get these items looked into and resolved.
I , our other Board Members , or our Public Safety Committee will be glad to
assist in any wav we can.
On behalf of the Near Mountain Homeowners Assn,
I �" ,.v_
JAM Wehrle , President
ill ,
Office: 546-4041
Home: 470-1521
1 cc: Near Mountain Board of Directors
Near Mountain Public Safety Committee
1 Jim Chaffee
Gary Warren
Larry Brown
II City Council Members
II
1
1
I
•
1
1
I
II
NEAR MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS ASSN I
Z41 MOUNTAIN WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Mr. Larry Brown September 30, 1988
Asst . City Engr.
City of Chanhassen ,
690 Coulter St.
Chanhassen, MN 65317
Dear Mr. Brown:
On behalf of the 350 homeowners in Near Mountain , it is important that I
recoro objecting in the most strenuous fashion to the offense ano insult thatn
you have dealt us in questioning the truthfulness of our having sent the City
our July 22 , 1988 puolic safety memo. This week you suggested that it was some
sort of fabrication that was retoractively altered or enlarged. This assertion
is truly a slap in the face to our community.
In addition , we find your statements that our reasonable requests are
"unrealistic and asking for too much" , and that you "are already bending over
backwards dealing with requests from Near Mountain" , to be
e
Just consider the fact that not one of these relatively minor rrequestss( some of
which are over a year old) have been satisfactorily resolved! In any case,
this, too, was a very offensive assertion for a public official to make to any
group of taxpaying citizens. It would have been more appropriate , more
truthful , ano better received to have made an apologetic comment that your
resources are limited and time is now short due to the City's miscommunication,
•
After you had leveled this insult and were pointedly asked if
•
You were saying
that we are all " liars" ,
your only equivocation was: "MAYBE I ,we you an
apology . IF you really did send this letter when you say you did" . You must
have realized that this was far from an apology; rather it was a further insult
that continued to question our integrity! It is disrespectful and shocking
that someone in public service would convey such an attitude to local
homeowners , EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, WHICH THIS IS NOT!
FOR THE RECORD: the letter in question was sent on July 22 , 1988 , at the
request of Jim Chaffee, to recap several outstanding issues brought up by our
Near fountain Public Safety Committee. Within a few days , Jim Chaffee
acknowledged receipt and indicated that' he had shared this with you and other
appropriate parties , for study and response. He further indicated that I could
expect to hear directly from the Engineering Department on those matters over
which they had jurisdiction. He still has this letter in his files , and agrees
that he saw merit in these requests , and asked that I reduce them to writing.
Part of our letter also served as an acceptance of some help that Gary Warren
had just offered. Clearly , therefore , there is NO foundation for your
it t i. s i_ ,t 'oe the we • d no rem . e d thi ter in J _a. t
it is some sort of fabricated wish-list full of unreasonable reouests.
11
i
We take great exception to your words and attitude , and do not agree that the
reasonaole requests that we made months ago should not be completed this year ,
II simply because the City "dropped the ball" . Most of these items are safety-
related, and should have been dealt with as priority items a long time ago.
Since City miscommunication is responsible for the delay problem, I don' t know
why the City should respond any differently than any other service business
II that makes such a mistake with its customers : City workers should avidly apply
themselves to do everything in their power to correct the situation
immediately , rather than smugly writing off most of our requests with the
excuse that it 's probably too late.
This is especially true with the items
that constitute life-threatening
problems such as crosswalks with no signs , cars driving on ped-bike paths , no
stop signs at dangerous intersections where near-fatal wrecks have occurred,
open drain pipes near a Day Care Center, a long-delayed path where no sidewalks
exist , etc. We feel that NO EFFORT SHOULD BE SPARED to still resolve ALL of
our requests this year , wnerever possible! We do not accept the premise that
our City bureaucracy is too unwieldy to expedite items where it needs to right
a wrong that they created. i mignt add that all of the Councilmen with whom I
have discussed this , agree. Near Mountain doesn't expect you to work miracles
' (and if something simply can't be done , gust let us know why ) , but you'd be
surprised what can, be accomplished with a more positive effort .
In closing , I want to acknowledge that you seem to be a capable young man, with
great potential for the future. It is my hope that you sincerely come to
understand that what you had to say was way-out-of-line and indicates an
' inappropriate attitude for someone in your position. When you have recognized
that , I will be more than glad to put this behind us.
