3. Lake Lucy Road Watermain Improvement Project 1
3
CITY OF --
CHANHASSEN
:r-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
Action by °malty r`rirnin%°;`;'IC
' MEMORANDUM
TO Don Ashworth, City Manager _ �
1
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
DATE: March 8, 1989
SUBJ: Public Hearing for Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain
Improvement Project No. 88-25
' Note to Council members: Please bring your copies of the feasi-
bility studies for this project.
' This hearing is being held as a formality to meet the Chapter 429
improvement project criteria for assessments. The City Attorney
' has advised that although we are using the hookup and connection
charges for dealing with assessments on this project, that in
order to protect the City ' s options in the event that we would
ever need to assess costs for this project in the future that
' this hearing should be held.
Through the workshop sessions and the previous Council agenda
items on the project, we have received substantial input and had
extensive contact with the public on this project. I therefore
do not anticipate receiving new or unmanageable issues at this
' time . It should be kept in mind, that this hearing is being held
strictly to receive comment on the trunk watermain installation
and is not intended to receive comment or discussion concerning
the no parking and trail issue; that being the topic for the
' March 27 , 1989 City Council meeting.
After close of the public hearing there is no further action
necessary to be taken on this agenda item.
Attachments
' 1 . Affidavit of Mailing.
2 . Newspaper notice.
' 3 . City Council minutes dated February 13, 1989 .
cc: Dick Koppy , Westwood
M
11
IL _
■
■
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
■
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
■
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes that she is and was on March 2 , 19 89 ■
the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan-
hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed
a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for I
Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain Improvement Project No. 88-25
■
to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A" , by enclosing a copy
of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the
United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the
names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such ■
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota,
and by other appropriate records .
■
L .t 21z /
Karen J.l'Englhardt, Deputy Clerk
L/
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this day X AA�'^ 'A �'nc4K M T.Aa ISSENQaaA4�att
Of � KiM T. MELAViSSEN
C ,L0 �l , 19 ,`, t:OT+?'f P I:LIC
C.^,RVLR COU`!1Y
- sly C:,nnnss;cn L>C,:LS �:zy 23, 1992 �
`�77CGi7GGi77GCvtGGJJGtiG✓GYGv`r`'� bte's/J(
N•tary Publi•
ATT4 M MEN r
690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 •
•
- c Try 0 F
I !:;t1,..
\ i : . , F El ‘
I , \ 1 i .7
�� �,� 7 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
.I (612) 937-1900
1 March 2 , 1989
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain
Project No. 88-25
Dear Property Owner:
INotice is hereby given that the Chanhassen City Council has sche-
duled a public hearing for input on the Lake Lucy Road Trunk
I Watermain Feasibility Study accepted by the City Council on
February 27 , 1989 . The public hearing will be held as a part of
a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, March 13 ,
1989 . The City Council meeting commences at 7 : 30 p.m. in the
1 City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive. All
interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and
place .
1 This project deals with the installation of 5600 linear feet of
18-inch trunk watermain primarily along the north side of Lake
Lucy Road . Said improvement is to be paid by the use of general
Iobligation bonds with appropriate connection and hookup charges
paid by those properties able and desiring to connect to the
trunk watermain as establisned by the City Council Policy on
I February 13 , 1989 . The total cost of said improvement is esti-
mated to be $472 , 481 .
IA copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope and
costs is available for review at City Hall during regular busi-
ness hours .
1 We look forward to discussing this important project with you.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please call .
1 Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I LL6 ,. ...�
Gary . Warren , P.E.
1 gineer
GGW:ktm
Icc : Dick Koppy, Westwood Professional Services , Inc.
II
Basil Ivens
8550 west 208th Street, #1 1685 Steller Court �� 4I
Lakeville, MN 55044 - Excelsior, MN 55331 LAHIBIT
Donald Celke Eric Rivkin
6431 Yosemite 5525 Conifer `Irail ,
Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MTV 55345
Willis Larson Nark Ridaersen
6471 Yosemite 13532 West Arthur Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55343 '
Harry Desantis Scott Gavin 11
6440 Yosemite 705 Grant Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Laura Lindquist David L. Hughes 1
6460 Yosemite 1780 Lake Lucy Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
I
Michael Schmidt Franklin state Bank
6470 Yosemite Franklin, MN 55333
Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Dale Hiebert Minnesota Texas Properties
6510 Yosemite (Carrico Addition)
Excelsior, MN 55331 4445 ',Vest 77th Street
Edina, MN 55435
Christopher Eiman
1206 Lake Lucy Road Thomas Kraxer
Chanhassen, MN 55317 6441 White Dove Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Diane Stegner 1
1180 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55 317
Larry Kerber
6420 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
I
■
' Jonn Clark _ Daniel Shrader _ Helen Jacques
1215, Lake Lucy Road ( 14433 Fairway Drive 1210 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
II Richard Ersbo Allen Finstad Alfred Harvey
1251 Lake Lucy Road 1710 Steller Court 1430 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
II
Richard Ortenblad Judith Dirks Elizabeth Glaccum
' 1351 Lake Lucy Road 808 East Breu Avenue 1510 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Olivia, MN 56277 Excelsior, MN 55331
IITheodore Coey Magnus Manlove Terrance O'Brien
1381 Lake Lucy Road 6691 Galpin Blvd. 1420 Lake Lucy Road
' Chanhassen, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
IJoseph Morin John Waldron Almond Krueger
15820 South Eden Drive 338 Tyler Avenue North 1600 Lake Lucy Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Hopkins, MN 55343 Excelsior, MN 55331
I
II Brian Tichy John Gorczyca The Greenery Company
1471 Lake Lucy Road 1850 Lake Lucy Road c/o Don Mezzenga
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 5816 Dickens Avenue
II Minnetonka, NN 55345
Robert Christiansen Alan Peterson Reinhold Guthmiller
I1511 Lake Lucy Roaa 6697 Countryside Drive 1801 rake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Excelsior, MN 55331
IIWarren Phillips Merle Steinkraus
Melvin Babatz
1571 Lake Lucy Road 1800 Lake Lucy Road 1650 Lake Lucy Road
IExcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
IIRosalee Dodd Jerry Gill Philip Mathiowetz
200 First Federal Building 1800 West 67th Street 1630 Lake Lucy Road
320 North 4th Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
II Bismark, ND 58501
IJames Mielke Patrick Johnson James Palmer
1645 Lake Lucy Road 1730 Lake Lucy Road 1670 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
II
Mark Williams Paul McAllister Terrance P. Ryan
I1655 Lake Lucy Road 7510 Erie Avenue 6450 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
II
■
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR ■
LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN
CITY PROJECT NO. 88-25
■
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will
meet in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter
Drive on Monday , March 13 , 1989 at 7: 30 p.m. to consider Lake
Lucy Road Trunk Watermain improvements. This improvement deals
with the installation of 18 " trunk watermain along the north side
of Lake Lucy Road. Said improvements are to be paid by the sale
of general obligation bonds . The cost of said improvement is
estimated to be $472 , 481.
All persons interested may appear and be heard at said time ■
and place.
Gary Warren
■
City Engineer
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 16 and 23 , 1989 )
■
■
■
■
i
■
■
■
■
■
ATTACk1 -C9
■
I , City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Johnson: Yes, as long as you're also including negotiation of the
II acquisition rather than just condemnation as in the last paragraph of page 2
there. The entire recommendation.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any
further discussion?
I Resolution #89-21: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a
resolution authorizing condemnation of property in connection with the TH 101
realignment. Further, to direct the City Attorney's office to obtain
1 appropriate appraisals for the property which can be used to negotiate
acquisition and, therefore, potentially avoid condemnation. Also, that no
action be taken to condemn the property until the district is extended by the
State. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
. LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN:
IA. ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1 TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET DATE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING.
IIB. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE TAKING OF BIDS.
Gary Warren: As summarized in the staff report, the December 12th Council
I 1 meeting, staff was authorized to have plans and specifications prepared for the
project and also in light of the importance of getting this trunk watermain
completed in anticipation of our peak water demands this July, we also were
1 directed to prepare a policy document that would reflect the cost associated
with connecting, the costs and the policies associated with connecting any
interested parties along the alignment of this trunk watermain on Lake Lucy
II Road. The addendum report that's before you tonight under item a is the
document that was prepared to reflect the connection policies that we're
recommending and has the input of the City Attorney, myself and the City Manager
in bringing these items together. It's basis is primarily founded in the
II existing City Ordinances. This we found to be the most sensible way to our
thinking of allowing a lot of flexibility for anybody who wanted to hook into
the system but also for not requiring people to hook into the system but if they
1 did at some later date, that we have a vehicle for establishing a reasonable
cost for the residential benefit of having water available. If you'd like, I
can go down and itemize the specific elements of that policy or if everybody, if
there's questions, depending on how you'd like to handle it.
IIMayor Chmi.el: Why don't you go through that for clarification.
I Gary Warren: I'll put it up on the overhead. I brought some projections along.
