1j. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and
Councilwoman Dimler
' COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Workman wanted to
' discuss the County Sign Program; and Mayor Chmiel added under Administrative
Presentations, the City Manager polling the City Council. All voted in favor of
the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: DONATION OF QUILT, GIRL SCOUT TROOP 784, KATHERINE
KNIGHT, LEADER.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to have a distinct honor one more time. We did have
pictures taken last week during the day. Several of the Girl Scouts were here
on providing or having a donation of a quilt. And the Girl Scout Troop 784,
Katherine Knight is the leader. If you'd like to bring the girls up, we can go
through that process.
Katherine Knight: I'd like to make the presentation of giving this quilt on
behalf of our Girl Scout Troop 784. We enjoyed making it on our mother- daughter
campout in January. During the winter. And the girls had a good time doing it
so keep it in.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to show you the flag that they really put together. I
thought it was exceptionally neat. The girls did this themselves. For all your
hard extended efforts...the Council and myself, we'd like to thank you very much
for putting this together so that we can show this to other people. I might
add, we also have the girls, and maybe if you'd just read off each of the girls
names that put this together.
' Katherine Knight: The quilt was made by Troop 784, 1992. The girls names are,
Katie Beedles, Kate Bilner, Morgan Johnson, Sarah Knight, Jennifer Triforest,
Amy McTroney, Chelsea Barke, Amy Podoff, Lindsey Borgerson, Laura Hart, Jolene
Hoisite, Sarah Turnick, Laura Knight and Ann Turnick.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you girls for
coming in.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
b. 1. Resolution #92 -86: Approve Plans and Specifications for West 86th
Street Watermain Improvements; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project
90 -10.
' 2. Resolution #92 -87: Authorize Easement Acquisition and /or Condemnation
Processing for West 86th Street Watermain, Project 90 -10.
c. Resolution #92 -88: Approve Plans and Specifications for Phase 1 of Upper
Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 91 -17.
d. Eckankar Condemnation, Authorize Stipulation Agreement.
II e. Resolution *92 -89: Approve Change Order, Chanhassen Senior Center.
f. Street Sweeper, Reinstate Original Contract.
' g. Approval of Bills.
I h. City Council Minutes dated July 27, 1992 as amended by the City Manager
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 1992
' i. Resolution #92 -90: 1992 Park Acquisition and Development Capital
Improvement Program Budget Amendment, Athletic Field Irrigation, Lake Ann
Park.
II j. Resolution #92 -91: Approval of Election Judges
k. Resolution #92 -92: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Year XVIII CDBG
' Subrecipient Agreement.
1. Extension of Final Plat Approval, Ches Mar Trails.
II m. Approve Purchase Agreement for Taco Shop Property, 195 West 78th Street.
All voted in favor and the notion carried.
II VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURE, DON HALLA.
I Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Mayor. City Manager. Ladies and gentlemen of the
Council for the opportunity to come here tonight. I do not know whether you
received in your folder a copy of my letter. Do you know if you did or not?
You did?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did.
1 Don Halla: We have what I consider a serious problem with our erosion control
structure. It is a structure that we have maintained since approximately 1972
up until 1990. I did do a videotape of it which I would like to present just
I so you can see what the problem is, if I may please. And the structure which
could fail and cause a lot of erosion and other problems which it is controlling
at this point. Before I go anymore thoroughly into it, if it's okay, I'd like
i to show the tape,
' 2
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
(Don Halla showed a video presentation of the erosion control structure on his
property at this point.) 1
Don Halla: What we have is an erosion control structure which I'm concerned
environmentally that it could break and crack at any time. Up until 1990 we
were allowed to maintain it as we had through those roughly 18 years and never
had a problem with the structure. You enacted an ordinance which in effect
prevented us from doing the maintenance on it and that being that you're
required to have permits to move soil of any volume over 50 yards within the
city, for almost any purpose. There is no economic gain to me or to Halia
Nursery to maintain this structure. The structure was done for the purpose of
erosion control and to prevent the continuing of this valley from moving up and
continuing all the way over to TH 101. All we had requested and wanted to do
was to maintain that structure by at times we have had excavators who have had
vast quantities of soil that could go into that structure to reinforce it once
and for all. To solve the problem so that it wouldn't even possibly ever need
to be repaired again. A year ago I was, I made a request to repair and at that
time I was asked to put up a *10,000.00 cash deposit along with building a road
and many other things that are called for in your ordinance. For something that
has no economic gain to me and is really just a benefit to, as I call it, the
earth or erosion control and so forth. I don't choose to spend or to tie up my
cash which I need to operate my company in such a manner. I guess I'm leaving
it to your concerns and your method as to what happens to that structure. If
it's not repaired, it will break. It will fail and the erosion will continue as
it did prior to the building of it. Since there's no economic gain for me, I
can't see spending *4,000.00 for an engineer's report, which has been asked this
last time, to do something that I know would solve it because I've maintained it
for 18 years. Nor am I willing to build a road in order to bring the trucks in,
which really would not cause any problem driving on our gravel roads. So I'm in
a dilemma between your ordinance, being a good citizen, being in the business
that I am, as to what to do. I guess from there I leave it to your discretion.
What I requested and would hope that it would be, is to kind of leave us alone.
Let us be a good citizen. Let us take care of this problem on our own as we
have in the past. That's really what I'm asking for. Other than that, the City
has funds that they're generating for water projects. Erosion control projects
and so on that we pay for each quarter in our taxes. If you don't want me to do
it, please take it over and maintain it yourselves. Whatever way that it works.
If you don't want to do that, then I guess we have to all agree to let it fail.
That's where I'm coming from. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Whatever
you'd like. _
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I have a couple questions Don. You indicated that
you had been able to get some people coming in with truckloads of whatever.
What type of soils or debris was going to be put within that area?
Don Halla: Heavy clay soil, which is what it needs. It needs heavy clay. No
sand. Nothing like that. That wouldn't do any good.
Mayor Chmiel: That was one of my concerns because sand's not going to do it.
It's just going to wash away just automatically.
Don Halia: It takes real heavy clay which of course we have construction
projects from every so often. They don't come up very often. We had 7,000
3
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
yards this spring that they were willing to take in and fill behind there at no
cost to us. They were going to backfill it, compact it, haul it in, grade it,
everything. All we had to do was to, they were even going to extend the culvert
down an extra 70 feet or whatever culvert we wanted to buy just to make sure the
right slope could be on it. The City stopped us doing that. I'm at a dilemma.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask just another one. You wrote a control structure as
you said and you're concerned environmentally. What total capacity of water is
contained within what's existing that's been shown now? How deep is that, do
you know?
Don Halla: The structure runs, at least when it was originally installed. I
don't know, it doesn't show there but the City has plans. It's about a 50 foot
drop from the top of that structure down to the bottom. At one time that.was
all 50 feet was there. I'm sure there's 20 foot of silt in it at this point. It
does pick up all the silt that comes off of the nursery and deposit it in there.
Whatever doesn't slow down ahead of time. I'm guessing it's about 30 feet deep
at this time and then it builds up and of course it goes down and then it
overflows in a heavy rain but most of the time, it stores that water within it's
structure and it doesn't overflow.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I noticed here in reading the information that was
provided to us in a letter that had been written as well to you, as you said the
Planning Commission recommended approval for doing what was to be done for the
erosion control. And it appears that you did withdraw your application prior to
' it coming to the City Council. And because of your disagreements what you said
was one, the road. Two, the bonding.
Don Halla: No, it's not bonding. I have to put up cash.
Mayor Chmiel: $10,000.00 cash up front, right. And what was, you had three
different ones. A cash deposit, the road. Was there one more?
Don Halla: Well today now, they're asking for a $4,000.00 engineering.
Mayor Chmiel: That was the other one.
Don Halla: Oh, fencing. Gates. I mean I've got 50 acres of farmland or 60
' acres on that side and the closest road is 800 feet away and still I've got to
fence and gate the whole project.
Mayor Chmiel: Is accessibility to that any other way than going through your
property?
Don Halla: No.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else have any questions?
I Councilwoman Dimier: I guess I'd like to hear staff's side of it.
Paul Krauss: Maybe if I could start and Charles can add his two cents. We
started working with Mr. Halla on this 3 years ago. Three years ago
1 administratively I authorized 1,000 yards of material be placed on the dam to
4
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
I/
stabilize it. Exact same situation. 1,000 yards is 100 truckloads. That was
done. The dam was stabilized.
Councilman Wing: I don't mean to interrupt but when you say stabilized, you're
dumping dirt on what? 1
Paul Krauss: We really don't know and there's never been an engineered plan for
this. We don't think there's ever been compacted fill. There's a lot of
questions that have always been raised in our minds as to, you know Mr. Halla
and I accept what he says in good faith, he's been saying that he's been
maintaining this thing for years. Well if by maintaining it means throwing dirt
on every year, and the next year it's not there, it's going someplace and where
it's going is probably the Minnesota River. This is not a stable structure.
Stable structures don't need to be refilled every year.
Councilwoman Dimler: Was it clay that was dumped? ,
Paul Krauss: I don't recall. We had our inspector out at the site checking to
see but it was, you know it stabilized the situation at least for the time
being.
Councilman Wing: The surface? 1
Paul Krauss: Yes. A subsurface, we have no idea. We also contacted the Soil
Conservation Service and again, I mean I've only talked to one individual over
there and I haven't talked to him recently. Charles' staff has. Paul Newman
over there indicates that to the best of his knowledge there's been no contact
since 1972 and that they don't have a design. They gave some suggestions for
how this thing was supposed to be designed but they're not sure if it was. The
following year, Mr. Haifa came in and asked for I think it was 80,000 yards of
fill in there. As I recall. Something on that nature. We recommended approval
of a modified version of that plan. We didn't think it would take as much fill
as had been requested. That would substantially fill up a portion of the
ravine. We did ask for engineer plans to make sure that the problem was fixed
once and for all. The road that's being referred to is not a road. It's a
construction entrance as we normally require on hauling projects so that we
don't track mud out onto the county road. It's, depending on how you build it,
it's either asphalt or rock a short distance to make sure the stuff comes off
the wheels. We did ask for a letter of credit to make sure that it was done
correctly. That's kind of standard procedure for us. Mr. Halla, as I recall,
did receive approval from the Planning Commission but then decided not to pursue
it and withdrew it. Last year I received a call from the Halla's. They wanted
another 1,000 yards authorized to be put on the property. I said I could not do
that. That I had already authorized 1,000 yards. I couldn't in good conscience
authorize more. And then we found, I was on vacation but we had a report of
trucks coming in and our staff went down there and found out that there was a
fill operation going on. Certainly Mr. Halla knows how these things are handled
by the city by this time. The reception that the inspection and engineering
staff got when they appeared on the site was not particularly great. And again,
Mr. Halla has brought this to you on a visitor presentation. We have more
information here in terms of the files that we had at the Planning Commission
but in terms of design details on the dam itself, that's information that we've
never had. Charles, did I miss anything?
5 11
r
II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Charles Folch: I think that pretty well covers it. It's a real serious problem
II there. I think the video shows it. It does a real good job of showing the size
of that ravine down there. The types of problems that are being experienced.
It's not just your ordinary run of the mill grading permit that you'd be
II approving here. This is a very serious problem. There's a lot of aspects
involved that staff feels requires a trained professional in that particular I
field to be able to design and recommend and inspect the solution that would
take care of the problem permanently. As the Halla's would like to see also and
II that's why we've recommended that a soils or geotechnical engineer prepare the
plans and inspect the project. We have also a letter of concurrence from
Paul Newman, a Soil Conservation District Officer who also recommend that a
1 registered professional prepare those plans. We don't disagree. This problem
should be taken care of but in good faith can be approve something that has not,
doesn't necessarily have any specific plans or guidelines for how it's going to
I be constructed and maintained.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just ask a question of Paul. My interpretation of what
the ordinance reads. On the 1,000 yards. Does the ordinance indicate 1,000
II yards per year? Does it indicate 1,000 yards forever?
Paul Krauss: It says per year but I believe there's a modifier on it that says,
1 multiple applications are at the discretion or at least that's the way we've
interpretted it. I'll find it exactly.
II Mayor Chmiel: Just while Paul's looking that up, I just want to clarify. There
isn't any action we can take on this today because it is under Visitor
Presentation. I just wanted to clarify that. I'd like to get just a little bit
more information.
1 Don Halla: Okay. What it needs to be built out at is approximately an 18 foot
wide top ridge and then it needs to be sloped on a 3:1 slope. 1,000 yards
I didn't give us anywhere the ability to do that which the City knows. It's a
drop in the bucket to solve the problem. And so you know, I'm going to make
this presentation. I'll leave it to your discretion. I'm not going to do
anymore. I'm not going to ask for anymore. I just want to present it to you
1 folks and let you do what you want with it. That's where I'm coming from at
this point.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. I would like to probably see this brought up on our next
agenda. Next Council agenda so this can be clarified one way or the other.
Either yes or no. And I think that's where I'd be coming from. Did you find
1 anything?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. The ordinance says that, between 50 and 1,000 yards in a 12
month period may be approved by the city staff. The city staff may impose such
1 conditions as necessary to protect the public interest. Any applicant aggrieved
by a decision may appeal to the determiniation of the City Council. I construed
that to believe that in good conscience we gave the 1,000 yards to stabilized
II the structure. We still have a continuing ongoing problem. From the advice
that I had given him and my own professional judgment, I did not feel that I was
in a position to authorize continued filling without the information that had
II been requested.
II 6
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Mark Halla: I just had a little bit more information. We did ask again. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Could you just state your name for the record?
