1992 06 22
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETIN6
3UNE 22, ~992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL HEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor ChmJel, Councilman Mason, Counc/lman Workman,
Councilman Wing, and Counciluoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd
Hoffman, Scott Hart, Paul Krauss, and Sharmin Al-Jarl
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations:
Mayor Chmiel wanted to add a resolution requesting the classification of certain
roads as Minor Arterials and certain roads to an A Minor Arterial; Councilwoman
Dlmler wanted to get an update on the Mlnnewashta Parkway Improvement Project.
All voted in favor and the motlon carrled.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
b. Resolution ~2-70: Approve Change Order No. 1, Chanhassen Senior Center.
f. Approve Signal Justification Report for Trunk Highway 101 North Leg, Project
No. 88-22B.
g. Resolution ~92-71: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Trunk Highway 101
South, Project 90-20.
h. Resolution ~9Z-72: Approve Joint Powers Agreement, Optical Scan Voting
Equipment, Acknowledge Low Bid Approved by Carver County.
i. Wetland Alteration Permlt for Placement of a Dock through a Class A Wetland,
7570 Dogwood Road, Peter and Deanna Brandt.
j. Approval of Accounts.
k. City Council Minutes dated June 6, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 3, 1992
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 19, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council. Meeting -, June 22, 1992
A. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ANINAL CONTROL SERVICES TO
NEIGHBORING CITIES FOR 1993.
Councilman Wing: I apologize to Scott for bringing this up at the Council
meeting. ]: ,meant to discuss this with him today but as long as it's on the
Consent. We're providing a good service to these other cities and I'm real
content with that and I trust Scott to make the decision on whether we go or not
and if it's good for the city or not. But we have to replace some vehicles and
the vehicles go on the city budget and I'm just wondering if ue couldn't pull a
CSO truck or whatever is needed and divy that up between the cities and simply
take it out of the city coffers altogether and let this contract pay for a
replacement vehicle. And ue'll have a share in it but rather than, we make a
few dollars here or we don't make a few dollars, could we in fact use this
contract to provide it's own vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: I was going to answer that but be my guest.
Scott Hart: Go ahead Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Dollar appropriations are in the contract for depreciation of the
vehicle and those dollars I think would offset some of those things that you're
concerned with. I don't know if we could technically go back and charge off a
truck to the balance of the other ci[ies in doing this but ue are gettlng our
money's uorth back from that plus the small margin of proflt that ue still have
where it's still not costlng us nor our citizens any dollars.
Councilman Wing: I'm real comfortable with that and the only suggestion would
be to maybe look at accelerating costs just enough to make up for any lack you
may have. I just want to be real alert that we're accelerating costs to make
sure it's providing adequate vehicles because we were short one last year that
wasn't in the budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could look for is to some of these trucks and cars
that are labeled as dogs and lemons, maybe we can get them a lot cheaper.
Councilman Wing: Thanks Scott.
Scott Hart: Glad to help.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other?
Councilwoman Oil, let: Could I just make a comment? Because Public Safety is
here I just wanted to commend them for the wonderful job they dld on the Open
House and I think the public really, really enjoyed it. And learned a lot too.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as a motion to accept item
(a) Richard?
Councilman Wing: I would so moue acceptance of item (a).
Councilman Mason: Second.
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Nason seconded to approve the 3oint Pouers
~gree=ent to Provide ~nimal Control Services to Neighboring Cities for 1993.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. ACCEPT UTILZTY IHPROVEHENTS TO HINNEWRSHTA HIGHLANDS, PRO3ECT 88-6.
Councilman Workman: I saw this and I thought of the two gentlemen in the front
row over there. 3im 3asins and 3im Borchardt and [ guess ! just called to ask
them if they felt everything was satisfactory and whether or not accepting
utility improvements here would work out. As you know they've got a serious
water problem there and [ don't know if they want to address it or not at this
time as an opportunity to talk about it before we accept them or others but.
Rpparently a lot of the water problem is going to be taken care of with
Minnewashta Parkway improvements. Maybe we can talk about Ursula's Council
Presentation now as far as an update on what is going on in conjunction with
this because i'm curious about that also.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Charles.
Charles Folch: Sure. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. We have experienced
some delays in starting the Minnewashta Parkway project primarily due to some
easement acquisition that we were going through. We didn't anticipate them
taking as long as they did. There were certain easements that we needed before
we could start construction. There were a few others that we felt well, if we
got them ahead of time, fine. If we didn't, we can work around them. As of end
of last week, we now have all the easements we need. The needed easements to
start the project. A pre-construction conference has been scheduled for this
Thursday with the contractor. I would expect that they will be mobilizing
equipment through next week and we'll be probably planning a construction start
after the 4th of 3uly. Rs it relates to the drainage experienced up there east
of Minnewashta Highlands and south of Maple Ridge. Rs Tom pointed out, yes
indeed, with the improvements that are proposed to Minnewashta Parkway as it
relates to the Maple Ridge Development, that drainage will basically be taken by
the parkway storm sewer system and will no longer make use of that detention
pond that's on the southern portion of the development. In addition with the
installatin of curb and gutter in driveway aprons, there will no longer be
overflow water running down through the gravel driveway which goes down to serve
the properties that have been described and in addition to the storm sewer
system from Minnewashta Highlands will also be picked up via Minnewashta Parkway
so hopefully it's planned to reduce the amount of drainage heading back to
Minnewashta Parkway be directed to Lake St. 3De. Well, through detention ponds
to Lake St. 3De.
Councilman Wing: It seems like that area needs to be checked for runoff. Mud's
getting on the road and washing around the sides and there seems to be quite a
bit of erosion out there.
Charles Folch: Yeah what happened, we had a home that was being built and as a
part of the building permit approval process we require, we notify them and
require that eroslon control be placed and be put up. Unfortunately, towards
the end of last week they had some debris piles that needed to be removed off
that lot and in doing so they took the eroslon control down but did...to put It
back up so they have been notified to put it back up.
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That's good because I drove Minnewashta Parkway just the other
day too and there's just mud aII over through that specific area.
Councilman Workman: I guess if Hr. Borchardt or Hr. Jasins.
Mayor- Chmiel: Do either of you have any comments? Just please introduce
yourself with your address.
Jim Borchardt: Hi. Sim Borchardt, 7331 Minnewashta Parkway. I think things
were going fine until the storm of a week ago Sunday. I checked the water. We
had about 2 1/2 feet of accumulated in Jasins property which ue have never had
any water even in that 11 inch rain. What vas that about '88?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Jim Borchardt: Another hour of rain and ue would have had two flooded houses.
Z don't think we can wait the year', year and a half until ue get some relief.
We're getting a lot of water dumped on. We've only gut a 10 or 12 inch culvert
taking the water away from two 15 inch and mathematically it doesn't work. I
did talk to Dave Hempel today and he said it works out good on paper but when
you've got water 2-3 feet deep in your basement, it doesn't work out good on
paper. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, is there anything that we can see to somehow alleviate
that problem?
CharIes Folch: Well, I happened to be out in the area today and was notified by
Dave that he had received a call. I took a iook at the site. I couIdn't detect
where exactly the flooding problem had occurred on the site so maybe I can make
contact with Hr. Borchardt and we can talk about that further. Up to this
point, this is the first time we've been notified that there's a problem that
potentiaiiy would endanger property as far as reIated to fIooding of homes and
such. At this point, I think one of the first things we couId do is at the pre-
construction conference, recommend that that area there as far as storm sewer
±nstaiiation be one of the priority areas to get compieted on the project. I
don't think that's a probIem to request that of the contractor. Other than
that, I'd have to see where the probIem's occurring. The hoiding pond
evidentaIly, it Iooks like it's in acceptable shape. It's not bIoun out so
there's no problem there. At this point I don't have any immediate solutions as
far as what the probiem is.
Hayor Chmiel: Maybe we could suggest that you do meet with Mr. Borchardt and
see just exactly what he's indicating and try to set something up with him. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well, that's kind of deja vu all over again because I know
they've met with Bill Engelhardt and they've met with Gary Warren and probably
Charles too. And I'm not trying to put Charles on the spot and give us a
magical fix here tonight. The problem is, it's been a problem for the 3 years
I've been on the Council or whatever and we've still got the problem. It seems
to be getting worst. ~ don't know if it's related to this subdivision. I don't
if bringing up approval of this, the utility improvements for this Minnewashta
Highlands is appropriate or not. If that's where more water is coming from or
what. In discussions with Mr. Borchardt, it sounds like the holding pond an
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
hour after the storm has no water in it so what it's holding, it might be
holding water for 15 minutes. I don't know tf that's what those things are
intended to do but there seems to be other problems. I guess I'd like to know
when, what the estimated time of completion at the earliest could be for a water
situation like that on Mlnnewashta Parkway. I mean even if they did it first,
we're still talking about a year from now probably.
Charles Folch: They would start on thelr storm sewer work flrst all throughout
the entire roadway. That work would be done w£thin the first couple months of
the project.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't know. I mean I don't know what to suggest
as a solution.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think with Charles.
Charles Folch: Maybe if I can, excuse me Mr. Mayor, ask Mr. Borchardt. Where
exactly was the flooding occurring on the property?
Jim Borchardt: In Jasins' low area there.
Jim Jasins: You know where the driveways off to the right of the low area and
the culvert comes under the drlveway and that whole area fills up up to the
level of in the garden whlch ls, he's rlght. It's about 2-2 1/2 feet deep.
Charles Folch: That's the outlet basically for that holding pond right?
Jim Jaslns: Right. If the holding pond would hold something, I think it would
help a lot but it doesn't hold anything. It flushes right through there.
Jlm Borchardt: I was at the holdlng pond wtthln ! would say mlnutes of when the
rain subsided and there was no water in it.
Mayor Chmlel: What's the slze of that containment pond and capacity?
Charles Folch: Capacity of the pond? I'd have to check the project design
calcs to verlfy that. There is the culvert leavlng the weir structure is a 12
inch corregated metal pipe but there is a restricter cap put on it which
basically has a 4 lnch diameter openlng on that to hold back the water.
Mayor Chmiel: Sort of slow it down is what you're saying?
Charles Folch: Exactly.
Councilman Workman: Well I'd be willing to attend another in the field work
session. So I guess if we can get, maybe get everybody back together. I don't
know if we're going to look at the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, to see whether or not something can be done.
Jim Jasins: It will certainly help if they put it on the front end of the
project.
City Council Meeting - 3une 22, 1997.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's what they're proposing on doing and putting
that sanitary or I should say the storm sewer in first and that way that should
grab that and remove it accordingly and should alleviate the given problem
there, or hopefully.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if the problem is related to the holding pond for
Maple Ridge, then really I guess I don't see that there's a direct problem with
the water or drainage aspects associated with the Minnewashta Highlands project.