These are right out of the Addendum Report so if you want to follow along. The
basic premise that was agreed to as part of the overall, that we looked at as
II part of the overall policy.. .part of the plans of Lake Lucy Road..proceeds would
be utilized that are available from the 1986 general obligations funds that were
used for the trunk improvements. We talked with Mr. Andy Merry and he said that
those bonds were justified based on the trunk needs of the six water systems and
I reservoir, Chanhassen Hills and Kerber Blvd. trunk watermain. .. So this would
allow us, we wouldn't have to take any funds out of our water expansion fund
II 19
II ATTAC-MEWW T 3
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
i. h we don't have enough ,
which e ug dollars for anyway. This allows us to cover the
project. The fees for each property owner are surnnarized here in matrix form.
Basically there would be a connection charge covered under the City Code. We
have basic calculations along the alignment of Lake Lucy Road to say, well
this. ..i.s on this side can potentially develop. How many users are we going to
have along Lake Lucy Road? It is a guesstimate but we believe that we've
applied good judgment as far as zoning for what is out there right now. Taking
into account existing preliminary plats that are in with the Ersi.bo property.
Also recognizing if the MUSA moves, that we maybe will see a whole different
development characteristic depending on how the Council is...at that time to
zone the property. This is the area along the abutting properties that is
generally the Urban Service Atea but all the rest of this is zoned rural
residential. A lot of the parcels up there are 5 1/2 acres.. .with I guess. ..I
would say it's $300,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes in some cases so even if the
urban service area line moves, I shouldn't say if, when it moves, those
properties may not ever subdivide. So we were faced with that kind of a
judgment. What we did is arrived at approximately 80 units that we think
realistically could develop and ultimately use the trunk watermain. So we've
done a calculation in the report that's in the appendix to say, if we were just
constructing an 8 inch watermain along Lake Lucy Road which would be typical.. .,
what were the costs associated with that and dividing that by the 80 and that's
how we arrived at the $3,035.00. The City Ordinance also provides for a hook-up
charge which is commonly referred to as a trunk charge. Basically every user in I
the city. . .a building permit today, pays a $650.00 fee for that building permit
which goes into the City's water expansion fund. We use that for normal
expansions outside of the...bond issue. . .operati.ng system. As an example, we
recently approved the preparation of plans and specifications for rehabbing the
downtown tower. That 1,000 gallon tank. The funds for repairing the tank came
out of our trunk fund which is funded by those. That is a number, the $650.00,
the current number. That's not to say that it would not be increased in the
future. It likely would depending on how.. . Fire safety availability charge,
$8.00 per quarter. That is a charge that basically would be applied to any
existing dwelling, residential dwelling, I'm talking along the line of Lake Lucy
Road, that could tap into that main and it would benefit by having the watermain
out there from a fire safety standpoint. We're proposing that they would charge
consistent with the rest of the City properties who are not on the watermain but
could be on. That they be charged an $8.00 per quarter charge to reflect the
fact that they do receive the water from a fire safety standpoint.
Councilman Johnson: This would be currently, anybody who does not connect. If r
they connect...?
Gary Warren: If they connect, then they pay whatever the useage is. Put a
meter on it and that's how they would go. The minimum charge. . .that were in
place prior to the watermain going in and a particular project was developed
okay so they weren't required to hook in. Same policy. Payment options.
Connection charge, first of all, this only applies to a person who wants to
connect to the system. If you don't want to tie in, you don't pay. You're not
required to hook up. But if you do want to connect to the system. . .plus you
have your own cost of taking the water service from the road right-of-way line
basically into your property and into your home. . . The next charge is the
hook-up charges. We're proposing that they do not pay at this time, that we'd
like the City to assess an additional cost...that they would be assessed against
the property. The City's policy is to take the rate of the bonds. . .in this
20 ,
■
, City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
case, 7 1/2%, round it up to the nearest ercent and add a
p percentage so 7 1/2
I r plus rounding it to 8 plus 1 is 9% and a 6 year term which basically reflects
the remaining term of the cost. .. If a person does not choose to connect at
3 this time, say 5 years down the road wants to hook into the Lake Lucy Road
watermain, they would be allowed to do that with this policy. The connection
charge of $3,035.00 5 years from now to reflect the inflationary increases to
that charge and again, this is spelled out in the ordinance, we would apply an
interest of 4 1/2%. ..so there is an escalator built in here. Not to be an
'
incentive to having you hook-up. It's just to reflect the fact that $3,035.00
today is not worth $3,035.00 5 years from now. Hook-up charge, also City
policy.. .also could be assessed for a period of 4 years at 8% so there's an
option... I guess that's the policy. The feasibility study also did update the
cost of the project and that is summarized in the staff report. Basically we,
including the booster station improvements, we're looking at a $472,500.00
project for all practical purposes here. That is consistent with the original
feasibility study estimate with the exception that we do have, when we looked at
the policy for connections and in order to provide this option where the
residents can or don't have to connect, we were faced with the fact that the
watermains for the most part is on the north side of the roadway. What if a
resident on the south side wants to hook into that watermain? Is it fair to
make them pay the cost for going underneath, jacking underneath Lake Lucy Road
which roughly is a $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 added burden so we said that didn't
seem reasonable. So the construction plans that are in tonight's packet include
7 crossings of Lake Lucy Road where a 6 inch stub would be jacked underneath the
road. So it's available. We've kind of taken a hard look at the properties on
II1 the south side and said well, if you come across in this location, how would the
I least number of crossings, how can we allow anybody who wants one on the south
side to hook in? So we have added that to the project and that is why we have,
it's a $40,000.00 cost that we did not have in the original feasibility study
but we think that it's necessary to give us the flexibility and to not have any
disparity between the north side and the south side. The second part of the
issue, and they are separate issues I should make clear, was to try to address
the bike trail option. Maybe you'd like me to hold off on that for now and just
deal with this?
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we'll deal with this one first and then move on.
Councilman Johnson: I see we have some residents in the audience.
' Mayor Chmi.el: Does anyone wish to address this issue? Hearing none, bring it
back to the Council.
Larry Kerber: I've got a question. Larry Kerber. My property is at 6700
Powers. You had mentioned something about a $8.00 service charge for people who
do not hook up to water for fire protection.
Gary Warren: That's for dwellings.
Larry Kerber: Existing dwellings that that line passes in front of that do not
lif hook up. Why is that?
Gary Warren: That's to recognize the benefit from a fire service standpoint.
!IL That water is available from a fire hydrant for fire protection.
1 21
I
-" 4. Ci.ty Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Larry Kerber: Why does the guy who hooks up then not have to pay that? He's
getting the same benefit.
Gary Warren: He's paying that through his, his water is metered and he's paying
for that system.
Larry Kerber: So that's built right into his?
Gary Warren: Yes. '
Larry Kerber: Now that's only going to be the property not serviced by existing
water as you've got the parcels on the corner of CR 17 and Powers serviced by
water on Powers. My place and the 3 little places on the corner. They will not
be assessed that $8.00 charge?
Gary Warren: Those that have access and have service stubs from Powers Blvd.,
that's correct.
'" Larry Kerber: Okay, that's all I wanted to know. '
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Hearing none, we'll bring it back to Council under
Council discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I think Westwood has done a good job here along with Gary
and crew. I'm glad that we came in so well under budget on the water tower that
we can utilize those monies here without having to dip in the till anymore. I'd
like to hear more on the bike issue side of the thing. That seems to be a
hotter subject.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to thank Gary and Westwood for working with
the residents so well. I was there when they came in and looked at their
individual properties and Gary told them what would happen. Especially that you
were willing to go from the north to the south when it was deemed reasonable. ,
Councilman Workman: With those '86 bonds in financing this whole thing, is that
a potential to open up a problem in the future when somebody is perhaps going to
be assessed? Is this a coincidence with this bond? This kind of funding?
I understand the importance of the project and that's why we kind of went with
that kind of funding but if we didn't have the bonds, what would we do?
Gary Warren: If we didn't have the bonds, I guess you could do nothing. You 11
could issue another bond or look at some combination of assessment program to
generate the revenues from the project perhaps in conjunction with using some of
our water expansion funds. The budget for '89, we had looked at $150,000.00
coming out of that fund to SC money for this project but that was when we
thought we maybe had a $300,000.00 project. We didn't know. Without the good
fortune months, having the reserve from the bond issue, we'd be looking at all
kinds of different scenarios and combinations of assessments. Or maybe more
likely, because of, I don't see that the policies would change that much. I
think the policy that we've established here is well founded in the fact that it ,
is a trunk benefit and we happen to be going past a lot of abutting properties
and we want to be as congenial as possible to allow them to hook in without
making everybody hook in but the policy that it is a trunk sewer line would
probably come to the Council to be faced with do you want to cut another bond
22 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
issue to fund this. If that answers your question.
Councilman Workman: What exactly will this do for our, in very simple terms,
what will it do for our water situation this summer, in the future? What are we
' connecting and what are we gaining? It's an expensive project. What exactly
is the City of Chanhassen getting by adding this?
Gary Warren: In simple terms, let me just quickly put this graphic back up.