Mark Halla: Yeah, it's Mark Halla from Halla Nursery. We did ask Paul for 1
administrative approval for another 1,000 yards this year. He did deny that.
He denied that in writing. I went to the point of saying, I believe you are
allowed to do that. It's been a full year since the last time. It's kind of
felt like it's been a little shoving match here between what we think is best
and their rules and regulations. And we've just gotten to the point now where
it doesn't make sense for us to spend any money on it. It's not something that
we're going to get any gain from. It's simply good stewardship to the land and
if we're going to be forced to expend a lot of money in order to do that, I
don't think anyone in their right mind would expect us to do that. There's no
gain from it either way. If we let it wash out and erode our field, then it
will get to a point eventually where we'll come to you and say, gee our field is
being eroded. Federal law allows us as an agricultural entity to repair that
damage and we'll end up filling it without your permission anyway under Federal
law. At this point, we stopped the erosion of the field and we're simply trying
to keep the erosion down into the valley from continuing. When this structure
goes out, you'll have 30 -35 acres of drainage coming right through the field. In
the 4 inch rains, that runs almost 3 foot deep. If that retention structure
isn't there, you're going to have that whole area eroding. Then you will have a
serious erosion problem probably all the way down to the Minnesota River. At
this point you saw on the film, it did seed. We seeded it. We put the erosion
control matting down in one year's time. We had weed growth 3 to 4 foot tall.
It is something that even on a slope that we had there, we were able to maintain
it through the standard I guess environmental situations that you run up
against. When you get the extraordinary rains and that kind of thing, certainly
it's best to have the 3:1. We can't do that with 1,000 yards. We probably
can't do that with 10,000 yards. We've got so much room to work with there that
if you can get the right kind of heavy soil fill and you can get someone to fill
it at the proper slope, it will never be a problem again other than the simple
maintenance that you must do which is any, you know you see it in residential
areas. Anytime you get a heavy rain like that, you're bound to have some
erosion. You fill in the rivulets. You seed again. It heals itself up in a
couple weeks and if the root growth gets established well enough before the next
rain, it's solved. We've asked for the administrative approval. That was
denied us. I guess at the least I guess we're requesting that you at least
allow another 1,000 yards. The soil is on site. We simple aren't allowed to
push it in at this point. That would, at least while this is under contention,
stabilize it to the point that we don't have to worry about it washing out in
the next heavy rain. We've been, I guess the request has been made to us to
provide an engineered drawing of how this is going to be taken care of to plan
on tamping this to the proper densities on the way up. That just really isn't
practical in this situation. I don't have $4,000.00 that I want to spend to
have this drawn up. The City has requested that we have a geotechnical engineer
draw this up. I wish to point out there really isn't a geotechnical engineer.
There is a private engineer or licensed engineers and they have an area of study
in geotechnical types of things but it's an expertise within the engineering.
There is no geotechnical engineer so to speak. So that's not even something
that we can meet the conditions. A normal standard engineer has as much grading
knowledge without taking the separate two courses that are offered in the
7
1
II City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
geotechnical area. In addition, we've offered to have a landscape architect do
the drawings for them. Essentially what they've requested from us is that we
have someone draw it that's licensed and can put their seal on it so there's no
liability question. That the liability is on us or that person that did the
II drawing. We've offered to do that. We have an architect on staff. They said
that they don't think they'll approve that even though the grading knowledge of
a landscape architect is the same types of courses and many of the same courses
' as an engineer. So we've just really felt that throughout this, they've had
their ordinance and we've wanted to do what we felt was right. They agree that
it's right but they want us to follow the ordinance. We're asking for you to
either amend the ordinance or just simple allow it in this situation in order to
help better the environment. There's no question we're not going to spend the
money to put up a fence, build the road, get an engineer to draw a plan and
spend the money to tamp it and have the big equipment in there to do that: That
I just isn't practical so it's really up to you and as my father said, we want you
to make the right decision. And if you believe that's to follow the ordinance
to the t, then that's the way it will have to be and we won't continue with
' filling it. If you believe that it's something that should be overlooked, after
all the ordinance is there to protect the environment. That's why it's there is
so that people don't go in and do grading that hurts the environment. We're
trying to follow that ordinance and I guess the context that it was meant to be
II as opposed to the actual written word. And we're just hoping that you'll
support us on that because we want to do what's right. These people believe
that it's right. I personally feel that they're trying to meet their obligation
I and get out of the liability question. They're supposed to follow their
ordinances, so they're trying to do that and it's really up to you 100% to
decide whether or not you can allow this or not.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Mark. Any other questions?
Councilman Wing: I'll just add a couple comments Paul. My limited knowledge of
II dams, and I just happened to come from an emergency out in Montana where a large
government project was drained on an emergency basis. On a dirt dam and it
seems to me the failures don't come from the top, except through erosion. The
I failures come at the bottom on an earthen dam normally. That would be my
concern. That's where the washout problem occurs. That's where the weakness of
the structure is. We've got a concern for a $4,000.00 engineering cost here but
on the second or third page of your packet, it says that in 1990 they wanted a
permit to place 100,000 cubic yards of dirt in there.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I didn't recall the exact amount.
II Councilman Wing: It just says 100,000 cubic yards and interim use permit. How
many truckloads is that? 1,000?
II Paul Krauss: A tandem truck holds 10. By way of perspective, the item that you
have on later tonight for Moon Valley is 250,000 yards.
II Councilman Wing: It seems to spend $4,000.00, even if we have to do it to come
up with a paper that will clarify what's there. To find what's there, maybe
offer a solution and maybe offer a permanent fix is almost a drop in the bucket.
I 100,000 yards of dirt to fill a ravine that may not solve any problems. Am I
off track or am I reading this wrong?
1 8
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Paul Krauss: Well you're raising some of the concerns that we had. I mean if
in fact that, you know, if that was the engineered solution. Everybody agreed
that was the way to do it. The Soil Conservation Service agreed. You know we
checked with the ONR on these things and they agreed that that was going to fix
it, great. I mean fix it and have done with it. But the fact that this is a
continuing situation, that after 20 years is still failing, worries us. And we
are not experts in it and I rely on Charles for the engineering expertise that
we have but we acknowledge that we're not experts in building dirt dam
structures.
Councilman Wing: And you haven't answered too, I guess we've been putting in
1,000 cubic yards a year and fixing this for 18 years and it's in a bad state
and that's dirt downhill someplace. So if we're talking about erosion and
environmental controls.
Mayor Chmiel: That was a question I asked with that soils they put there. 1
Clay, of course would remain. But any dirt would just automatically wash away
after a period of time. Thomas, do you have any questions?
Councilman Workman: I guess the one thing that struck me was, was the
combination of the Malla's saying they've been maintaining it for 20 years and
Paul saying, well where's all that going. Or where has it gone so it kind of
lends itself. We're talking about huge piles of this stuff. Where's the Corps
of Engineers and where's everybody on this type of a project? I don't want to
be too quick to suggest that the City's going to pay 4 grand for enforcing our
own ordinance.
Paul Krauss: Well I don't know. I mean we haven't checked with all the
agencies. SCS did have some involvement. We've tried to get the Soil
Conservation Service to work with us on a few other erosion problems around town
and it's had frankly some mixed success. They don't have a lot of funding to
spare.
Don Halla: Paul Newman suggested that it be made 12 foot wide at the top, 3:1
slope...50% over what the Soil Conservation Service is recommending. There has
not been any substantial erosion...just prior to that 10 inch rain. That wasn't
happening even after where we had not had soil washing down the hill and weaken
the structure that was caused by that heavy overflow in that 10 inch rain and it
weakened the structure. But we haven't washed all that soil back down to the
river. It hasn't gone anyplace. It's been caught by the trees and the debris
that was dumped in there from the nursery and then held... So it isn't
something that's flowing out. Something that, we've got a structure with cracks
in it. It was weakened. Those cracks are allowing water to go through. It's
eroding... All we have to have is another heavy 10 inch rain and it will go
down that time because of the cracks that were developed by that last 10 inch
rain. The 5 inch and the 2 inch that we had recently,'it held the structure but
those cracks are there...than they were before. Safety is what my concern is.
But we aren't getting soil eroding down to the river. That's not happening.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, thanks for coming in. We'll 1
put this onto our next agenda and hopefully have some answers by that particular
time. If Council has any concerns, good idea to probably talk with staff as
well.
9
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Councilman Workman: I was unable to get out there today but are the Halla's
around? Are you guys around there mornings?
Mark Halia: Come in. Please call me.
Councilman Workman: Call first?
Mark Halla: You can stop by...
Councilman Workman: Big boots?
Mayor Chmiel: They have boots. Okay, we'll move right along.
PUBLIC HEARING: ON -SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE REQUEST, GUY'S RESTAURANT, MARKET
' SQUARE BUILDING.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open the public hearing at this particular time.
Don, do you?
' Don Ashworth: The City Council modified the ordinance approximately a year ago
to ensure that all property owners within 300 feet, and I think we're using 500
' feet of a particular development are notified that someone is applying for a
liquor license. In this case simply it is an on -sale beer and wine license.
All of the required documents have been filed with the City Clerk. Approval is
recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Anyone can step
forward who has any objections or for the proposal. Is there anyone at this
' time? Is Guy here? Anyone representing Guy? Yes. Do you agree with the
proposal as to what has been stated? Thank you. If no other discussion is
desired, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Is there a recommendation? Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well Mr. Mayor, we're going to, as we grow, again we just
visited this issue with the Public Safety Department about licenses, etc.. The
only questions I have is tacos and beer.
' Mayor Chmiel: And you have that all the time right?
Councilman Workman: But I think the Peterson's are responsible people. I don't
II have a problem with this proposal but we're going to have a lot more of these
coming in and do we ever, or do we have an idea about what that means, etc..
That's my only comment. I would make a motion to.
1 Mayor Chmiel: A lot of that has been discussed by Public Safety in regards to
that with total numbers. That hasn't been determined but there will be at some
time.
10
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: Right, and so I'm saying here's another one and we'll have
more and more and more and by that time it will be too late if we want to do
anything. That's my only concern. I'd make a motion to approve the request.
Councilwoman Dimier: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel: Staff recommendations with items 1, 2 and 3 of the
recommendations.
Councilwoman Dimier: Right.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the
application for an on -sale beer and wine license for Guy's Restaurant at 7874
Market Boulevard contingent upon the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a $5,000.00 surety bond that expires on April 30, 1993.
2. Submittal of a Certificate of Insurance meeting minimum state requirements
which expires on April 30, 1992.
3. Submittal of the license fee in the amount of $270.00.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. - II
PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEZ PERCE ROAD EXTENSION; APPROVE
OFFICIAL ALIGNMENT. PROJECT 92 -6.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates, Inc.
Arthur Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane
Jules Smith Representing Frank 8eddor
Jim Stassen 6400 Peaceful Lane 1
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The project consultant
engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to provide a brief presentation on 11 this feasibility study. I would like to again emphasize that the intent of this
public hearing is to afford an opportunity for local residents to acquire
information on this and to provide input in determining the most appropriate
alignment for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. It is not intended at this time
to construct the needed roadway improvements. However, it is of importance to
approve an alignment and officially map the corridor of this final road segment
for such time in the future that the abutting property owner currently, which is
Mr. Art Owens, should develop or if the City should deem it necessary in the
future to condemn the needed roadway right -of -way. With that I would turn it
over to Bill Engelhardt.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I mentioned this last time. At no time do I feel the
City should condemn the balance of that roadway, on Mr. Owens' property for the
city to pay that portion when eventually that property may be expanded. So in
my estimation, I want that struck from this. That condemnation will not take
11
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 -
place by the City because I don't think it's our cost that should be incurred
II there. I just wanted to make that quick comment on that. Bill.
Bill Engelhardt: Your honor, members of the City Council. As Charles said, the
I public hearing for looking at a couple of different options for Nez Perce
through the Art Owens property. The alingments that we've put together have two
distinct differences between them. This is what we call Alternate A. And
I Alternate A, the curvalinear alingment connecting Pleasant View Road to the
north with Nez Perce at the Troendle Addition. And then taking Peaceful Lane,
which right now comes through and goes out to Pleasant View and bringing that in
to the new alignment of Nez Perce. There's several advantages and disadvantages
1 for both alternatives. In this particular case, one of -the advantages is that
the curvalinear road gives you a smooth, through from Pleasant View and Lake
Lucy Road. The disadvantage is that it becomes easier for traffic to make that
' north /south connection so that would be a distinct advantage. As far as the
property owners go adjacent to it, the areas that seem to be shaded on the map,
those areas are existing right -of -ways and should be turned back to the abutting
property owners and it would be basically the vacated right -of -way. The new
' right -of -way would be shown through here. Again, two alternatives. The second
alternative is more of a T section alignment where we're taking Peaceful Lane as
a thru street and then bringing Nez Perce into Peaceful Lane. This particular
1 alternative has some disadvantages in that the dotted line you see here is
basically the construction limits...but the major problem with this one is up in
here where we have some steep slopes. We have some wooded areas. We'd be doing
I more tree damage. We'd have more grading work that would have to be done on
this particular piece of property for this section of roadway through here.