It appears that it's coming off of Maple Ridge.
Councilman Workman: I have a similar water problem in my own back yard and
you're kind of wondering if a 100 year storm comes, whether or not you're going
to have some more serious problems. That's why I ask about how long because
time is of the essence I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: We've had that one particular year twice 100 year floods within
that one same year so.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of l(c).
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Resolution ~92-73: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept Utility Improvements to Minnewashta Highlands, project 88-6. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
(D) STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL., APPROVE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Councilman Workman: My only question here is, now I only see half the picture
here and I'm kind of wondering what's going to happen to the, you know we talked
about a second outlet. Where ls the second outlet golng to be in the future?
Paul Krauss: Two thi)~gs. Or several things. The first is that after the
packet was prlnted, in fact thls mornlng we recelved a request from the
applicant for a continuance. His concern is that the City has not yet let the
contract for the sanltary sewer improvement that u111 serve thls project and
until they do, he's relunctant to proceed and have houses built that don't have
any outlet. So thls ls continued untll our contract comes up uhlch ls going to
be in the next month or two? Now in terms of your exact question there.
you're seelng there ls the phase I construction. The rest of it ls as you saw
it, the entire preJ. iminary plat. The only potential for the secondary outlet,
and lt's a long shot at best, ls that road that runs out to the east over
property that Uolk and I believe Amcon own. We did look at, we went back to the
County after the meetlng here and looked at another curb cut on the County Road
and we're told it really did not work.
Councilman Workman: Well I guess I have, I mean there's not going to be
something comlng out of this east end presumably for, well maybe never.
Paul Krauss: Well you know, land has a tendency not to sit around forever but
think that there's a very good likelihood that when you get into final design,
all you're golng to do ls extend that road up there as a cul-de-sac to serve
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
that narrow strip of land between Timberwood and Bluff Creek. The difficulty
comes in brldging or getting across Bluff Creek to get to the north up to the
east/west collector. That's feaslble from an engineering standpoint. Anything's
feasible but whether or not you want the environmental impact and can justify
the cost will be the real maln question.
Mayor Chmiel: The cost probably would be the largest item in the whole thing
would sort of be prohibited.
Councilman Workman: Well I guess I just feel like, for this council, maybe
that's fine. To approve tt like this but long range planning aspect of it tells
me that we're going to give another Councll a problem and a dilemma. Timberwood
thing re-opening or to the east or to whatever and I guess I just wanted to hear
maybe other comments about that. We can choose to ignore future Councils of
course but without getting the full picture, now we've kind of retreated and
we've got half the plcture when all of it can change and it can be re-opened.
Obviously the Timberwood people could have a concern.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Workman, if ! could. Your concern ls, I thlnk that the
prelimlary plat showed the Timberwood connection. But you approved that with a
condition that said eliminate it. That's of record. I supposed if we wanted to
back it up, we could require the concurrence submittal of a new preliminary plat
that shows it removed so that w111 be in the flle so that next year or 10 years
from now, whenever this comes up again, that would be the historic record that a
future Council would rely on.
Councilman Workman: Well I mean the Teton barrier is an example of when
roadways can be changed and reopened. I don't have a problem approving this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael, you had some concerns on some of this as well.
Councilman Mason: Well I wanted to talk a little bit about the curb cut and
what not and that's been cleared up so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess does anyone have any other questions or any
solutions to Tom's question.
Councilman Wing: We approved this with one entry.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilwoman Dtmler: Basically we did.
Mayor Chmiel: That's basically what it boiled down to.
Councilman Wing: And to eliminate it, I would have liked to have seen it
redesigned where you had an entry that split off immediately into a T so that
you only had a very small portlon that was affected here. And I'm comfortable
with what we did for the folks in Timberwood. I have no desire to reopen that.
I don't 11ke thls proposal. There's a lot of houses ina narrow strlp wlth one
access and there's a lot of hazard there. I can see where the Fire Department's
concerned about thls. It's not rlght but I won't dump that on the Tlmberwood
folks.
City Council. Meeting -.'June 22, 1.992
Councilman Workman; I'm not suggesting opening it.
Councilman Wing: No, no. I'm not either. I don't like this Tom and I think
it's not a good project. I think we are looking for trouble in the future.
Councilman Workman: I guess I felt this proposal would come back with perhaps a
different configuration.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what they were going to look at. But evidentally
there's no way of doing it.
Councilman Workman: I guess that's not my problem.
Mayor Chmiel: So with Lhat, would you like to entertain a motion?
Paul Krauss: Again, the request is for a continuance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is.
Councilman Workman: So we'd have to look at this again?
Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one more time.
Councilman Workman: Do we need a motion for a continuance?
Councilwoman Dimler: Or table.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Yeah I think you should have a motion for a continuance.
Councilman Wing: Could this go back to Planning Don with the knowledge that we
said i~o to the Timberwood connection and relook at this with only one entry as a
known entlty now? There's no more gray area now. It's one entry with this
project. Maybe Planning would have some additional comments.
Paul Krauss: First of all, you've already approved the preliminary plat. Now
that's not flnal pla[ approval but preliminary plat and this lsa question
possibly Roger can define it. In my mlnd it's always been pretty much a taclt
approval of the project. That major changes at that point are really only going
to come about if the applicant wants it but you've pretty well glven your
blessings to lt. But as to wl~ether or not sending it back to the Planning
Commission would accomplish anything.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I doil't tllink it would.
Paul Krauss: I can't say that it would. I mean we've looked at this thing
every which way from Sunday. There is no other access point. And having said
that, having an access polnt that branches ls st111 a slngle access point. It
jus[ has two branches.
Mayor Chmiel: Two wrongs don't make a right and we do have others with as many
or more with one entrance within the clty and I thlnk that was our basic
City Council Heeting - June 22, 1992
judgment that we pulled it on at that particular time and voted on it
accordingly.
Councilman Workman: I'll move the continuance.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to table final plat approval
and approval of plans and specifications and the development contract for Stone
Creek Subdivision until the sanitary sewer i~provement project for thts area of
the city has been approved. All voted In favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
A1Klingelhutz: What 1rem was deleted?
Hayor Chmiel: Item that was deleted was the approval of consultant services
agreement wlth Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderllk and approve joint powers agreement
between HWCC, Chaska, Chanhassen, intercommunity flow.
A1Klingelhutz: That was number?
Hayor Chmiel: l(e) and 8.
A1Klingelhutz: I dld see something in the Villager that there was going to be
some discussion on Hosquito Control tonight. Has that been deleted?
Hayor Chmlel: I dldn't see it on the agenda.
A1Klingelhutz: It was in the Villager because I double checked tonight before
I came up.
Todd HoTfman: That's on Park and Rec tomorrow nlght.
A1Klingelhutz: It will be on Park and Rec?
Hayor Chmiel: Park and Rec. Yeah, that was all in that same one column. In
fact I looked at it at first and I thought, my lord. Look at that agenda. I
saw 2:00 in the mornlng wrltten all over lt. But it was the Park and Rec as
well as the City Council.
A1 Kligenlhutz: Well I'll be at the Park and Rec.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE. TROENDLE ADDITION,
PRO3ECT 91-3,
Hayor Chmiel: As I mentioned, this is a public hearing and anyone wishing to
make comments after we've had staff clarification, may do so at that particular
tlme. Who has thls? Charles?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As the staff report eludes
to, basically during the development of the Troendle project, the developer
C~ty Council Heeting -. Ju~e 22, 1992
requested or made a suggestion to staff about possibly slightly realinging the
westerly porlion of Nez Perce Drive through the piat so as to better facilitate
a future extension of Nez Perce out to Peacefui Lane and uItimateIy to Pieasant
View Road. Staff has revieued this. We've concurred with the idea of possibIy
realigning this and therefore proceeded with getting the necessary documents to
conduct the vacation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I guess I don't disagree where we could save
some trees and reduce the amount of fill necessary for the extension of it.
think it's a prudent way to review it and come up uith a conclusion. Is there
anyone at this time wishing to make a presentation? As I mentioned, this is a
public hearing. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing vas closed.
Hayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution ~92-74: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
approve the vacation of Nez Perce Drive as described on Exhibit A contingent
upon the developer providing the City clear and free title on the new parcel
being conveyed on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS FOR 1992 SEALCOATPROGRAH,. PRO3ECT 92-8.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, June llth the
bids were opened. Recelved and opened for the 1992 street repalrs and sealcoat
progranl, Project 92-8. We received very favorable bids. In fact the two blds
were I thlnk just a few hundred dollars apart ulth the low bld comlng from
Allied Blacktop at $64,860.92. In reviewing the bids, it's apparent that this
year's bidding c11mate, the tlmlng, the economy and such made thlngs very
favorable. As most of the bid ltems for the project his year were 20~ to
lower than those recelved in 1990. What I would recommend that staff be
directed to do by Council ts to again review the pavement management program and
asslgn, as appropriate, ulth recommendations from the program, additional
streets to be sealcoated so that we can maxlmlze the city's dollars on this
year's program. As I mentioned in the report, $90,000.00 was budgeted for the
program so we can, with the favorable blds thls year, we can cover quite a few
streets this year.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we know what streets those mlght be?
Charles Folch: Well I think those will probably, there may be some areas, I
thlnk the Buslness Park. The Chanhassen Buslness Park. Park Road and Park
Drive was a key area. That's probably going to use up a fair amount of that
remaining amount. What we try to do ls look for areas that meet the
qualifications from the pavement management report and are also somewhat located
in close proximity to the general areas that are being done so that the
10
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
contractor doesn't have a problem with remobilizing his equipment on various
sites around the community.
Mayor Chmiel: Are we sure that we're going to keep this at that $95,000.00
figure so we don't have to come back in again and appropriate more dollars?
Charles Folch: No. We're going to keep it right at that.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, and I know I asked about Chart Estates last time and
I know you answered me but again, if we have some extra money so to speak, is
there anything that can be done to do potholes and stuff in that area? I know
we're waiting for the final there on the intersection but.
Charles Folch: From a sealcoat standpoint, from this program.
Councilwoman Oimler: You can't use that money for filling?
Charles Folch: Yeah, sealcoating isn't going to help the situation down in Chan
Estates. From a maintenance standpoint, severe potholes and such that would be
a road hazard, certainly our maintenance crews will go in and try to maintain
those. Large areas where you they have a lot of alligator cracking and such,
require quite a bit of work to do and really our city forces don't have the time
or the money to do it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and I guess I'd just like to make a comment. I have
often felt that just because time passes doesn't mean that things are going to
get more expensive and this is a really good example of that. Very seldom is
the important urgent and Z think we can even save money so I'm real happy with
these bids.