This doesn't show our water lines but basically right outside of Prince's
property on Galpin we have Well #3 which right now is the only well that
services all the properties in the Minnewashta area, the northwest corner of the
' City basically. The water service is provided by Well #3 which pumps through a
booster at this intersection of Lake Lucy Road up to our 200,000 gallon elevated
tank on Murray Hill Road. We have 150 gallon well over at the high school up
here that is a very humble supplement to that system. Our Well #3 pumps at
about 1,000 gallons a minute. Right now if Well #3 goes out, we are very much
vulnerable to, we don't have another supplement if it goes out during our peak
demand in the summer here, we have trouble getting water. . . The 200,000 gallon
' tank maybe carries a days worth of reserve so if we have a major problem, we're
hurting. Likewise, in the downtown, a majority of our users or three-quarters
of them are in the rest of the urban area around Lotus Lake and such. This area
'
is serviced by Well #4 which is down by Lake Susan where we're currently. ..and
by Well #2 which is over by South Lotus Lake Park. Both those wells pump into
the system but as we experienced last year, they are very strapped for keeping
I up under peak conditions. They run about 20 to 22 hours a day when we hit the
July season. Whereas Well #3 on the west side over here maybe ran 5 to 8 hours
a day under peak conditions so there's about 10 to 12 hours worth of reserve
capacity that this well could be running if we needed it but because it's
' oversized, not oversized but it's adequate for the northwest area, we can't tap
that reserve because we don't have any. . . Lake Lucy Road will allow us to pump
from Well #3 up into what we call the lower service area and vice versa. Well
' #4 will not be able to come back to the western service area so we provide
ourselves some good redundancy in the system and allow us to tap into the
reserve capacity that's in Well #3 right now. Eventually and he was just here,
I guess my desire was to get a feasibility study authorized by the Council for
Well #5. This will buy us some time because ultimately we will need to have
Well #5 on line.
Councilman Workman: What will it have to do with our reservoir up there?
Gary Warren: Murray Hill or this reservoir? They'll be able to cross feed.
' Basically Well #2 and #4 are pumping and if they can't keep up with the
consistent demand, the telementry will be established so Well #3 will kick into
the system, if it isn't already, and it will feed back into that reservoir. The
downtown reservoir and this reservoir are tied in with an altitude belt to stay
at the same elevation. They both go up and down together. So when they hit
certain staging levels, 1 well, 2 wells, 3 wells will kick in to meet the demand
to fill those tanks for the service area. So they will all basically work as
I one unit to service that plus they will also be able to feed back into the
northwest part.. .and reserve that's generated.
1 Councilman Workman: Is this going to do anything to alleviate our sprinkling
ban?
23
- City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: We sure hope so. That's the idea is to tap the. ..
Councilman Workman: This summer? I
Gary Warren: Well, we're intending, if we stay on our schedule and we are on
our schedule right now, to have this project awarded at the March 13th City '
Council meeting. Providing favorable bids and all those other good things, the
construction schedule we're comfortable with, this line would be in service by
July of this year. Typically, and last year was not typical, but we typically
are. ..
Councilman Workman: So people that are out there right now and this is going to
be running down Lake Lucy Road, they're going to be charged basically $32.00 a
year and that's about all until they tap in?
Gary Warren: Right. If there's a dwelling on the parcel, a residential
dwelling, they will be charged $32.00.
Councilman Workman: But $32.00 a year is it and a little inconvenience?
Councilman Johnson: They should also check with their insurance companies. Now
that they have a fire hydrant closer, what effect that has on their household
insurance. I assume if you're under fire protection versus no fire protection.
That's a question my insurance company asked. How far it is to your nearest
fire hydrant. Right now it's a couple miles. Maybe, you're an insurance man,
you might know better. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like someone to provide a motion to accept the Supplement
Report No. 1, the feasibility study and set a date for public hearing. What
date for the public hearing have you indicated Gary?
Gary Warren: March 13th.
Resolution #89-22: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
Supplemental Report No. 1 to the Feasibility Study and to set the public hearing
date for March 13, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Can we discuss the bike trail option? 1
Mayor Chmiel: That's the next one.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we should point out though that this will not
relieve the city from the prospects of a watering ban for an even/odd day or
some sort of combination if we have a summer like we had last summer. ,
Gary Warren: That's correct. We would be able to tolerate it a little bit
better but if you have that kind of a condition, every city just about had a
sprinkling bans and watering restrictions. It was .that dry. 1
Councilman Boyt: I just don't want to set up false expectations. It might be a
little safer from the terms of fighting a fire standpoint but people's lawns are
still going to suffer.
24 1
■
i
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
11 1 I
Gary Warren: We haven't made up for very much moisture content in the soil yet.
Councilman Johnson: But we are in better shape having that new water reservoir
' on line this year than we were last year without the water reservoir. It's not
all gloomy.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move to the trail issue portion.
Gary Warren: At the last Council meeting, the Council was presented with a
petition from the neighbors concerning the persistent issue that we've been
trying to resolve concerning on-street trails and the lack of parking that's
available as a result of that. I guess my thinking is that we were looking at
the feasibility study is that well, we don't have a quick fix to that problem
but to pose one alternative here, I had Westwood prepare a cost estimate for an
option that I thought might have some potential. That was, at the time of
construction of the watermain, we're going to have this 10 foot basically area
' that we'll be clearing and restoring as a part of construction. What if we take
one of the trails off the Lake Lucy Road and put it right over the watermain?
Obviously there are some costs involving that.. .and maybe we could turn one of
the lanes, in this case I had said the south bike path, turn that into a parking
' zone. We looked at that. The dollars are in the report. It was $47,000.00 to
$64,000.00, roughly, depending on whether we have to move our retaining wall on
Yosemite Avenue but just to touch on the highlights aside from the costs here
II which I don't. .., there are some hurdles with MnDot. Basically, this is looking
north, so this would be the north side of the road and this would be the south
side. The current road section is a 36 foot road section from face of curb to
face of curb. We would go up. . .to 6 foot bike path lanes, one in each
' direction. As you will recall from the previous discussions on this, State
Statute requires that we can't have bike lanes going opposite directions on the
same side of the road. We pose a traffic, Statute problem.. . The road section
' under MnDot's criteria, being a State Aid Road, in order to have a sufficient
road section that would allow one lane of parking, MnDot likes to recommend a 34
foot road. If we look at the section from here over because we wouldn't be able
' to include the bike path and if you take the bike path off on the south side of
Lake Lucy Road and put it off over the watermain, we have a 30 foot section.
We're 4 feet short which, not to say that it couldn't happen but MnDot would
have to look at that as a variance to the road section requirements in their
' State Aid Manual... We didn't have time to get into all of that or even discuss
it very much with MnDot. I just wanted to point that out that it's not a given.
If we decide for example that yes, let's do that. Let's bear the expense of
putting the trail over on this side for this for parking, MnDot would have to
waive on their road section requirements so we've got a 4 foot issue there that
needs to be dealt with. Construction wise, it can be done. Again, the toughest
part of it is going to be the Yosemite Avenue area where our retaining wall.
' Right now we have 5 feet in back of the curb. . .about the maple tree and there
are some important things that we'll have to be careful about. There are some
construction challenges to it... There's budget in the surplus funds here that
could be used for that where we haven' t exceeded our $530,000.00. . . That's I
guess the alternate that we did include in the report here.
Councilman Workman: What do the neighbors think about the trail?
Mayor Chmi.el: I've had a couple calls.
25
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Workman: It's not going to bother me but what's it going to do for ! I
you folks?
Mayor Chmiel: Would anyone like to address the issue from the neighborhood? '
Brian Tichy: My name is Brian Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. How do
we feel about the trail? I happen to like bike trails but I'd much prefer
parking. Right now with the state of the bicycle trails in the area, there
really aren't any trails to hook up to the Lake Lucy trail at the moment. I
feel the idea of a trail over the water trunk is a good one. The added cost is
a lot of money to spend and it's the City's money that, not just we would be
spending but the rest of the community would be spending and I don't know if
that's worthwhile. We contacted the State and a gentleman named Roy Hanson
handles the State Aid on roads. He mentioned that the State does not dictate
that that road has to have a bike path. It is up to the City to determine
whether or not there will be a bike path there. As far as the bike path, the
way it's used now, I don't know if it's necessary that there be a bike trail.
There are no other bike trails coming from the east or west side or coming from
the north or south. It really doesn't seem to be beneficial at this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: Brian, do you use the bike path? '
Brian Tichy: I use a bike quite often. Try to stay within the bike trail
but. . . II Councilwoman Dimler: Would you miss it if it were gone?
Brian Ti.chy: No, I'3 ride in the same spot. l'
Councilman Worknman: So you're basically what? You're against, not real
interested in the trail?
Brian Tichy: I'm not interested in the trail so much. I would rather not have
a trail there if it would mean that we could park in the road.
Councilman Johnson: You're for parking?
Brian Tichy: I'm for parking, yes. ,
Councilman Johnson: If the trail meant you can' t have parking, you don't want
the trail? 1
Brian Tichy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: If you can have both, would you like both? 1
Brian Tichy: That would be fine. If there's a solution that would meet that,
I'd be all in favor of it.
Councilman Johnson: Your objective is parking?
Brian Ti.chy: Right. And one side of the road is fine. We're looking for some Ell
type of a compromise.
26 1
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989 _ __
■
II
y- Gary Warren: As I pointed out in the staff report, the maximum I believe that
IIwe could get within the State criteria, even if both bike paths were pulled off
s of that road, we only have enough road section to put in one side parking.
