6. Jessup Variance 89-1, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard1
CITY OF 6
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE * P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by City / Administrator
iP
Endorse ]DW A-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
DATE: March 4, 1994
SUBJ: Update on Variance 89 -1, 9247
On February 28, 1994, the City Council rei
(Attachment #1). The background is rather 1
dated February 24, 1994. The site has been
a foundation. The erosion resulting fror
property's concrete slab to cave in. Tx
reestablished. In its present condition,,,,
;A,
ModifW
Datt _. =[
r
Date Submitted to Commission
Date Submitted to Council
Riley Boulevard - James Jessup
awed Variance #89 -1, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
i &llfhy an is documented in the attached staff report
isturbedwith a seven foot deep hole excavated for
the exc ration is causing the east neighboring
erosion "control used on the site needs to be
erosion control will not prevent the parcel from
washing into Lake Riley during the rainy season.
' On March 7, 1994, staff noticed filling activities at the site. At this time, the excavated hole is
80% filled. Staff contacted Mr., Jessup and asked what his intentions were. He stated that he
would fill the excavated hole. He also intends to seed the parcel when weather permits. Mr.
' Jessup also stated that, the time table the city had given him cannot be physically met.
The City Council has granted :four variance extensions - to the applicant. The last extension was
' approved on Janua , 25, 1993, for a 6 month and final extension. Grading ,has taken place,
however, actual construction never occurred. Staff informed the applicant that the variance has
expired because substantial construction has not taken place on the site within the time frame
established by the variance. At the February 28, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Attorney
was directed to draft an agreement to insure that construction proceed on the site. The intent of
the agreement was for the applicant to provide ;an escrow in the amount of $10,000 for the City
to restore the site, should the applicant fail to meet the conditions of the agreement. The
agreement also required the applicant to complete the foundation for the house, backfill the
foundation, cap the basement, and complete at least 10% of the framing on or before May 15,
1994. Mr. Jessup has resumed the restoration of the site. Consequently, an agreement is not
needed.
IF7
f
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 2
At the City Council February 28, 1994 meeting, the applicant handed out an outline of events
that took place since January 25, 1993, implying that substantial construction has taken place.
The outline is as follows:
1/25/93 City of Chanhassen issues extension of variance.
Finding: The City Council approved a 6 month and final extension to a variance request
for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, subject to the plan dated March 6, 1989, and the
following Conditions:
L
l
1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit. I
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any
enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The
building plot plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake
Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property
surveyed by a registered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as
a patio with no enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit
to assure compliance with the intent of plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the city for review by any
interested neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, the fees will be waived.
r
r
' Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 3
6/10/93 JFJ requests building permit.
'
Finding:
On June 15, 1993, the applicant applied for a building permit. Attached is a copy
of the permit application stamped (RECEIVED JUN 15 1993 CHANHASSEN
PUBLIC SAFETY).
7/26/93
City of Chanhassen issues letter stating delay in issuing permit is City of
Chanhassen's responsibility.
'
Finding:
Staff agrees with this statement. Attached is a letter from the Building Official
dated July 26, 1993.
'
8/5/93
City of Chanhassen makes building ermit available for pickup. JFJ picks
g P P P
up permit.
Finding:
On Jul 22, 1993, the applicant was notified that the building permit w Y PP g p as reviewed
'
and ready to be picked up. The applicant waited until August 5, 1993 to pick up
the
permit.
'
8/12/93
JFJ completes first construction activity erecting soil erosion fence required
by City of Chanhassen.
Finding:
Erosion control is a measure taken to prevent runoff and was required to be in
'
place and maintained from September 11, 1989, until such time that permanent
vegetation has been established. It does not constitute construction.
8/22/93 Ground breaking ceremony attended by neighbors and other guests.
Finding: Staff has no knowledge of this activity taking place.
9/15/93 Additional excavation of site by contractor unsure of exact # of truckloads.
Finding: Staff has no knowledge of this activity taking place.
10/15/93 JFJ continues excavation of site.
Finding: Staff has no knowledge of this activity taking place.
11/4/93 JFJ letter to City of Chanhassen providing information about status of
reimbursement request.
t
Don Ashworth '
February 24, 1994
Page 4
Finding: Mr. Jessup's financial status has no bearing on the variance. The attached state '
law states that financial difficulty does not constitute a hardship.
12/11/93 Buck starts excavating site for footings cched llR a on 12 /15.
Finding: Staff has no knowledge when excavation started. 1
12/13/93 Buck excavating site, City of Chanhassen appears on site issues stop work
order preventing further work from being completed. '
Finding: On November 12, 1993, the applicant contacted the Inspection Division to request
a building permit extension. Planning staff reviewed the applicant's variance file ,
and realized that the variance had expired because substantial construction had not
taken place on the site as required by ordinance.
On December 7, 1993, Planning staff sent a memo to the Building Official
informing him that the variance had expired and consequently, the building permit '
must be revoked.
1/5/94 JFJ letter to City of Chanhassen questioning status of site, stop work order
still posted.
Finding: Staff agrees. ,
1/7/94 City of Chanhassen removes stop work order from site.
Finding: Staff agrees. '
1/24/94 Buck is excavating site for footings on 1/26/94. Dayco Concrete schedules '
footing inspection with City of Chanhassen for 1/26/94.
Finding: An inspection was not scheduled. '
1/25/94 Buck has front half of site excavated 7 feet to bottom of footings. Soil type
changes and is too wet to continue excavating. Braun Intertec is on site to do '
soil inspection in preparation for scheduled footings on 1/26. Is able to
inspect a potion of the excavation. Soil is acceptable. Confirms the soil type
has changed and is too wet to excavate. Buck excavates in excess of 20 truck
loads of material.
Finding: Staff has no knowledge of the activity. t
' Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 5
' 1/26/94 JFJ notifies City of Chanhassen Steve Kirchman that soil conditions require
dewatering.
' Finding: Staff agrees.
'
1/28/94:
JFJ investigates dewatering alternatives and purchases dewatering equipment.
Finding:
Staff has no knowledge of the activity.
1/29/94:
JFJ installs dewatering equipment. Temperature is too cold and pump
freezes.
'
Finding:
Staff has no knowledge of the activity.
'
1/30/94
JFJ tries again to get dewatering equipment to work, again too cold.
'
Finding:
Staff has no knowledge of the activity.
2/19/94
JFJ again on site with dewatering g ate g equipment able to work.
Finding:
Staff has no knowledge of the activity.
2/20/94
JFJ on site again with dewatering equipment working.
Finding:
Staff has no knowledge of the activity.
'
2/22/94
City of Chanhassen informs JFJ verbally that no building is to take occur,
will not put that in writing though. The situation is to be reviewed by City
'
of Chanhassen's Council. JFJ is totally stunned by call.
Finding:
Stop work orders are always written in duplicate in addition to an inspection
'
report with quadruple copies. The only staff members that have had telephone
contact with the applicant are Steve Kirchman, Paul Krauss, and Sharmin Al -Jaff.
Non of which have told Mr. Jessup "No building shall take place on your site.
We shall not put this in writing ".
Over a year has passed since Mr. Jessup's variance was approved, yet construction has not
started. Therefore, the variance is no longer valid. Mr. Jessup has the option of reapplying
through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. While he would likely be eligible for some type
of variance on this lot, it may not be the same as what was originally approved.
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council concurs with staff that the variance has expired.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report dated February 24, 1994.
2. City Council minutes dated February 28, 1994.
3. Report from Jim Jessup dated February 28, 1994.
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF 7,
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE * P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO:
' FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
'
Background:
I�
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
February 24, 1994
Ylc ion bjr Ci17+ T6 Mffl Anft
lEndo ✓ / bW (�
Mod ifie d______,__,_
Rejecte
Date Submitted to Commissiori
., -
We S' -r
.tted to Council
Direction from City Council for Variance 89 -1, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard -
James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved Variance Request #89 -1
for a front, rear and both side yard setbacks <for the construction of a new single family residence.
Shortly after the approval, the owner Was informed that his property was contaminated with
petroleum products that had migrated from the nei hbori property. The City Building Official
P P g g g P P tY• tY g
and Fire Marshal issued a stop work` order on October 13, 1989. The contamination was
apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The tank was
located on an adjacent parcel The tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant
was unable to build his home until the parcel was given a clean bill of health by the MPCA. He
requested and received,: several extensions to the one year : time period for which variance
approvals are
On February 10, 1992 the City Council approved a fourth request for a variance extension for
the construction of the ntrw' ,& le family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. The City
Council approved an extension for ° one? year, until February 10 199'3, with a review of the
' situation in six months on July 31, 1992. The City Council indicated a desire to see this situation
resolved and it was indicated that it was unlikely that further extensions would be granted. On
July 8, 1992, staff received a letter from the Miiuiesota Pollution Control Agency concluding that
' the investigation and clean -up performed on the subject property has addressed the petroleum
contamination. The letter also stated that Mr. Jessup could begin construction at that time.