Charles Folch: Yeah in this case, with this type of project, a lot of the
dollars go to the cost of oil and that's stabilized or come down somewhat so.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's one of the thlngs that we're doing as well now by
not indicating what the engineer's estimate has been and putting that out on
paper. Walting to get our blds and then we flnd out what his estimate ls
because they come in and give you that bid or close to whatever tt was. And I
11ke that better.
Councilman Wing: I had several phone calls from the Heights area and I think
you had Minnewashta Heights area calls. Are they in this program? We're going
to be looklng at assessments out there if we don't do something pretty qulck.
Charles Folch: There will be some overlaying. Leveling work done up in the
Minnewashta Helghts area. There's a few, there's a couple intersections whlch
.really have some bad potholing and rattling which we intend to take care of.
There's also one segment on Dogwood whtch we have, right by the park there where
11
City Council Heeling - June 22, 1992
we've got a low spot. There's quite a bit of pavement breaking up and such and
we hope to take care of that and get rid of that low area. But again, those
will be relatively minor, what I would call minor type repair work done on those
roadways to try and get a few more years out of them if we can.
Councilnlan Wing: Are we going to be sealcoated? Are we part of the sealcoat
program?
Charles Folch: No, they won't be part of the sealcoat. Typically you don't
want to sealcoat fresh pavement. You probably want to wait 4 or 5 years for it
to chalk up. What we've found is that new pavement that's sealcoated, when the
plows go through over the winter, they pull it up right away.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, ue have a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution )92-75: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid for Project No. 92-8, the 1992 Street Repair/Sealcoat Program to AZZted
BZacktop, Inc. at a bid price of $64,860.92. AZ[ voted [n favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR PLEASANT ACRES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Publ/c Present:
Name Address
Mary Jo Moore
Mark Rogers
James Jasins
Jlm Borchardt
Tom & Ann Metz
Resident
3231 Dartmouth
3851 Leslee Curve
7301 Minnewashta ParkwayI
7331 Mlnnewashta Parkway
3201 Dartmouth
3895 Lone Cedar
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is being reviewed under the ordinance amendment
that you passed some time ago requiring the older non-conforming beachlots to
come in and get a permit. The Pleasant Acres subdivision was approved in 1954.
The beachlot was developed in 1%0's. When we, when staff surveyed th18 thing
in 1981, they then found that there were two docks with a total of 4 boats at
the dock wlth rOOnl for another 6 boats and that there were 6 boats on land. So
a total of 10 boats. The association is requesting approval of it's 1992 status
quo which lncludes 16 boats at the dock, one canoe rack with an additional 3
boats on land so I think you're looklng at a total of 19 boats as we define
boats in the survey. The Plannlng Commission revlewed thls on June 3rd. They
recommended approval of the ~0 boats which were found in the 1981 survey. They
also made recommendations on other aspect9 of the beachlot uhlch I thlnk were
generally, apart from the boats, were generally consistent ulth what had been
requested. They also requested that a milfo11 slgn be posted. That's become a
standard condition of the Planning Commission. With that ue are carrying
forward the Plannlng Commission recommendation on thls whlch ls for a total of
10 boats and the other conditions as proposed.
12
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone here from the Association
uho'd like to talk to Council at this time? Yes, would you please Just come
forward and state your name and address and who you're representing.
Mark Rogers: My name is Mark Rogers. My address is 3851 Leslee Curve and I
live in Pleasant Acres and have since May of 1986. I represent Pleasant Acres
tonight and in summary we support the Planning Commission's recommendation with
one significant exception and that is the number of boats. In particular we are
requesting 16 boats which is not only the number that we had in 1992 but in all
the years that I've had a boat down there which is 1988 through 1992. So we ask
for 16 boats on the basis of tuo reasons, and I have a sheet which outlines my
arguments if you'd care to see it. First of all, item A(1). We do not believe
that the City's 1981 survey is a definitive assessment of the boat count down
there and the primary reason for this is in A(1) but also in some others. The
ordinance clearly defines maximum limits. The survey was not intended to
identify what the maximum levels of boat useage were in 1981. There is no
evidence that the survey was conducted more than once or that those levels were
ever exceeded. Item A(2), Mr. Thomas Metz who is in the audience today, at a
City Council meeting earlier this year had stated at one time that he recalled
there being 15 boats at Pleasant Acres back in 1981. Now, in the last Planning
Commission meeting Mr. Metz denied that he said this or that he intended to say
this. However, I believe a check of the transcripts will show the comment.
Now, item A(3). We also had boats moored to the north in front of a vacant lot
which I believe were uncounted by the City survey staff. Now that sets forth
why we believe the survey itself isn't sufficient to determine the number of
boats. The Planning Commission had indeed asked us did we have any pictures or
Minutes or documentation to support the 16 boat rule and the answer, as far as
I've been able to determine is ue have no pictures whatsoever of what was there
in 1981 or 1982. As far as Minutes or so forth', in going back to the historical
records, I can only see a note in 1984 that the boats were docked on a first
come, first serve basis. Basically a very free system which was abandoned as,
well as far as I know, it uas abandoned in 1988 when the number of boat users
really started to climb and in fact now there are 28 that would like to have
boats down there and we are only letting 16. Okay, now perhaps the most
significant and controversial issue surrounding this for us is the legal
question. And it not only is a matter of number of boats for Hinneuashta or
Pleasant Acres but perhaps for other associations in the city as well. So I'm
moving onto page 2. Now, in reviewing for the Planning Commission meeting I sa~
a memo that the City Attorney's staff had drawn up and directed to him and it
was specifically addressing the number of homes to be included in Pleasant Acres
and this is an item that ue had been concerned about. We talked to the City and
asked them about it because ue could see these problems coming. There were 53
homes according to the City in 1981. By our count now there's 80. There's
approximately 20 more homes under development in the neighborhood and there's
additional lands that have not yet been developed. So anyway the City developed
this opinion and basically said that the City could not limit the number of
homes. That was the conclusion it was intended to confer. Now I went back to
this opinion as I was preparing for the Planning Commission meeting and again
tonight. And while I agree, and the City Attorney will state this, that the
memo was intended to address the number of homes in the association. The cases
it discusses also discuss things such as number of boats, what exactly an
extension of the use is and is not. And ! believe that these cases place quite
13
cJ. ty Council Meeting - June ;~2, 1992
a bit of doubt as to how you can construe the use in 1981 to be only the number
of boats that are present. Zn fact, the cases refer to the use in any given
year as being that use that's actually there plus a potential increase use due
to the Ltndeveloped lands or unplatted lands. Now, tile reason i'm bothering with
this is because even if we had expanded the number of boats, what I'm saying is
the number of boats ue had up until the point where there was a specific statute
or ordinance which prohibited exactly further development or increase the use of
the lot, there is no grounds for finding an increase use, ~nd i'm sayi~g that
f. hat specific ordinance is the one that you just passed. Now if you're going to
sa>, that the ordinance wh£ch defines what is use, increase use for
non-conforming uses, that ordinance has been changed at least twice since 1981
and I suspect the reason for the change was because it was worded loosely or
inconclusively in those years. So ell hour going through each of these
paragraphs which Y.'m highlighted in my memo, T'd like you to key oil two of them.
The first italicized one I'd llke to read. Even if, however, the Court would
· restrictively int~..'rl~-et cl~anhassen's ordinance to require the beachlot to remain
at the slze and scope it had attairled when the ordinance was passed, that's even
if, that size and scope would have included the proposed increase since the
access rights were deeded prlor to the passage of the ordinance. That's an
ilaportant paragraph. The second one I'd like to read is on the last page, top.
Specific Wisconsin County case. The structural enlargements were held not to be
an illegal expansion of the non-conforming use because the Plaintiff failed to
show that the changes violated any statute or ordinance and that's what I just
got done explaining. And the last one. The law of zone amid planning. A non-.
conforming use may general, ly be increased in volume, scope and intensity whlch
lntends to me to show that how a non-conforming use is regulated depends,
affects greatly what can actually happen there. The blanket rule is not that
there cannot be one more boat there than there was in 1981. There cannot be one
more foot of dock there than there uss in 1981. And this ls the issue we're
presenting. Now unfortunately I don't have an attorney here to argue this and
~ don't know that the Council is the place to hold that kind of debate but I am
asking you to read by yourselves. I know that you can read as well as any
lawyer can and Z'nl seeing a number of discrepancies here which I thlnk raise
concerns about whak ~. believe ko be a weakness in the ordinances that you
passed. Thank you.
Hayer Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Toni Metz: My name is Tom Metz and it still bothers me how I was quoted as
sayin<.] that there were 19 boats. I happened to bring along a file because I
remember trylng to bring, trying to review what had happened in the last 30
years or so of my association with Lake Minneuashta. And in that fJ. rst 5 years,
being on the Planning Commission, there wasn't a beachlot that was allowed to go
in with a boat dock. ~ mean we didn't, each new beachlot that came into the
City of Chanhassen was allowed a dock only without any additional boats. In
1982 we made this presentation for everybody concerned. ~e talked about
ri. parian, non--riparian use and we took Lake Hlnnewashta and we trled to make it
so called equitable by establishing what we thought was the riparian, non-
rlparian boat use. By that we closed down all of the publlc accesses and we
went back and sald, and dealt ui~h Carver County and said if we do this, how can
we get a centre] of the lake. Well, they said okay. ~f you'll control and shut
down all of youl' pLtblic accesses, we'll allow all the public access to come in
~he lake at that polnt and there was two remaining outlets and as z remember
14
City Council Heeting - June 22, 1992
beachlots. One was Pleasant Acres and one was Lake Hinneuashta. And in 1982,
my notes that I had talked about that night, there was 6. I said now because
these people have arbitrarily taken their 6 boats and in a period of 10 years
they've gone up to 16 boats and to think that we'll sit back and allow this, you
know I mean it's like we have no laws or regulations. Just people can come by
and abuse that. We're not following any rules so for me to have said there was
16 boats in there, I wouldn't have been around or I would not have said that.