I Councilman Boyt: Brian, I grant that you live at the bottom of a difficult
driveway. I'm glad I don't have that driveway.
Brian Tichy: I didn't when I built.
IICouncilman Boyt: Well, you do now Brian and we have an ordinance about parking
on streets in the wintertime. Where you're hurt the most, as I understand it,
I or at least looking at your driveway, is when conditions, driving conditions are
otherwise poor. If they start to be poor in your driveway, they're already
terrible. My concern is that even if there were no bike trail there, by
ordinance, you still couldn't park up there. So the bike trail really isn't the
Iissue. The issue is a city ordinance in effect from November 1st through April
1st and it says one, you can't park there overnight basically. Two, you can't
park there anytime that there's snow to be removed which is the very time you
II most need to park there. So I don't think the trail is the issue here. I think
the issue is that we have a person who is inconvenienced by a city ordinance and
I don't know that there's a way to resolve that Brian. To me, the issue is the
Icity ordinance and the issue isn' t a $60,000.00 trail.
Brian Tichy: I'm not necessarily most concerned about emergency parking. As I
say, it's other residents along the road also. The concern is when people come
Is over. There's not access to provide parking for those people, whether it's
i spring, summer, fall, winter snow storms, it doesn't matter. Those cars are,
where do you put them? What do you do when you have more than a couple of
I people over? It's not just a problem with me, it's a problem with other
residents along the road also.
Councilman Boyt: Granted, but they have the same problem with the ordinance.
IThe problem with what to do with people when you're going to hold a gathering of
some sort and have more than the normal number of cars, is one that we face all
over the City. I think we know how to deal with that problem. If that's the
I only hold-up is where do I put people when I'm having a gathering at my house,
what most people do in the City Brian is they call the Sheriff's Department and
tell them, I've got an unusual situation and I believe, and I don't see Jim
II Chaffee here but it's my understanding that the Sheriff's Department has been
very cooperative in that area. In giving people temporary ability to park where
they might not otherwise be able to do that.
I Brian Tichy: That's an option. It becomes an inconvenience, not all events are
planned a week or two days ahead of time to be able to do that. The convenience
of having parking on the street, especially in an instance like this where the
II road is wide enough, we're not in a very restricted or confined area, to provide
no parking in an area like that is definitely a burden on the residents along
the road.
Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with you about the burden at all and
I recognize that you are particularly burdened by it but Gary has already told
us that the road isn't wide enough to allow parking unless there's no trail on
11111[-- it, legally.
' 27
11
v
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: Without a variance from the State.
Councilman Boyt: Right, and maybe we can get a variance but my point is that, I
think to build this parking situation so that we can allow people to sort of
have adhoc gatherings that they can't put in their driveway, is to give up a
situation that does benefit the city and will continue to do that more so in the
future because Lake Lucy is a main connector. It is going to have continuingly
large amounts of traffic on it. Brian, I think you've got a situation here that
from my perspective, the City can't afford to correct. It's just simply too
expensive to move that trail and that doesn't correct it because it's an
ordinance problem. That's my point of view.
Brian Tichy: If the expense is the problem, removing signs Y
ns is a very
inexpensive solution.
Councilman Boyt: No, we're talking about building a trail so that we can
maintain that expense.
Brian Tichy: I realize that. If that is an expensive solution to the problem,
that may be the way to go. What I'm saying is the one thing you could do is
remove signs, no parking signs and then provide parking on the road. That
becomes a very minimal expense.
Gary Warren: The city snow emergency signs would be back up if the no parking
signs were taken down.
Mayor Chmiel: In talking to a few people that I've talked to within your
neighborhood, they've indicated too that as far as the bike trail is concerned,
when the bike trail went in, no one was ever asked if they really wanted one.
I guess the position that I see presently is that bike trail really serves no
one other than Lake Lucy Road because it doesn' t go beyond that particular part.
It does not go onto CR 117 nor does it go on CR 17. I guess one of my concerns
is, maybe those bike paths should be eliminated and provide some off street
parking for them on one side of that particular road. I can understand some of
the concerns that they have and I think some of those concerns are basically is
they just don't have that accessibility.
Councilman Johnson: To argue the other point of view on this, we have an infant
trail system here where all the connections aren't made. We had an opportunity
to put a trail between two major roads on a major road in the city. We're
running trails up CR 17 now and there's a new trail that was constructed last
year running up to about Kerber Blvd.. That will be extending on and should be
connecting here within the next few years. We should be connecting. The trail
plans, our Comprehensive Plan calls for a trail in this area. I have seen quite
a few people on this trail in the summer. I would love to see this one off the ,
highway. I've seen kids on tricycles. Kids on bicycles with training wheels,
not exactly going straight, on the same roadway as we have people speeding.
This is one of the roads that is nice, very wide. You get the impression of
wideness with this road. You figure it's a 55 mph road. You go up over the
hill and here's a family with a couple people walking, a couple dogs and a horse
and two tricycles and you're doing 55 over the top of the hill. I think if we
can build an off street trail at this location along the north side of here for
future use, even though it doesn't connect today. If we don't build it today
28 1
I
, City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989 ' `�
I
utilizing these monies that are non-trail monies, then in the future we' ll be
rbuilding it. We'll be building it for more because here we already have
1 construction material going in there. We're already going to be working. It's
the cheapest time, the best time to build this trail for the future. Once we
have a full trail system, we can dedicate our trail system money for making
connections to this trail. This is used. There are people out there during the
summer. Especially summer evenings when I've been out on this road, I've seen a
lot of people out there walking along and primarily on the north side in the
area of, just drew a blank on the name of the road where we have the problem
with the retaining wall. Yosemite. Where people come down off of Yosemite onto
here, walk down a ways. I'm totally for this trail. I believe to get that
trail off the roads will be a benefit to the City overall as an interconnection.
It helps connect our city and connect us to Lake Minnewashta area which is an
area of town that feels isolated and this is one more method of saying, hey,
you're part of Chanhassen. I think it's well needed and this is the time to do
it. It would be the least expensive time to do it. With a variance from the
State, will be able to help with the parking situation also. So I'm in favor of
this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of Gary. If we opted not to do the bike
trails on the north side, then would we have to g et a variance from the State or
would we have the 34 that we are required to have?
' Gary Warren: I didn't follow you.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if we opted not to do the bike trails on the north
side as shown.
IGary Warren: Both of them?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And you said that the State required that you have
34 feet.
' Gary Warren: 34 feet minimum.
Councilwoman Dimler: If you didn't do the bike trails there, would you have
that 34 feet?
Gary Warren: Yes, the total section exclusive of bike paths is 36 feet from the
front of each curb to the other curb so with both trails off, we would not
theoretically have any problem with MnDot.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then you wouldn't need the variance from the State.
Gary Warren: Right. Then we would be able to put one parking lane on the road
without a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I have a few more comments. I guess I would stick
with the residents on this. I would like to hear from a few more of them a
1 little bit later but as was stated earlier, they had never been consulted
whether they wanted the trails or not. They were just put i.n. . . .so we changed
the situation out there without their consent. I have gone out there and I have
Iseen people on the road because they were unable, the bikes would be on the road
and people walking on the road because they couldn't use the trails because
11 29
II)
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
there was gravel on them and that is dangerous too. So if they're not going to
be well maintained and the people still end up using the road, then I don't I
think we've accomplished anything.
Brian Tichy: With all the construction going on at the present time, that's the
case. The bike paths are not used.
Councilman Johnson: I would support having just a 6 foot trail off of the
entire road which still gives us the trail through the area. It becomes a
walking trail at that time because you could have put a two-way bike trail so
this could not become part of the Twin Cities bike path where they have these
trails going throughout the Twin Cities if you didn't put the two separate ones.
But as a compromise, I'd like to see maybe just the 6 foot wide off street trail
for the people who are walking and the kids with tricycles and that kind of
thing. There's a lot of people that walk there and the only place they have to
walk is in the bike path which is part of the street. Anytime we can get an off
street path and when we get it down to where we're talking just an off street
walking path, 5 foot's probably wide enough at that section with the retaining
wall. 1
Councilman Workman: It's supposed to be a two way deal. One path going one way
and the other path going the other way. Now you're talking about two two way
paths right?
Gary Warren: He's talking about a walking path. 11111
Mayor Chmiel: Just strictly one way.
Councilman Johnson: But if we break it down to a walking path to where we're
not looking at people at people doing 10 speed bikes at 30 mph.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is then what you've got is you've got a 11 bike path on the road that bikers are using to go both ways which defeats. . .
Councilman Johnson: We'd eliminate that bike path all together. Not put any
bike path on the road at all and only a walking trail along the edge of the road
versus, if they want to keep a bike path on the road and a bike path off the
road, what you're going to have on the off road bike path is people walking on
that and people trying to drive bikes. I'm not sure if that becomes compatible
use. When you get a 36 foot wide roadway, a bicyclist without having a
designated bike path, as long as there's not four lanes there, a bicyclist can
ride that road. Our kids ride a lot narrower road to grade school everyday here
in the downtown area. 28 foot roads with curved gutters that are nice and
dangerous for them. My basic position is that I'm supporting the off street
trail in this location because I think it will be a vital link in our trail
system and this is the time to build it because it's cheapest at this point. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking about the expenditure of that $47,000.00 to
$63,000.00? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Anytime in the future it will be more expensive.