Based on the MPCA's letter stating that the applicant could proceed with construction, the
request by the City Council for a 6 month review was resolved and staff did not bring the issue
back in July.
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 2
Staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him that he should apply for a building permit and
start construction prior to February 10, 1993. Staff also indicated that failure to do so would
result in the expiration of the variance. On January 25, 1993, Mr. Jessup proposed a fifth one ,
year extension be granted stating that he is continuing to proceed towards construction. The City
Council gave Mr. Jessup a six month extension, until July 25, 1993 with the following
conditions: '
1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit. '
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed
structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot
plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine
actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property surveyed by a registered
surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to assure
compliance with the intent of plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by any interested
neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, the fees will be waived.
Staff received three letters from the applicant dated March 19, 1993, March 21, 1993, and May
20, 1993, outlining progress the applicant was making toward building his house. On June 15,
1993, the applicant applied for a building permit. On July 22, 1993, the applicant was noted
that the building permit was reviewed and ready to be picked up (The review process took longer
than usual due to staff shortage in the Inspection Division). The applicant waited until August
5, 1993 to pick up the permit.
1
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 3
On November 12, 1993, the applicant contacted the Inspection Division to request a building
permit extension. Planning staff reviewed the applicant's variance file and realized that the
' variance had expired because substantial construction had not taken place on the site as required
by ordinance.
' On December 7, 1993, Planning staff sent a memo to the Building Official informing him that
the variance has expired and consequently, the building permit must be revoked.
On December 22, 1993, the revocation of the building pen was canceled pursuant to the
Planning Director's letter dated December 22, 1993. This extension was given for one month,
until January 31, 1994. The extension was contingent upon continuous and substantial
' construction taking place until the residence is complete. This action was taken in good faith and
to give the applicant one more chance to build his residence.
On January 24, 1994, the Building Official received a phone call from the applicant notifying
him that excavation requires dewatering of the property and work could not proceed due to cold
temperatures. Other than some minor excavation, no construction activity has been observed at
' the site. Staff contacted Mr. Jessup by phone to inform him that the variance application will
be brought before the City Council for direction. We informed him that because work has
stopped on his property, it was inconsistent with the City Council action and the Planning
' Director's letter. Therefore, we would be bringing the matter back to the City Council for
resolution.
1
1
11
The City Council has several options. You can approve a further extension. You can confirm
that the variance is no longer valid. If it is not valid, the applicant would have the option of
reapplying through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. While he would likely be eligible
for some type of variance on this lot, it may not be the same as what was originally approved.
Staff is aware that several neighbors would like to have the opportunity to testify on the matter.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is extremely frustrated with this situation. This is the sixth time this application appears
before the City Council. The applicant has been granted more than the benefit of the doubt. He
was made aware that by January 31, 1994, continuous and substantial construction has to take
place, and this would have to continue until the residence is complete. He was also informed
that failure to meet that condition would result in the expiration of the variance and revocation
of the building permit.
The applicant had reasonable time to comply and begin construction. The applicant could have
prevented the variance application from expiring by starting construction 18 months ago.
Allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We also note that this matter has
created significant neighborhood controversy and conflict. Several residents who opposed the
Don Ashworth '
February 24, 1994
Page 4
original request continue to oppose the repeated extensions. During the past few years, there
have been several instances where Mr. Jessup's use of the property and grading activity that has
occurred have caused problems that staff had to resolve. It is not realistic for us to continually ,
arbitrate neighborhood disputes and we are frankly getting exasperated by the never - ending
problems.
If the City Council concurs with staff that the variance has expired, Mr. Jessup would have the ,
right to request a new variance and it may be approved. At the same time, being able to take
a fresh look at the request may be appropriate. ,
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
Photos of roe dated February 17, 1994.
P P rtY rY
2.
3.
Memo from Sharmin Al -Jaff, dated December 7, 1993.
Letter from Steve Kirchman, dated December 13, 1993.
,
4.
Letter from Steve Kirchman, dated January 7, 1994.
5.
Letter from Paul Krauss, dated December 22, 1993.
6.
Letter from Steve Kirchman , dated July 26, 1993.
,
7.
Letter from Jim Jessup, dated March 19, 1993.
8.
Letter from Jim Jessup, dated March 21, 1993.
9.
Letter from Jim Jessup, dated May 20, 1993.
'
10.
Letter from Don Sitter Dated February 20, 1994.
11. Staff report dated January 20, 1993. '
1
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's why I asked someone to check on that.
' Acting Mayor Mason: I guess what I think we're trying to do here is, at this point in time say we don't like
5,000 square feet and it needs to go back to the Planning Commission to see what they can work out.
Councilman Wing: And when we deny this conceptual plan, we're saying either come in with a standard
subdivision or propose a PUD that's acceptable with our present ordinance. Is that what I heard you say?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Pretty simple.
' Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Is there any other further
discussion?
' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to deny a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density and to deny
the Conceptual Planned Unit Development with 5,000 square foot lot sizes and to go back to the Planning
Commission and bring back a concept under the current ordinance regulations. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
' CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING EXPIRED VARIANCE NO 89 -1 FOR JAMES iESSUP,
9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Maryellen Jessup 7021 Galpin Blvd.
Joy A. Smith 9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
James Jessup 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
' John B. Waldron 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd.
Don & Kitty Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
' Sharmin Al -Jaffa This action has appeared before City Council and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for at
least 6 times. The fast time was in 1989. They applied for a variance. Board of Adjustments and Appeals
approved the variance. 7 months later they started, or 6 months later they started construction and discovered
' that the parcel was contaminated. Over the past 4 years clean-up has taken place of the soils. On July 8, 1992,
to repeat the lawyer from the EPA saying that the parcel is clean and they can build now. This was 18 months
ago. On June 15, 1993 the applicant applied for a building permit. July 22nd he was notified that the permit
was ready to be picked up. August 5th, which is 2 weeks later when he finally picked it up. November 12th the
applicant contacted Steve Kirchman ... departme-1 and started discussing options of extending his building permit.
He's approached the Planning Department ano ... and technically the variance had expired at that point
because substantial construction had not taken }>....:e on the site. On December 7th we sent a memo to the
building official saying revoke the permit. The variance has expired. On December 22nd the building permit wa
reinstated by the Planning Director. This was done in good faith. The extension was given for one month. It
was to give the applicant another chance. The extension was contingent upon continuous and substantial
' construction taking place on the site until the house was built and completed. If that should stop for any reason
1 41
1
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 '
after that was in fact on August 5th of '93, that was the very = ..tst day in which the city indicated to the Jessup's I
42 1
I
'
we said that the permit would then expire and we would bring this item before the City Council for direction.
On January 24th the building official received a phone call from the applicant notifying him that excavation
requires dewatering of the property and work could not proceed because of cold temperatures. Steve Kirchman
is here today to answer any questions regarding dewatering of the site or construction procedures. Basically the
'
City Council has two options. You could either approve another extension or you could confirm that the
variance has expired and have the applicant go through the process again with a fresh look on this application.
Thank you.
Acting Mayor Mason: Your welcome. Before anyone speaks on this, I think we need to cut to the chase. This
has been going on for a long time. It quite honestly reminds me of down by.
'
Councilman Senn: The construction yard?
Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah. The construction yard and I'm sure Mr. Jessup, you have a few things you'd like
'
to say. I would like to remind anyone that's speaking tonight that we do have the Minutes from the Planning
Commission on this issue and I think we're all pretty familiar with it so if there's any new material, why don't
we have that and then we'll move on from there, okay?
,
John Waldron: Good evening members of the Council and staff. My name is John Waldron. I'm a lawyer with
the law F= of Curry ... and Riley. I'm here representing the Jessups tonight and I will try to heed your...
,
Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Appreciate it.
John Waldron: As much as possible. I do want to just cover some of the relevant time points that the staff
'
outlined and initially just remind the Council that the Jessup's goal is still to build their house on the property.