We've also, as part of the feasibility study, looked at if the roadway was ever
improved, and these are kind of secondary issues because the alignment that we 1
' have come up with cost, or estimated cost at how you put the utilities in the 1
roadway. In the case of Alternate A it would be a matter of extending the
existing sanitary sewer up to the point that we call...and then extending the
1 watermain to a deadend at this point and that would service these properties
here. The sewer and water is basically a secondary issue. We're really not
looking at how that would be best served by the sewer and water but it does give
1 you an idea that if the road is improved, this is how it could be done. So I'm
not going to get into a lot of detail with sewer and water. We've also
developed estimated costs, and again the development costs for the sewer and
water. And the storm sewer for both plans, and again it's kind of a minor
1 portion of the proposal. In this particular case it would be a series of catch
basins connecting into an existing storm sewer. And that, the ease of the storm
sewer is made possible by the existing storm sewer in place which is simply a
matter of connecting into it. That would also be the case for Alternate B. And
again a very simple matter of connecting the T intersection of the catch basins
and discharging into the existing storm sewer. Again, a very minor portion of
the report. Just to briefly go through some of the advantages and
1 disadvantages. Alternate A provides a good access to the north and south and
has access to Powers Blvd. via Lake Lucy Road. This would provide access for
emergency vehicles and /or public safety vehicles, which have right now limited
II access to this area. This is a deadend road. It minimizes or reduces the
construction limits. We still have a major construction areas to work with but
it's less on Alternate A than it is with Alternate B. The curvalinear alignment
11 provides for what we feel is a safer roadway with peaceful Lane becoming the
secondary roadway coming in and having to stop...Nez Perce. Whereas in
1
1 12
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Alternate B, Peaceful Lane is the major road and Nez Perce comes through and
stopping and we feel that we would probably have more traffic coming through in
this direction. That's real brief and just an overview of the two different
alignments. Again, as Charles indicated, the purpose tonight is to take
testimony and listen to the people and see if they have any questions or
comments and hopefully this thing could officially map...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bill. If we officially designate this this evening,
even with the feasibility concept, would that put the City in any position to
therefore go through for that condemnation which I objected to previously?
Elliott Knetsch: No. You would not be forced to compel it at a later date.
It's still an option at some later date but this does not bind you to that
action.
Mayor Chmiel: ...who'd like to address this issue. And if so, please come 1
forward and please state your name and your address.
Arthur Owens: My name is Arthur Owens, 6535 Peaceful Lane and the owner of the
property concerned. I wasn't primarily concerned about the road itself. We
have a purchase option with Frank Beddor to purchase the property but I was
interested in Roger's response to this fact that if today you say this is what's
going to happen to that in the future. Sometime in the future. It seems to me
that cuts off the possibility of building on that in a different plan. You have
essentially at that point condemned the property for a future use and I think
the law, the condemnation law of the State states that if you do that, then you
have to pay for the property. You can't just let it sit there and do that. Has
that been changed or am I right on that?
Elliott Knetsch: Well, I would say what we're doing here, the motive of making
it part of the official mapping is so that we can protect it from development.
State law does allow the City to designate it on it's official map and thereby
make that property owner work with that designation in the future development
plan. And that is specifically allowed by State statute.
Arthur Owens: Okay, has that been changed in the last 20 years? 1 know when 1
the University of Minnesota did that a few years ago, they were forced to
complete the condemnation when the person wanted to build. Wanted to improve
the property. ,
Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, if a person is coming in with a development application
and the road is necessary for the development of the property as they're
proposing it, the city would probably require dedication of the road at that
point and the city would not be condemning it at that point.
Arthur Owens: But no other plan for the development of that property could be ,
made is what you're saying at this particular juncture without that road going
through there under the plan that would be proposed tonight?
Paul Krauss: 1 believe one of the aspects of that law, if 1 recall from the TH r
101 issue Mr. Owens is, for example if you wanted to build a home. If you had
two lots there and I think you do have several, if you wanted to build a home in
that right -of -way, we can prevent you from doing that for a period of months,
13 ,
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
during which time I think it becomes our obligation to either buy it or drop the
11 designation. So basically it just gives us, it puts our foot in the door. We
know where the road's going to go and it gives us the opportunity to do
something. The expectation's always been that once we figured out where the
road goes, we just simply wait until your property is developed. Or subdivided,
at which time we would get the right -of -way.
Elliott Knetsch: Paul is correct about that. This doesn't give us unlimited
rights into the future. If you came with a development proposal that was
inconsistent with that road, and we still wanted the road in that location, then
we would.
Arthur Owens: You'd have to pursue the condemnation.
Elliott Knetsch: We'd have to pursue it or we could drop our plan. We could
drop that portion of the road from our official map.
Arthur Owens: Okay. That's what I wasn't clear so thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Is there anyone else?
Jules Smith: My name is Jules Smith. I represent Frank Beddor who is still
trying to buying that property. I'm kind of in a tough position because I'm
talking about the property I don't, you know that my client doesn't own,
although we've very close. You've heard the word very close for a long time but
we really are. Well Frank and our's is. We could have done this a long time
ago. We have however agreed with the Trustee in Bankruptcy, the State of
Minnesota and Art as to his half acre homestead. Part of which comes out of Lot
5 and part of which comes out of Lot 6. And we, of course we're negotiating on
' Lot 5 less that part which is the homestead. As I mentioned, the Trustee and
the State Attorney General's office have agreed and Art has agreed as to that
homestead and we have had it surveyed and we know where it's going to be so that
it leaves his house with the proper setbacks and all that business around it.
So it meets the city's ordinances. As a matter of fact, we're prepared to go.
the Trustee in Bankruptcy and the State are negotiating I guess. The Trustee
of Bankruptcy said, he would abandon this property except he wants...little more
property and he's made that proposal to the State. Richard Markel, the
Assistant Attorney General has handed this up to his boss to see if it's
' alright. The boss is on vacation and Markel's on vacation until Thursday. So
we're assuming the State approves that, we're ready to close this in another
week or so. As soon as everybody gets back from vacation. Now we do have some
concerns about the appropriate or the location of that street in terms of it's
broad sweep or it's straight cut into Peaceful Lane or some other appropriate
location. And so what we would like to do, we've done this many times before. I
almost hate to bring it up. But we'd like to just see, as soon as we know that
we've got this property and are purchasing it, we'd like to come in and talk to
the city about that development and work on an appropriate location and handle
that street program at that time. And therefore I would ask the City Council
to postpone this for about a month and we expect to be ready to go. Because we
do have some concerns about the curve that comes through and we'd like to sit
down with the staff and the consulting engineer and discuss it. Anyway, that's
where we are.
' 14
i
City Council fleeting - August 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else at this particular time?
Jim Stassen: My name is Jim Stassen. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. On the
corner. And I've been to quite a few of these meetings now and we have a few
questions. I don't know, we haven't really even, we've looked at both of the
proposals and one is nice in one way and one is nice in the other way and we're
wondering if maybe there's a combination between the two that can be worked out.
And I guess if they're going to work out with staff what they want to do, I'd
kind of like to be involved in that too if it's possible so that our interests
are protected. This is the only place, if we work it out here, we get a say.
If they go behind closed doors and work it all out and then come out and say,
this is it. We're stuck again back here going, well we don't like this and then
it's all, it gets to be another fighting match which we'll lose.
Mayor Chmiel: If we table it this evening, you'll have an opportunity whenever
it comes back to Council again to hear what the proposals are basically being
done. At that time you'd have that opportunity to either object or agree with
what's being proposed.
Jim Stassen: Okay, so it will still be a proposal? It will come back here and
everything will be worked out.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Nothing's done behind closed doors in this City Hall. 11
Jim Stassen: Alright. I have a question about abandoning the right -of -way on
that. If that gets abandoned, does that automatically become part of our
property or does that become just a no man's land and just sits out there?
Bill Engelhardt: The portion of right -of -way that we wouldn't be utilizing ,
would be vacated to the neighboring property. As you saw on the drawing, the
Peaceful Lane right -of -way does not...
Jim Stassen: If we don't want it, do we have to take it?
Bill Engelhardt: You don't have to take it. It'd be nice if you did. 1
Jim Stassen: Well we're just concerned. We've got, somewhere along the line
Pleasant View Road is going to get redone and right now we've got maybe 20 or 40
feet access on Pleasant View Road and if we run it all the way out to the
corner, then we're just going to get assessed a lot more, assuming we're still
there.
Bill Engelhardt: I guess that's something we can talk to you about. Whether
you want it or not. Once it's your property, then it's easier to ask you to
maintain it...so it's usually better to give it back to the neighbor.
Jim Stassen: Well we could work something. We could maintain it.
Bill Engelhardt: I just wanted to say too that your comment on meeting, the
best way to handle that is to...this gentleman to sit down, put it on the table
and see which is best from both of them.
1
15 ,
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Jim Stassen: That's fine with me. Oh, if indeed it does end up to be a rather
large sweeping corner, Pleasant View Road has a speed limit of 25 mph. Would
that road also be tagged 25 mph or would that be open to whatever?
Mayor Chmiel: That determination would have to be done through staff and MnDot.
MnDot's the determining factor as to what speeds are found there. Charles.
Charles Folch: Typically this design will yield a current standard, residential
urban section which will be designed for 30 mph speed posting as the majority of
all our streets are within the city.
' Mayor Chmiel: I know there's a complete study going on by MnDot to see whether
or not 30 mph speed limit should be retained within residential areas. They're
looking at 25 but no determination has been made as yet.
Jim Stassen: I guess that's it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Can I have a motion to close
the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
' hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Request by the absentee applicant has been to request that this
be tabled for a month. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I've got one concern and I'm not sure I know the answer
to this. We went through a bankruptcy situation on Teton Lane and it resulted
in the resubdivision of some property by the bankruptcy ruling that the City
Council was prevented from taking any action on. It was done kind of
unilaterally by the bankruptcy finding. Now in that case it didn't really cause
us any big difficulty. I refused to sign off on it but the County Recorder
recorded it anyway because they were under Court Order to do so. The concern
that I would have is we're also under a bankruptcy type of situation here. The
question is, if there's an officially mapped road present, is that something
that the Bankruptcy Court has to take into account? If property is
transferred under the bankruptcy. We're looking forward to getting the right-
of-way when subdivision occurs. Subdivision may occur under the bankruptcy
resolution without our ability to intervene. And the question is, does the
official mapping help us out at all in that?
11 Elliott Knetsch: Well, it may or it may not. I mean it boils down to whether
or not the Bankruptcy Court consults the City and gets our input when they make
their determination. If they don't, if we're not a party to the proceeding, I
' don't believe we'd be bound by it. It may very well mean that we'd have to
start our own Court action to get a different Court to say, we're not bound by
this Bankruptcy Court proceeding because we weren't a party to it. But I don't
think they can make a decision and bind us to it, especially without telling us
about it.
Mayor Chmiel: One other question. Do we close the public hearing as well? We
did make that motion. Do we leave that?
16
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Elliott Knetsch: I'd say you'd want to continue the public hearing until the
next time this comes back.
Mayor Chmiel: So we should remove basically the.
Councilwoman Dimler: And say it's tabled?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. We should remove that. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'll remove that.
Councilman Workman: It was my second.
Councilwoman Dialer removed her motion and Councilman Workman seconded it, to 11 table the public hearing.
Paul Krauss: Just as a follow up then. Would it be appropriate to direct the
City Attorney to make sure the Bankruptcy Court is aware of the City's interest
in the roadway? I mean I don't know what the etiquette of something like that
is
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, what would that do for us? ,
Paul Krauss: So they're aware of the fact that the City is looking through
subdivision to get right -of -way for a road. That we do have official plans for
that. That that should be taken into acount when lines are drawn on maps so
that it doesn't look like the Middle East where they just kind of drew lines
irregardless of who lived where. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, I guess I wouldn't have any.
Elliott Knetsch: I think that's a good idea. It would give them notice of our
position in this area and ask them if they're planning on doing any subdivision
of the property, to contact staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move that. Can I have a motion to table this?
Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the
feasibility study for Nez Perce Road and to direct the City Attorney's office to
notify the Bankruptcy Court to contact City staff if they plan on doing any
subdivision of this property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Until the...properties, as Mr. Smith has said, within a two
weeks, a month, 6 weeks, whatever. Also to include Jim Stassen into those
discussions. Thank you.
NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
17 ,
11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Kate Aanenson: This,Association has a lengthy history as far as appearing
before the City. This beachlot is Lot 37 of Shore Acres. Not exactly
contingent to the Sunny Slope subdivision. It's 5,000 square feet in area and
has a frontage of 50 feet. Well under the required 200 feet of lakeshore
frontage and 30,000 square feet. I've outlined the history of, a brief summary
of this appearance before the City and the final would be the District Court
Findings upholding the denial of the conditional use. Staff did survey this
beachlot in 1981 and noted that it was not developed. There was not a dock in
at that time, nor any boats or swimming beach. The Association is requesting
approval of one dock, 40 feet in length and 3 boats. The recreational beachlot
ordinance does allow for a swimming beach and the Court Findings also stated
I that it would be acceptable for this Association to have a swimming beach.
Again, staff documented that there was no activity with the beachlot in 1981 and
therefore has no grandfathering status. The Planning Commission recommended at
' the July 15th meeting that they should be allowed to have a swimming beach only
and not a dock. They felt that even though the Association may have intended to
put a dock and boats in, there wasn't one there and therefore they weren't
' allowed to have one in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions of Kate at this
particular time?
t Councilman Workman: I have one quick one. District Court Findings basically
stated that we could deny it. Not that we had to. Is that correct? They
11 upheld that we had the right to deny.
Kate Aanenson: The Findings that we made, yes. That's my understanding.
Councilman Workman: They were making commentary on our ability to do so. Not
that we had to do so.
' Elliott Knetsch: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: Perry Mason.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Perry. Any other questions of Kate? Okay, is there
anyone here from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association? Would you like to
present this to Council. Please come forward and state your name and your
' address and representing the Association.