Mayor c1- iel:: That's probably very true but I guess, let me just state my
position, as I see it. I think trails are necessary items within a city but I
30 1
■
1 • City Council Meeting Fe,
g - February 13, 1989
think, in fact I know I clarified that a couple meetings ago. I feel there are
I certain areas wi.thi.n this city that really needs trails. I'm not one for
putting trails in for trails. I think the areas that are needed within this
city is TH 101, CR 17, CR 15 and then TH 101 extending from north and south of
TH 5. To me those are probably one of the better areas to have because there
you're going to bring people into the community and utilize that a little more.
I think putting trails into other areas right now aren't really needed. Streets
are there. People utilize those streets. People can walk on them. I think
' I mentioned at one time, if somebody wanted to walk on my lawn, that's fine.
All well and good too. But I think that I can see expediting dollars as such is
just not my forte. I just don't feel comfortable in spending $47,000.00 as
' opposed to almost $63,000.00, depending on which way it goes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with Mr. Mayor and I think that we should add
Minnewashta Parkway to that list.
Mayor Chmiel: And Minnewashta Parkway. That was the other one I was thinking
Councilman Boyt: You have listed a series of major collectors. Lake Lucy Road
is a major collector. What was the percentage of funds that went into Lake Lucy
' Road?
Gary Warren: 80%.
I I Councilman Boyt: This is basically a highway that was funded by the State that
the City used with it's discretionary ability to place those monies where we
think it will most benefit the city and the rest of the people in the area. We
very heavily subsidized, if you will, that road. What we're saying is that, and
I take no issue with the neighbors who say they have a parking problem. I agree
with them. You have a parking problem. My difficulty Brian, and we talked
about this last fall, was I think that we're asking the City, and I guess to
some extent we're saying to the State, we spent more of your money that we
should have because we built a wider road than we ever would have built without
those trails added onto it. Now we're going to take the ability to protect part
of those roads as a trail and we're going to sacrifice that so a few people can
park when it's convenient for them to park. I think that you're right Mr. Mayor
in saying that the major collectors in this city need trails. Recognize that
the trail referendum failed by 8 votes. That means roughly half of the people
in town felt that there should be quite an integrated network of trails. Now
half of them didn't. They clearly have a message to say but I think we both
agree that the majority of the people in the city would support trails on the
I major collectors. This is a major collector. It already has a trail on it. To
now pull that trail off, it's a loss for the city as a whole.
1 Councilman Johnson: All the roads you listed were north/south. What do we do
east/west for trails? We need east/west trails also.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to ask any of the other residents that live within the
area, their opinions.
Larry Kerber: I've got a problem with Mr. Boyt's comment. I know the road was
built as a major collector. Is it a major collector? It is not. The traffic
count is, the State gave me a figure, 700 and something a day on it. It's
31
1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
nothing close to CR 17 or TH 101 in traffic count. True, the road was built
that way. Nobody out there wanted that road or needed it. Maybe you will 10
years from now. I don't know. If more subdivisions empty out onto it but why
can't the bike trails be off? People can still ride their bikes down it.
You've got a 25 mph speed limit on half of it. Park cars on the south side and
let people ride their bikes on it. Before we had a road 20 feet wide, all
broken up. We could park off of it and you could ride your bikes on it if you
wanted. Now we've got a road 36 feet wide and we can either, you're saying we
can either park on it or ride our bikes. One or the other, we can't do both.
It just seems like the people of the area, we all got short changed. We paid a
lot of money for a road that now we can't do what we did before with our old
road. I think the parking issue is something that was never brought up at the
meeting. That we were going to lose our parking and move a bike trail. I'd
like to know who decided to put the bike trails on there and is every bike path
in this City two ways? Every time there's a bike trail it's goes two
directions? How many roads like this do we have with bike trails on both sides?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're the only one.
Larry Kerber: I guess that's the only comments I have.
Councilman Boyt: Kerber Blvd. has a bike trail on both sides. It was also
built on the road. It's just been recently that we built off road trails.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it a bike trail or a walking path?
Councilman Boyt: What's off the road is a walking path. What's on the road is
sucicide as far as I'm concerned but it was planned by the earlier Council as a
trail.
Larry Kerber: But Kerber Blvd. has no driveways coming out to it. All streets.
You won't find one driveway coming on Kerber Blvd. so those people have their
parking problem taken care of because they all have off street parking. Where
Lake Lucy Road, all the houses were there and then we put the road in. We
didn't put the road in to meet the needs of the people there. We put the road
in that somebody else wanted and now we're trying to make it work for the
residents. I think what the residents need and want should be considered more
than just for the sake of just having the bike trails there. Let's take bike
trails out. People can still ride their bikes on that road. The speed limit is
low enough. There isn't that much traffic on it and I think the situation would
be solved by putting parking on the south and eliminate both bike trails. The
path, if somebody feels it necessary on the north side, fine. ,
Dick Lash: My name is Dick Lash and I don't even live on Lake Lucy Road but was
this bike trail part of the trail referendum that was voted down?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Dick Lash: It was not on the drawing at all?
Councilman Boyt: It might have been on the drawing Dick as part of the overall
trail plan. This was designed to be there several years ago.
32 1
I
1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Dick Lash: If it was on the drawing that was voted on, that's been voted on not
1 once, I know I voted on it twice. It appears to me that you're trying to put
portions of this bike trail in piece by piece and eliminate a vote again. I
- don't know. I keep hearing bike trails and walking trails but it's been voted
down twice.
Councilman Boyt: There is a comprehensive trail plan for the City. What we all
voted on was how we might fund that trail plan. We didn't vote on whether or
' not we would have a trail plan. It's how we would fund it and that's what got
turned down.
Dick Lash: It does appear, you see trails going in on Kerber. You see trails
going in on Lake Lucy Road. Pretty soon, like Jay says, they're going to
connect up. CR 17 will have a trail on it. It's coming down CR 17 now. We
won't have much... The trail system would be going in in small sections. You
_ just add a little bit of pavement then they'll all be hooked up but twice this
has been voted down.
' Councilman Johnson: The referendum was to accelerate the trail plan and make
the connections earlier. Now without the money from the referendum, it's going
to take many more years to have a comprehensive trail plan in this city.
1 Dick Lash: And this is the way to do it, right? In little sections?
Councilman Johnson: This particular section is already there. We've got a
trail. What we're looking at is should we change this trail.
Dick Lash: At the expense of these people's parking though.
11 Councilman Johnson: Right. That was done three years ago. Prior to any member
of this Council being there. That was approved by the Council several years, 4
' years ago or something. The question tonight is should we get rid of the
existing trails and allow parking? Should we save the existing trails? Should
we get rid of it as a bike trail? Put only a walking trail in, which is the
$47,000.00 to $60,000.00? On a walking trail if we can go down to 5 feet, we
' probably won't need the $60,000.00 but the $47,000.00. There's a number of
issues. What's best for the whole future of the City here and will this be a
collector in the future. I agree that right now there's not a lot of traffic on
I it. I sat with a radar gun there one way trying to, only two cars came by in
the half hour I was trying to see what the speeds were out there. But I think
in the future, as the west side develops and as the MUSA line changes, you'll
see a lot more traffic on there. I think the trail is something that we'll want
to see for those kids that are out there on their tricycles on the pavement
right now. I'd rather see them off the street. $60,000.00 is not a lot of
money, I don't think, for this many miles of trail system. It's a long trail.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to recommend that we send this to the Park and
Rec Commission tomorrow night for further discussion.
1 Councilman Johnson: Or when it can be placed on their agenda rather than
necessarily tomorrow night?
Councilman Boyt: It needs to happen fairly fast. We don't want to hold up any
part of this project. Is two weeks from now holding up the project Gary? That
33
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
means it puts it back to us roughly a month from now.
Gary Warren: We will proceed based on Council direction here tonight to
advertise for bids. We're looking to open those bids on the 10th of March. If
there is an addendum, which is the way that this trail issue would be handled
from my perspective, we should be getting an addendum out within comfortably the
next week or two at the most.
Councilman Johnson: Could we bid this with an addendum for the trails and say '
that that bid will or will not be awarded. In other words, give us a price.
Let's get actual numbers. Whether it's $47,000.00 or $63,000.00. Get them to
bid on the trails and at that point decide whether we're going to award that
bid.
Gary Warren: The construction documents could be modified to include the trail
and have it bid as an alternate, yes.
Councilman Johnson: And then we approve the alternate after Park and Rec has
reviewed it and we get all the facts together. This way we don't delay the
project. We get more facts. I think that would be the best way to go.
Councilman Boyt: But Jay, you're proposing a 5 foot trail. I've heard 6 foot
trails. I know Park and Rec has occasionally looked at 8 foot trails out in the
rural parts of town. I don't know that we're in a position where we can even
ask for a reasonable bid. That's why I was suggesting that Park and Rec discuss
this tomorrow night. You certainly have the interested neighbors here so they
would know that it's going to be discussed.