Get it built as quickly as possible and to get out of their rental situation that they've been in for the last several
years. And the staff acknowledged most of that is due to the site contamination that they've had no control over
,
so they're very interested to be able to get the construction completed on the site and start to be able to enjoy the
lake there. So with that in mind this, I don't think it's productive to really go beyond too far back in history. As
you mentioned, I think everybody's familiar with what happened back in '92 and prior but looking at what
happened beginning in January of '93 when the variance was issued. And you've got a package each of you in
front of you that has some of the relevant documents that this will be referring to. But on January 25, 1993, by
a letter of that date and that's pages 8 and 9 in the package. The City Council issued an extension of the
variance we're talking about tonight. And if you'll look at the conditions that were set out in that letter, really
,
all of those have been met by the Jessup's and really a lot of them have to do with various setback items and so
on but probably the most relevant one is just a requirement that Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports
to the city. Well that was done. And as the city ordinance provides in variances, the variance is going to be
void within one year unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance on. So in this case the
variance was ... extended to July 25th and what happened at that point. On June 10 of '93 the Jessup's requested
their building permit well within the time frame of when that variance has been granted Now there was some
delay in the issuance of the building permit and as part of ,c package I've given you on page 10, you'll see a
letter from Mr. Kirchman of the city indicating, acknowledg., ; the-fact that the Jessup's had applied for their
building permit well in advance of the expiration of the varia..e and that the belay in issuing the permit was not
their fault. In fact that the city would not rigidly enforce the expiration date of the variance as long as the
'
current issuance process continued to proceed in a timely fasoion. Well what happened after that then, and that
letter was important because we're getting close to the time -� ` the expiration of the variance. What happened
after that was in fact on August 5th of '93, that was the very = ..tst day in which the city indicated to the Jessup's I
42 1
I
[
�I
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
well your building permit's ready now. Come and pick it up. The same day Mr. Jessup went and picked up the
building permit. So at that point there really wasn't any issue about expiration of variances at all and the
building permit had been issued and at that point, in our mind we're now looking at Section 29 -1 of the
ordinance dealing with building permits. And that part of the ordinance of course says that if the work described
in the building permit has not begun within 90 days following issuance of the building permit, then the building
permit's going to become void. So what happened after that point, in fact that same month excavation did start.
Work described in the building permit was commenced well within the 90 days. Excavation started. It
continued through August, September, October, and so on. In November Mr. Jessup, upon request provided the
city with some additional information on what was going on with the metro fund reimbursement and then
excavation was continuing into December and at that point, while the excavator was on site, for some reason
there was a stop work order issued. I'm not sure why because the construction activity was progressing at that
point and then there were some discussions. The stop work order was removed. Unfortunately, during the time
the stop work order was in effect, there was some fairly decent excavation weather that would have permitted a
lot of excavation to have taken place but in any event. The stop work order wasn't removed until January 7th
and then as you'll see, there's a temperature chart on page 3. It shows that at that point, once they could engage
in excavation activities again, not their fault but the weather was very cold. They encountered again, not their
fault, water problems on the site. And the weather prevented them from dewatering the site. Now Mr.
Kirchman may indicate that it's always possible to dewater even if it's... below and usually that, I think they'll
acknowledge that that kind of expense usually isn't gone to in residential construction. You can put a tent over
the site and you can fire up burners and so on and get the soil warmed up but that would have been very
expensive and usually isn't required in residential situations. So what happened in January then was that they
did as much excavation as they could but now at this point, at this point they're going to have to wait for
warmer weather before the dewatering can take place. But I don't see any activity or lack of activity on the part
of the Jessup's that indicates that their building permit is not still valid. They still have, they did in fact begin
work within 90 days after the permit was issued and the one year, during which they'll have to substantially
complete their construction, has not yet expired and so at this point of course, and during the month of January
Mr. Jessup, with his excavator, tried a number of times to try to dewater the site and it was just too cold. It just
didn't work and so at this point what they're going to have to do of course is to wait for warmer weather. The
road restrictions are going to be in place very soon. As a practical matter what they're probably going to have
to do is wait until the road restrictions come off and then they can proceed in earnest to dewater the site. It's
probably going to take about a week to do that. Complete the excavation of the site. It's going to take just
probably a couple days because as you'll see in the photograph that I passed out too, there's been substantial
excavation on the site. Not minor excavation but substantial excavation. In fact most of the excavation's taken
place. So not much of that needs to be done. Then the footings and block work can be put in place. The site
back filled and we feel all of that can probably be accomplished by July 1st. And so at this point what we feel
should be done is that the Council should find that in fact the variance has not expired by any means because the
building permit was obtained. The construction was started in a timely fashion. In fact the building permit is
still valid too because the construction was started within 90 days and the year hasn't run before substantial
completion has to take place and the city should monitor the matter and see that the substantial completion takes
place by the year. At this point it's really premature to find that any variance has expired or that any building
permit is now void. There just isn't really any basis for that. And at this point, at this point the Jessup's have
gone through a lot in trying to develop this property. They're very close "nw -r-to 'xing able to complete it and I
think it's only fair, I think the Council would agree, that at this point they -e ,ald be allowed to be able to
complete it. There's very little left that needs to take place before all of that can be completed. And so we ask
that the Council find that the building permit and the variances are still in force and that work again should
proceed on the property as soon as the weather permits this spring. Thank you.
43
I
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 1
Acting Mayor Mason: I'm going to ask the Council a question before we move on here. Do we want to discuss '
this at all and come up with a possible motion before ... that are here that would like to speak against it. I'm
wondering what Council would like to do. Do you want to listen to them or do we want to make a motion now? '
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to hear...
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would too. '
Acting Mayor Mason: That's fine. Okay, that's fine. Just try to keep your comments brief folks. Come on up.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess what I'm saying Mike is I'd really like to hear our attorney respond to what '
their attorney has said.
Acting Mayor Mason: Oh okay. Okay.
Roger Knutson: The issue is very simple. Did they, you granted an extension back in July and they had to
make substantial progress before that extension ran out and did they make substantial progress. Did they
continue to build their building? I guess you have to be the judge of the facts and my impression is they did
not. They moved a little dirt around. I think staff is unanimously thinking that their extension has expired. But
that's ultimately your judgment. Just to comment on the building permit. The building permit was issued with
the assumption that the variance was valid. And once the variance is not in effect, then they can't proceed
building under that building permit because they'd be in violation of the zoning ordinance at that point, because
they don't have a variance.
Councilman Senn: What if construction has begun? I'm not saying substantial or anything, I'm just saying let's
say it's begun. What does that do?
Roger Knutson: If they didn't comply with the terms of the variance, then they're building in violation of the ,
zoning ordinance and you can stop them.
Councilman Senn: Okay but what I'm trying to come around to is if you take the premise of some action at this '
point to revoke the variance, I mean you have a big hole in the ground out there. Basically a construction site
that's been started and you know, that doesn't seem to be a real positive situation for the neighborhood or
anyone else to simply leave a big hole in the ground and what are our enforcement powers or whatever at that
point towards remedying that situation or have we just thrown the whole thing into limbo?
Roger Knutson: It wouldn't be a matter of revoking the variance. It'd be a matter of finding whether the '
variance, the extension has lapsed so they no longer have one.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, same end. '
Roger Knutson: Yeah, same result. They don't have one. They can also apply again. i n if you wanted to
say use a practical construction and then just say, well. Let's give them a few more mont' - ^nd it's certainly
within your power to do that. '
Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know. I went out there today and looked around quite a l.' and I tell you, I
mean that's a nice neighborbhood. But I tell you, it kind of looks like a, I don't know, I'd ay a semi dump or
44
1
1
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
whatever in the midst of the neighborhood. I was one of the fast people to champion Mr. Jessup's cause last
January because I've gone through clean-up and I know the headaches that that involves and stuff but at the
same time, I mean that's been resolved. There's been more than adequate time in my mind to get a heck of a
lot further than things are and I just don't think that that's been very fair to the neighborhood or anybody else
involved. I think again, my only concern in saying let it lapse is where does that leave the current state or the
current conditions out there because that's again first and foremost to me kind of the consideration there. I think
you've got some real, from what I saw today, it looks like you've got some zeal drainage problems there and
you've got one neighbor's slab just about ready to fall into the hole. It's a mess.
Acting Mayor Mason: What can we do to correct that problem? What authority does this city have to correct
that problem?
Roger Knutson: If he has an open excavation and it's a danger, we have lots of authority to correct that
problem.. Not overnight. You have to go through a legal process and require it to be closed.
Acting Mayor Mason: So okay. So there are steps we can take.
Councilman Senn: What is our process? Can we just go in and do it and assess it back against the property?
Roger Knutson: No. You need a court order.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So it could be lengthy process.
Roger Knutson: Could be, yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But is it going to get done quicker whether we extend it and let him build or go
through the process...?
Acting Mayor Mason: With that in mind, I guess I would like to hear from some of the neighbors.