Ken Wolter: Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council for the opportunity. My name
is Ken Wolter. I live at 341 Deerfoot Trail, Chanhassen. I'm the current
President of the Association. As Kate said, it's been a very lengthy, ongoing
ordeal I think for our request. I'd like to try and encapsulate as quickly as
possible a little bit of history. As you may already have. You may not have in
all your files and a little bit of a summary information before any final
decisions are made. The Association was conceived and approved by the
Chanhassen in the State of Minnesota in 1977. At that time it was the lake lot
with it as well as a dock sitting on the shoreline. The Association, Allen
Gray's the developer /owner at that time, did request a conditional use permit as
was required by ordinance at that time '78. The Planning Commission approved it
1 and when it got to City Council, it was denied based on neighborhood feeling
that it was going to depreciate the values of property. Rowdiness and 12 boats
11 18
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
sitting down there on that lakeshore lot, which was no way the intention that
the developer or the Association had any intention of doing. The first home was
sold in 1981 to a gentleman by the name of Steve Burke. He did not have a boat
at the time but that was part of what he bought there for and many of the people
that followed, that bought into the association, also believed. They were
represented with sales brochures stating lake access. I think some of those
copies should be in your file. Sales brochures. Plans for the development. How
it was going to be done. I have to very readily admit there was no
documentation, thorough documentation in our By -laws at that time based on the
fact there was only one homeowner. So he never installed the dock and with a
bunch of kids, he obviously didn't have the time to do that but that was his
desire. Over the next 2 years, between '82, '83, '84, approximately 3 more
homeowners came in. Built homes based on the same premise of being able to have
lake access. In the public Planning Commission, one question was asked. Is if
anybody ever called the City. One of the original homeowners, Al Dirks who
presided at 331 Deerfoot Trail could not give me the name of who or the Planning
Commission, who the person was he talked to but back then he did call in to the
city and asked if they would have dock rights and boating rights and access
through the lake. He was told yes and that was part of the decision again why
he decided to buy into the area. In '84, the Association under the belief that
we have a dock rights, bought a brand new dock and installed it into the lake.
That's when the City came back and said no, you can't have that because you
don't have the right. We bought a new dock because the old one that was sitting
on the shoreline back in '81 -'82, history of the grandfathering act, was sitting
off on the shoreline in the weeds. That dock at that time was given to a non -
association member next door to our lakeshore lot, Paul Olson and he currently
used that dock until this year when he rebuilt it and put a new dock in. Over
several years in 1980's, the City has denied attempts of the Association to pass
for a conditional use permit. The Court trial decision definitely favored with
the City but before they actually went to trial, the Association had plans to
introduce more documentation and in a case that was used, Spence vs. Bloomington
I believe, it disallowed any further information or documentation that the
Association had so at that time the State allowed or approved whatever the City
decided at that time. The information I'm presenting now and with the sales
brochures and the other information I hope I'm introducing now has some bearing
towards the final decision for 1992 and the grandfathering hopes. Our current
use is limited to recreational activities such as picnics and sunning and a
little bit of swimming or wading in the water type of thing and what we do do
for boat useage is go over to Eden Prairie side and launch our boats there.
Come over to the beach during the daytime. Take our boats out at nighttime.
Our plans of the Association, this is a 50 foot by 110 foot lot. I believe it's
55,000 square foot. We want to make a, we had always intended and planned to
make an available beachlot to our neighborhood. We wanted one dock, 3 boats
with overnight storage rights for those boats. The intention is not to request
any significant or unreasonable use but just to have the basic, non - riparian
rights of lakeshore lots owned by an off -shore owner. We're not planning on
parking cars, parking boat trailers, launching boats across there because we do
take pride in the lake and the lot that we have and we feel that that would be
detrimental to our useage. There's similar associations with approval of
conditional use permits and non - conforming permits. A couple I noted. Frontier
Trail. It's a larger one. It's approximately 45,000 square foot. There was 35
homes in '81. Obviously a more developed association when the grandfathering
act came into play. It showed no dock or boats. The Planning Commission and
19
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
City Council approved the dock and no boats based on intention. There was some
paperwork in their By -laws I believe that did state that. That they did want to
have a dock there. And the dock was never there on a consistent basis but
sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. Trolls Glen in 1981 had 8 homes of 12
developed, therefore they were a developed association again where they had
people of the association that could represent the Association and make the
By -laws that were going to conform to the City and to what the Association
wanted. Trolls Glen has approximately 53,000 square foot. Showed 1 dock and 2
boats. Final approval is 1 dock and 4 boats based on an intent and the By -laws.
The By -laws did state that. Minnewashta Heights in 1981 had 74 homes, 50 foot
of shoreline, 7,500 square feet. The survey showed 1 dock and 6 boats. Final
approval was 1 dock and 10 boats based on the association documentation and
intent. Again, I bring out the intent because yes, there was. Most of these
have By -laws because they were a developed association but there was a lot of
intent through all the proceedings and intention of the growth of the
association. Pleasant Acres in '81 showed 53 homes. The only documentation I
saw in the records was basically a Quit Claim for lake access deeding the
property to the association from a Mrs. Lee Anderson for current and future
1 development of any sale of property she would develop. And like I said, I
didn't find anything else in any of the files that I went through over the last
couple of weeks that showed any By -laws or anything of that sort. These
associations were obviously all more developed than the Sunny Slope Association
and had members who could vote on the association and make something that was
workable for the city as well as the association. The decision was made this
I year for the non - conforming use based on documentation and intent. Why should
Sunny Slope have the grandfathering rights of 1 dock, 3 boats? The association
has always attempted to be good neighbors I feel. Once we become a developed
association, we worked very hard at that. We've always had annual neighborhood
II parties. Inviting the lakeshore people over to our commons areas. Have
bar -be -ques. We never had any rebuff when the adjoining properties asked for
variances to build houses or put decks up. We felt this was, we wanted those
I people to build and have what they wanted also. Back in '77, when sewer went
into the area, the lakeshore association asked Allen Grey, the Sunny Slope
Association if they would be willing to share in the sewer costs and to develop
Sunny Slope with sewer because that would allow them to spread the cost of the
II
sewer in the development. Sunny Slope did indeed do that. Contribute into the
sewer. Also at no charge to the city contributed a 50 x 50 foot area for the
lift station that services the entire Lake Riley Blvd. area out in our, from
II Lyman south. We've assisted in the milfoil patrols that the lake has over the
recent years. Assisted in the pick up and trying to clean up the lake as much
as possible. We also look at the initial concern of the association lot back in
'78 when it was denied by the City Council as people in the association,
lakeshore association was concerned about 12 boats, abusive, wild and noisy
parties. The valuation of property. We wanted 3 boats, not 12. We didn't want
anything exorbinate for that size lot. We never had and never will want that.
II We currently launch our boats on the Eden Prairie side and come through and use
it as we would, as our beachlot in that manner. We feel that the local housing
on either side of our lot cannot be devaluated by adding a dock or the 3 boats
I which was a major concern back then, because we already utilize that lot. We
have it for the limited use we do have and I just see no way that we can
increase traffic or decrease the valuation of the properties. We have proof of
the dock that there was a dock there in '81. That's from sales brochures, a
letter that is enclosed also from Steve Burke stating that when he bought there,
20
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
there was a dock there. And also testimony at the Planning Commission where Joy
Tanner, who lives on the opposite side of our association lakeshore lot from
Paul Olson, stated that she does acknowledge a dock there. We are not abusing
the lot or the neighborhood. Joy Tanner again in the Planning Commission
meeting stated that we were, since we've developed as an association, we've
become good neighbors. We maintain our lot. We do not abuse it. We're not
boisterous, loud, abusive, of our rights that we do have down there. All we're
looking for is for the City Council to fairly grandfather our non - riparian
rights for the lakeshore beachlot such as similar ones that were done in '81.
Yes, we did not have the dock in the water. I look at the fact that we were the
only association at that time that wanted to have the dock. Was being sold to
have the dock. Didn't have enough people to write the By -laws. We are more
than willing to write the final By -laws to be able to allow us to have a
rotational basis for the useage of the overnight storage of the boats. And if
there was to be something else the City would like to incorporate with us, we'd
be willing to talk about that and discuss it. We have no intention to want to
set any precedence for the future associations and we feel we wouldn't be doing
that because of the fact we are an association that owned lakeshore before 1981.
What we believe our association deserves these uses through the facts presented.
We have not abused the neighborhood or the lake in the past and wish to continue
to contribute to the community and the lake as we have. The impact of useage on
the neighborhood is negligible and allows Sunny Slope it's grandfathered rights.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Not at this time but there may be some. Is there anyone else who
would like to discuss this at this time? Please come forward and indicate any
of your concerns. Does Council have any questions? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Wolter, you mentioned that there was no association '
meetings held because there weren't enough people. Do you know how many of the
12 homes were occupied in 1981?
Ken Wolter: One. Mr. Steve Burke.
Councilwoman Dimler: Even in 1981? ,
Ken Wolter: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Even though the development was in 1976 I believe. ,
Ken Wolter: Yes. It started out as a, should I come up there again?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you do that so we can record this.
Ken Wolter: Sunny Slope started out as, the initial plan was to have it like a
retirement area. Retirement association. Obviously that did not go over very
well as a start. No one flooded out to the area to buy and build homes. And so
at that point they made it a family association and at that time, that's when
Steve Burke moved in. Bought the existing model home in 1981.
Councilwoman Dimler: Before that, in 1976 no one.
Ken Wolter: No one lived here.
21 1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Councilwoman Dimier: There were no homes except that one model home?
Ken Wolter: Except the one model.
! Councilwoman Dimier: Okay. Also, do you pay taxes on your beachlot?
Ken Wolter: Yes we do. I was trying to find out how much and all that stuff
but the person that handles the finances for our, the treasurer was not
available to provide that to me at the time. But we do pay taxes because we
get, that's part of our association dues that we pay on a monthly basis.
t Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, so then you pay 1/12 of the taxes.
Ken Wolter: Each homeowner pays 1/12.
Councilwoman Dimier: So then in 1981 Mr. Burke paid all of it?
Ken Wolter: I would have to assume between him and the developer, Allen Grey.
The ratio. He owned 1/12, Allen Grey owned 11/12.
Councilwoman Dimier: So you think the developer paid the rest?
Ken Wolter: Correct.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, thank you. That's all I've got.
Ken Wolter: I have significant documentation dating back into '81 when Steve
i Burke and Allen Grey were talking about who pays how much of it and how much
they were paying back at that time.
11 Councilman Wing: Kate, isn't this lot operating under the new ordinance? This
isn't a grandfathered lot.
' Kate Aanenson: Yes it is.
Councilman Wing: This is a grandfathered lot?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. What we're trying to establish is the level of use.
That's what the ordinance says. What was the level of use.
Councilman Wing: I was in on the '81 ordinance and the big fear and the reason
that prompted this ordinance in the first place was intent. That there was an
intent to buy 50 foot lots all over the place and tie 60 homes into it. And
then in the hearing in early this year with Planning and Council, it was a
unanimous vote of the Council and Planning not to deal with intent. To deal
with actual use so my question to you is, in 1981 when this ordinance went into
effect, what was the actual use of your beach? That's our only question
tonight. What was the actual use?
Ken Wolter: The actual use, I would have to tell very truthfully. The dock was
sitting on the shoreline and there were no boats there.
' 22
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Wing: So the actual use in '81 was no boats and no dock.
Ken Wolter: At that point, yes.
Councilman Wing: Isn't that the ordinance? What are we arguing? 1
1
Kate Aanenson: He's making his plea is for the intent.
Councilman Wing: But is intent is the issue here? I mean all of these have 1
intent. They have a lot of boats and docks. Aren't we only trying to determine
what the actual use was? We've been consistent with actual useage. All... were
done with one exception. Trolls Glen you went with intent but I wasn't here
that night.
Councilman Workman: There were 6 boats on Minnewashta and we ended up with 10.
Councilman Wing: No, they had 16 and we went with 10 because they had 6 and 4.
They documented 10 boats. We went with actual use. Minnewashta Heights
documented 17 boats. We went with 14. Trolls Glen documented 3. You went with
4. That was based on intent but intent wasn't the picture that night. So what,
I don't understand what we're doing here all of a sudden.
Elliott Knetsch: I'd have to agree with you. We are looking at actual use in
1981. That established whatever non - conforming rights they had. And this is a
request to go beyond the established use as of 1981. 1
Councilman Wing: So if we try to be consistent on actual useage, which was our
agreement to do, and we go along with a boat and dock here, then that '81 count
is out the window. Then we have no standard with which to work with on any of
these. Am I reading this right or wrong? Planning Commission and staff is
justified with useage in 1981 being beach rights only. I noticed that in the
selling brochure it talks about lake access but at no time discusses a dock and
boats. It doesn't say you have a slip and boat useage.
Ken Wolter: That was never written into the By -laws at the time because we
didn't have any owners at that time. That was a tool that was to be used. That
was before my time obviously but one part of it is we're looking at what was
happening back in 1981. The other part is, well was the decision even made back
in '78 -'77 when this became an association. When we had the lakeshore lot. It
was more than intent. It was the plan at that time.
Councilman Wing: If you understand that this group, first of all the hearings
that occurred earlier this year really established how this all occurred and
there was a real history here. I just want to make sure Council understands the
history that a lot of give and take occurred back in '78 -'79 and '80 and into
'81 and '82 when this ordinance was passed. Lake owners went from 5 boats to 3.
There was a reason. Because there was compromise. Any non- riparian lot that
existed that had boats or docks was protected. That was an agreement.