The purpose of my being here. I wonder why I keep coming back and trying to
beat my head agalnst the wall. ! mean what the hell is init for me. I keep
wondering what I'm, but I think that I've got enough time and effort invested in
this thlng and my true lnterest is making sure that we're preserving something
here. And I think in lg82 we all agreed that we had something that we were
preserving. We had a park that was controlled. We had beachlots. We had
access and I sit here now and I see these people coming back here and say let's
go from 6 to 16 and I say, my God. If you're going to do that, I mean you're
the smallest part of this area. Now you look at Carver County. They're going
to come back here and want 100~ increase and we're going to have 70-80 boats on
this lake and the lake doesn't support that. And my purpose of comtng here
agaln tonight ls saying, if you look at an outlot and think something 11kw thls
is attractive with 16 boats. I mean you wouldn't put 16 boats up in that
neighborhood. You wouldn't use it for a parking lot and to look at that lake
and say that that's attractive, that's not attractive. You don't see another
piece of property on that lake that's got 16 boats with their old tops and all
their bottoms and if you want that, you've got access to the lake. Go up in
your neighborhood and open it up and put up 10 or 12 nlce, park those nlce boats
up in your neighborhood. Hy main concern is saying we all agreed to this lg82
baseline and I thlnk we've increased it once or twlce and for gosh sakes, you
know the burden of proof has to be on this neighborhood. It was 6 boats that
were in the water and the Plannlng Commission comes back and says, well there
were 4 more boats on the land so maybe let's give them 10 boats. And now
they're coming back and saylng, 16 boats. '82 ls the baseline and ! think
you're wrong in your statements. It said there was 6 boats in the water and
there was 4 more canoes or something stored on the shore so they said, well
let's go to lO. And now we're saying let's go to 16. Again, ue have no ways of
stopping this. Unless we agree that the 1982 baseline, we can prove that there
were 6 boats in there. 6 boats in the water is what your documents say. That's
what we should allow and to go on, all we're dolng ls continuing to, the next
one, there's 2 or 3 more people coming up here. We have a '82 baseline that we
agreed to. For God's sakes, let's stay by it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Jim Jasins: Hy name is Jim Jaslns, 7301 Hinnewashta Parkway. I'm concerned
about the Pleasant Acres access. That they're really overselling it now.
There's a new subdivision golng in and I've been there and I've talked to the
real estate people and they say sure. You can have a boat down here. Get on a
11st. Zt wlll take about a year, year and a half and you can have a boat here
and I went back twice and asked the lady again, now are you sure of that and she
sald, you bet. I say, that's misrepresenting and misleading people. If they're
telling people that they can have a boat there, something's going wrong.
Hark Rogers: I agree.
15
CiLy Council HeetJng - J~ne ;.'2, 1992
Hayer Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Anyone else?
Jim 8orchardt: I'd just like to comment. Jim Borchardt, 7331 Hinnewashta
Parkway. The representative from Pleasant Acres said that they had boats parked
in front of a vacant Lot and this fs the one part that disturbs me. We're
having these boats infringe on other people's lots and maybe not right now they
don't have them but he admits they did have them. Or supposedly. Now pretty
soon if we put 16, 20, 28 boats, we're going to be infringing on an entire
subdivfsion's lots. I think ue have to look at other people's rights. Not just
the right of this single development but everybody's right as to do I have the
right to boat out in front of my home. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else?
Mary Jo Moore: Hary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here a number of
times. My concern is the lake quality and the lake useage and we did decide on
the 1982 census. Every association, which at the time I was a member, knew what
that census was for their various lots. They had at that time the right to come
in and say, wait a minute. These boats are missfng or whatever it vas. There
are many associations that have remained at the census of 1982. Pleasant Acres
has not. They've expanded and expanded. There have been a number of them that
have done that. I think it's a penalty to the others that have stuck by the
ordinance. And when I go to a Planning Commission meeting and it's a public
hearing and I volce my oplnion and then I find out that the Counc11 has not
taken the recommenda[ion of this commission and all of a sudden we've got a 100~
increase on varlous lots. I don't thlnk lt's falr to the cltlzens of thls
community that have to continually come to these meetings. Z may as well run
for electlon I've been here so often. I don't know what else we can do. I
don't know why we're going through this tlme and time again. I think the 1982
census, it should be the burden of proof on the association and that's what ue
should stlck by. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, let's bring it back to Councll
for discussion. How would you like to start Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh that would be just a great prlviledge. I guess I'll
piggyback on the comments just made by Mrs. Moore. I agree it is 'difficult but
my recollection ls that we declded on the 1981 and ue just dld that maybe 3-4
months ago. And this is the process we're going through now is to go back and
try to determine what was there in 1981. At least that's what I'm understanding
that we're doing. So perhaps after this time that will be the last time anyone
will have to come ln. After we make this determination. That's what we're here
today. And I would like to ask Mr. Rogers, in relation to the vacant lot that
you were moorlng in front of. Who owns that lot and dld you have permission and
how did that happen not to get into the census?
Hark Rogers: The lot is now owned by Mr. Josephs. Who owned it at the tlme in
1981, Z don't know. Whether or not we had permission, again I don't know. But
at that tlme we also didn't have the dock setback ordinance uhlch you just
passed yet thls sprlng. While it certainly would have violated good common
sense to go and infrlnge on your neighbor's lawn, and that ls certainly the
premise that we've been operatZng under, Lt was a swampy vacant lot. ~nd to my
knowledge there were no complaints from any homeowners or landowners from dolng
16
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
this practice. And as long as I'm talking about complaints, I'd like to say
that to my knowledge we have no neighbor complaints about our beach at this
time. And in...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And then I would like to ask Mr. Krauss here, do
I understand this correctly? That we're talking about 10, the Planning
Commission recommends 10 motorized boats, plus one canoe rack that has 6 canoes
on it?
Paul Krauss: Yes, Councilwoman Dimler. Some of this may go back to a little
bit of confusion as to how the '81 survey was done. You've got a copy of that I
think about on the 4th page of your report. In '81 what they found was that
there were boats docked. There was 6 boats, I'm sorry. There were 4 boats
docked with room for 6. Then there's a category for boats on land. They found
6 boats on land. Then there was a category for canoe rack and there was none so
I think the Planning Commission interpretted it fairly liberally and assumed
that those boats on land were in fact motorized boats and they took that and
added it to the boats in the water and came up with 10.
Councilwoman Oimler: $o they are already expanding when they say 10 motorized
boats plus 6 canoes. That lsa total of 16 boats.
Paul Krauss: Well canoes and boats are treated differently.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Okay. Also I wanted
to, has the milfoil sign been put up yet?
Paul Krauss: Oh I'm sure not but that will be a condition.
Councilwoman Oimler: That's part of the condition? Okay. Well, from
everything Z've heard and also from the comments that were made by Mr. Rogers, I
do believe that the City does have a right to protect the lakes within it and I
think that's what thls ls all about. And I do believe that the Planning
Commission was very generous in the 10 motorized boats plus the canoe rack, the
two docks, a boat launch and a portable roller. I belleve that's what the
recommendations were. I would do along with the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
Councilman Wing: ...Mr. Rogers' in a prior discussion that I also supported the
Planning Commission. I think they're kind of our eyes and ears and kind the
jury that has time and ability to sit and discuss these items at length. We
have seven very prominent members of our community that made a decision,
unanimously to go wlth 10 boats uhlch ! conslder to be very generous and I had
suggested maybe the outcome because we were trying to flex on behalf of the
landowner versus try and take the opposlte vlew and cut them back as much as we
can. So if there was a gray area, we tended to give towards those owners. And
thls ordinance clearly recognized the problem back in the late 70's and early
80's and addressed it to the best of lt's abilities and I guess it's unfortunate
the Clty slmply dldn't maintaln and prosecute on an aggressive basis back then.
They may be paying for that now but I'm very comfortable with what Planning
Commission dld and ! think lt's rlght. I guess before movlng on Mr. Mayor, I'm
kind of, in all fairness to Mr. Rogers', I think he's got a very excellent
presentation and I'd like to hear Roger's comments about page 2 and some of the
17
City Council Meeting .- Jun~ 2Z, 1797.
comments that Mr. Rogers' made because I think they may be... Z'd hate to move
on here without you addressing some of these.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was going to be my suggestion as well.
Councilman Wing: As a matter of fact, Mr. Mayor, because you're somewhat
famlllar with reading thls type of material, could I yelld to you at thls time
and follow up on that 11ne.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. I would like to have Roger make comments in
regard to these other points that have been made within the documentation that
was provided Orl some of the, the Waukesha County vs. Seltz and a couple of these
others. I'd like to hear some words of uisdoln for the amount of dollars that we
pay you.
Roger Knutson: This memo was prepared by a law clerk back in 1988 and the issue
that it addressed was just one issue alone. Whether additional homes joining
the association or being bullt after the fact constitute an 11legal expansion of
a non-conforming beachlot and my answer was no. To expand this discussion in
these cases beyond that ls to mlsread the cases. They were, these are not full
di. scussions of, for example the Wisconsin case. It takes a little bit of tile
case and discusses what's pertinent to thls lssue. To understand the case in a
broader context you've got to read the whole case. And for one thing, it only
discusses a non-conforming use. Not non-conforming structures. For whatever
reason, the way the case came down, the issue of I~on--conforming structures was
not addressed by the case...and a later declslon by the same Court ln, I don't
have the year. Several years later, it specifically distinguished that case by
saying that that case dld not conslder the aspect of the increasing a structure
as non-conforming. Such as a dock or what I~ave you. So it's a very limited and
narrow holdlng whlch is applicable to the questlon I was asked in lg88 but I
believe nothing else~ I think lt's my perspective...that the process for the
last number of years. I thlnk Council's direction has been very, very clear and
it's been, it said what we're trying to do is...1~88, January of 1988. Keep it
there but you can't expand' beyond what's there then and what the process you set
in motion a number of months ago was to document what was there in '88 and give
those people those rights.
Councilwoman Oim].er: ' 81.
Roger Knutson: '81. '82 actually...and nothing more and that's what you've
been going througll. The Planning Commission has been going through a very
painful process and now the paln continues. The decislon was made to do thl~
because of the constant controversy over what rights do people have and what
rights don't they have and you wanted it documented once and for a11.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think too, just my opinion, is when the beachlots were
established and we have one that was supposedly established within our area,
which was then deeded over to tile City. The intent behind that was just using
it as a beachlot. Not for boats. $o I guess that's where I sort of look at it
as well.
Roger Knutson: If you wanted to get extremely tough on your ordinance, you
could even make a stronger interpretation and slnce the docks come out every
18
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
year, once they're out they can't go back in. But the Council has not chosen to
do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything in addition to that?
Councilman Wing: No, thank you.
Councilman Workman: Well Roger, in fact the Courts told us we had to do this.
Or it came back to us to have to make these decisions.
Roger Knutson: What happened is a neighbor, a member of, a neighbor sued an
association saying the City was not enforcing it's ordinances and the neighbor
trled...Attorney General and by the City Attorney try to force compliance
because he thought the ordinance was being violated. And the Courts said no.
The Clty can enforce lt's ordinances, a prlvate cltizen cannot. We weren't a
party to that lawsuit and that...
Councilman Workman: In following up a little bit with what Ursula said. The
City, I mean our Council meetings are usually a half to two-thirds talking about
water, water surface lssues. Where ls the water flowlng from, through and
into? I mean that's all I ever talk about is water and that is our duty. My
understanding since I've been here is that water surface lssues are our lssue.