Understanding the fact that you folks are kind of dealing with a two edged sword here. I think some of you may
be guessing that I think a year has been more than enough time and I quite honestly have not seen enough
movement to get this project completed and my preference right now is to say yeah. It's expired and you've got
to reapply. But then you folks are also going to be faced with the issue of a hole sitting there for however long
it takes. So why don't, what do you folks think about all of this. I mean it's your neighborhood. Do you see
what I'm saying Don?
Don Sitter. Yeah.
Acting Mayor Mason: Why don't you come on up if you don't mind. Well it is a no win situation so I'm
trying to figure out how at least maybe somebody can win something out of this.
Don Sitter. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. The property just to the west of the
Jessup's and we do have a problem here. If we pull the variance or say he can't build, then we live next to an
open hole and a construction site. But we've lived next to that for 4 years now so I don't see a whole lot of
difference. We have drainage problems which I think you're all aware of. I think if the city has the ability or
the means to get a temporary fix on that drainage problem and get him to somehow mitigate the hole. Fill it in.
Grade it over. I don't know what. I don't know what's within the city's authority to do that. Then we ca-.. at
45
t
t
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 1
least get the property flat, safe and remove the environmental concerns for the lake and the neighbors don't have t
to put up with the damage from the drainage that's coming onto our property. If there's some way to do that
and then let them start over. Come in with an application. Go for the variances that he wants to go for and we '
can all take a fresh look at it. If we say that we're going to give him one more extension, I counted 6 so far
that we've given him. 3 before the pollution was corrected and 3 afterwards and some of them in good faith. I
think you guys have bent over backwards to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and until January 25th, we
didn't see any more than little Bobcats scratching around on the dirt. There was no excavation that took place
from, I don't remember what they claimed. July up to November. How long does it take to dig a hole? So if
January 25th he comes and takes a major portion of dirt out and then complains about the weather. Well, the
weather was fine last July and August, September, October. So we have no guarantee. We have seen no '
commitment from him. We have no guarantees he's going to build. I can't imagine you can extend it one more
time. But if we say that the variance has lapsed, we have to do something to mitigate the situation and I guess I
would have to turn to the city engineer and say, what's your recommendation and look to City Council to say,
here's a time table by which we can get that accomplished. And I don't know what the options are. You have '
to help me to figure out what is a good option. I think that covers most of it. Are there any other questions?
Councilman Wing: Steve, if you could come up. What's the status of that cement slab to the east? I was kind ,
of surprised to see that thing undermined and collapsing. Does that belong to a neighbor? Who's property is
that on and is this property in fact affecting it that dramatically?
Steve Kirchman: Ah yes. That is on the Remus' property and the excavation has caused it to be undermined
and should be repaired as quickly as possible. However as Roger said, we have to go through due process to get
him to do it and so long as he had an active building permit there's nothing we can do. Once he no longer has
one, if that's what you all decide tonight, then we can start that process.
Councilman Wing: Thank you.
Acting Mayor Mason: Anyone on Council have anything to say? ,
Councilman Senn: I have an idea.
Acting Mayor Mason: Let's hear it.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me that if we take the route of purely letting the variance lapse, I mean it sounds
like we're looking at some months in effect to be able to really do anything to remedy the situation out there. I
don't know whether we have the ability to do this or not but I'll suggest it anyway but what if we would
basically set up something like a $50, 000.00 irrevocable bond or something like that and lay out 120 days '
schedule to complete the house. Or you know, if that's unreasonable Steve tell me but it seems to me it's not to
do it in 120 days or at least reach substantial completion in 120 days. And let the variance ride. I mean now
whether we have the ability to do that or not I don't know but it seems to me that accomplishes what both
parties want to accomplish. And also puts Mr. Jessup at risk so if it doesn't, gee it seems like we've got a ready
made pot of money to go and solve the problem.
Roger Knutson: My only concern with that is, not being in the construction business, and I wouldn't want to
finish Mr. Jessup's home. It would take money to fill in the excavation or correct the drainage problem and
things like that but actually to let a contractor finish a home, it sounds good but I don't think you really want to
be in that position of going and buying the fixtures for his bathroom.
46
n
[1
i
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: Well I don't think he wants his house to cost $50,000.00 more than it's supposed to either so
it seems to me the impetus there is to complete the house. Get your bond back. I mean otherwise you just run
up the house, the cost of your house substantially. Now granted, if he defaults and there's problems, you know
yeah. We could end up finishing the house and is $50,000.00 enough? I don't know but I guess there's a lot
of uncertainties in the legal action going forward too and what's going to happen. That could stretch out to be 2
years.
Acting Mayor Mason: That's true and that's true and I think maybe we need to discuss Councilman Senn's idea
perhaps a little further. The other side of that coin is, if we say that the variance has in fact expired tonight,
some wheels will definitely be set in motion. I'm throwing that out. I'm not, right? And if we do that, I think
we could also direct staff or our attorney to see what we can do to speed up the process. And maybe we can't
speed up the process but at least we now have a process in place which we don't have now. And I really, I
guess I share the neighbor's concern on this one. I worry about, I mean this thing has just, as you have said
Mark, this thing is just dragging on and on and on and it would seem to me that if we do in fact say that it's
expired and the Jessup's are in fact sincere of getting things done, they'll reapply and we'll be able to work
something out.
Councilman Senn: It just seems to me that one's a negative basis and one's a positive basis. The positive basis
is to complete the house. The negative basis is to turn around and get into a further who knows what over who
has what legal rights. Who's done what right? Who's done what wrong?
Acting Mayor Mason: Well that is true. That's we. The other side of that coin is ... a postive step for the
neighborhood too.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to hear, I mean just for whatever it's worth, I'd love to hear the neighbor's
comments as to which they'd rather see. I mean would you rather see a process, an uncertain process of
litigation which is going to leave the hole and everything else unfinished out there? Or would you rather see an
idea like.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I'd like to know for how long Roger. What's your guesstimate as to how
long it would take to get this hole filled?
Councilman Senn: Minimum and maximum. Go ahead.
Councilman Wing: Even ahead of that a little bit. Roger, if we were to extend this 6 months, is there any type
of a penalty performance bond we could put onto it? A performance penalty on this.
Roger Knutson: What Don and I were just discussing is, if you were to get a $10,000.00... that says, pick a
number. And Steve can tell us how much these things cost. I would prefer myself to demolish rather than to
finish construction of a home. I mean you could say for example, you either have this thing completed and get a
CO by, pick your date. Otherwise be aware that we're going to go in and we're going to fill in your hole and
put it back the way it was.
Councilman Senn: $10,000.00 won't cover that but 50 would.
Roger Knutson: I don't know what your numbers are. It's cheaper to tear things down than to build them up.
47
t
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 ,
Councilman Senn: But you're saying it's cheaper to tear it down than get the bond if you default, you know pay
the bond off or what?
Roger Knutson: No. I mean it's just easier for us. Physically to fill in the hole. Let's say he doesn't do
anything between now and May 1st. It's very easy for $10,000.00 to go and fill in that hole. His variance's
lapsed. His hole's filled in. '
Councilman Senn: Do we have that right?
Roger Knutson: We take up an agreement.
Councilman Senn: Okay, that they'd be required to sign? My only concern is would $10,000.00 cover it?
Roger Knutson: That I'm...
Councilman Wing: It's certainly a penalty that says, I think I'll get serious. '
Councilman Senn: Well $10,000.00 irrevocable letter of credit costs 1 %. I mean that's $1,000.00. That's not
real serious in my mind.
Councilman Wing: But if he fails to comply by the date.
Roger Knutson: It doesn't necessarily cost 1 %. It all depends on who you are and what your financial position
is. Some people you couldn't get one ... 100 %.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But then again you're waiting until May 1st where potentially you've still got a
hole in the ground.
Roger Knutson: I would guess it's going to be at least May 1st.
Councilman Senn: Yeah I'd really like to still hear the neighbors.
Don Sitter: I think the frustrating thing is here, we all want to push a button and make this thing happen.
Unfortunately all the buttons that you have and all the neighbors have are stop buttons. The only one that has a
go button is Mr. Jessup and for some reason he refuses to push that button. So we have no means to get him to
go and I guess, I can't speak for the neighborhood but I can speak for our family. I'd just as soon take my '
chances and see this thing stopped and have this hole, take whatever legal proceedings and it takes 6 months, it
takes 6 months. Because we've lived next to this for so many years and we can't get it to go, I don't see you
have any way to enforce it to go so I think the only option we have is to force him to stop. And I guess we're
willing to take our chances. Jerk the variance and get him to fill this in and take care of the drainage problems.