11 On behalf of the Near Mountain Homeowners Assn ,
^ r ^
J. ,1 Wehrle , President
cc: Near Mountain Homeowners Assn Board of Directors
Neer Mountain Homeowners Assn Public Safety Committee
Don Ashworth
Jim Chaffee
Gary Warren
City Council Members
•
I
II
i
Mr. Jim Chaffee 7/22/88
Public Safety Director
City of Channassen
609 Coulter Or. - PO Box 147
Channassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim: ,
Than you for forwarding me a copy of Gary Warren's letter of June 21 re the
cleaning out of silt deposits at the intake pipes in the main pond here in Near
Mountain. Our community appreciates your offer of help with this 1987
fl000-related problem, and has the following commments and questions on this
and other subjects about which we have been talking: I
1 . The homeowner at 6391 Near Mountain Blvd, where the pond comes closest to
the street , would like to have the silt build-up at his intake pipe taken away,
as soon as possible. This is easily accesses from the street ano does not
require your crossing anyone else's property , which was one of the concerns at
the other intake pipe. Have someone contact the owners , Bob or Jan Schulte, at
the address above or by phone at 470-9248.
2. One of the homeowners at the other intake , Jim Pahl at 6226 Cascade Pass
( see lot 47 in Gary's letter of 6/21/88 ) , has several questions to ask before
deciding whether to pursue this:
A. What sort of equipment would drive through these yards to do this?
B. Could the equipment reach the pond without tearing-up his bang?
C. Would the "planter walls" in lot n8 prevent access?
Please contact him by letter or at home at 470-0655. 1
3. On a related matter , what has become of the inquiry into this pond's outlet
pipe behind 6240 Near Mountain Blvd, which has no grate or other protective
covering? Many children live in this area , and there is a daycare center
operated at this address. A small child could crawl up into this and get stuck
or potentially come upon snakes or other animals. I recall that you know the
owners , Gary & Mary McGlennen (he's the Asst Hennepin Co Prosecutor ). Please
write them or call at 470-0564. If this is the developer's responsibility,
please so notify. There is more potential liability here , than there is at our
infamous "no turn" intersection. Quick action should be taken in this cases
4. On behalf of the Near Mountain Homeowners ' Assn, and upon the unanimous
recommendation of our Public Safety Committee , we hereby officially ask for the
following changes in traffic signs in our neighborhood:
A. Speed limit signs now posted at 30 , should be reduced to 15 or 20, in
relation to the 25 mpn speed limit signs posted all around us on
Pleasantview. Our short , little residential streets are mostly dead-end
and full of curves , hills and dozens of children. Our speed limit
should be far less than that of the long and well-travelled Pleasantview.
Our speeding problems have gotten much worse since the 30 mph signs went
up, and it is only a matter of time before a child is seriously injured or
killed) We ask that they be changed, immediately. •
II
H
B. We ask that "SLOW - CHILDREN AT PLAY" signs be place at all entrances
1 to our development.
IIC. We ask that stop signs be placed in ALL directions at the following
intersections:
II Castle Ridge & Olympic Circle
Cascade Pass & Cascade Court
Near Mountain Blvd. & Mountain Way _
Near Mountain Blvd. & Trapper' s Pass
IMountain Way & Oxbow Bend
• 0. When you speak to Gary Warren about the ponds , please ask why our
ped-bike path has not been completed. Laurie Sietsema assured us many
11 months ago that this had been approved and only awaited Gary seeing to it
that the work crew put the bituminous path down on the outlot and then
II paint/post the four foot lanes on the street . We specifically ask that
the street signs say "ped-bike" , as is done in many other communities.
E. A crosswalk should be painted across Pleasantview where our ped-bike
II path crosses it to connect to the existing path on the far side of the
street . This should be properly signed/posted, preferably with a stop
sign, but at least with a "crosswalk" sign.
IF. Lastly, we ask that all of the above signs that are within Near
Mountain , be coordinated with Peter Pflaum , President of Lundgren
II Bros Construction , who has agreed to frame them in wood (as now at Near
Mountain Blvd. & Pleasantview ) , in keeping with the beauty of our
development.
IThank you very much for all of your ongoing assistance and cooperation. We in
Near Mountain greatly appreciate it. Please get back to me as soon as possible
Ion the above issues , and I will relay needed information to our memoers. If we
are going to have to take any of these issues before City Council , please so
advise by Friday, August 5, so that we can pursue this at the Council Meeting
II on Monday , August B. As always , feel free to call me at home at 470-1521 or at
work at 546-4041 .