We handle it. The bottom, the top inch is ours and the rest is the ONR's
apparently. I'm curlous for Mr. Rogers', are there any covenants out there that
say who gets them? How many? I mean could this in effect have gone on and on
and on to 32 boats or where were you heading with thls?
Mark Rogers: ...covenants per se... Where we are, why we have 16 boats now
versus 28 or however many is due to our own pollcy of self regulation. We just
didn't believe that the beachlot could handle any more than 16 boats. We wanted
to keep a reasonable swlmmlng area because it lsa very nice beach. We've got a
very good swimming area... Now as far as if there were 140 homes that one day
would belong to the association, Z don't believe that we would have expanded
beyond the 16 that we already have. That list would grow from 28 to 128. There
are reasonable 11mits and that's why we're at 16.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Well again without, I know each of these beachlots has
different histories and we've tried to, much to the amazement of many, we've
trled to interpret those and you're right, none of us are attorneys so it is a
difficult and ugly and painful task to try and decide what and how we should do
that taklng lnto account the entire and whole blg plcture. And I thlnk
everybody on this Counc£1 genuinely does have, in this instance tonight, Lake
Minnewashta at heart. I don't thlnk any of us wants to unfairly punish one boat
owner or homeowner or riparian or not and so it isn't fun. We just have to have
something to go by and in this instance, it seems to be 10 wlth Planning
Commission recommendation and that's a11 I have to go by.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I was at that Planning Commission meeting and I too thought
the Planning Commission was pretty lenient. I wanted to make one comment about
19
City Council Meeting - June 22, 199,?.
what you said about how we reacted to one of the others with tile beachlot. That
issue was 4 to 3 so there was quite a bit of disagreement on the Planning
Commission also as to how many boats should be. I think it was Trolls Glen, but
T'm not sure. So we do listen to them. I agree with the Planning Commission.
They obviously thought about it quite a bit. I think we do need to look at Lake
Minnewashta and not jusl one part of tile area around it. I intend on supporting
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I clarify something? I have heard Mr. Rogers say
s~;ueral times the use of tile beach and Z wanted, I think I want to make it clear
here that the new homeowners, no matter how many new homes you have coming, they
can be members of that beachlot association and they can use the beach and
everything else that's there, they just can't have a boat. They have a boat
launch. They could even have a boat and launch it on the public access and use
the lake but they just can't moor their boat down there.
Mark Rogers: They can moor their boats down there if they put their name on a
list...
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Yes, that's within your association. You make
that decision on who gets the slips. The City just tells you how many slips you
can have. Right. But from what Z was hearing you say, it's like they can't be
members of the beachlot association. ~ wanted to clarify that that's not what
we' re saying here.
Mark Rogers: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I sort of stated my opinion on some of this too. What
Z look at as well is in looking back at that 1981 inventory that showed 4 boats
that were docked and 6 boats oll land and immediately as I saw 6 boats on land,
Z'm automatically thinking of canoes. I'm not thinking pouerized boats. So I
think too, the PlannJ. ng Commission is lenient in giving this that 10 and I too
would sort of agree with that particular perception. The o))ly problem being as
I mentioned before, the canoes to me are not a problem. I think the more you
have there, the more problems can be within that particular area. So with that
if there is no other discussion, I'd like to call the question and ask request
for a mo[ion.
Councilman Mason: I'll make that motion. Approve the non-conforming
recreational beachlot permit for Pleasant Acres with the provisions described in
this report.
Mayor Chmiel: That it cannot exceed those 107
Councilman Mason: 10 boats.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Paul, is the dock setback ordinance an understanding of these
permits now? I'm concerned about ones coming up that have clearly moved onto
20
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
other properties. Is the dock setback, does it have to be specified? Is it
just a city ordinance that's going to be enforced? Where do ue stand on that?
Paul Krauss: Roger gave us a reading on that.
Mayor Chmiel: That was last time.
Paul Krauss: Whether it's applicable after the fact.
Roger Knutson: As you know I'm preparing, I finished the draft today of
revisions on the dock setback ordinance. All we're doing today ls definlng what
was there in 1982 .... modifying it. Not saying it's good, bad or indifferent
or anything else. Here's what was there in 1982.
Councilwoman Oimler: So I'm also understanding that that includes all the other
Plannlng Commission recommendations as well in thls same motion?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: The canoe rack, the two docks, the boat launch, the
portable toilet and the milfoil sign.
Mayor Chmlel: Yes.
Councilman Nason moved, Councilman gorkman seconded to approve the
Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit for Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association to include motor vehicle access, off street parking for 10, one boat
launch, two seasonal docks (%' x 67' and 96' x 12'), one canoe rack, 10 boats
docked, swimming beach, marker buoys, swimming raft, 7 power lifts and a
portable chemical toilet. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
BLUFF CREEK ESTATESz KEYLAND HOHES, LOCATED SOUTH OF H~GHMA¥ 5 ON THE EAST SIgE
OF AUDUBON ROAO:
A. REZONTN6 FROH A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESZDENTTPJ- SINGLE FPJ~ILY.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBOlVIpE 61.45 ACRES INTO 78 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMTT FOR CONSTRUCTION gZTHZN ZOO FEET OF A #ETLAND.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: The applicant is requesting to subdivide a &1.45 acre site
lnto 78 slngle famlly lots. Access to the subdivision wlll be provlded by a
looped road off of Audubon Road. It is proposed to be developed in four phases.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zonlng Ordinance
with one exception. Lot 8 has an existing garage. The proposed rear property
line ls setback at 20 feet from the garage. The ordinance requires a 30 foot
setback. The Planning Commission was strongly opposed to a variance to the rear
yard setback and they recommended that the applicant adjust the property line to
eliminate this variance. There is a wetland on this site. The wetland includes
the protected water of course of Bluff Creek. It is contained wlthin Outlot A.
The applicant is not proposing to disturb this wetland. However, out ordinance
requires any development within 200 feet to receive a wetland alteration permlt.
We are recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit with conditions
outlined in the report. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property
21
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
from A2 to Residential Single Family. This is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. We are recommending approval of the rezoning. There is one
issue that was brought up at the Planning Commission and we would like to bring
it to your attention as well. There is an existing driveway on the site. It's
Jn the shape of a horseshoe. Staff had recommended that this driveway be
eliminated. It accesses off of Audubon road. We also recommended that access
to Lot 8 would be through Lot ? so that would require a cross access easement.
The applicant requested that he maintain his existing driveway. A couple of
issues with that is one, we have some safety concerns. Second issue is the
driveway will be encroaching onto the deceleration lane. Charles might want to
elaborate further' on that. Other than that, we are recommending approval of
this application with conditions outlined in the report.
Mayor Chmiel: What is that distance from the existing driveway to the proposed
road that will go in?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: I'm sorry Hi". Mayor.
Mayor' Chmiel: What is the distance between the driveway and the road? How many
feet?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: It's approximately 200 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the distance requirements between one point to the other
Charles without it causing any problems? The sight lines.
Charles Folch: Well, the City has no ordinance governing the spacing of
driveways as say for example Carver County would have. In general we would
typically use MnOot's standards for, or based on the design speed of the road,
· for spaclng of intersections. What the crltical situation here ls that for the
two entrances into the subdivision, we're proposing to construct right turn
laTles lnto the subdivision and what you end up having wlth the driveway there
you have a driveway coming out which w11]. access right basically in the taper
sectlon of the turn lane. Whlle thls ls not an ideal situation, it's not
unique. These situations do occur on other rural type highways. In general we
would prefer not to see it but lt's something we could work around if it came
down to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with speeds that are existing now, was that 50 in there now?
Charles Folch: It's 50 at that portion of the roadway.
Mayor Chmiel: As the area progresses and more residential goes in, will that
continue to be that speed limit there?
Charles Folch: Probably not. It will probably get downgraded to elther 40 or
45 mph.
Councilwoman Dimler: I had a questlon on the sight line. It runs east and west
there pretty much through the property and I don't know how deep it is. But I
also know that you're not supposed to put a structure on top of the pipeline?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
22
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I saw that a portion of the road does cover it. That Road
E.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: They allow roads, sidewalks to go over the pipeline. It is 3
feet deep.
Mayor Chmiel: Their main concern basically with Williams Pipeline is that
there's not weight distributed on top because then that causes reactions down
below and could...
Councilwoman Dimler: That won't be a problem in the future then itself?
Mayor Chmiel: It should not.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: I called and asked them and they said they had no problems
with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone from the subdivision that would like to dlscuss
this? Just please state your name and who you're representing and your address
please.
Jim Hill: Your Honor. My name is Jim Hill. I'm a consultant for Keyland and
the fee owner, Rod Grams. Principle is 0ick Schuller is here with us this
evening. The petitioner has agreed with the recommendations of staff and the
Planning Commission recommendations with the exception of the driveway. We
talked to staff and we are in agreement to connect the acceleration and the
deceleration lane in front of and between the two accesses off of Audubon so
that the driveway, assumlng that, although Mr. Grams would like both of them
left as is, he can see that one would have to be taken out. The northerly one,
whlch ls to the rlght on the picture there. And that the exlstlng driveway to
the historic home, which Mr. Grams has been asked to keep because of the
architecture and also the Chaska brlck. He would 11ke to and he's selllng that
on the basis of the two lots. There will not be two lots there. There will be
one because the real estate and marketplace has indicated that the hlstorlc home
and it's setting needs the dr£veway. Should have the driveway that has always
existed and the larger lot. So the two lots will be combined lnto one. So that
there would be an additional lane then inbetween the two openings off of Audubon
in which then that one driveway would enter. He ls asklng for at least that in
the preservation of the site. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Michael.
Councilman Mason: I say let them keep the driveway. I understand the City
Engineer's posltlon but like Charles said, they're already out there and clearly
it sounds to me like the speed limit's going to be getting lowered on that road
in a matter of years anyway. There ls certainly something to be sald for the
historic preservation. Other than that I'm fine with it. I'm a little
concerned. What's your c11ent's feellng about not, I think I mlssed that about
the variance for the shed. Are they willing to adjust the lot 11ne?
Jim Hill: Your Honor, we have looked at the lot line and we will adjust it...
Councilman Mason: That's about all I have on it.
23
City Council Meeting -- JUlle 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, the two issues are the roadway and setback, right?
Hlke and I were both talklng about it. Hike ended up saylng what I thought he
was going to say about, blg deal. Was that your comment?
Councilman Mason: Well kind of.
Councilman Workman: But you know the same thing with me. We're not talking
about a whole lot of trlps. The darn access has been there forever. Granted
there hasn't been two, one to the north and one to the south that close but I
don't, and I can't get uorrled about that and if they move the lot 11ne, then
g~'eat.
Councilman Wing: I concur with Tom and Mike and I think preservation of what
they have there is...That's part of our historic background. I guess I really
have no comment because thls is all up front and lt's by the rules in effect.