And if that takes 6 months, at least we've got a means in sight and it's something we can enforce. So I'm
willing to take a chance and lead that direction. I understand that eventually we're going to have a house here
and we certainly don't want to stop that. We'd much rather see a house there. But we have waited way, way,
way too long and we are not in control of getting that house. The only thing you can do is control the situation
until he decides to build and he's shown us that's he's not serious about building over and over. So I guess I'd
48
�
1
1
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
rather take my shots and do something that we have control in. And if it takes 6 months, so be it. We can live
with that.
Don Ashworth: I'm afraid that the process could be much longer. I remind the Council of Moon Valley and
their application process.
Councilman Senn: And Mr. Carlson.
Don Ashworth: You know. What's logically going to happen is if we make an attempt to go down and fill in
the hole. Get a court order to take and have that done, he in the meantime in all likelihood will file for the
variance. As soon as the court is aware that a variance is pending, they're not going to make him fill the thing
in. I think that the neighbors are better protected to take and say, he's got to start this thing by, you pick a date.
May 1st. Put up the $10,000.00 or $20,000.00. And he enters into a written contract that allows us to go onto
that property if by May 1st he has not started substantial construction. We can go onto the property. Use the
$10,000.00 or $20,000.00 to fill in the hole. I mean nobody wants to lose $20,000.00. He's going to, that will
be a real incentive for him to move forward. But otherwise, just calling it quits, it could be a 2 year period of
time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. There's another neighbor that would like to say something.
Allen Dirks: My name's Allen Dirks. I live on Lake Riley Boulevard as well and I consider myself a friend of
these folks as well as Jim so I'm just strictly a neutral party. But I've heard both sides of it and I certainly
understand the Sitter's frustration because they have wonderful kids and they got to be afraid of having
construction. I went through remodeling a lake home as the Sitter's did. They redid their lake home and there
are so many surprises in getting into these old lake homes. To my understanding, not a fun deal. Nothing lice
Jim's thank goodness but I think everyone has to remember that when Jim bought this lot and he would have
loved to started digging a hole when he started digging that crazy hole and ran into oil. I mean who expects that
when you're building a home. The Remus' next door have written on a document here saying that they'd like to
see the construction proceed and Donnie just said he'd like to see construction proceed. It seems to me the
reason that Jim's not building is because he flat out has put so much money into this lot that it's choking him.
And you've got a piece of paper here that says that Minnesota Pollution Control is sitting on $210,000.00 to
Remus'. I don't know how much Jim has into that because it's none of my business frankly but it seems like
the energy, if you want a go button, why can't the city put some, a little bit of legal letter or something together
to get this pollution control to start cutting a check or get this hearing on. I mean you guys have the weight of
the city behind you. It seems that Donnie's interest and Kitty's interest, and I empathize with those guys. I
mean my neighbors were, it's no thrill being around, hanging around when construction's going on but I've got a
heat gut that I'll probably be sitting up here a month from now begging for something. I've been trying to get
my heat guy to get the cotton picking heat squared away for almost 2 years now. We have half our house has
freezing pipes and half doesn't. That's just one of the things you get into when you get into these old lake
houses. And it's extremely frustrating for Jim. It's extremely frustrating for Sitter's but I don't know that you
can expect to have Jim go back and try to get this Pollution Control to give him some money. Because money,
hey that's the problem. He has it figured it out to go buy a lot, like everybody else does that builds a home.
They buy a lot. They put a home up. They have their financing figured out. And now you've got a guy that
ends up with a oil well on his property and the pollution control. And you know how those agencies can take
forever. So I'm totally empathetic with Sitter's position and the neighbors directly there. I'm about a block and
a half away. And I would hate to have that hole sitting there with my kids running around so shoot Donnie, I'd
want that thing filled up with cement if I could get it. Or whatever you can get to get the problem. But I don't
49
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
think it's fair to go ahead to Jim and say, you know Jim cough up this cash or, and I'm really, maybe the
financial is the thing but I think the person that's really controlling the cash is this Pollution Control Agency.
That's been a headache. I mean look at some of the documents. How long it's taken to drag their feet to even
get the hole cleaned up. So I'm all for having a house on the place. I'm all for having, getting back to bar -be-
ques in the neighborhood where we get together and talk about that instead of this as I know everybody else is.
But it seems like somehow we need the city to put a little heat on that organization to get this case resolved and
work towards bettering the neighborhood instead, I'd just encourage you not to pick a side. Maybe we can all
get it going in the right direction.
Councilman Wing: I remember Dana Johnson, 6301 Minnewashta Parkway that bought a lot. Split it. Went to
put his house up. Pulled an oil tank out. Ran into major pollution. Pulled out tons of it. Went to build his
house and he had to put pilings down. The guy fought to death and nails to get in that house but it took 18
months and he moved in last week. This has been years and I was out there looking at that and I was kind of
stunned. Especially when it starts damaging neighboring property. I agree with Don Ashworth. I think we need
to push the go button here and I'm happy with $10,000.00 because I think for $10,000.00 we can go fill that
hole in and grade it out and get it done and I would suggest that we give an extension here with the contract
attached to it with a line of credit that by May 1st, if this isn't either filled in, graded off, and secured, we do it
for him. Or construction has formally started. But I think we need to have a penalty clause in here. I would
agree with Don's position which is essentially your position other than the dollar amount I guess.
Councilman Senn: Well except Don is saying wait until May 1st to start a time clock. That kind of bothers me.
I mean that's March, April.
Don Ashworth: No, he can start the house before then. I'm just saying that if on May 1st there's nothing more
out there than there is today, he gives us permission to go on that property. Use the $10,000.00 to fill it in and
that's it. It's all done.
Councilman Wing: And he has an option too. I mean it'd be pretty easy to go fill that hole up, wouldn't it?
Councilman Senn: Well nothing more of the broad definition. I think.
Roger Knutson: What I would suggest, I think we're going to have to bring in some language and we'll have to
define it very carefully so we don't get into arguments about what substantial construction is. If you'd like.
Councilman Senn: Why don't we direct you to come up with some nice agreements and language?
Roger Knutson: Why don't I bring it back to your next meeting?
Councilman Senn: Sounds wonderful.
Acting Mayor Mason: So when do, Charles, when do weight restrictions typically come off roads?
ales Folch: We'll follow the County's lead but you can expect them sometime around the second week of
,vin.-ch.
Councilman Senn: When do they go on?
50
fl
1
t
I
n
t
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, when do they go off?
Charles Folch: Go on. Go off? Typically the second week in May. It all depends on weather.
Acting Mayor Mason: So see May 1st is not a doable date, right? Do you think it is Steve?
Steve Kirchman: Sure. People work all year round. You just have to bring in smaller loads.
Councilman Senn: Smaller trucks, smaller loads.
Councilman Wing: Big truck, small loads.
Acting Mayor Mason: So okay. So what I'm hearing suggested here is we direct our attorney to meet with, or
wait. No, we're not either. What we'd like to see is our attorney draw up some language.
Roger Knutson: Write it out and I'll share it with Mr. Jessup and his attorney in the interim.
Acting Mayor Mason: Stating something to the effect that in whatever terms you choose to come up with, that
by the 1st of May there has to be some sort of substantial construction or the city will have the right to come in
and fill up the hole.
Roger Knutson: Right, we can define those terms with foundation completed and sticks going up.
Councilman Senn: And a bond and I'd like to see the staff comment on this being a sufficient amount of money
to basically return the site to some form of original condition.
John Waldron: I just wanted to comment on the dates that are being discussed. We're talking again about the
fact that very shortly, in about 2 weeks the road restrictions will be on and they won't be off until about mid
May. Now I understand that this road has a 4 ton axle limit so I don't think that it's feasible frankly for any
kind of construction to even start until those road restrictions come off. Whenever that is. And so I think it's
only reasonable to allow some reasonable period of time after the road restrictions come off for all this to be
done. And my understanding is that you ... until about the second week in May so how long is reasonable after
the second week in May to have x or y happen on the site? That seems to me to be reasonable. I think that too,
I mean everybody's goal here is to make sure that the site gets finished excavation. Get the footings in. Get the
block work in. Get the house up as soon as possible. That's Mr. Jessup's goal. That's the neighbors goal and
really I think that, I think you're proceeding along in a destructive course because I think if we can set some
reasonable parameters for this, going into the future, that's going to be in everyone's best interest. And we have
Mr. Jessup is going to go ... right now and this is his last chance to get this construction done in the way that he
wants to do it, that's been approved by the city. And we see that it's going to happen. You do have some
information in your packages indicating that there is a sum of money that is available and we don't know exactly
when it's going to be available but we anticipate it will be soon. That will enable this to all be completed. But
I think you do need to keep in mind, what are the reasonable, what's reasonable in terms of requiring
construction of 18 rest of the excavation... Nothing's going to happen until after the second week in May.