Sincerely ,
4111101;11/ Ve-A1-"----•
In Wehrle , President
Near Mountain Homeowners Assn
II
II
I
CITY C F
r
CELN . : ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 '
October 7, 1988
Mr. Jim Wehrle 1
241 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
)) Dear Mr. Wehrle:
I was surprised to hear some of the comments you made to I
Councilman Boyt during the evening of our Oktoberfest. It was
with even greater surprise to receive your letter of September
30, 1988. Larry Brown had notified me on September 27th of your
discussion with him on September 26th. He had stated that he had
received the information back from the State of Minnesota
regarding the request from the Near Mountain neighborhood to
install various "stop" and "slow-children at play" signs . He
asked for advice as to how he should proceed in presenting that
information. We discussed the potential of placing the item onto
the City Council agenda for October 10th. However, after
recognizing that it may take a period of time for you to notify
other residents in the neighborhood, we decided that the item
should be postponed to October 24th. I stated to Larry that his
presentation should be solely that of the information received
from the State with the final decision then resting with the City
Council. In light of the conversation that I had with Mr. Brown,
I was surprised to receive your letter. The course of action
originally set should have allowed all parties the opportunity to
grapple with the pros and cons of the request in a non-controversial/
intelligent fashion. It is quite apparent that the process
failed and an apology is due to you. I hereby make that apology.
By this letter, I am asking our Engineer, Park and Recreation
Coordinator, and Park Foreman to provide an update regarding each '
of the items presented in your letter of September 30th. I would
anticipate that the City Council will be interested in discussing
any issues which are not resolved. As stated earlier in this
letter, this item will appear on the October 24th City Council
agenda.
As a closing comment, I wish to state that the City of Chanhassen '
agrees with your beliefs that the Near Mountain neighborhood
represents a beautiful addition to our community comprised of
I
Mr. Jim Wehrle
I October 7 , 1988
Page 2
II
many citizens who have devoted untold hours for our City. I sin-
cerely do not know of any City employee who has anything other
' than a favorable perception of yourself or anyone in your neigh-
borhood. I can believe that delays in completing work functions
could be misconstrued or be perceived as apathy on the part of
employees. Such is not the case. In almost every instance which
' you have presented, there have been no more than two individuals
employed in that work function area. For example, I know that
you were concerned with the amount of time being taken to
construct the play apparatus in the North Lotus Lake Park. The
City has two employees in this work area. Four major neigh-
borhood park play apparatuses had been scheduled for construction
during the summer of 1988. Both of the employees mentioned are
thighly respected within the community for not only their energe-
tic work habits , but for their commitment to improving the com-
munity. For example, one of these men, Dale Gregory, serves as
' Fire Chief for our voluntary Fire Department and devotes unimagi-
nable hours of time to our community as a volunteer fireman.
Dale and his wife, solely, have taken their time to plant the
various flower gardens around our community and to maintain them
during the course of the year. Dale, like myself, is very proud
of residents of the Near Mountain neighborhood (such as Craig
Blechta) who have volunteered their time to stand hand-in-hand
' with Fire Chief Gregory to insure the safety of-all of our homes .
Dale' s and Dean' s failure to have completed the play structure in
the North Lotus Lake Park was solely a matter of the amount of
' work to be accomplished and the number of people to accomplish
such. I believe similar comments can be made regarding Gary/
Larry ( the only employees in the Engineering Department) ; or
Lori/Todd ( the only employees in the Recreation Department) .
' Thank you for your consideration.
' Sincerely, •
1 1
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:ic -
cc: Near Mountain Board of Directors
Near Mountain Public Safety Committee
Jim Chaffee
Gary Warren
' Larry Brown
Lori Sietsema
Dale Gregory
City Council Members
1
I
LAW OFFICES
I
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359
IVANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
VANCE B GRANNIS, R. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER
J TIMOTHY J. BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELL
IDAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
IOctober 17 , 1988 K
/41,, y, , may 4,,-
IMr. Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Hall ,,;
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
IChanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Modeen-Hendrickson
IDear Don:
I This is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding the
above matter. You directed me to pay the $83 ,000 award, the
$1 ,257.60 Commissioners ' fee, and the $720.00 appraisal fee out
of the $200,000 held in our trust account. This parcel is one of
I the acquisitions being financed out of the economic development
T.I .F.
Iery tru yours,
GRA N - , GRANNIS, FARRELL
- , - SON, P.A.
I BY.
Roger N. Knutson
IRNK:srn
I
I
I
I
I 19 1988 SEN
Ciiy,CCT OF CHANHAS
I