Minnewashta Heights had 50 feet and 17 boats. That's really a lot of boats for
50 feet. But as a compromise they were protected. So I went back from 5 to 3
boats. There were 20 boats allowed per acre on the lake and what we did during
those hearings was to split them between riparian and non - riparian. The lake
owners got half the boats. Non -lake owners got half the boats and that's what
23 1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
all these numbers and this ordinance is based on. So if your actual use in 1981
was 0, that was taken into account when this ordinance was passed. Had you had
a boat or a dock there, you would have been protected and there'd be no
argument. If you had 14 boats there now, you'd be at odds with us so, and I
don't want to be harsh about this but we have argued a lot of these and I simply
have to say, what was the actual use in 1981. Your stating it's nothing. I
think the question before us is nothing and I think our only decision can be
nothing. I don't think intent is, I hate to keep. I wish you could clarify for
us legally how we can discuss intent. Is intent an issue here?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't believe it is. He's suggesting that because the
' association only had one member and they didn't have their By -laws or covenants
together, that their intent didn't come to fruition but even if they did have
private covenants, that would not be binding on the city.
•
Councilman Wing: The City Council and this Planning Commission in '81 knew that
the intent was to saturate the lake with these small lots and boats. That's
what prompted this in the first place so intent is the key issue to the
ordinance in the first place. I don't mean to be harsh. I was just involved in
it.
Ken Wolter: No, I can respect your opinion on that. It's not our intent to
over indulge anything and that's why we're trying to go back to look at what
could have been grandfathered if we would have been even more developed than one
person. And I see beyond that as, yeah. If we would have 3 people and 3 boats
at that time, it would have been a very easy decision in that manner but I have
to, I can't make excuses for the association. It didn't develop but the plan
was there. The intent was there. Some of our By -laws, they don't directly
spell out dockage. How we're going to use dockage but you know, all of our
commons areas are to be maintained and including the lakeshore lot. It was all
supposed to be maintained and no noisey times. No boisterous times. No
abusiveness of our properties.
Councilman Wing: I hear you and I think all of us know that a dock and boats
isn't going to kill the lake or the city. I'm just concerned that this
II ordinance be enforced. This one's got an interesting legal history. This one
has already been discussed and denied. This one more than any other one is as
clear cut as they can get, isn't it?
Elliott Knetsch: Well you're referring to the pack of materials and I did
handle that case for the City. At that time we were dealing with the specific
application for a conditional use permit. They wanted variances to allow the
beachlot to be used and to have a dock and have boats and canoe racks. So the
Court decision dealt with that specific application and found that the City was
justified in it's position of turning down that permit and those variances. So
I that Court decision really doesn't bind us today. We're sort of on a clean
slate in that respect.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Richard?
Councilman Wing: No, thank you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
24
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: Well Richard, I disagree. I guess I was elected to be as 11 flexible as possible without endangering people and not to flagrantly abuse laws
d we've set up. I think this homeowners association tried to get through a window
of opportunity and they just about got through but their ankles got slammed in
the door. So that's what sort of makes this homeowner association a little bit
different from the others. I think they're all different. I think Minnewashta
Heights getting 10 is outrageous. Because they had 17 there in 1981 doesn't
make any more sense than denying these guys because they're dock wasn't out yet.
And perhaps they couldn't have 3 boats out there because it was. Yet, this
property was marketed that they would have these rights. Is that our problem?
No. Is it the developer's problem? Probably yes. It is Mr. Wolter's problem?
Yes. And so now, here we are having to make the decision and that's where I
say, this is not a lot different from Minnewashta Heights or Trolls in that we
did open it up. If the airplane flew over and said they say 3 there, at Trolls,
and we gave them 4. That's 33% more boats than they should have had. There was
an intent there. We didn't want to deny property owners something that is very
valuable to their property, and that's what these guys are fighting for. As far
as increased useage on this lot, this changes nothing. Putting up a dock and
putting 3 boats on the dock changes nothing because those 3 boats are, or 22
boats are all going over to Eden Prairie and letting them in there. Parking
them there anyway and then they have to take them home. Is that better than
leaving 3 boats there? I guess so, somehow but I don't think they're doing
anything to the lake that they're not already doing. So as far as over
burdening the lake, I don't think they're doing that. The lake hasn't been
saturated with 50 foot lots. This is a lot onto itself and that's how I'm
trying to think it. The court said yes, you have the right to deny them but we,
I'm assuming that, and that was on a very narrow area and I appreciate your
winning that because when we first came in, us other 3 here, when we first came
on the Council, we were delighted because we didn't have to deal with the darn
thing. And Elliott was able to take it and here it is now before us. I wish we
had taken care of it back then. I don't know that any homeowners association
has, did Minnewashta Heights have all their dockage documented? Did Trolls Gien
have everything documented about how many boats? What they could did?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah they did. Trolls Glen they did. ,
Councilman Workman: Well, this one fails. But it was near to impossible for
them to have a boat. Or a dock at that site in 1981. That doesn't change the
fact that yes, they had an intent to do so. Did our ordinance, is our ordinance
now denying them something that every other beachlot in the city has access to?
I think it does. I just think that the window of opportunity for this beachlot
was so close to when they started getting developed, it's easy for us to say,
you're out of luck. And that's not where I usually try to head because I don't
think this is going to hurt the neighbors. It's not going to hurt the lake.
It's going to however, help this association and that's what I would prefer
doing.
Elliott Knetsch: Mayor, if I could just make one comment. As long as Trolls
Gien has come up. This is as a side light. There is a lawsuit filed against
the City this month and one of the property owners at Trolls Gien maintains that
in 1981 there was one dock with two boats. Not three. Not four. And the City
has now granted a permit for four boats and one dock and is being sued over that
decision because according to the property owner, there was only two and now
25 '
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
we've gone beyond their legal non - conforming rights. So I only bring that up to
mention that there is not complete agreement as to what exactly existed at
Trolls Glen in 1981.
Councilman Workman: Well how many did the aerial photographs prove were at
Minnewashta?
Councilman Wing: 14.
Councilman Workman: So why isn't Minnewashta suing us for 4 more?
Councilman Wing: We gave them 14.
Councilman Workman: I thought we left it at 10?
Kate Aanenson: Pleasant Acres.
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, you're thinking of a different one. I guess on that
comment of the Trolls Glen, the reason I was able to support that was because it
was documented in the Minutes that that's what they had. And so this Court case
then actually will prove whether those Minutes hold.
Elliott Knetsch: Right. They had a photograph showing 4 boats. Okay, but
there's also other evidence which would suggest that there was only 2. There's
a dispute about that.
Councilwoman Dimier: So we'll see how that goes.
Elliott Knetsch: I agree that what you had in front of you, there was evidence
' to support your decision of 4.
Mayor Chmiel: That was also a suit initiated by the property owner at that time
against that Association as well.
Elliott Knetsch: That's correct.
' Mayor Chmiel: Same individual who is now in turn including the City into a suit
as opposed to the Association.
Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimier: Well unfortunately these people don't have any Minutes for
us to hang our hat on and that's what's making this so difficult as far as I'm
concerned. Also, if I may Mr. Mayor, make a few comments. I did look over that
brochure that was presented to us and I was trying to find in your favor where
it stated in there that you could have a dock with 3 boats but I didn't see
anything in there except that it simply stated access to beautiful Lake Riley.
That could really be interpretted to mean the public access as far as I'm
concerned because it says nothing else. And like I said, unfortunately this
Association has no Minutes for us to hang our hats on. However, I could argue
the point that since the dock was noted on the property, even though it was not
out in the water in 1981 that there, obviously if you've got a dock there, you
intend to put it in the water. To me. That makes common sense. But I could
' 26
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
1
not follow through on the same basis to allow for 3 boats to be docked overnight
because I think there's other associations that have a dock that don't have
mooring and docking rights. So we would be expanding the useage just because
they have a dock. If we allowed a dock, that wouldn't necessarily follow that
they could keep them there overnight. It states in condition 11 on page 3 too,
that approving the application would generate additional boat traffic and
congestion on the lake. I don't agree with that in the fact that they stated
that they are already using the public access and they are pulling their boats
onto the beachlot so you know, that's another argument why I think maybe we
should allow a dock. Because they're using the beachlot that way anyway and it
would be easier for them to use the dock. Also, since they have swimming
rights, it was suggested that they follow the U.S. Coast Guard standards and put
up market buoys which, and again could be interpretted as an expansion since
they didn't have them. But in this case for safety, especially in light of the
tragedy that was reported yesterday, I would think that that would make sense as
well. So if we're going to allow that for safety, which I would go along with,
then I would also allow the dock but not the 3 boats mooring overnight.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Okay, I guess I had Ken come in and see me on one
I/
of my Saturday mornings to discuss this. In looking at their brochure, as it
does read in it, access to beautiful Lake Riley for boating, fishing and
swimming. But if they're saying access, I think the intent by the pictures it's
shown depicts location as well as the lot. And that in itself might be a
position. And then of course with the Courts going through the process, as I
told Ken, I thought it was sort of dead in the water as far as that was
concerned but I said I was going to leave an open mind to this as well.
Basically what's been said here back and forth, so if the intent was and
starting the association as they did in '81, even though they did have that dock
on the ground. Not in the water, in location. Someone took the initiative of ,
getting it there, there wouldn't be the discussion we're having right now. And
it's just a goof up and one member on that association or in the association at
that time with the other 11 lots not being sold. Which eventually were sold.
So I guess rather than go through the complete discussions of what has been
said, as I said, I don't disagree with what the Planning Commission has said as
well. Allowing that as a swimming beach. The dock could be there but there
again, if you put the dock in, it would just automatically be used and boats
would be there and somebody would have to police it. It would create more of a
problem for the city to make sure that it was being done.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well they can already have the boats apparently. Bring 1
them on the public landing and pull them up on the beach but there's no
overnighting. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: And so a dock doesn't necessarily mean that you can '
overnight because in our association we don't overnight. We don't have that
priviledge but we can pull them up during the day though...on the beach.
Councilman Workman: And so, what is their leaving the boats there overnight 1
causing?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it's in and against what the ordinance basically says.
27 '
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler- It would be precedent setting for other beachlot
associations that have a dock but don't have overnight rights.
Councilman Workman: Right, but my question is, what are those three boats, what
' exactly is it that they're causing from 10:00 at night until 6:00 in the
morning?
Mayor Chmiel: It's not causing anything basically other than going against what
the ordinance basically is the intent of the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: It sounds like the ordinance has a problem then.
1 Councilman Wing: But that was the discussion earlier in the year. Either we
enforce the '81 ordinance or you change it but you don't do it here, at the
' variance hearing. If you want to change the ordinance, let's get it before the
Council then and let's see if there's a problem with it, let's change it. But
then we've got to have public hearings and start all over.
Councilwoman Dimler: You mean start all over with...
Councilman Workman: I still have asked the question and there's really no
answer so that to me.
Councilwoman Dimler: We said it's precedent setting for other beachlots.
Councilman Workman: Right, but what I'm saying is, then there's a flaw. We've
gone this far, but there's a flaw. We can either keep motoring on here with
flaws in an ordinance or we can change the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Our ordinance is perfect as far as I can see.
' Councilman Wing: What's the flaw?
Councilman Workman: Well, I still don't have an answer as to from 10:00 at
night until 6:00 in the morning or so, what those 3 boats matter.
Councilman Wing: Well let's say you have 3 boats docked and we're hung up with
3 boats. Maybe they bring 8 boats in on a weekend. Maybe they bring no boats
in but we have 3 overnight and then we bring in 3 more.
Councilman Workman: Well they are using the boats. I mean they are using the
1 lot that way. There are probably more than that. There could be 8 boats there
for sure.
Councilman Wing: Tom, you're.
Councilman Workman: I'm not trying to put anybody against the wall. I'm just
saying, the boats are already there and the association would like the
convenience of leaving a few of them there overnight. I'm not sure I understand
what that is causing.
Councilman Wing: How many boats are already there?
1 28
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: It sounds like most everybody has a boat. 1
Ken Wolter: No. Currently there are only 5 people that have boats. Our plan,
the Association always planned on, as far as I can trace back, to have like 3
boats on a rotational basis goverened by the By -laws as we created it. It does
state dockage in another attached report. Sunny Slope Association, in a letter
that went to the Veteran's Adminstration and talks about dockage on our outlot.
But again, as stated, we wanted to have the 3 boats on a rotational basis so
there would not be more than 3 boats sitting there overnight. We were looking
at the equal rights that all the other lakeshore owners have or even less than
what they have.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I still argue that that would be precedent setting
to all the other associations that don't have overnight rights but have docks.
It would be giving you something that we didn't give the others. i
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just to get this going, if you'll accept a motion.
I want to support the '81 ordinance and I want to support actual useage in '81.
I/
And as I'm reading the staff report, there was no dock in the water. There were
no boats and that would be my motion and recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: And also with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the �
swimming beach be approved?
Councilman Wing: The swimming beach be approved, yes. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Well, for lack of a second, I'll make a motion to approve
the beachlot with the 3 boats and a dock.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to that? It appears as though that also is
dead with no second.
Councilwoman Dimler: For lack of a second, I'll make a motion that we approve,
because the dock was on the property in 1981, even though it wasn't in the
water. That is enough for me to say that they intended to have it in. To
approve a dock with no overnight priviledges.
Councilman Wing: Ursula, even though they did state that the dock wound up on
somebody's front porch in 1982 and was used to bolster some cabin, I'll second
that just to get this done. 1
Councilman Workman: If I can add something. Sunny Slope. Privacy, proximity,
tennis, boating, fishing. All on the property. It doesn't say anything about
10 minutes away in Eden Prairie.