Councilman Wing: Steve, what's your opinion of that?
51
1
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
Steve Kirchman: Well I disagree. We will have 15 houses starting with footings in and foundations in in the
next 2 weeks in various parts of town so even if the road restrictions go on in 2 weeks, you've got a 2 week
window here where you can get your whole foundation. in. I'm not talking about laying the foundation up. You
get the blocks delivered to the job site. You know that's a one day process. If you put them up after that, that's
fine. If you pour the footings in, that's a one day process. So if a person does their construction right, they can
get that in before the load limits go on and even after the load limits go on, we're talking about no substantial
road traffic at all so I don't know the load limit on that road.. Is it less than our regular residential limits
Charles?
Charles Folch: Well it does go down to 4 ton.
Steve Kirchman: So he would be limited. He started putting his foundation in after the load limits go on. I
didn't take that 4 ton limit into account...
John Waldron: The only thing is, we still have that dewatering problem and unless we have some warmer
weather, we're not going to be able to take advantage of the next 2 weeks.
Steve Kirchman: It's going to be warm tomorrow.
Councilman Wing: I also want to ask, if we have a spring of heavy rains, with that lot as it is, with that walk
being undermined now, does that thing just, is the whole neighborhood just going to wash into the lake? I mean
there's no protection. There's nothing to guard the lake right now.
Steve Kirchman: He's got erosion control measures that he has to maintain while it's under construction that are
supposed to prevent that. Erosion control along the front of the lot. I believe along all sides of the lot and the
lake. As long as those are maintained, it's designed to prevent that. It's a question of them being well
maintained.
John Waldron: That's the other issue through all of this is dependent upon weather and that's part of the
problem with what occurred in January and we also can't guarantee that yeah, there won't be a lot of rain that
would hamper the construction activities. So I think that it's also reasonable that if there's something that's
within Mr. Jessup's control, I think that's one thing. But if there's adverse weather conditions, as any kind of
construction activity like this, Mr. Jessup shouldn't be penalized.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, if you're saying until May 2nd, I'm for letting the variance lapse. I just don't
have a lot of sympathy on that. I mean I'm sorry.
Audience: If there's a lot of rain now, my neighbor's slab is going in.
Councilman Senn: I know it is and that's why I'm saying, we need to get it going now. I mean hell, I started
to build a house on January 1st and I had it done in the middle of May and you know yeah. There's rain but
there's only one time that the ra' '.s critical in building a house and that's when you're putting in your footings
and depending on what, it isn't .1 that critical.
Acting Mayor Mason: I think Doh raises a good point. What we're discussing right now is that we would like
to see our attorney draw up some language and present it to us in two weeks. And if it's agreeable to us, we
52
u
1
fl
n
1
u
L
51
t
it
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994
can take action on it then. On what goes on here and hopefully we could also get some good faith by the
Jessup's in seeing what can happen in the next 2 weeks at their building site.
Councilwoman Dockendorf.. So they have the right to continue with the building process during the next 2
weeks?
Acting Mayor Mason: Well what I'm hearing, the direction is.
Councilman Senn: We haven't taken action to the contrary have we?
Acting Mayor Mason: Right. We have taken so what it sounds like we're going to be doing, is we are going to
table this in 2 weeks and at that time we'll have some language from the City Attorney and we can then make,
then Council can make a decision based on language drawn up by the Attorney. And I would also hope that in
the meantime there's some good faith action taken on the construction site.
Councilman Wing: And that language is to resolve this?
Acting Mayor Mason: That language is to resolve this issue, in my opinion.
Steve Kirchman: So are you saying now that they can go ahead and continue building on this during this 2
week period or not?
Acting Mayor Mason: Well, if we're tabling action, that's essentially what we're doing isn't it Roger?
Councilman Senn: Well Steve let me ask you this. Don't they have an active building permit?
Steve Kirchman: If they have a valid variance, they've got an active building permit.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and we have not let the variance lapse yet and we've tabled it for 2 weeks so they still
have a valid building permit, do they not?
Roger Knutson: Staff is suggesting that the variance has in fact lapsed and that if they want to go forward, they
need an extension from you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well give them a 2 week extension until this comes back.
Councilman Wing: Okay. I'll move tabling this with a 2 week extension.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second.
Councilman Senn: And that the Attorney draft an opinion about that...
Councilman Wing: Yeah. I'm assuming that would include. Moving a 2 weeks extension with your wording to
move this along.
Roger Knutson: The extension ends at your next Council meeting.
53
City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 1
Councilman Wing: That is correct. I
Acting Mayor Mason: And I would sincerely hope that something happens in those 2 weeks. This has dragged
on way too long. There's been a motion and it's seconded to table for 2 weeks with extending the variance for
2 more weeks. Any other comments?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to grant an extension on the Variance No.
89 -1 for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard until the City Attorney can draft an agreement to get
constructcion completed by a certain date and bring the agreement back to the next City Council meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 37 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED
NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES.
Public Present: I
Name
Address
Paul Harstad
2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton
Keith Bedford
3961 Stratford Ridge
Doug Reichert
3901 Stratford Ridge
Bill Mynig
6850 Stratford Ridge
Councilman Senn: I move to table. Isn't that what you wanted?
Kate Aanenson: This project appeared before the Planning Commission. You saw the same plat that was
proposed by Heritage Development. The Planning Commission reviewed the subdivision and staff had
recommended denial... several areas that are outlined in the staff report. Deficient lot sizes ... shoreland
regulations... The Planning Commission did recommend denial. Since that Planning Commission meeting on
February 22nd, we have met with the applicant, Paul Harstad. It appears that we're on our way to resolving a
lot of the issues. What he would like from you tonight is your recommendation that you wouldn't accept this
proposal. Instead of giving him a formal denial, giving a statement that you would recommend denial —if that's
your desire but ...give him the opportunity to table it and work out those issues and go back through the process...
Councilman Senn: But does tabling kick it back to the beginning of the process?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. He has to, once he...it would have to go back to the Planning Commission and come
back up...
Councilman Senn: So rather than table it, why don't we sooty * direct that it go back for modification or
whatever?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, if you deny it, then this closes out the application. They start back—and go through
the process. I think in good faith they're willing to work out these issues...
54
t
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
February 28, 1994
New Business Agenda Item #7
Staff request for direction regarding variance 89 -1, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
James Jessup family goal
continues to be the establishment our residence at this location,
renting is not fun.
1
TEVIE LINE OF RECENT EVENTS FOR 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.
1/25/93 -City of Chanhassen (COC) issues extension of variances.
6/10/93 JFJ requests building permit.
7/26 COC issues letter stating delay in issuing permit is COC responsibility.
8/5/93 COC makes building permit available for pickup. JFJ picksup permit.
8/12/93 JFJ completes first construction activity erecting soil erosion fence required by COC.
8/21/93 Excavation on site starts.
8/22/93 Ground breaking ceremony attended by neighbors and other guests.
9/15/93 Additional excavation of site by contractor unsure of exact # of truckloads.
10/15/93 JFJ continues excavation of site.
11/4/93 JFJ letter to COC providing information about status of reimbursement request.
L 12/11/93 Buck starts excavating site for footings scheduled on 12/15.
12/13/93 Buck excavating site, COC appears on site issues stop work order preventing further
work from being completed.
1/5/954 JFJ letter to COC questioning status of site, stop work order still posted.
1/7/94 COC removes stop work order from site.
1/24/94 Buck is excavating site for footings on 1/26/94. Dayco Concrete schedules footing
inspection with COC for 1/26.
1/25/94 Buck has front half of site excavated 7 feet to bottom of footings. Soil type changes and is
too wet to continue excavating. Braun Intertec is on site to do soil inspection in preparation for scheduled
footings on 1/26. Is able to inspect a portion of the excavation. soil is acceptable. Confirms the soil type
has changed and is too wet to excavate. Buck excavates in excess of 20 truck loads of material.
1/2694 JFJ notifies COC Steve Kirchman that soil conditions require dewatering
1/28/94 JFJ investigates deix2tering alternatives and purchases deumtering equipment.
1/29/94 JFJ installs dewatering equipment. Temperature is too cold and pump freezes.
2/30/94 JFJ tries again to get dewatering equipment to work, again too cold.
2/19/94 JFJ again on site with de- Astering equipment able to work.
2/20/94 JFJ on site again with dewatering equipment working..