Gary Warren: I'll agree with you to go, in fact I'll second you to go to the
Park and Rec. I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to discuss that. If you remember in the Council
Minutes that we just approved tonight, that was, originally what we proposed to
do to put it on the February 14th agenda for the Park and Rec and I spoke with
them today and they indicated that they didn't need to review it because of this
plan that Gary was proposing. They felt that Council could make the decision. I
Mayor Dimler: I see another person from the area who'd like to address.
Kathy Kerber: I'm Kathy Kerber and we have property on 6700 Powers Blvd.. I I
guess one of the questions I want to ask is, where did these bike trails come
from initially? They never were talked about to the residents in the beginning.
We never were allowed to say, yes, we wanted them. No, we didn't want them.
I'd like to know where they initially came from.
Councilman Johnson: If you actually look back to when they did hold the public
hearings on the Lake Lucy Road improvements, they were included at that time 4
years ago or 3 years ago. I do remember the plans at that time, even though I
wasn't on Council at that time but I believe they were discussed with the Lake
Lucy Road improvements prior to authorizing the bonds and all for this. I'm
just, this is back memory a long time ago. Lori might know better if she
recollects that.
34
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Lori Sietsema: No, I don't know. I know they were included with the road
IIconstruction.
Cary Warren: The construction plans did include the trail. That was not added
as an afterthought but it predates most of here unfortunately. It did show in
the feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road project so that would have been a
public hearing document.
Councilman Johnson: They've never been a secret. They've always been as part
of that. I guess you're in charge now Tom.
Kathy Kerber: I'm not insinuating that they were secret. I just wanted to know
initially where it came from. I guess one of the other problems I have is, at
the time when the road went in and everybody at that time, on the road believed
' that we were going to have parking on the road. The road got stripped and all
of a sudden the signs went up saying bike trails only. When some people called
into the City Hall and asked the engineering department what happened here to
the parking, they told us that the State made this requirement. That they had
' to have bike trails. That is not true because we have spoken to the State
Department and they told us they do not put any restrictions or tell the City
how the extra footage is to be used. In fact they told us we could take down
the bike trail signs and we can use it just as the road was before. I think as
all the neighbors are here tonight, we want a road with the same options that
anyone of you live on. Not one of you have a no parking and it only says, only
' bike trails. We're asking for the same option. That's all.
Councilman Boyt: You will find that there are a few councilmembers that live on
A a street that has no parking in front of their house.
' Kathy Kerber: Well, most of the people who live here within this city does not
have that. Being that this road operated underneath those same functions
' before, I don't see what the problem is now. I think it's just being blown
totally out of proportion. I think we should still have the same option that we
had before and after speaking with several neighbors this morning, they all feel
the same way. They would like to see our same options given to us that we had
' before. We're being deprived of not being able to park as we did before. Now
if we're going to receive a benefit from this road, we should receive all the
benefits we had before and it shouldn't change because we have a new road.
That's all I have to say.
Councilman Johnson: The changes that seem to be occurring right now that would
' warrant this going back for Park and Rec to discuss it tomorrow night, would be
the total elimination of bike trails completely off both sides of the street and
going to a walking trail which was my idea. That would allow for the parking
without a variance. We may want to look at parking with a variance or parking
without a variance. I'm not sure if we need a bike trail through here. I
firmly believe that this is vital east/west connection of our trail system. We
have a real east/west problem here in the city, especially on the north side
' because of our the lakes we have to run around. We can't have a trail system
that only runs north and south because we have the people on the west side of
town that don' t feel they're part of the town and we need to give them that
connection and there's people using it. I'm just going over old ground again
Ihere so I'm going to shut up.
' 35
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, didn't we just establish that Park and Rec didn't
know where the bike trails originated? The idea did not originate with them. I
Councilman Johnson: I don't know that. If we established that. She said she
doesn't know. I
Lori Sietsema: I don't recall that. I'd have to do some research to find out
where it originated.
Councilman Johnson: It's on our comprehensive trail plan and that originated
with the Park and Rec.
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, it was proposed to go on their agenda and it didn't 11
go on because of Gary's proposal and they felt that the Council could handle it.
Councilman Johnson: We've modified Gary's proposal a little bit. Gary's '
proposal includes two bike paths and one option we're coming up with, which Bill
would like to hear their opinion on, is eliminating both bike paths and putting
only a walking path. I would like to see us find out what the actual price is
as putting it as an addendum so that Gary can go ahead putting in his addendum
on a 6 foot. Have Park and Rec consider it and see if they want to look at
maybe two options. 6 foot-8 foot so have Park and Rec look at it again tomorrow
night. The Council go ahead and authorize the, I guess that's the next action
we have to take. Authorize plans and specs and include in there addendums for
the bidders to give us a price to put in a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail with
the option of narrowing it at the point that there's that retaining wall to
avoid that retaining wall. Then we'll all be working from a more solid basis.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but delaying the action then, would that delay their
right to park on the road or could they start parking there?
Councilman Johnson: They can't park there now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but I mean we can change that. That's why I'm
saying, we can change that tonight if we don't delay it.
Councilman Johnson: No, we can't. We can't change this no parking tonight.
We're going to change a city ordinance tonight that's not on the agenda?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm talking about just letting them park there and they
would abide by the restrictive ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: So they can park there during the day but not at night? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: The bike trail signs would have to come down. The designation
would have to come off the road, in my opinion. Roger would like to address it
before we would be able to allow parking on it. I
Councilman Johnson: I think this is a long term issue. I don't think we should
jerk too quickly on this one and quickly drop everything until we've considered
all the facts. I think that we should move towards getting parking on this
street. It does make some sense for those people to have on street parking in
36 1
11 City Council Ie�t in g - Fe b
y ,
this area. How's the best way to do it. It also makes sense to me to have an
off street trail running along side of this area.
Councilman Boyt: Can we hear from Jim Mad so he can sit down?
Yt• Y
Jim Mady: I just wanted to bring some additional information to you concerning
the trail on Lake Lucy Road. Currently there really isn't anyplace for those
residents to go along that trail. You're right in that there are no trail
connections. Curry Farms Park hopefully be developed within the next couple of
years. That's on the east side of that area. The Park Commission is
aggresively seeking parkland in the Pheasant Hills area. Hopefully we'll be
' finding some within the next few months. Upon getting those two parks in place,
we should be increasing the amount of east/west traffic along Lake Lucy Road for
trail use dramatically because we will be providing those residents with actual
places to go which is the reason we have a trail system. That's why we have it
1 is to provide a method for our residents to safety get from their residence to
an area. Be it a school, a park, shopping area, what have you, without having
to actually drive or be on the street. That's what the reason is for a trail
system. Just to make you aware, that's where we're heading right now on the
Park Commission. Although maybe right now the residents don't have a place to
go, within a couple years, there are going to be a couple places for them to go
and it should definitely increase the amount of pedestrian and bike traffic on
' that street.
Councilman Johnson: We're going to have a park on both ends of this trail.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, we have a motion to refer this to the Park and Rec
Commission tomorrow night.
Betsy Glaccum: I'm Betsy Glaccum. I live at 1510 Lake Lucy Road where the
retaining wall i.s. I'd just like to be on record that I'd hate to see that wall
come down. It's beautiful and quite an expense and people say, what about the
tree and of course, I'd hate to lose that because it's my shelter and it keeps
me cool and stuff. The parking is a problem for some of the neighbors. It
doesn't really include me. I'm doing okay with that. I would like to see the
' problem solved for people with bad driveways but I do not want to see a bike
path moved over and have it doubled and come down the road on our grass, our
front lawns and do a lot of damage so I'd just like to be on record that I'm
against that. Okay? For the parking, when the road was built and the
feasibility study, I believe this is an urban road, minimum width was 44 feet,
two traffic lanes and parallel parking. This width can be reduced by the City
Council if it passes resolution banning parking on the roadway. The recommended
1 design is 36 feet and that's what we've got. I'd like to see the bike paths
stay there.
Councilman Johnson: What'd you say? You want to see them stay?
Betsy Glaccum: The bicycle paths stay where they are. I'd like to see that. I
don't want them to come over my front lawn and move it over further and then
damage the retaining wall, my neighbors front lawns and like that. I'd prefer
to leave the road as i.s.
Councilman Johnson: Which would eliminate parking then?
37
L -�City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Betsy Glaccum: Yes, we don't have parking now so, I mean I'd like to see
something to solve Brian Tichy's problem especially. I think that's terrible
with their driveway so high and so dangerous but in the feasibility study it
(11
said, 44 feet wide and we went to 36 feet wide, right? Two traffic lanes and
parallel parking. But there is a footnote to that that was in the feasibility
study. The footnote says, this width can be reduced if the City Council passes
resolution banning parking on the roadway. The whole thing was that they would
have to get 19 petitions, 19 of us neighbors to give them easements. 19 of us
to give you easements to make the road wider so the Council knew we were so
upset about this road as is, getting so wide, that's why I think it was left at
36 feet. Now Gary I don't know. ..
Gary Warren: The 44 foot section is what MnDot requires on a State Aid road to ,
have parallel parking on both sides of two travel lanes. And as a result of the
process, the road section could be shrunk, dollars and other concerns were a
factor and also the inclusion the bituminous curbing was another factor to
comply with MnDot's clear zone requirements, if you will, so this section was
shrunk and as a result of that, the no parking came from that also because it
was a 36 foot instead of a 44 foot wide road.