Councilman Wing: Can I ask then, does that brochure have anything to do with
our discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, not really.
1
29 ,
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Not really. Other than to show you that there was some intent
with it in showing that there was a lake lot associated with that.
Elliott Knetsch: That brochure and those materials were also submitted to the
1 Court.
Councilwoman Dimler: And they didn't need it. That was enough proof. Also,
I'm wondering if I should, the U.S. Coast Guard recommendations, they do have
II the swimming beach already. If we incorporate the buoys there, the marker buoys
for safety.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's a requirement that has to be there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But do they have that presently?
1 Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe so.
Councilwoman Dimler: The buoys, the market buoys for the swimming beach, do you
11 have those presently?
Ken Wolter: No, we do not have that...our swimming was always been limited to
' kids playing in about the first 6 or 7 feet from the shoreline itself. It was
more just a useage for kids to wade in more than anything. It's protected
because the point, there's a point that protects the bay that our association
lot lies in. That point. We look back right here. Being back so far, that's a
1 good 50 -60, almost 120 feet from our lot out to the point and for someone to go
swimming, curving a boat in there and nail kids 6 feet from the shoreline when
it's only 3 feet or less at 50 to 60 feet out from that shoreline.
II Councilwoman Dimler: So there's no dramatic drop either when you get out there?
Ken Wolter: No. It's all very gentle all the way out there until you get out
II about halfway and then it drops about 2 -3 feet more.
Mayor Chmiel: Still, if we initiate putting in a swimming beach there, buoys
II have to be located.
Ken Wolter: How large of an area?
II Mayor Chmiel: Paul? Kate do you know?
Kate Aanenson: We can work with them on that. That's something we'd be
1 requesting on all the beachlots, especially when you have conflicting boat
traffic with swimmers and we're requesting that with all the beachlots that have
come in this year.
Mayor Chmiel: My concern is basically the safety aspect. Just warning a boater
that you're not to be in this close. Lord only knows sometimes who's driving
what at what time and what conditions they're in.
Ken Wolter: Well, we have children in our association. Obviously we're not...
safety for everybody.
1 30
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: Are there any beachlots that were created in 1981 in this
city?
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do yo know?
Paul Krauss: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.
Councilman Workman: Are there any other beachlots that are going to come before
us or have that were created in 1981 like this?
Paul Krauss: You mean right on that cusp? I don't know specifically if there
were any. I mean we haven't heard the arguments from everybody yet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what we have on the floor presently is a motion to include
a dock and also as a swimming beach and that buoys be placed on that swimming
beach.
Councilwoman Dimler: With no overnight rights. 1
Councilman Wing: What's the length of the dock?
Mayor Chmiel: 40 feet. '
Councilman Wing: Kate, I'd also like as an addendum to the permit, reference to
the dock setback so that's clarified.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Did you wish to say something before I
call a question? ,
Dick Nelson: Mr. Wing's always talking about our intent and...slightly more
than intent when the Planning Commission voted unanimously in '78 to give us a
dock, overnight storage of boats and a canoe rack. That was voted on by the
Planning Commission in 1978. And it was a unanimous vote.
Councilman Wing: Something went wrong in '81, '78 and this year. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I don't have that information.
Dick Nelson: We have copies of this Planning Commission meeting. 1
Councilman Wing: But here, the whole evening we've been talking intent and the
attorney has repeatedly said intent is not the issue here. We have an ordinance
on the book and all this Council is directed to do tonight is determine actual
useage and you've stated, your actual useage was maybe a dock. That's the only
question tonight. It's not to discuss your intent or what you would have liked
to have done. Kate, am I off? If I'm off balance on this, then you ought to
say something.
Kate Aanenson: No, that's right. 1
Dick Nelson: I think we should address more than legality and address fairness
too and we've been treated very unfairly. I don't think you can deny that. It
31 1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
was voted unanimously by the same Planning Commission in '78 to give us the
dock.
1
Councilman Wing: I was involved in the '81 ordinance and I think you've been
' treated very fairly.
Dick Nelson: How could we be treated fairly when we didn't get anything?
' Councilman Wing: You're getting what everybody else is getting. You're being
treated exactly the way everybody else was being treated. No one else is being
given boats and docks. Whatever their actual use was. I'm not going to argue
this. I'll let the Mayor of the City.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to say that.
Councilman Wing: Don't point at me.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's not an argument situation.
Dick Nelson: Well, if the ordinance gives some people rights that others don't
have, it doesn't seem fair to me. We were around in '78. We got the approval
' of the Planning Commission and basically a mob developed and put a stop to us
and if you like mob rule, that's how we got stopped. Because the City Council
backed down in the face of some petition. The 50 homeowners on Lake Riley said
' no, don't give them anything. So that's what happened. And it's just not fair.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Could I have your name please.
Dick Nelson: It's Dick Nelson.
Mayor Chmiel: Just for the record. Thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: Just one more commentary Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's not.
Councilman Workman: Like any other lake, 15,000 or so lakes in the State of
Minnesota, and Minnesotans know that when you have a dock and you intend to put
' a dock in, that attached to those docks are boats. Not just fancy fishing piers
for people. Or not just something for the kids to jump off of. Someplace where
they tie up a boat. And that's what it was.
Councilwoman Dimler: During the day, yeah.
' Councilman Workman: No, when they live there.
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't have that.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, docks are generally tied up to boats.
Councilman Wing: But they're not allowed overnight boats even if they had the
' dock. Even on the beach, they wouldn't be allowed.
1 32
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: No, I'm just talking about docks in general. That's why
people have docks.
Mayor Chmiel: One more point. Is that there was also canoe racks mentioned in
there, if I remember reading this. Canoe rack.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, no. I saw no evidence that that was present in
1981. Is that correct?
Ken Wolter: That was again something.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just intent. '
Ken Wolter: ...again got shot down in '78 based on...mob effect type of thing.
Now if we would have had those things, if the city would have been able to at
that time I guess work with all the heavy opposition of us having what other
associations at that time already had in '78, then we would have a canoe rack
and a dock and all the fun things like that without it being utilized. 1
Mayor Chmiel: To continue on with our long discussion, I think we've heard all
the pros and cons and yet I think they're looking at a point of trying to
provide the additional amount of even dockage, maybe for fishing or whatever as
well. So with that, I would like to call a question on this.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the '
Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachiot for Sunny Slope Homeowners
Association with one dock, 40 feet in length, no overnight boat storage, and a
swimming beach with marker buoys, if applicable. All voted in favor except
Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
CONCEPT REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 168 RENTAL UNITS,
72 OWNER - OCCUPIED UNITS, AND A CLUBHOUSE /OFFICE; AND REZONING OF PROPERTY ZONED
R -12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD; LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN
KERBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULEVARD, OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOTUS REALTY /OAKS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson: This proposal is 25 acres with a gross density of 9.5 units an
acre and a net density, excluding the wetlands, the two storm water ponds and
the public street, the acreage is 23.27 with a net density of 10 units per acre.
There will be 168 rental units, ranging from one bedroom plus den up to 3
bedroom units. And there will be 72 for sale units. The developer has tried to
match each building with the topography of the site reducing the grading. These
units will be approximately 3 story in height. The rental units will be walk-
out with garages at grade level and the exterior will be maintenance free vinyl
lap siding. The owner - occupied units will be a split with 4 units at one grade
and 4 units at a different grade. Again, these will also have maintenance free,
shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding with brick accents. The owner - occupied units
will have two double, a two space garage. Double car garage for each unit.
Staff does have concerns about the insufficient parking and have asked them to
make modifications before they come back for preliminary design. The
insufficient parking would include handicap parking and visitor parking. This
project does meet the impervious surface structure and setback requirements.
Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard, which you need a county permit
33 ,
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
for the road cut. In addition it will be accessed onto Kerber Boulevard.
There's two options to get access. One would be through the Villa's Apartment
or we recommended the T intersection up here on Santa Vera. The developer has
made modifications to his site plan showing that T. One of the concerns with
1 the neighborhood is the existing location of these buildings up here. By moving
that street down, it allows these buildings to actually be pulled down off the
top of the hill, which is one of the concerns of the neighbors. The proposed
II plan showed a 50 foot street. Staff is recommending that it be a 60 foot
right -of -way with 36 foot face to face cross section. Also, that there be a 6
foot sidewalk along both sides of the street. This proposal as submitted has
preserved a majority of the oak trees, which the staff has recommended. We do
1 have concerns about, since they are oaks, that they put some conifers. The oak
trees are spaced as such that during the winter months there will be a lot of
visibility from the rental units on the heights down into the neighboring
I property. We recommend an additional landscaping, specifically conifers be
placed in that area to help reduce visibility and increase the privacy for those
homeowners. We recently adopted a landscaping ordinance calls for streetscape
along the major collectors. Kerbers and Powers and this plan needs to be
modified to reflect that. As far as grading, again we've noted that this, we
feel this is a superior site plan to the previous one submitted in the fact that
there's minimal grading to the site as opposed to the other project which
required a significant amount of grading. The majority of the grading for this
project will be in the location of the road. The major problem with this
proposal that needs to be resolved, and we feel it can be mitigated, is the
storm water runoff. 40% of it runs towards the existing ponds and the portion
runs towards this wetland up in this area. There is limited area for retention
ponds so it may need wetland mitigation to put in a sedimentation pond in this
area right here. Again, we've had the city's consultant on Bonestroo, the storm
1 water management and hopefully they'll be able to resolve that issue. Sewer and
water is available to the site. The Parks and Recreation Commission has met on 1
this project on July 28th. The developer will be required to dedicate a 20 foot
trail easement along Powers Boulevard for the construction of an 8 foot wide
trail. The original proposal showed a trail along this portion of the property
which the neighbors were concerned about, again privacy in their back yards.
I The developer and the Parks Commission recommended elimination of that trail.
The Commission is also recommending that the City Council accept full park
dedication fees of $440.00 per unit and the construction of the trail would
offset any of the trail fees. As far as rezoning it, I'd just like to summarize
1 that we feel that it's consistent for rezoning to the PUD for the improved
pre- treatment of storm water, increased landscaping, the protection of
vegetation, the oak trees. Improved architectural standards and again,
' sensitivity to the topograhy with limited grading. The Planning Commission
heard this item on July 15th and there was a number of concerns raised by the
neighbors, which we summarized. Tried to group them together and give you the
I major summary points. I think the main concern, as I pointed out, was the
visibility of those rental units looking down into the homeowners. The
developer has made some modification to the building design which I'm sure he'll
show you tonight. Again, he's pulled some of those off the top of the hill and
1 he was concerned that that originally was to be a park and there was concern
from neighbors on that. Some of the other issues, they did have a neighborhood
meeting. Some of the other issues that came up with the neighborhood meeting
I was privacy. Maybe protection that the developer and the homeowners put no
trespassing signs and again increase the concern about the viability of oaks and
' 34
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 '
the proximity of the buildings to the oaks, and then again landscaping and
protection from views. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the
1 Conceptual PUD with the concerns outlined by the neighbors. And staff would
recommend conceptual approval by the City Council with the concerns or the
conditions outlined in the staff report. There was, I'd just like to add one
other thing. There was a lot of issues raised by the neighbors comparing the
different projects, and we did put a comparison in here, We had to break it
down into the first submittal and second submittal. There was a different '
criteria used so we tried to break it down so we're comparing apples and apples.
Not apples and oranges and I know it looks confusing when you look at the
numbers but one of the applications actually showed 27 acres and that was in the
staff report for the previous project and that site is only 25 acres so that 27
couldn't have been a correct number. So what we tried to do was actively go
through and look at taking out parks and wetlands and try to give you a good
comparison of the merits of each project. And again, we do feel that this
project, as designed, is a better project than the two previous applications.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Does the developer wish to say something? 1
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, my name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail,
Chanhassen and members of the Council. Basically we've asked and agree with the
City that this should be a PUD. And as we've gone through and discussed this
with the neighborhood, there are a lot of sensitive issues that relate to where
that ponding is and they're concerned about whether or not we'll be able to
change it later. I think we can go back to the PUD ordinance and simply say we
can't change it because we'd have to come back through a public hearing and I
think that's important. We try to be concerned about the land itself. Not
trying to cut it all up. Number two, we've concerned ourselves about the trees.
Because I've been through this TH 5 corridor, we've tried to stick with whatever
was the plan for the TH 5 corridor for this site, which was to maintain the
trees and have a good view from the south on the project. And then one thing
that we've been working with since our Planning Commission presentation was with
the neighborhood to the north, because they weren't here last time a project was
submitted and we're trying to work through those different issues with them. I
might say that we have not changed the plan as of yet because this of course is
just a conceptual presentation. So we've stuck with our plan and we're making
the changes on the next time through when we come through for the preliminary
approval. I have with me this evening Arvid Ellness or Arvid Ellness
Architects. He's done over 15,000 housing units in the metropolitan area and a
number of other projects just here in the Twin City area and he's pretty
sensitive to I think most of the concerns that you may have and then Kirk
Willette who is the project architect. So I'm going to have Arvid say a few
words and then Kirk will go through where we are in the project. Arvid.
Arvid Ellness: Just a couple conceptual highlights of the Planning Commission
discussion was that we have in the second submittal, or this submittal. We
weren't involved in the first submittal but we are in this one obviously, is
that on the, we put the for sale units on the south side of the development
line. A road that goes through the center of the property and we put the rental
to the north. And the rationale behind that was that, we thought that the,
there was less flexibility with the for sale unit in terms of the topography.