2/22/94 COC informs JFJ verbally that no building is to take occur, will not put that in writing
though. The situation is to be reviewed by COC Council. JFJ is totally stunned by call
u
1
I n
L
z �
M MM on r r M = MM r M W- M M M M M
DAILY LOW TEMPERATURE CHART for MINNEAPOLIS
40 - r
30
COC removes stop work
20 order from site. 1/7/94
10 •
0 ...... ......... . ......
rn
-10
-20 Excavation in
progress 12/11/93
-30 COC issues stop work 12/13/93
Excavation resumes on site only to be
stopped by wet conditions. 1/25/94
Seriesl
Series2
Series 1 is actual temperature.
Series 2 is 32 degrees, the temperature water freezes.
Data provided by: State Climatology Office
Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul MN
Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.
W
BUCK EXCAVATING, INC.
1180 Pioneer Trail
Chaska, Minnesota 53318
445-1861
Can't move heaven - only the earthl
I
Y 25, 1 Z9 C94
I
Ci ty 0£
EgG Dr ive
)u Lt�r Dr
h as ses, :; 3£
RE: Jim Jessup House
take Riley
t M
c.. - Concern:
i Jesse no=se 02 _ company Is dic the e>:caVatj -Cl-Ir the
L a ',-- e R -i 11 -_ Y 7-he purpose of thi 1=; ter is to Lnfform you t§ at It tile
ca- u t s e d
%qe 'r-=,V,� hac�' d rr g i r. g - c , r s 'has b e ez
4- o 34- C 0
12-y all - th t e water w\ \ enc-c-untered. Vy' e have h a � p I n
-ow tl.ne
vvlheln
t5e. weather 9-c-t so c-o13,
the af.-_e could not be
de-watere.a.
a.
wL-;--n it warmed up So
!! Sul-face
w_=ej'
25to
the 1- lo-Le- because _f
snow - _ h. a w , 5 o eves n-0 I e
3 e - w a
was
Becessa�y,
�
Now,
of course, - has turned
cold -:__gain, and all we
can du is
wait
for the weather to welm
so the ]e- watering can
be cow -leted.
At 1he
soonest time Possible
we will di.a again, as we
are all
to contin this project
Sincerely,
���.� ���
sodney G. (Buck) Se=ct
RGE/db I
BRAUN Broun Inte»ec Corporolion
6801 wotivngton Avenuo south
Min "O x39108
i NTE RTEC
MinneapoCe. MinnOSOto a513S -0108
612.911-3600 For,; 9d1 -1151
Engineers and Scientists Servino
the Svilt crd Noturol Envirormere
February 28, 1994 Project BABX -94-018
Mr. Jim Jessup
7021 Galpin Boulevard
Excelsio MN 55331
Dear Mr. Jessup:
Re: Soils Observations for Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Valley Boulevard in
Chanhassen, Minnesota
At your request, we are submitting this letter regarding the site observation we performed for
the above - referenced project on January 25, 1994. On that date_ Gregg Jandro, P.E., visited the
site and observed that your excavator was working. We met with you and the excavator and
observed the excavation bottom soil conditions at the southeast corner of the site.
At the time of our visit, the excavator had completely removed the existing sand fill soils at the
southeast building corner and exposed the underlying naturally occurring sandy lean clay glacial
till soils. One hand auger boring placed in the glacial till soils indicated they were is a stiff
condition and would be. suitable for footing or fill placement. However, the sand fill soils
north of the excavated area were saturated and were running into the other areas of the site
which the excavator was attempting to excavate. You and your excavator had already noted
this and, following discussions among ourselves, we recommended excavation work stop and
the area be dewatered to minimize any future problems. In addition, we recommended that the
excavation along this east side of the proposed building area be performed in segments so as to
not open up a Iarge area at any given time. We recommended excavation should proceed with
caution.
You indicated you would be looking into various dewatering rnethods and proceed to follow our
recommendations. You indicated we would be notified to perform additional observations of
the excavation.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or require additional observations or tests, please
call me at (612) 942-4945.
Sincerely,
Professional Certification
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me and
that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Gre J , P.E.
Senib Eng
Registration Number: 18221
Date: February 28, 1994
a x-�- 5
Loren W. Braun, P.E.
Senior Engineer rd'Jwb:mjolb�bx'.94p1E'vpt
1993/94 Expenditures for 9247 Lake Riley
1. Building permit expense $1,795
2. Site construction expense $5,700
1
1
1
January 14, 1993
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
We do not oppose the extending of the variance that James
Jessup has requested for the property next to ours. He needs the
additional year to build his house. The contamination issue has
taken longer to resolve than we anticipated. We want to assist him
in his variance request.
Sincerely,
Rudolph Remus
Lucille Remus
G.5
CITY OF
CHANHASOZN
January 7, 1994
Mr. James F. Jessup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MIST 55331
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CERTIFIED
Re: Cancellation of revocation of permit #6325 at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Jessup:
I received copy of the 12/22/93 letter extending variance 89 -1. Accordingly, the revocation of
permit #6325 is cancelled.
You may call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
PC: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
City Council, adnim packet
7
1
I February 9, 1993
Mr. James Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Court
Chaska, MN 55318
CITY OF
CHANHASSZN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Jessup:
This letter is to confirm that on January 25, 1993, the City Council approved your request for
a variance extension ( #89 -1) for the construction of a new single family residence at 9247
Lake Riley Boulevard. The City Council approved an extension for six months, until July
25, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed
structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot
plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to
determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property surveyed by
a registered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no
enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to
assure compliance with the intent of plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
n
4-0 PRINTED ON RECYC -ED PAPER C3
Mr. James Jessup
February 9, 1993
Page 2
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by any
interested neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, the fees will be waived.
Should you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
7
1
July. 26, 1993
Mr. Jim Jessup
7021 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 * CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900. • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: Building permit @ 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Jim:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our conversation of 07/25/93 concerning expiration of
you_ r variance.
Although your variance may expire before your permit for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. is issued, you
applied well in advance of the expiration date. Changes in staff at City Hall have caused some
delays in reviewing submitted documents and issuing the permit. Your responses to our requests
for additional documentation have been timely, and any delays in the permit issuance process
were not caused by you.
The City will not rigidly enforce the expiration date of your variance as long as the permit
issuance process continues to proceed ' in a timely fashion.
Sincerely, _=
Steve A. Kirchman:r:
Building Official ;y Y -
u y
cc: Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
r
r
r
n �v
«►' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
TO
;hyx« STATE OF MINNESOTA
133 EAST 7th STREET
ST. PAUL. MN 55101
`+'�°
pie i
612/2964026
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FAX: 612/2964328
October 26, 1993
Jim Jessup
9247 Riley Lake Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Petrofund reimbursement application filed
by Rudolph Remus
Leak #1700
Dear Mr. Jessup:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, this letter is to advise
you that the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board received a
reimbursement application from Rudolph Remus on January 11, 1993.
The application requests reimbursement for a settlement of a third
party liability claim.
On September 3, 1993 a letter was sent to Mr. Remus attorney
requesting additional information. As of this date the application
remains pending as we have not received a response from the
attorney.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please
contact the undersigned..
Veryi truly yours,/
Robin H. Hanson
Commerce Analyst
(612) 297 -4017
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I *
- _ 7 7
. I
. .: MINNESOTA PETROLEUM TA1�IK � _ � � �_
� 4 .5+
Gik^YF`�.s� .ai3�
� .y y 4 COMPESATION BOARD : r
m i x
7
z. r +...
i •ia vt - +'� - ro 'fr� '�' '3' -4+�=
T- _ ^�• -. ,ur�! .. �.' y���� a� -' �4� �'?� � _ _ �+a..yY -��' L f' +. t to !%.a . ` ^. ,
,$. at .3 -= v:. 8 - _ - - �'f+'}�.. i. .. �".L. v :- ?''- �.�•SM�'.". � -. .. -: 'Z '+W�,ra y •. T �v a a _
r °APPLICAT FORtREIMBURSENIENT
. `�C Y ._ 1 •_ w',¢y, F 4l. r 'S• > _ l's-�- Y:; q �'3
f ! ".'. v�..:+. 'icy- .+'t - t'2•' 3�' "� -_ o > `� "' + i 4' i; x S - .r'
�+ \ . '7�: _ !�?�Tp' �r "•tr..'16x�'.�'f. %.'� 3 _. �._V�4Ch.``. 4M .
- - ��c +. nz. "�.r il.ecr�`}:'• �--� 4�- _•,�rt�3��.'+ '• sue. - .
_
vi y �, .ig�.y�,'- •.
it f� �n L �sF`'t.