Betsy Glaccum: I think that's why the bike trails were put there.
Councilman Boyt: .. .as would any of us faced with that kind of increase, I'm '
sure their reaction was we don't think so in terms of approving it. We have
already agreed, the City has already agreed that in order to reduce that to 36
feet, there would be no parking. Is that right? I
Betsy Glaccum: It's in the feasibility study of February, correct. The thing
I'd like to see the neighbors problem solved with the parking situation but you
know, I can't go along with the thousands of dollars that would be spent and all
our lawns and trees damaged to bring another bicycle path in when the Council
already agreed to keep it less width and put in the bike paths so we wouldn't
have to walk in the road. 1
Councilman Boyt: It's clearly not my option to remove, or my preference to
remove your 100 year old maple tree. Gary, you seam to have some hesitation
about, and I thought earlier you said with 36 feet we can have parking on one
side of the road. If the feasibility says, if you agree to 36 feet, you agree to
no parking. Can you clarify this?
Gary Warren: I can' t attest to the discussion on the feasibility but what I can
say is that the State Aid Manual which we've reviewed as a part of the
preparation of this report, shows that an urban section roadway width, in order I
to have one lane of parking on an urban section roadway, you need a 34 foot wide
road section. We have 36. So whether the discussion at that time was that, I
guess I don't know how they interpretted that at that time. Today's standards
shows that if you have a 36 foot road section, you should be able to accomodate
one lane of parking.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us take the time to look at this issue in '
more depth so as I speak in favor of the motion that's on the floor, to send
this to Park and Rec as part of it.
38 1
■
City Council Meeting February 13, 1989
I
Councilwoman Dialler: I would favor that motion only if we can get it on the
I . agenda for tomorrow. Lori, is that a possibility?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the neighbors, would you notify the neighbors Betsy
to have them come out for this meeting tomorrow?
Betsy Glaccum: Okay. Where will that be? Right here?
Mayor Chmi.el: 7:30 right in this room.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, for putting this trail in, will anything be disturbed
that is not disturbed by the watermain construction already? We're going to be
digging a pretty good sized hole to put in an 8 inch watermain more than 4 foot
underground.
Councilman Boyt: It's across the road though Jay.
1 Gary Warren: The only area that would be impacted by the trail is if you
decided to put the trail, a full 6 foot trail, in front of the Glaccum property
and get the total 10 feet of width basically from face of the curb then back.
Otherwise, the rest of the construction from the Lake Lucy Road watermain would
be integral with the trail construction.
II Councilman Johnson: The trail's right over the top of where we're digging the
watermain?
Gary Warren: There wouldn' t be any additional disruption as a result of that
except for where you got to the retaining wall area.
Councilman Johnson: If we're talking a walking trail, 5 foot's no problem.
Al Harvey: Al Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road. I'll take objections to what Gary,
I've been trying to get him out to show him. We built in '65. Our sewer goes
' to the front. We've limited for our drai.nfi.eld system the way it is now. Coming
further closer to our house will definitely cause a problem. Either the City
will have to move our septic system somewhere, I don't know where. We've been
disturbed now through the road construction. I can not tolerate any more of it
coming north. We've accepted where your bike trail is now. If you come any
closer to our house, it's going to cause a real hardship to us. I've been
trying to get Gary out. Unfortunately we haven't made connections yet. Another
' thing that I would like to suggest is that, take down the bicycle signs. I have
horses. I have 11 acres up there. We're still rural up there. I've had to
rename my horses bicycle in order to ride on your road. I would prefer to see
one side row of parking. The people that go by there on bicycles now, they're
riding 4 abreast anyway. They're not using the trail to the effect what it was
designed for. They're coming down the center of the road. They've got hard
hats on and they're buzzing. So are the cars. It's not a safe road anymore.
We used to have a nice rural road. We now have a speeder up there. There's
some consideration about any type of trail going on other than what you have
already. We've lived there a number of years and we've seen the increase in
speed since the new road. My suggestion would be, leave us where we're at.
Please don't come any further north and take down the bicycle signs. We'd like
' 39
11
City Council Meeti n g - February 13, 1989
to ride our horses there too.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, will this watermain be on any private property or is [II
this all public property that we have this on?
Gary Warren: Mr. Harvey and I have talked, he's been out of town and just got 1
back in. When we last talked I said, let me know when you're back in town and
we'll go out and look at it so tomorrow or whenever it's convenient we'll do
that. His gray water tanks, or septic tanks may be in the city right-of-way
because the trail is proposed or if it would go in, would be totally within city
right-of-way but stranger things have happened.
Councilman Johnson: But the trail is not going to affect his gray water tanks
as much as putting a watermain through. We definitely don't want to put a
watermain through a septic system. If this septic system happens to be on city
property, then we're going to have to work on that.
Al Harvey: If you stay within your right-of-way, which is the telephone poles,
I'm on my own private property with the systems but the damage, the seepage and
such going into the construction. It was disturbed when the other thing.. .so
I just would like a solution of some kind developed if you're coming further
north. I'd prefer that you didn't but we're 90 feet from the road but
everything keeps coming on the north side of the road. I can not even agree
with your feasbility study. You look down and you see a whole row of telephone
poles. Nothing on the south side of the road. We need sewer up in our area
much more than we need the watermain on the north side of the road. You've got
to have a distance between your sewer line and your water line. 10 feet? You
put the waterline on the north side and and the people on the north side who
need sewer. There's a lot of problems in that area. I'd like to see the City I
develop a comprehensive plan that would do more than one thing at a time. We
petitioned against the city for the road. All we wanted was a blacktopped road.
We didn't want bike trails. We didn't want curb and gutter and all this other.
The City didn't at that time listen to us. We've kind of had our hardships up
through there. Now we'd like to see something resolved at the benefit to the
people who live there.
Gary Warren: The Harvey property is outside of the MUSA area which is the
reason why it doesn't have sewer.
Al Harvey: It's 200 feet.. .when you run down the hill.
Gary Warren: There's no physical problem with connecting. It's just the fact
that Met Council won't allow it.
Councilman Boyt: Could we vote on the motion?
Mayor Chmi.el: I was just going to suggest that if I could stop coughing. We
have a motion on the floor and there's a second to send this back to Park and
Rec for tomorrow and then come up with some conclusions on it and get back with
Council.
40 ,
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to send the item of bike
II 57 ,
trails along Lake Lucy Road back to the Park and Recreation Commission for their
review. Councilmans Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman
Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted against the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Johnson: If that failed, then something needs to be resolved doesn't
it?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. What we do need is another motion on the floor as
to what are we going to do.
Councilman Johnson: I'll make another motion. I'll try this one. We add an
addendum to 8(b) , which is coming up next, to add as options the construction
of, so we can get the cost, construction of off street trails over the disturbed
area of the watermain 6 foot and avoiding the trees and the retaining wall at
Yosemite. That we place that on the bids of plans and specifications to be
added as an option to be approved or disapproved at a later time. We can hold
some meetings on that and Park and Rec look at that under a less strenuous
schedule than tomorrow night. We can collect more information to look at the
' whole issue.
Councilman Workman: You're saying accept everything except the trail part?
Councilman Johnson: No. We put out a bid that has the trail as an option. In
other words, we'll collect a cost to build a 6 foot trail over the top of where
they're going to dig up for the watermain and that will be an option on the
' contract to get an exact bid price for them. Then we'll have Park and Rec take a
look at that over the future so this doesn't delay the plans and specs for
putting the watermain in because the watermai.n is very important to the City.
The trail seems to be a side issue.
Councilwoman Dimler: We already voted on the watermai.n.
' Councilman Johnson: Not the plans and specs.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know. That's the next one.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly.
Councilwoman Dimler: .. .their motion to not leave this hanging since the other
motion didn't pass. We're not going to take it to Park and Rec so now we've got
to deal with it.
' Councilman Johnson: The trail?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
IICouncilman Johnson: I was dealing with it by getting exact costs and putting it
on as an option.
IIGary Warren: Do we remove the on street trails then as a part of it?
41
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and then we'd remove the on street trails as part of
that to where all we'd have is an off street trail. Then we could have parking I
on one side.
Councilman Workman: It seems to me Jay, the problem really isn' t the cost of 11 the trail for these people because they're not going to pay for it. It's their
property being abutted by a trail or the retaining wall problem or the oak tree
problem or septic problems or anything else. This again is one of the things
about the trail referendum. People concerned about a trail going over their
property. I haven't made too many comments on this issue yet and maybe I should
make a few quickly now. I've seen a lot of lost love for this Lake Lucy Road.