If I could just whine slightly to say, we pat ourselves on the back and we cheer
when we moved the MUSA line and ue opened up 3,000 acres for development as if
the land couldn't be developed if we hadn't done it. But by opening it up,
everything that comes before me ls thls mass of 11ttle lots and mass of rows and
mass of houses and ohhh. I say what are we dolng. So it's wonderful ue opened
thls up but lt's all comlng back thls way. Now this ls standard subdivision and
this, now Paul. Don't look that way. I just couldn't resist. Was a PUO
considered and was there any advantages to a PUD?
Paul Krauss: No not really on this site. Early on when we first met there was
a questlon of uslng PUD to reduce lot slzes below 15,000. I told them that that
really wasn't appropriate. You're talklng about a site really that does not
have a whole lot of character.
Councilman Wlng: Yep, I agree. The lots are larger.
Councilwoman Dimler: I concur with the drive. Keeplng the driveway and I'm
glad to see that they'll adjust to avoid a variance situation. I'm also
wondering if they could adjust to avold the wetland alteration permlt. Could
you comment on that?
Paul Krauss: ~ thlnk what we really have to do ls adjust the ordinance so it
doesn't require one. They're not in the wetland. They're only near one and our
ordinance is a 11ttle strange on that.
Councilwoman Oimler: So it's our ordinance problem, not the problem with the
lot configuration?
Pau]. Krauss: Not only are they not golng to be in there, but they're dedicating
it all to the city anyway.
Councilwoman Dimler: Good. Z have no problem then.
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to make a quick comment if I could about the
landscaping. It's always refreshing to see people dolng more than they need to
to make something look nlce 11ke that. Thank you. Thanks.
24
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I went through this quite readily and there's variation of ali
different sized lots and I came up with, I Bight have missed one but about 9
that only are at i5,000 square feet. All the rest are over and above and many
u£th 27,000. Some were 29,000. Some that are, I believe that was probably
pretty close to being the largest. But the overall, no there was one. Zt was
35,000 and that was the biggest but in looking at this Z came up with 9 of those
that were 15,000 square feet which I felt was very well done. I think it will
prove to be a good development for it. There's one question that I had left.
The outlot. What size acreage was that? Do you have any idea? 19 acres. Okay.
Just for my own concern. Other than that I guess I don't have any real concerns
with what's going in and I think that it wtll prove to be beneficial. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Just one quick question. Paul, just for my anxiety level, can
I just assume that everything that occurs within the MUSA line boundary from
this day on are going to be 15,000 foot square lots or smaller in PUO? I mean
is that just fact?
Mayor Chmiel: That's by ordinance, 15,000.
Councilman Wing: No, no, minimum. Can I just assume they're going to be 15,000
foot subdivisions or PUO's slightly smaller? I mean that's pretty much
financially what's golng to dominant?
Paul Krauss: I think you can expect that but I think the Mayor made a very good
polnt here. That out of the 70 lots, 9 of them were at the mlnimum.
Councilman Wing: No, I like this one.
Paul Krauss: And above that. Agaln, I mean they're maklng a sllk purse out of
a sows ear a little bit here. I mean you've got a green space that's being
dedicated. They're addlng a lot of landscaping to basically a soybean fleld.
When you're dealing with much more rolling terrain with more wetlands and trees,
the lots tend to be a lot blgger than that anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that I'd like to request a motion for each one
separately. The flrst one Z'11 request is a rezoning from A2 to RSF, 92-3 and
with the two conditions contained.
Councilman Wlng: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move as stated by yourself.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve Rezontng ~2-3
property A-2 to RSF wtth the following conditions=
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the
conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required
financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against
the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ~92-5 and Wetland
Alteration Permit
25
City Council Meeting --3une 22, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: The second will be tile preliminary plat to subdivide the 61.45
acres into 78 slngle famlly lots and approving the Subdivision ~92-5 as shown on
plans dated May 4, 1992 subject to the following conditions of item i thru 17.
Councilman Nason: So moved.
Councilwoman Simler: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve Subdivision
#92-5 as shown on the plans dated Nay 4, 1992 subject to the following
conditions:
1. All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10 year frequency
storm utilizing a rational method. Storm drainage retention pond,
detention areas and outlet plplng shall be deslgned for a 100 year
frequency, 24 hour single event using the "SCS Method" established for use
in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall not exceed the pre-developed runoff
rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "NURP" standards.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Oetail Plates."
Detalled street and utlllty construction plans and specifications shall be
submitted for City Councll approval.
The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District,
DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their
conditions of approval.
4. Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for the
site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the Clty Engineer to
verify pipe size.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance wlth the terms of
the development contract. The flnal plat shall be contingent upon the Clty
Council authorizing and awarding a public improvements project for the
extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to servlce the slte.
6. All lots shall access from interior streets and not Audubon Road, except
for the existing historic Chaska brick home. Street grades shall not
exceed the 7~ maximum street grade per City ordinance. A deceleration/
acceleration lane shall be provided on Audubon Road. The center lsland
shall be deleted from the southerly access street (Road E).
7. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15 foot wide
dralnage and utillty easements to 20 feet wide and extending the drainage
easements through Lots 12 and 1~, 81ock 1. The following easements shall
be provided:
a. Dedication of all street right-of-way.
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and
ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the City to maintain
all ponding areas.
c. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements over all sewer, water and
storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way.
d. Conservation easements over areas designed by staff.
e. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line.
·
f. Dedication of Outlot A to the Clty.
8. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for any
gradlng or construction activity within the plpellne easement.
Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the
subdivision in accordance wlth the Flre Marshal's recommendations.
10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket wlthln two weeks of completing
site grading unless MnOot's planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas
disturbed wlth slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored wlth sod or seed
and wood fiber blanket.
11. Untll Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and/or
retention ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant to
accommodate Phase I storm runoff. The applicant shall amend the grading
plan to take into consideration the runoff from the back yards for Phase I
to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban deslgn). The grades
on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the driveway grades do
not exceed 10~. The applicant shall supply earthwork calculations for both
phases to the City Engineer for review. Erosion control fence along the
westerly portlon of the development (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands
shall be the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fence (Type I)
shall be installed on Lots 7, 14, and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10, and 11,
Block 1 as check dams.
12. Outlot A shall be deeded to the City. In consideration for this, full
trail fees will be credited. An 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be
constructed from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1,
Block 3.
13. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the
temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign shall be
installed on the barricades stating that the street wlll be extended in the
future. All street right-of-way for all plat phases to be dedicated with
Phase I platting.
14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from
the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health.
27
City Cou~cil Meeting ,- June 22, 1992
15. The applicant shall meet the conditiol)s of the Rezoning #92-3 and the
Wetland Alteration Permit
16. The applicant should work out with city staff to provide whether or not
Lots 10 and 14, Block 2 are in fact buildable between the Planning
Commission and City Council meeting.
17. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other
means acceptable to the City.
Al! voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: The third ls the Wetland Alteration Permlt for construction
within 200 feet of a wetland. And that consists of Wetland Alteration Permlt
¢92-6 with the following conditions of items 1 thru 4.
Councilman Workman: So moved Mayo)-.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman ~orkman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve Wetland
Alteration Permit ~92-6 with the following conditions:
All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The eroslon control shall be maintained in good condition untll
the disturbed areas are stabilized.
The wetland area remaln undisturbed.
3. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Watershed District.
4. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ¢92-5 and
Rezoning ~92--3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Jim Hill: ...the driveway?
Mayor Chmiel: The driveway in my estimation, by everyone indicating that there
was no concerns, was to be remain in existlng al~d that's tile addendum to that
motlon.
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/HINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, lO0 FLYING CLOUD
DRIVE, TOH ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE.
Paul Krauss: Hr. Mayor, first thing you should know on this is that Thursday
afternoon aftel' the packet was prlnted, we got a letter from Hr. Zwiers'
attorney roquestlng a continuance stating that both he and Hr. Zwlers would be
unavoidably absent frOnl tonight's meeting. Mr. Brill does have an associate
attorney here tonlght for that. Now Roger and I had some conversations on thls
Z think Friday morning to deter'mine what the course of actlon should be and a
couple thlngs about that. In the past Hr. Hayor, after we've had items prlnted
in tile newspaper as being on the agenda and notify people in fact, in tile past
28
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
you've directed us to keep things on the agenda, because at that point it's too
late to switch gears. Secondly, and possibly Roger can expand on this, this is
an item that's been going around in circles now for nyon 2 years and has already
been the subject of substantial litigation and is likely to be the subject of
more litigation. We're not sure what advantage would be gained in further
delays. We didn't delay this. We've processed it consistent with the
directions of the Judge. We also have a very clear statement at the Planning
Commission from Mr. Brill that basically they're not willing to agree to most of
the conditions that were developed anyway. $o we're not sure what purpose it
would serve to continue it again but that's possibly the first thing you ought
to look at. Whether you want to go forward wlth it tonlght.
Mayor Chmiel: As I see, we have an awful lot of people here who were sent
notlces that are present and absence. Their thoughts are here but thelr bodles
are not. I think just let me put something else out here. I know we've been
toylng around wlth thls too long. There's a lot of the conditions that I read
in here that they're not in agreement to and it's going to take us some
additional discussions. Where do you thlnk thls should go from where we're at
right now? Without addttiona 11tigation.
Roger Knutson: It's our recommendation that the Council proceed and act on this
matter. It's been before the City for 2 years and it's been a very frustrating
matter I'm sure for the applicant as well as the City...by delaying it. The
applicant has known for some time this would be on tonight's agenda and he chose
to go fishing. It's his perogative. That may or may not be a strategic
decision on his part. Whatever it is, we think this matter should go forward.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Roger Knutson: I passed out to you before tonight's meeting a draft of the
proposed Flndlngs and a declslon based upon your flndlng staff's recommendation
and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Taking into consideration Mr.
Brl11's concurrence on a number of lssues from the June 17th letter.
Mayor ChmieZ: Okay. Have we provided that to his counsel as well?
Roger Knutson: City Council has it.
Mayor Chmiel: I mean their counsel?
Roger Knutson: No. ! just flnished lt.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there something you'd like to say. Please just
state your name and who you're representing.
Anthony Gleekel: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Anthony
Gleekel. That's G-l-e-e-k-e-1 and I'm from the law firm of Slegel, Bt111,
Gruepner and Ouffy. 300-100 Washington Square. Downtown Minneapolis and we
represent Tom Zwlers and Moon Valley Aggregate. I'll just 11mlt real qulck
comments to the continuance since you haven't made that determination yet.
Number one, bare wlth me because I am pltch hltting for Mr. Bt111. I was
involved in this case up until the time of trial and I have not really been
lnvolved slnce. Mr. Bt111 dld send a letter of June 17th and has talked to
29
City Council Meeting -- June 22, 1992
Hr. Krauss and Mr. Scott al~d Z believe he talked to Mr. Knutson this afternoon.