It would be more suited on the south portion of the property where it's flatter
and less topography and the issue of the trees wouldn't surface. On the rental
35 '
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
side, we were much more flexible with our design. We can develop a special unit
with the rental housing in order to take advantage of the topography and save
the ravine. Save basically the topography of that side of the property and get
some walk -out type units with a great deal of more flexibility. So this seemed
to be the reasoning that we went to. And the second highlight of the conceptual
comments was that we went to much smaller units. Unit sized buildings. We've
even gone down from what we had presented initially to smaller scale buildings
' and especially with the rental, we're able to break them up into small
components where necessary to save existing vegetation and topography. Kirk
Willette has been to the community meeting and he has been working with the site
and will address some of the changes that we actually have made to the plan
since the initial submission, as well as the issues of how we're going to
continue to save as many and all, if possible, the oak trees that exist on the
site. Kirk, will you.
Kirk Willette: This plan shows some of the changes that have already been made
after talking to the Planning Commission and with the neighborhood. One of the
first concerns of the neighborhood was, on the original plan we had two of the
largest buildings on this side of the site... We broke them down to smaller
units and have actually eliminated 4 of the units by going with smaller
buildings... The other thing that shows here.
' Mayor Chmiel: From what size to what size?
' Kirk Willette: Originally we had a 16 unit building here and another 16 unit
building here. These are now 8 unit buildings with a lower roof on the back
side so it appears like a two story building on the back side... The other
thing that this drawing shows is the realigned road coming out to form a T with
Santa Vera. Is that right? Which helps because it brings these two buildings
are able to move farther south, again giving more distance here to the existing
neighborhood on this side. The concept...stay with the topography. That's how
' this whole project was set, because of the natural topography runs that way as
well as the tree line. So we followed that with these buildings. That also
helped because it kept all of the parking and the really more activity to inside
' of the site instead of the back side or the neighborhood side. One of the big
concerns has always been saving the trees that are there. The way that we've
laid this out right now, there's only one tree that we're not able to save and
it sat right in this area here. And that was because it happened to be a very
' high point in the property and it just, we weren't able to work around that.
The other trees, we're going to work very hard to save. Some of the concerns
were how close we were building to the trees. We are working with a landscape
' architect and we have found that some of these buildings will have to be moved a
little because, in the past it was always the understanding of staying away from
the canopy of the trees and now that's, they've really modified that and now
they're staying you have to stay a little farther than that. And especially
important during construction as much as where you actually build is keeping all
the construction traffic away from the trees. So that's something that we'll
watch very carefully because certainly the oaks are...this project as well as
the existing neighborhood. And it's our idea, this line going behind the
buildings, everything that's north of that line will stay as it is. Other than
any work that has to be done for the drainage of the property. So we're not
looking at doing anything in here other than just'leaving it the natural...
36
r
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: On the west end of that property to the east end, as it
progresses through, what's the topography following your street line as you're
going past the different units? And up even close to those buildings.
Kirk Willette: In this area up here? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kirk Willette: Okay. This would be a high point. This it starts to go down to 1
Kerber. This is approximately a 3 to 4 foot drop from here to where this
goes...
Mayor Chmiel: If you're going to follow the contours also in and adjacent to
all those other buildings that you're talking there, what are those?
Kirk Willette: Back against the... The back of this building is 84 and these
slowly step up. 87 and 89. Then they go down a little to 87, 85 to 87 all
along this line. And that's following as close as possible to the natural
topography so that we don't cut into the roots of trees. These buildings will
set up to the hill and as the road goes up, these will step up and actually the
buildings are divided in half so the building itself steps up so it repeats that
same, for visibility from down below...
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have any questions?
Kirk Willette: This is the for sale units, which are along the south side. And
these are a vinyl siding and brick accents on the front. Each unit having a two
car garage. '
Mayor Chmiel: Are those 8 units, that one?
Kirk Willette: Right. They're all 8 unit buildings then the rental units are
like this with a two story with a walkout on the back side. And then the garage
is...
Mayor Chmiel: How are we going to eliminate parking on those streets?
Kirk Willette: Really the parking is, there's isn't room to do, to actually
have parallel parking on the street because it is all perpendicular parking'
along the streets on the one side and the other side...and there's not enough
space for people to park in front...
Mayor Chmiel: Just looking at emergency vehicles coming in and out of that
particular area. It said that it was 50 feet. Did it go to 60?
Kate Aanenson: We're just tacking about the street and that street. The other
streets would just be private. That's not a public street.
Mayor Chmiel: Still, the accessibility has to be there for the emergency 1
vehicles and that was one of my concerns.
Kirk Willette: That's why we wanted to put all the parking, in previous 1
projects we've done some of the parking where it was in front of a garage and we
37 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
found that just doesn't work. People start to park all over in the streets and
parallel park so that's why we did...
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Okay, does anyone have any specific questions at
this time before we?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I was going to ask. You mentioned the, I like the
way the building looks, and it's non, you don't have to keep, it's easy upkeep
in other words. Or no upkeep. When you have rental property and ownership in
the same vicinity, are you going to have some covenants that the private owner
cannot change the exterior so that it all looks uniformally or how do you handle
that?
Kirk Willette: Yeah, I don't know if Brad wants to address that but yes.
Brad Johnson: We'll probably have a owners association with some kind of cross
covenant between the two. One on the for rent...
Councilwoman Dimler: But they are going to look similar aren't they? I mean
the whole plan.
Brad Johnson: ...similar and I guess next time when we come through we'll be
more specific. Right now we're trying to deal with concepts so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand but my question is, how would you keep
the private homeowner from, how do you stop them from changing the exterior of
his home.
Brad Johnson: Oh, that's in the covenant.
Councilwoman Dimler: In the PUD covenant.
Kate Aanenson: Development contract.
Brad Johnson: The best project they've got now is the one over on Kerber where
the two families are. Look at that. Just two, what 5 two families off of
Kerber...commons area and look how nice...maintained and all common maintenance
of the exterior even though each person owns a unit.
Councilwoman Dimler: They do own them?
Brad Johnson: Yeah. So you can do it, but years ago they didn't do it that
way.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I guess there aren't any other questions at this time. Is there
anyone?
Councilman Workman: Can it be explained to me what switching the rentals and
the rentals and the single family homeowner units does?
Brad Johnson: Well, the previous project had, let's pretend there's like a for
sale type of unit that we're selling in Chanhassen...and that type of style that
would work, works on this area because it takes a flat site. if you go up on
38
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
that hill, you're going to find out that it isn't flat. So what we did then is
took a non - standard design and I said, Arvid. Just design some units that will
fit in here and work with the contours. So these are sort of new rental types
of units that probably haven't been built... You know, there's no standard unit
that would fit the contours. And then we were able to go from 8 units...16 and
we were able to vary them. We can vary the height of them every 4 units and
move. They've got a lot of flexibility so that we can meet this. Well it just
turns out, we can't do that on this side and we can do that on this side. And
that's the way. We cannot design the for sale units for over here. We don't
have a design that would sell at a reasonable price. That's the only reason for
it. t
Councilman Workman: Well my point though is if you look to the south, you know
we were flirting with the idea of building a Target down below this.- -If we put
single family home ownership there up above the hill from the Charlie James'
property, they're going to be looking down on potentially a huge retail.
Brad Johnson: I think they'll be looking over it. If you go up there and look,
you can look for miles. It's not as if you look so much down. That's the
design and most of these for sale units are more internal rather than external.
They're not a townhouse kind of thing where everybody has a backyard and looks
out over the park.
Councilman Workman: But you know as well as I do whatever comes first.
Brad Johnson: This will come first.
Councilman Workman: I know. So when you're then, see if you already have the
retail down below there and then you build them and then if you sell them then
you can kind of say, well you moved in there and now you can smell pizza and
that's your own fault. But I mean we have single family from old town down here
up against pizza and everything else and they're wondering when I'm going to
come over and have pizza with them. But you know, that's kind of the order of
things. Logically is that he who's here first kind of dictates what's coming
next because I'm not going to be here when that's commercial developed you know.
Brad Johnson: I think you're going to end up with something here that isn't so
tuned into straight down because that's one of our concerns. We want to sell
them. It just works better that way. The rentals won't work over here. You'll
end up with the kind of building you wouldn't want to see.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Has everyone had
an opportunity to see this, from what was presented previously? If not, maybe
you can turn it around and show to each side so they can get a little better
idea than seeing it on the video. Yes sir.
Dave Callister: Dave Callister, 7540 Canyon Curve. I think all of us realize
that there's going to be apartments there. It's zoned multi - family residential.
I think we all realize that but what we're trying to do is to minimize the
impact of this particular proposal to the neighboring properties which happen to
be single family homes. And I think if you look and you've started discussing
it but if you look at a good transition, you normally would go from like an R -12
to an R -4 to an R -1. But in this case, for some reason or another in the past
39 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
it has been zoned multiple family or R -12 right up against an R -1 or single
family residential area. And I don't think that provides a good transition so I
think there needs to be a lot of different things done here to address the
impact of this proposal. One would be the height of the buildings in the back.
I think that was brought up. They're going to be 3 stories and they're going to
be 40 feet high. And they're 40 feet high on top of a 30 foot hill so they're
going to be sticking out of the trees. No doubt about that because they're walk
' outs. They're going to be on top of the hill. I think that needs to be
addressed. Not only for the neighborhood but everybody that travels in that
area as well. The other concern as you've addressed is the switching the rental
units with the for sale units. I think, as you can see from the drawing, from
the rentals to the for sale units, the for sale units are not as imposing in
height. Also I think, what are they 8 units? 8 units is the maximum number
that are clustered together. And I think, I don't know if this can be explored
but I hope it can. They've mentioned that you have to move back further from
the oak trees because there may be some danger of losing those trees but if you
could move those back far enough to get towards the top of the hill, I think you
could minimize the grading associated with that and possibly level that out to
an extent where you can put those for sale units on or near that hill. Another
concern would be obviously traffic. I don't know whether there's going to be a
traffic study done but there's 240 units and you figure at least 2 vehicles per
unit plus visitors. That's certainly going to impact the neighboring traffic
areas, Kerber and Powers. Screening. That will be addressed more fully at the
next stage of the preliminary review but there's going to have to be adequate
' screening to assure the residents that everything is covered including parking
lots and so on. And I guess if anyone would like, I didn't bring a picture. I
had a picture here last time to show the oak stand is not a full oak stand as
portrayed on this drawing. If anyone would like to come out to my deck in my
backyard, I'd be glad to show you exactly what I look at and exactly the gaps
between the trees. And I would like to have that addressed at some point by the
developers during the review process here. And I guess I'll leave the other
comments to the rest of the neighbors. Thank you.
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson over at 7550 Canyon Curve. I'd just
like to first of all reiterate what Dave had just said about a transition
between a commercial area and a single family residential and it does seem to me
too that a more logical transition would be to place the rental units adjacent
to a commercial zoned area and an owner /occupied units adjacent to the single
family units. The second thing I want to talk about is the planned unit
development. According to the staff report, a planned unit development should
encourage the preservation of desireable site characteristics and open space and
11 protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, mature
trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. The plan that Brad Johnson and
the architects put together does go a long ways to protect what's out there. I
' believe it could go a bit farther. One thing is that they're not preserving
steep slopes. The buildings, the farther north buildings, these units, the hill
is approximately 50 to 70 feet high depending on where you are and those units,
the walkout levels are approximately 30 feet above the pond so essentially
they're built right on the hillside and on a steep slope. I'm not sure of the
grade but it's probably approximately 20% grade. I'd also like to see the
building setback farther from the oak trees than what's shown here as was graded
before. Another thing I want to comment about is the storm water drainage. I
know this is on a conceptual level. The staff report states that there could no
40
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
ponding on the site. The storm water ponding would have to be below in the
existing wetlands or pond areas. I don't believe this is true. There is
natural depressions located on top the hill on an existing drainage which comes
down here and as the pond could be constructed on top the hill. And this would
not only, could serve to reduce the discharge of entering the lower ponds, but
would also help during the phases of the construction for sediment control. If
planned properly, it would probably more reflect the name of the development
which is Oak Ponds by placing it up on top of the hill. One reason I'm saying
this is because the engineer's report stated that the existing storm water ponds
were designed, appeared to be designed only for the existing homes at
Saddlebrook. I live on one of the ponds and I don't want to see these ponds,
first of all I don't think the level should be raised. The flood levels raised
from these ponds because that would effect my property. I don't see a real way
of expanding these ponds, except for possibly this pond and it would involve
cutting into a fairly steep slope. As you know, when you cut into a steep
slope, you're going to increase slope even greater and that's going to cause a
safety issue with children in both the apartment complex and Saddlebrook and
possibly anybody walking along the path on Kerber. And also it may be an
eyesore having a very steep slope. It might require fencing. I guess those are
the items I wanted to talk about tonight, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, let's 1
bring it back to Council and have some opinions one way or the other regarding
the conceptual site plan approval. There's also rezoning to be done with it as
well. I guess I have a few of the concerns that I've heard here, at least that
I've written down. One is the traffic flow coming out from there. What study
has been done or if anything has been done. 240 units times 2 plus potential
of, if I remember reading staff reports from additional apartments that could be
contained within that area as well. Is that correct?
Kirk Willette: On this site?
Mayor Chmiel: Down below. Not on this particular site but farther down.
Paul Krauss: No, this would be the extent of it unless something ever happens
on the Eckankar piece. Who knows.