I haven't seen or heard anything good about this road. First there was the
construction of it. Now the watermain. Bike trails. No parking. Retaining
walls. I don't think the stripes and signs are followed very carefully and the
horse named bike is using them and everything else. I've seen little kids on
their wheely bikes going down that hill faster than me, and I speed but I'm for
speed traps too. I would like to see possibly that extra money used for Well #5
so we can water our lawns in the coming years. It's an awful lot of money for a
trail that again, the people in this area aren't real excited about. It seems
to me that, unless we can figure out an option with the existing trail system,
parking on one side, trail on the other somehow, it's a problem. The elaborate
off road trail, taking again the people on the north side of this road, is again
adding insult to injury. They've had to take a lot I think. Even though
they're not going to have to pay for the trail, although they will one way or
the other, we all will, it seems to me that they've pretty much been picked on a
little bit and they're not about to get excited about this. I don't know how we
can expect them to.
Councilman Johnson: They live on a country road and then it's turned into an
east/west connecting road as we suburbanize the city.
Councilman Workman: It is though a unique road in how it was built. The width.
From what it was to what it now is. It hasn't made them happy. It is a country
road. I had to throw a mud turtle or whatever it was about this size that was
sitting in the middle of that road one day. It's a beautiful area but I think
again we've got a lot of signs, stripes, wide. I think we've made it into a
super highway. I don't know that parking on it is going to slow anybody down
but it seems to me that we've got to give a little bit to this area on this road
issue because how much can we beat on these folks up in this area with this road
which has become the scurge of their lives.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see us move in the direction of
giving the residents what they want and that we focus not on the trail but on
the parking. That we do whatever is required, and Roger maybe you can help us
in this area, is do whatever is required to get the signs changed and whatever
to allow them to park there just as soon as possible. '
Roger Knutson: All it takes to undo that is, the bike trail is a decision of
the Council. If you made it a bike trail, you can take down the signs by your
I !I
own direction with a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just throw out something in addition. Would it help those
few who have problems with accessibility with their driveways, to have a pad put
in adjacent to that road for parking? Would that be of any benefit?
42 1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Johnson: At a cost to all the taxpayers of the City?
Councilman Boyt: But wait. There is some logic to this idea of solving the
' problem where the problem is rather than eliminating what we have. If it
amounts to building 100 yards of pad, that's a heck of a lot less disruption
than putting in an off road trail over the whole length. We still keep our on
road trail. I think the Mayor may well have found a solution here that's quite
a bit cheaper than a $40,000.00 trail. It gives you closer access parking than
you're going to have otherwise and keeps us from being the first Council that's
actually pulled trails off the map.
Councilman Johnson: We certainly wouldn't want to be known as that.
1 Councilman Boyt: So I would sure support your plan.
Councilman Johnson: That would be on the north side then where the construction
of the watermai.n is taken. We would put some expansions to the street. The
' south side, like in Brian's area, is kind of a cliff. It would be kind of hard
to expand there and there's no construction going on there so it would be at a
great additional cost. As long as we have construction already going off,
' grading, digging on the north side, I believe that's where it would be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
I ' Councilman Boyt: It would avoid the wall. It would avoid the tree.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. It sounds like we may have come up with a
' good compromise.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would that be acceptable to the residents? Do you want to
' comment on it?
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm waiting for.
' Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I have the concept of this plan.
Councilman Johnson: I think engineering needs to do some drawings here.
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff should come up with some kind of alternative to it
to see if that could resolve the problems that the people are having presently.
' Councilman Boyt: Maybe they could discuss it tomorrow night a bit.
Brian Tichy: The only concern I would have is where, first of all where the pad
would be located. The south side of the road does fall off. .. Secondly, it
would have to be equitable for everybody. . . Your compromise here is worth
thinking about. . .all the residents.
ICouncilman Johnson: We may not be able to solve every problem in the world
every time. I would be against removing the trail, even though temporary while
we study an option.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Just removing the Jay.
signs Ja
g Y
43
' City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Johnson: You remove the signs, you remove the trail.
Mayor Chmiel: The no parking signs.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That means you can park in the bike trail so if you '
remove, from what I gather, if you remove the no parking signs, you've got to
remove the trails because you can't have parking in the middle of bike trails.
The two uses are not compatible.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they're not being used as such right now.
Councilman Johnson: Not during the winter. They're being used during the '
summer.
Don Ashworth: I think there's another problem. I thought that the initial I
issue was one of being able to get up to the properties in the winter and
therefore some necessity for parking down below during the snows. Even taking
down the signs, you still have the parking ban during snowfalls. They still
would not be able to park on the streets.
Councilman Johnson: You take down the signs, they still have the problem. The
signs won't solve their problem. The winter's right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but only when it snows and we haven't had a whole
lot of that. I
Councilman Johnson: You can't park overnight on any city street right now.
When it snows, you can't even park there during the day.
Gary Warren: We've got pavement markings that are painted on the roadway and I
don't know, Roger I guess I hate to put you on the spot here but don't we also
have to remove those pavement markings before legally the trail is gone?
Roger Knutson: I haven't seen them. What do you have them marked in just a
yellow line? '
Gary Warren: We have a while line on each side of the road at the 6 foot mark
plus we've got bikeway sign painted on the road, diamonds and such.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to recommend that staff come up with some
conclusions as to parking availability for those people that have problems.
Then have this come back to Council within 2 weeks.
Councilman Boyt: Would you be open to having Park and Rec discuss it in the
meantime? Because this really still affects them. '
Mayor Chmiel: I think it will be getting to the position that I'm not sure
whether they should have it back to discuss it or even go along with it. I
think what we're trying to do is resolve a problem here. We're trying to
resolve a problem that the people have and I think we can do it right here. At
least that's my opinion. I don't know if anyone has any others.
44
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1- Al Harvey: I think some of the parking problem is also for entertaining. If
I you have friends there, whether it's summer or winter or whatever. You've got a
problem with parking when there are people there. ..so I think a pad located in
the right situation probably would help the situation. Some of us, although
' we're closer, we have parking off the road but if you do have friends, 8 or 10
cars and.. .
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we need a motion on that, to proceed with it. Is
' there a requirement for a motion on that Roger? If we were to request staff to
come up with some solutions with pads and in conjunction with that, showing it
to the residents so they're aware as to what they're thinking.
Roger Knutson: I don't think a full motion is necessary unless someone wants to
call for one.
1 Councilman Johnson: It clarifies the issue if you have it in motion form. It
clarifies that it's got three-fifths staff approval if you make a motion that's
voted on and it passes.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'll make that motion. The motion is that staff should
review the areas of concern with parking and to design a pad that would be
' acceptable to the property owners.
Councilman Johnson: Actually what you're asking for is a mini-feasibility study
I of placing pads that will alleviate the parking problem. I'll second a
mini-feasibility study of such.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good idea but I would still like ke to see
'
them able to park in the meantime. We don't know how long this is going to
take.
Councilman Boyt: Let's vote on them one at a time maybe.
Councilman Johnson: They've been without it for two years, a couple more weeks
is not going to disturb them.
Councilwoman Dimler: We say 2 weeks but we don't know.
' Councilman Johnson: Even a month.
Mayor Chmiel: At least we're trying to resolve the issue and trying to assist
' as much as we possibly can without causing a real big concern.
Gary Warren: We'd like to see it resolved quickly so that if it needs to be
incorporated with the construction of the watermain project, that we can factor
that into the plans so we will try to bring it back as soon as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like it back within a 2 week period.
II c
II
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to prepare a
mini-feasibility study for installing a parking pad to alleviate the parking
problem on Lake Lucy Road to be brought back to the City Council in two weeks.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 45
1 . .
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Don Ashworth: Just for clarification. With limited staff, we would be going
outside to get this work down. I don' t anticipate it being a lot of money but
we would be spending some on some outside help.
Councilman Johnson: I would recommend Westwood Professional Services who have
done this feasibility study and are familiar with all the details so there would
be no cost to bring them up to speed. I believe they're also sitting here
listening to all this.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like them to go out in the field and take a look at what's
there existing. Not just at the papers that we have. Alright, we'll move on to
item 8(b) . Approve plans and specs and authorize taking bids for Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain project.
Councilman Boyt: Can we do this when we don't have all the information?
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we can. 1
Gary Warren: I think you should proceed on. We would be able to modify with an
addendum any further changes to the plan as far as a trail is concerned.
Councilman Johnson: Would we want to note that in our plans and specifications?
note p pecifications.
I don't think there's any need to either. I move we approve the Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of Westwood Professional Services 111
and authorize the taking of bids.Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Resolution i#89-23: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of
Westwood Professional Services and authorize the taking of bids. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, UPDATE, CITY ENGINEER.
Gary Warren: I can mentioned a few comments from notes that I took about it. '
Basically Commissioner Savanich was present to seek the County's, Carver
County's commitment, if you will, to supporting acquisition of right-of-way and
supporting the light rail transit concept. I guess my interpretation was that
he received some support in that regard although not any commitment of funds at
this time. The discussion was that 1995 would be the start of construction of
the I-35 piece so that would be phased in after we got out first corridor
established out here which would go out as far as Hopkins. I guess the real
impact as far as I read it for Carver County was a continued solicitation of the
County's support and acquisition of right-of-way and properties that would
impact this area. He also, I thought, had an interesting slide presentation,
II
aerial slide presentation of the corridor from Chaska on through which I thought
was a pretty good way to visualize how this would run. And he talked about that
they had made a commitment to the high platform loading concept which seemed to
make sense too as far as the access for handicapped and those types of difficult
access. Also that allowed them to rapdily load and unload cars which added to
46 ,