Tug reasons why we recommend a continuance. One is tl~e fact that neither Mr.
Brill or Mr. Zuiers can be here tonight. Mr. Brill's letter states our position
at this point in time as far as what Mr. Zwiers is agreeable to and what he's
not. It's my ur~derstandir, g that Mr. Brill has talked to or requested with Mr.
Scott and Mr. Krauss to sit down and talk further about some of the conditions
al~d what further can be agreed to and what cannot be. Secondly, and correct me
if I'm wrong Mr. Krauss but Z believe that a condi[ional use permit, interim use
permit application) has been submitted for' the r, orth parcel?
Paul Krauss: Yes it has. It's scheduled for the next Planning Commission
meeting.
~nthony Gleekel: Okay. There's two parcels there and it didn't become the
issue until after the litigation and we, [he facts were presented at trial and
the determination that was made that the north parcel had no non-conforming use
right as far as mineral extraction. Following 3udge Kanning's Order, a
conditional use permit, interim use permit applicatiol~ was submitted on the
north parcel to mir, e some clay, which I believe is the impetus for the last 2
years of negotiations, trial and much discussion in this matter. ~e believe
that the conditional use permit, interim use permit For the north parcel should
be heard at the same time that the interim use permit for the south parcel,
which does have non-conforming use rights, because as you'll see on some of the
plans here, there are some i]~terrelationships between the tug. ~lthough the
mil]ing, and ~'ve not seen the plans. It's not significant on the north parcel.
There are some erosion control plans, ponding and what not that tie the two
[ogether. ~e believe that it makes sense for the city ai~d although there has
been a lot of tons passed to get this thing looked at in one fell swoop, they're
two different permits or three different permits that are before the city but it
makes from a planning perspective to get it looked at at one time. 6nd that's
another reason ue request a continua~ce. But ~ am here to make a presentation.
To pitch hit For Mr'. Brill and to answer any questions if you do reach the
merits. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I was just going to ask you your opinion of that
statement of tying this all together i~to one. I think these are separate
issues.
Roger Knutson: Very separate issues with very separate standards for approval.
One of the things, one of the reasons we recommer, ded that you go forward is not
to confuse the issues. They're tug separate parcels with two separate...
separate requirements. We recommend that they be treated separately.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. That's the thing I wanted to address at the time
when I heard this because I think it is lug separate things that we're going to
discuss, so with that, if everyone has had an opinion, or taken a position in
reading the Finding of Facts and Decision as to what Roger has pulled together.
If you haven't, I'll give you a couple mi~utes just to give a quick look see.
It's pretty much all that was contained I think in what we had before us except
it's a little clearer in context.
Paul Krauss: The Findings of Fact are basically a replication of the conditions
with some clarificatiol~s. I;~ fact there are one or two points that Mr. Brill
3O
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
made in his presentation that we agreed with and we amended the conditions
accordingly. I guess in the interest of brevity, I'd just as soon not give all
the background on this and everything else to you. You've heard all this. The
only thing I wanted to stress though is, Judge Kanning gave us some very
specific guidelines as to what we could and could not consider. That the
conditions we applied on this should deal with health and safety aspects of the
proposal. That this is a grandfathered, non-conforming use which we essentially
have never disputed. We tried to be very cognizant of that and come up with the
conditions that we felt were appropriate to protecting the health and safety. I
guess to be honest, in some cases we wish we could do more but that was the
guidance we got from the Judge and that's what we quite specifically tried to
do. Which put us in the position of recommending approval with the conditions
you see before you in the Findings of Fact.
Councilman Wing: Is there a reason why we wouldn't approve this?
Mayor Chmiel: Not to my knowledge. Does anyone have any specific questions
related to your attorney? The only other thing that I see here as I had read
through, the $400.00 which we had charged and there was some discussion on that.
Is that our full fee for that?
Paul Krauss: Roger and I had a long discussion about that. And it was the City
Attorney's recommendation that we stick with that $400.00 fee. I guess Roger
can expand on this if you will but this kind of falls into a gray area.
Roger Knutson: I think the recommendation is, we don't want that to be the
issue...and not get off on peripheral issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay.
Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, before I get ready to vote on this I do have
one more question and that is on the Findings of Facts number 4, the
continuation of the gravel mining operation requires and earth work permit
pursuant to our City Code. Is that to be reviewed yearly or is this, if we
approve this tonight lt's approved forever?
Paul Krauss: There is an annual review.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just annual review and we do need to approve the permit
every year, not just have a review?
Roger Knutson: You revlew the permit compliance with conditions basically.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, so if they're not in compliance, then we have
another opportunity to do something?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Also, under these decisions, some of these I think were
clearly opposed by the Attorney at the public hearing so that approval of this
ls what we're requesting. Everything in here?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
31
City Council HeeLing -- June 22, 1992
Councilman Wing: In the packet he stated some of these weren't acceptable.
Roger Knutson: We're recommending adoption of this.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision which
is dated June 22nd...consider the application of Thomas Zuiers, Moon Valley
AggregaLe, a sole corporation, for an earth work permit and the Planning
Commission previously conducted a public hearing...published mail notice. The
City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak now
makes that. That's basically the...
Anthony Gleekel: Hr. Hayor, I guess before you vote on this, on the Findings of
Fact, Z'd like to make a few comlnents since T. am here and t.o answer some
questions. It parallels Mr. Brill's letter. First of all Hr. Brill's letter,
because there was some confusion as we reviewed it this morni,g, was based on
some Findings of Fact that Z believe Mr. Krauss gave out at the Planning
Commission meeting so they may not ~o, parallel exactly in commenting on
Findi,gs of Fact that may be in your packet and I've not seen what Hr. Knutson
prepared but it sounds tike he prepared Findings of Fact uhZch took into what we
agreed to pi. us just resetting out the Findings of Fact that came out of the
Planning Commission. One [hing, Mr'. Krauss is correct in saying that Judge
Kanning's Order did discuss limitations on only things that promote health and
s~fety. Zt also, Mr. Kan,ing, 5udge Kanning also set forth rather unequivocably
that the City cannot control or limit the amount of materials that Hr. Zuiers
and Moon Valley ~ggregate took out of the non-conforming use parcel. The south
parce]. And Mr. Brill's letter in a few occasions, and ~ hope you will read it
before you vote, does recognize in a couple areas that it possibly could limit
the amount that's taken out. One is request for an erosion control plan which I
believe, and again because Z haven't bee, involved for a while, involves a pond
that's now on the south parcel. The question is, maybe ~ believe the City has
desired some further plans on that and there's been some discussion about
recommending a larger sized pond to take into account further erosion and
Further ru,off. The pond has thus far and in the entlre operation that Mr.
Zwiers has been involved in has taken the runoff with no problem except for that
one occas£on ill a 10 inch raill but other than that, the natural runoff that's
occurred plus the excess ru,off as the mining proceeds has been taken fine by
the pond. If the pond is required by the city to be enlarged, based on a
recommendation from the City Council and the Planning staff, in a situation
number one where it's no~ ,eeded from practical considerations. Number two, the
enlargement of it may limit the amount of material he takes out of there without
really promoting a health and safety factor because it's not needed. The pond
there exists is controlling the runoff fine. That's one of the points ~ believe
that Mr. BrJll makes in his letter.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's probably the opinion of the City that that is not
true. The capacity is not as such that containment will not be there. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Hr. Hayor, we actually don't know. This is not a pond that's done
to any engineered design with runoff calculatiol~s that you normally see. This
lsa pond that Mr. Zwlers, to bls credlt, went out and dug one day. As to
whether it's working or not, it's kind of a gerry rigged arrangement. Whenever
it ralns they have to bulldoze dlrt across to make sure the water goes in there.
We don't k,ow how it outlets. We k,ow that there's been problems in the past.
32
We know that Fish and Wildlife Service has raised concerns with sediment and
material going into, I think it's Rice Lake. We also know that MnBot's had
problems ~ith culverts sedimenting up as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Right and I think that was one of the concerns I had. The other
concern that I had too, in looking at the entirety of that particular project
and we're putting a dollar fee of having cash escrow in the amount of $51,000.00
to guarantee the maintenance of that erosion control and site restoration. How
did we calculate that?
Paul Krauss: We've all raised that question? Honestly, it's a very low figure.
It's based upon a standard engineering calculation for maintenance of erosion
control. It's certainiy, it's highly unlikely that it couId restore the site.
It's impossible to compute a figure for that really. So this is the same
calculation we used when you see a subdivision before you to compute what their
letter of credit would be or I believe it's the same calculation we used on the
other grading requests we've had elsewhere in the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay...what the project is or what they have there as far as
land, I don't think we have anything or had anything quite that large.
Paul Krauss: Or that deep or that involved, no.
Mayor Chmiel: When I look at that $51,000.00, it sort of bothers me a little
bit because I don't think we could probably touch that if we put another
$100,000.00 to it.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'd probably agree with you. It was the only number we
could have a rational basis for. It's based upon a formula that we've used
frequently.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Paul Krauss: And it's also, Mr. Brill objected to it. I mean so fundamentally
they even disagree with that but that's neither here nor there.
Anthony Gleekel: I guess I just wanted to reiterate, look at Mr. Brill's letter
and that I am here to answer questions. And again, as far as the continuance
and the reviewing the north and south parcel, I dld not mean to, nor dld
I believe I stated that they should be looked at as they are different
standards. Now that lt's been determined that one lsa non-conforming use and
one is not. Although if in fact even under different standards under the city's
ordinances, as they wlll be reviewed, there ls some, because they are contiguous
parcels. Because there is the similar use on the property, there is some merit
to, we belleve to looklng at them together and not under the same standards but
together as a larger pIan under the separate standards under the City's
ordinance. Thank you.
Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Any other discussion by Council? Hearing none, I'd
call for a motion.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we've got their end use plan, correct?
33
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1997.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Paul. Krauss-' Well kind of. I mean that's what that is. Again, that has some
relationship r.o Judge Kanning's Order. I mean we originally had two plans. One
dug a hole that went down forever. The other one was almost half. Well, it was
a little blt better. Judge Kannlng since stated that that secondary plan was
the basls for the plan that should be submitted to us and that was done with
some changes that were outlined.
Mayor Chmiel: Modifications that were done too.
Councilman Workman: Well I'd move approval. Basically we're following Planning
Commission action right?
Mayor chmiel: Yeah. I think there's a little more clarification. If we were
to adop~ the Findlngs of Fact and Decision of the Findlngs of Fact as Roger
pulled together. That he gave...