- i ~ , y T r i ' ln. -'._ .. � � t. � �r -ii -L � .'?.3' �?t�.i• =6 sa'v :!'�` +'':�:?'.ec _ z a�'��� : i
SITE" 0`40000
+� It
i - .'.! 7
��
- _ ]. Y.�. r r 15..3 >�c -%r•Rb > ✓.�..� 'e.a - .. w f -N
REPARED. - O F R.
r
:t =
.
...LAKE RILEY
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 1993
r
.PREPARED BY: .:
B.A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, i.NC. =�
_ mom, :...:: sue::
NYE, ENCIN ROCE_OLOCISTS �� ENV A
MINN
-�` �"
• ALBER'i� �;iVll� � � MADISON WI `- - '�"'�'� •
E11P0135, MN r
i I
1 MINNESOTA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE
COMPENSATION BOARD
Application for Reimbursement
PART I APPLICATION PROCESS
Check Check appropriate Phase and complete the information requested for the
One) Phase checked (see Application Guide).
(� Phase 1. MPCA approval of Soil Corrective Action Plan (SCAP)
a) Date of SCAP approval / / (Attach Copy)
b) Date SCAP was submitted to MPCA
[ J Phase 2. Submission Documentation of .Soil Treatment
Date Documentation was submitted to MPCA
(J Phase 3. MPCA anoroval of Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan (CCAP)
a) Date of CCAP approval / / (Attach Copy)
b) Date CCAP was submitted to MPCA / /
(J Phase 4. Submission of CCAP Installation Letter to MPCA
Date of CCAP Installation Letter / / (Attach Copy)
(X] Ongoing Expenses Following Phase 4 Reimbursement or MPCA Site Closure or Conditional
Closure -
PART 1I APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. "Responsible Person" [X] "Volunteer" [ ] or "None- Responsible Person" [ ]
(check one) (see application guide)
Name: \4r. Rudolph Remus
2. `lailina Address: 9245 Rilev Lake Road. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (612) 445 -3370
3. Site ID: Leak = 00001700
4. The applicant is a: [ ] Corporation [ ] Partnership [X] Individual
[ ] Other
5. .applicant was the owner or operator of the tank from 1970 to present.
6. "Volunteer" Applicant owned property from / / :o
7. Has applicant executed any Petrofund assignment agreements? Yes _ No X .
Name of assignees) NA (attach copy of agreement)
Page 1 of 7
I 3
I
I II
r
I TANK FACILITY
Name of "Tank Facility" (see application guide) where the petroleum release occurred:
Rudolph Remus p
Tank Facility address: 9245 Riley Lake Road
Chanhassen MN 55317
Contact Person at Tank Facility: Mr. Rudolph Remus
Phone: (612) 445 -3370
To the best of your knowledge, list all other persons besides the applicant who were owners
or after the P rs or
operators of the tank during petroleum release:
Darb Inc.
Did any of the persons listed in question 4 incur corrective action costs related to this petroleum
release? yes_ no X If yes, list name and address if known:
N/A
Date when petroleum release was detected: 10/13/90
What test was performed to initially establish that a release occurred? PID
Date when petroleum release was reported to the M
P PCA: 10/13/90
Which tanks (or associated piping) were the source of the release at this tank facility? (see
application guide)
Tanks 001 and 002
What was the cause of
the release.
Holes and corrosion
Was this tank(s) used only to store heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where
stored?
(check one) YES [ ] NO [X]
TANK INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE
Underground Storage Tanks. Complete the following information to reflect the status of the
underground stora tanks at the time the release was discovered. Refer to the attachment "Do
Underground Storage Tanks and Piping Requirements Apply to your Petroleum Tank?" and
What Do You Have To Do? /When Do You Have To Act ?" to determine the applicability of
registration, leak detection, corrosion protection, and spill /overfill protection.
Tank Petroleum Capacity Type of Tank Date Reg'
�istered Date
Regular
- _- , Unx Kemoval
001 gasoline 500 Steel 1970 5/27/90 4/18/90
.-aviation
002 Gas 500 Steel 1970 5/27/90 4/18/90
Page 2 of 7 1
7.
If yes, provide the following:
Insurance Company Policy = Policv Limits Deductible Period Covered
N/A
Total of all eligible costs as listed
in the Eligible Cost Worksheet:
5 189.000
Insurance Reimbursement (subtract)
Total Reimbursement Request
(see application guide)
DART VI
Name of individual or Firm: Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address: 13400 1 nth Ave. N. Plvmouth MN 55441
lUPIr►L hi;Ilrr
Contact person: r Phone: (612)059 -1423
Fame of individual or firm:
Vlailing address:
Contact person: Phone:
Name of individual or firm:
Mailing address:
Contact person: Phone: ( 1
Name of individual or firm:
Mailing address:
Contact person: Phone: ( )
Page 5 of 7
CONTRACTORS /CONSULTANTS
$ 210.000
x 90%
S ( 0.00 1 .
5 189.000
1. Complete the following for all contractors, subcontractors, consultants, engineering firms or
others who performed corrective actions at this release site. (see application guide) Failure
to provide this information for ALL persons who performed corrective action may result
in an action to recover any reimbursement which may be paid. (Attach additional sheets
if necessary.)
11 -
2. Describe below any relationship, financial or otherwise, between the applicant and any
contractor who performed work at this site:
There are no significant relationships, financial or otherwise, between the applicant
and anv contractors who performed work at this site.
3 ART VII CERTIFICATION (see application guide)
1 A. "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate
and complete.
"I certify that if I have submitted invoices for costs that I have incurred but that remain unpaid,
I will pay these invoices within 30 days or receipt of reimbursement from the board. I
understand that if I fail to do so, the board may demand return of all or any portion of
reimbursement paid to me and that if I fail to comply with the board's demand, that the board
may recover the reimbursement, plus administrative and legal expenses in a civil action in
district court. I understand that I may also be subject to a civil penalty."
ID I
Witnessed ,bv:
i nature of Applicant
Name
, ame (Please Print) �/ ':
iz, Date
/��
Date ,
:ery applicant must sion Part A. above. If applicant is a corporation or partnership, the following
^irication must also be made:
rurther certify that I am authorized to sign and submit this application on behalf of
signature
T itle (See :application Guide, Part IM
Name (Please Print)
Date
'lease send this application and accompanying documents to:
' Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board
Minnesota Department of Commerce
133 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
' (612) 297 -4107
iesch Petrofund Registration =1167
acv: TS /65039 /prop 1693
Page 6 of 7
/6
IUt� o - I -
OF MINNESOTA
Y OF CARVER
�L�5�
n 0U 2 0 1992
ci-, c A CCUt-!TY COURTS
I
Jessup,
Plaintiff,
_ph Remus, Lucille
and DARE, Inc.,
,nesota corporation,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO:91 -28156
FINDINGS OF FACT.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
The above matter came on before the court on its trial
idar on November 10, 1992. John F. Bonner, III, Esq., appeared
ahalf of the Plaintiff; Thomas E. Peterson, Esq. appeared on
if of Defendants Rudolph and Lucille Remus; and Dawn
felbein, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant DARB, Inc., a
:sofa corporation.
Lased upon all cf the testimony of ,:itnesses, the evidence
.ced at trial, the stipulations and the agreements of the
.i.es, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, and the
p baina fury advised in the premises, the court rakes :.ts
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That at all times relevant, James Jessup owned property
:ted in Carver County in the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4
Section 24, Township 116M, Range 23W.
J
�r
2. That at all times relevant Defendant. Lucille Remus owned
property located immediately adjacent to the Jessup property.
Defendant Rudolph Remus has no interest in this property.
3. That prior to April, 1990, there were two 500 gallon
' underground fuel tanks located on the Remus property. One tank was
owned by Lucille Remus and stored gasoline. The second tank was
owned and operated by DARE, Inc. and stored aviation fuel.
4. That in the fall of 1989 petroleum was discovered in the
ground at the Jessup property during construction of a residence on
that property. The petroleum contamination was the direct result
of leaks from the two underground petroleum storage tanks.
S. That remediation of the Jessup property has taken place
' under the direction of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
6. That as a result of the petroleum contamination from the
leaking underground storace tanks Plaintiff has sustained damage in
the amount of $210,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF L4 W
1. The Plaintiff is entitled to judcmen-. against Defendants
Lucille Remus and DAR3, Inc. in the amount of $210,000.
' ORDER
1. Jud=ent shall be entered accordingly. The entry of
judgment shall be stayed at this time pending further order of this
court .
Dated:
BY THE COURT:
Robert J. Gogci:Is / i
Judge of District Court
NEW