Councilman Workman: So with those additions, I so move.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the Findings of
Fact and Becision dated June 22, lg~2 as prepared by the City Attorney for
the Interim Use Permit for Earth Work/Mining of the south parcel for ~oon Valley
Aggregate. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPOINTHENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 5 TASK FORCE.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're trying to move ahead as quickly as possible to
get that Highway 5 program up and running. As you're aware, we split it into
two phases. One is the Highway component and the HRA considered funding of the
environmental assessment for the roadway purposes. The other is the urban
design lype of approach. The Code and for that we had agreed at an earlier
meeting to set up a task force and there was some outlines as to who should be
or, the task force and how the make--up should be. The Planning Commission has
nominated two people. Most of the City Council, at least all the City Council
wants to be notified of those meetings. You can come as you will. The HRA has
apparently selected Jim Bohn who was...earlier. Dave Johnson has been selected
by Public Safety. Park and Rec is looking to nominate somebody in short order.
What that leaves us with is the need for business representatives and.
Mayor Chmie].: We I~ave those.
Paul Krauss: Well we have one of those, unless you're aware of a second name.
I've asked Kevin McShane to appoint, to Lry and get some other name.
Mayor Chmiel: I read it here as, accept Dorm Andrus and Kevin McShane's
nomination as representatives.
Paul Krauss: No, Kevin McShane was going to find somebody. Now maybe we can
find Kevin McShane. That would be...but wh~t I recommend is that you approve
whoever he comes up wlth in advance because we'd like to get the flrst meetlng
34
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
going July 9th. If you would. Also another suggestion. I had a meeting with
the staff of Camiros and Barton-Aschman on and as we were talking about laying
out the program for this flrst meeting, it occurred to us that possibly we ought
to designate a spot here for Peter 01in and Landscape Arboretum. He's been a
major, he's had major involvement in thls and I think a lot of tlmes brlnging
somebody into the fold, and I almost bite my tongue saying it but, bringing
somebody lnto the fold ls better than not and I thlnk Peter, I mean he could
certainly add a lot.
Hayor Chmlel: Bid he have an opportunity to send hls request ln?
Paul Krauss: Peter very rarely, I mean he's got a lot gotng on. Even when I've
sent hlm notlces on stuff, he responds 2 months later. I thlnk it's just hls
calendar. I'm sure he'd like to have some representation. Now whether lt's h£m
or somebody else.
Hayor Chmiel: ! guess I don't have any real concerns.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest that the group not get too huge.
Councilwoman Olmler: I also have, I suggested one time that we have a member of
Public Safety Commission.
Paul Krauss: We have Dave Johnson from Pub110 Safety.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh you did put that in? Okay.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm gettlng names at the last minute as they're coming in.
So basically tonight I guess we're looklng at you to select from those 6 people
for resldent at large positions. Wlth that and with Kevln HcShane's nominations
of somebody, we should be all set.
Councilwoman Dimler: When do you want to hold the flrst meetlng?
Paul Krauss: July gth.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do we have tlme to interview these people or do you just
want us to make a decision from what you've written?
Paul Krauss: We're kind of trying to fast track it. What we laid out for the
summer is realizing that we can't get large public meetings in the summer very
easily, we wanted to have a meeting July 9th which was an organizational
meeting. 8ring people up to speed. Lay the groundwork and then a meeting, I
think it's August llth or something in that timeframe where we're going to
develop, what are the issues and opportunities in the corridor. And in the
first week in September, after school's back in session.
Councilman Hason: School's in session the first week.
Paul Krauss: After the 8th. My kids go back the 8th. After that second week
in September, or during the second week in September, we would hold a public
neighborhood meeting to get everybody to tell us ~hat they think they'd want to
get out of the corridor.
35
C£ty Co,,n¢~1 Nee. tiil~a - June
Hayor Chmiel: July 9th, yo~t"re pla'nning on havil~g that meeting. It's going to
run ill conflict with Publlc S,'~fety. ~'~. you .',ware of that?
Paul Krauss: Hr. Mayor, you know we have so many nights that are confllct one
way or the other these days. We can double check it.
Hayor Chmlel: How about July lOth which would be Friday?
Paul Krauss: Well, yeah. Actually I'm golng to Scout camp with my son.
Councilman Hason: When ls the second meetlng?
Paul Krauss: I believe it was August 11th. I didn't bring my calendar down
here,
Mayor Chmiel: The only reason, T'm not going to be here that day, The 9th and
.~'d like to be here on that first meeting.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the klck off meeting ls probably golng to go over a lot
of s~uff that you're familiar wlth. I almost think the second meeting's going
to be more interesting.
Mayor chmlel: Okay, you're looking at August what?
Paul Krauss: I'll double check my calendar but 11th sounds rlght.
I'layor Chmie].: Will you get back to us and let us know?
Paul Krauss: Yeah.
(:OUllcllman Mason.' Z had that same concern about the flrst meeting Don because
T_'ve got Solid Waste Advisory that night. But if it's :~11 preliminary stuff.
Councilman W1)iU: Well 7.'m on vacation. I'm w1111ng to come home a day early
~0,
Mayor Chnliel: He'd be happy to fly back for thls.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, gee thanks a lot.
Councilman Wing: Is the roadway ownership really adequately represented? Is
there anyway we could get roadway ownership? Some property owners...
COUrlcllman Workman: There's a coalition.
Paul Krauss: Well you can rest ass~mred that they're going to be auditing
the meetings. They're golng to have Tlm Keene at the meetings and maybe John
.~hardlow. ~ don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, I'd 11ke to have an interview of these people. I really
would. ~ think in everything Lhat we've done in getting these people on board,
we've had that opportunity to do that review.
City Council Meeting - June 22, 19~2
Paul Krauss: When is our next Council meeting?
Councilwoman Oimler: Not until the 13th. So we would have to interview them.
Mayor Chmiel: We could interview them before that.
Councilman Workman: Mike made the suggestion maybe we should put all 6 on.
Paul KFauss: You know when we say we have a problem with large groups, I think
the problem is just to get the mass and the continuity. Z don't have that much
of a difficulty with a larger group.
Councilman Mason: If 6 are expressing an interest and.
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, I agree. If we don't have time to interview them,
put them all 6 on.
Councilman Wing: If you look at, you attend the Water Utitity, that large round
table. It's not cumbersome. It's helpful. Everybody puts a little input in. I
think we should have a bigger group frankly.
Paul Krauss: Well, with the storm water committee, if we're down a couple
members on a given night, there's really enough to keep it going.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we get a motion to.
Councilman Workman: The recommendation as Kevin McShane being nominated, I
don't know that.
Councilman Mason: No. No, it doesn't. Kevin McShane's nomination. Check your
apostrophe there Councilman Workman:
Councilman Workman: You could read that more than one way.
Councilman Mason: No you can't with that apostrophe.
Councilman Workman: Yeah you could.
Councilman Mason: It's the possessive. So it's his nomination.
Councilman Workman: The nomination of him.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to hear from Roger on this issue.
Roger Knutson: All I can say is I can spell potato.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the establishment of and the
appointments to the Highway 5 Task Force as listed with Kevin McShane listed or
his alternate if required.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Mason: ~ members or not?
37
City Council Meeting -. June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he clarified.
Cou.cilman Wing:
plus.
lay members plus Council. Wait a minute. & appointments
Mayor Chmiel: Plus the additiol)als from the commissions as well.
Coul)cilman Wing: And Council.
Councilman Wing moved, councilman Workman seconded to appoint the Highway 5
Corridor Study Task Force to be consisted of the appointed members from the
City's Commissions and City Council plus the following residents at large:
James Oomholt
Brian Wellman
I_inda Carlson
Craig Swaggert
Ann Cathcart
Nancy Mancino
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: The next item, Resolution requesting the classification of
certain roads ,'is minor arterials and ,ominating certain roads to A minor
arterial systems.
Paul Krauss: I apologize for this coming to you very late but the Metro Council
distributed some maps to tl)e County Engineer and to the City about 3 weeks ago.
The Metro Council maintains a map showing, and these are two different thlngs.
Arterials and A mlnor arterials and what they're doing is they're focusing their
funding dollars back through to these designated roadways and the Metro Council
plays a major role or will be playlng a major role with Ice Tea Funding. Now
very few roads out here are designated as anythlng on the Metro Council system.
They designate Highway ? and future 212 as A minor. They don't designate
Hlghuay 5 as anything, which ls klnd of goofy.
Mayor Chmiel: Designated as a 4 lane.
Paul Krauss: So again, the importance of this thing is to get them recognized
as part of the system and these recommendations go to the transportation
advlsory board of Metro Councll who makes the ultlmate recommendation to them.
What we'd like to do is get the system to reasonably represent what we're doing
here so we worked up thls recommendation with the County Engineer. I could go
through each of the roads and tell you which ones they are but I could tell you.
Hayor Chmlel: I don't think it's necessary.
Paul Krauss: There's no controversial sections that I'm aware of that are being
designated.
Councilwoman Dimler: The County agreed rlght?
38
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Paul Krauss: There are a couple though that I think that were omitted from
Roger Gustafson's recommendation. I'd like your resolut£on to consider adding
those. The flrst one ls, on Galpln Boulevard. They designated 6alpin as a
minor arterial. That's the lower designation, from Lyman to TH 5 but they
didn't designate it north of TH 5. Now I'm not sure if that's because it gets a
little weird when it gets up into Shorewood/Excelsior but it really shouid have
continuity I would thlnk golng up to the north and I'd like to ~ee that on the
system.
Councilwoman Dimler: It seems to be Carver County untll Shorewood.
Paul Krauss: The second one that I think is real £mportant for us to get on
this mlnor arterlal system ls the north frontage road paralleling TM 5 that
we're looking to have, hopefully funded under the Ice Tea Program. This is a
road that's going to intercept a major number of trips keeplng them off of TH 5
and I think it's certainly as important to us as many of the other roads that
are designated and I'd like to see that included. As far as the A minor
arterials go, which is the more major designation, I fully agree with what
Roger's saying. Roger's saying, Gustafson. Roger's saying that in addition to
TH 7 and 212, that A minor arterials, the bigger designation should include TH
5, Old Highway 212 when new 212 ls bullt, TH 41 and TH 101. So I'm fu11¥ in
agreement with that. So the only two changes I'd recommend is that we add the
north parallel collector and that we add Galpin north to the Clty 11ne.
Councilwoman Oimler: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you sure we're covering all our bases to what we basically
need to have down?
Paul Krauss: I'm pretty certain.
Resolution ~92-7&: Councilwoman Dimler moved, CounciIman Hason seconded to
approve the Resolution requesting the cIassiftcation of roads as Arterials and A
Hinor Arterials as outIined by the Carver County Engineer wfth the foIlowing
additions: adding the north collector running paraIlel to TH 5 and Galpin
BouIevard north of TH 5 to the City Iine. AII voted tn favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meetlng.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39