Mayor Chmiel: So we're looking at roughly 480 cars in and out of that
particular site times 2 or 3 trips besides that. You're going to get a
multiplication factor of a considerable number in and adjacent to Kerber as well
as County Road 17. Even with the conceptual plan, the setback requirements are
going to be sufficient from the change in the road that we're going to have with
78th Street making it's turn. Will there be proper setbacks from one to the
other to allow for an additional cut into that County Road 17.
Paul Krauss: The County Engineer raised that concern too. This location is,
and we're going to restudy the issue but this location has been looked at
periodically over the years. It really is the only spot to come out. Well the
County Road 17 is the one that he's concerned most with. It really is the only
location to come out. Any further north you wind up in the wetland. On the
Kerber side, we looked at several alternatives. There's three alternatives on
the table. The Santa Vera one seems to be the further from the homes. Brings
traffic away. It allows them some site plan flexibility. It aligns with city
41 1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
streets. It avoids the problems of coming through that existing apartment
11 townhome development which, although was supposed to be designed to allow for a
public street to come through, if you go back in there, it really doesn't work
terribly well. Some questions were raised by some people at the Planning
Commission meeting though about the Santa Vera connection and would that promote
a possibility of thru trips over to Chan Elementary over on the other side of
the park. We'll look at that a little further. I suppose there is that
' potential but we're not sure to what extent it's a relationship.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Paul. Rezoning of the property to the R -12 to
PUD. What's the city really getting for this other than the protection of the
oak trees and so on?
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say, as part of the development contract, .the
' issue came up about guarantees of the maintenance and that sort of thing. Those
are the kinds of issues that you'd want to put in the development contract so
those kinds of controls in the PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: And I see there's a considerable number contained in here.
Paul Krauss: To build on that a little bit. Staff has always been a real
' strong proponent that one of the primary benefits of PUD zoning is it's
basically contract zoning by any other name. If the City Council approves the
project, you're buying that approval. That plan becomes the zoning on the
property. If for some reason they're unable to complete the development, that
plan is still the zoning on the property. Nobody can do anything else as of
right unless they come back before you for a rezoning action which gives the
Council the greatest amount of control. And that's just a functional thing and
I think right now with the R -12 zoning, it's a little bit of a wild card.
Somebody can do what the former developer tried to do which is say, I have met
your ordinance. You have to approve me you know and this would put us in a much
better position. Functionally though, we shouldn't get away from the point that
this project really does a very nice job of saving tree cover, which was a big
issue the last time. It's become a bigger issue given the visibility of that
' site. It of course protects the wetlands, but we would have done that anyway.
It gives us a very nice type of, nicely designed architectural unit. It also
has a privately developed park. Not park but recreational amenities for the use
of their residents while at the same time kicking a substantial dollar amount
' into our park development fund. So there's a lot of pluses I think with
considering this as a PUD. •
Mayor Chmiel: Some of the things I looked at too with this Paul was the size of
the building. Basically in the heights and it is up there. They're 40 feet,
some are at 40. The others are at 35, if I remember what's in here.
Kate Aanenson: Again, on this one we felt it was superior because the roof line
breaks on these. Even with the for sale and the multi- family and that's part of
the reason with the topography as opposed to the other ones which were just
11 massing and I know during the Planning Commission meeting, people were stricken
at the impervious surface but again we felt that the roof line breaks and some
of those kinds of things instead of looking at a massive building and I think
that's what they're trying to resolve now is how to even further reduce the look
of the single family area.
42
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only other thing that I had too, having rental units
in and adjacent to a residential area, as opposed to the for sale ones that
would be there. I would think just the flip flop of that would not have been
too bad of an idea because there's a little more pride taken in their own
buildings in and adjacent to that area. And probably not as much. I don't know
if there's that much rowdiness going on but you'd have it within those places.
If you come to mine you'd get the same thing. But I'm thinking that it would
sort of blend that being closer to each other would have been a little better
than having the rental units in that particular location. But that's just my
view at this particular time. We have 10 units per acre. Is that exactly what
we're saying with density? Screening was the other concern. And that I think
will be addressed at some particular time. But other than that I guess I'll go
back to Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I wanted to ask, do we have any concept idea yet of
what the lot sizes are likely to be?
Kate Aanenson: It's my understanding it's all common ownership.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, the lot size in this project.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's common ownership? Even for the single family? '
Paul Krauss: Well, they'd essentially be condominium units. You buy the space.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So there's no free standing single family in the 1
concept? Okay. One of the other concerns I had was the parking. I don't know
where all this parking is coming from. Sometimes I drive on Kerber and I see in
excess of 30 cars parked on the west side of Kerber Blvd. and there's no
ballgame. And I'm wondering, is that coming because that development there
didn't have adequate parking within it? I would like to avoid that situation.
We've got to have adequate parking. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe you had seen the day that they were going to
restripe their lot and some modifications to the parking area. They were all
out in and along.
Councilwoman Dimler: That could be. But there were a few days when I just
went, what's going on.
Mayor Chmiel: That did take place but that was because of what they were doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that was only a special situation but I, you know
we've got to make sure that we have adequate parking for visitors as well to
avoid that kind of a situation. And my third question was, there's a proposal
here to use HRA funds for the infrastructure of the utilities, roads and also
the land buydown. And I'm wondering if we do that, if the community recreation
center would have to be available to the public or is it still legal to allow
only the Oak Pond residents to use it.
Kate Aanenson: Todd's here and he can speak to that but it's my understanding
the Parks Commission addressed that issue and said they wouldn't give them any
credit for that as far as park fee.
43 ,
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Paul Krauss: But you have the more fundamental question I think.
r Councilwoman Dimier: Because it's HRA money, it's public money.
Paul Krauss: Yeah we, the HRA is not, to the best of my knowledge, seen this
yet and has not taken a position on it.
Don Ashworth: The guidelines for the redevelopment plan for the HRA permits the
' use, designates that a developer may use increment to pay off special
assessments associated with that project. Road, sewer, water. I know of no
request for any land writedowns and I'm not anticipating that. I do not think
that it would be favorably received by the HRA.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay. I thought I saw a land writedown in here. But
' legally Elliott, could you address that? If that were to occur, would they then
be able to just have a recreation center for the residents in Oak Ponds if we
use public money or would that have to be open to the public at that point?
Elliott Knetsch: I believe they can have it for the residents only.
Councilwoman Dimier: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: The main question I got out of the presentation was the
parking. 240 units and is there adequate parking? This seems to be a high
density situation. The only comment I would like to make, if I may Mr. Mayor,
it has to do with rules. This is before us using our rules. Staff is creating
this using our rules and everyone coming before us is maximum useage of
property. High density and we don't talk about future impacts of what we're
doing here. They're complying with the rules so I have no criticism but our are
rules right? Do we have conservative enough rules and I look at 240 units
coming in and the other housing areas that have come in with their high density
and people keep coming in here talking about traffic and densities of population
and cars and then I talk about city services. And frankly, I see people as
being very expensive. The higher density of people, the higher the impact on
city services. It just simply is more expensive. I mean there's more being
taken out than is being putting in, it seems to me. So I would just take this
' opportunity to bring up the issue of rules. If we have rules, even if we had
minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet, to quote 8i11 Morrish, if we had rules
and if those rules were consistent and applied to everyone, people would come.
Chanhassen would not be abandoned to the wolves. Our current rules seem to
allow for a very, very high density style of neighborhood in housing and I'm
beginning to wonder if every single one of these coming in is going to be this
density. When we really want to look down the future 20 years, are we making
the right decisions here or should we start to question our rules. Other than
that, I think the unit that I saw is clean and a good project. I'm just worried
about our existing rules as they impact...proposal at all would be Ursula's
question on parking. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
1
44
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Councilman Workman: I was looking for the boats and the dock and was ready to
give it all up for the lake. I'm a St. Cloud State graduate. I don't know if
there's any others in here. But the oaks in St. Cloud, if you guys did your
marketing properly, to a St. Cloud State, is very a majority. The oaks were
something I had a lot of fun at when I was in college but today would not want
to have my home near there. I don't know how we can demand covenants on a
place. We can't demand covenants. We can demand them but they can change
covenants. So if they want to change covenants, they can I'm assuming, correct? 1
Elliott Knetsch: I think we're talking here about conditions in a development
contract versus covenants. So if it's in the development contract, that cannot
be changed without our consent.
Councilman Workman: I'm concerned about the buffers and the transition and
that's what I have a very, very big, big problem with and thank you for tying
the HRA funding into it. I know we always look at the Planning Commission,
they're always, the Planning Commission has a zillion things going on. They
have kind of a list of things that are going on. One of them is blending and my
understanding of blending is trying to blend things along. And there's never
anything about blending. I know you guys are never talking about blending. It
just kind of sits there. They've got too many things going on but, this is not
blending. This is more like freight training I think. Kind of shoving it in
there and then we get people at our meetings like this. If you guys know where
I live over on the other side of town. You have highway 5 and then, which I
live fairly near. It was there before I moved in. And then there's the
Meadows, or the Village Apartments now. You know where they are? Okay. And
then as a buffer to my neighbor there's TH 101, which isn't a real good buffer.
And then there's the town houses and we are here to approve those townhouses and
I think those townhouses are much like the ones that they're trying to approve
here. In fact those people, and then comes my house. Granted it's a trailer
home but. Then there's my single family home, okay. And I've got a berm and
everything else. It's very nice. I can see these people out my back window in
the morning but it's great. They own them. It's this condominium type stuff
and they're very nice people and I don't have any problems. The only problem I
have is the people who are parking over in the apartment buildings because the
boat landing's full and they're walking through my yard and asking me why my dog
isn't leashed. So I have a problem with this and I know you guys are on this
topography thing but it just seems turned around. And just as we discussed the
bad rule in 1981, they had to do something. I feel like we're going to be the
Council of '92. Who could have put these houses up here on this prominent area
where there's going to be people selling and commerce is ugly and they're not
going to want to look at it and they're going to want to smell it or anything
else. You guys have the same of your units under control for yourself. I
understand that. But it's going to be very difficult for an HRA and the City
Council in the future to develop this thing down below. So I'd like to see that
work. That is something I guess that, I think the neighborhood assumes that
this is something of this nature is going to be built up here and they probably
assumed that when they moved in but it just seems it's turned around and I'd
like somehow to turn it around. I bet you they would even pursue the idea of
losing an oak tree if they could get that done. No? I have a question about
the, and this is maybe related to your's Dick., The for sale units. The ones
that are going to be owned. What are those going to be for sale for roughly? 1
45 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Brad Johnson: Under *90,000.00.
Councilman Workman: Under? Okay. I think that's about like what is near my 1
home. How much are the rental units going to be basically?
' Brad Johnson: More expensive.
Councilman Workman: More than what?
Brad Johnson: It will cost more to live in the rental units than the for sale.
Average on a *90,000.00 home or $80,000.00 home...would be about *600.00. And
' it will be about $700.00 for the rentals. The rentals will cost more just
because of taxes.
' Councilman Workman: There's no inside parking for those units?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. One covered and then one exterior.
Councilman Workman: For the for sale units?
Brad Johnson: Two.
' Councilman Workman: Two car garages on those?
' Brad Johnson: The for sale units are actually bigger than...
Councilman Workman: That's all I have. I really, I just turn it around to my
thinking.
Brad Johnson: If I could just one thing about this. The owner and the partners '
of mine would prefer to do the for sale on the other side. We worked this
project a number of different ways and we couldn't do it and make it work and do
what we could do to preserve the site. We needed a smaller, more flexible
building and that's what the rentals allowed us to do. I mean that's just, we
' couldn't do it.
Councilman Workman: Is there an option, and I maybe direct this at Mr.
Ashworth. Is there an option where both with the PUD and increaed HRA funding
' to some extent, that that can be alleviated? This is a very prominent hill in
Chanhassen, as we've discussed earlier. And so there's going to be some
permanency obviously to it.
Brad Johnson: The problem there is we have to have rental to get the HRA.
Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking less of them.
Brad Johnson: But that's the problem. To get funding to do the project, you
have to have rental houses.
Councilman Workman: Okay, but you're telling me that the problem is you can't
put the singles on the other side.
Brad Johnson: That's true.
46
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilman Workman: No amount of funding in the world could. 1
1 Brad Johnson: Not unless you don't want the oak trees there. If you look at
the last project, and we flatten it out. You can leave the ones on the far
north section... I think what you should do is wait, we're coming back through
with this and we'll try to give you a better feeling for the design. Lower the
roof lines. These are all common area, you know ownership of the land. It will
probably look like...as far as landscaping. Remember no in this whole '
neighborhood...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, when Cenvesco had that property, they didn't incorporate as
much acreage as what is being done now, is that correct?
Paul Krauss: Well the first time Mr. Mayor it came through without that
triangular piece of ground that they bought. The second time they came through,
they were ordered to come in with a park and they bought that other piece and
developed part of it and set some of it aside. So the site grew. In Kate's
researching the thing though, we found out that Cenvesco gave us some bum
information and picked up a couple of fictious acres in the process to lower
their density.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I was trying to put that together and I couldn't.
Paul Krauss: That's why the numbers don't add up. We're convinced that the
acreage that we have now is the correct one and Cenvesco never had any more.
They just.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 25.9. '
Paul Krauss: If I could touch on a couple things though that Councilman Workman
brought up. That buffering, I forgot what they were going to call it. Blending
ordinance, was something that the Planning Commission was talking about about 3
years ago and ultimately dismissed. You're only talking about it in single
family districts with the idea being that if you have an area with one acre lots
and somebody wants to plat 15,000 square foot lots, that they had some
obligation to come in with bigger lots because they were near to somebody who
had a bigger lot. Fundamentally the problem is one of equity. That the
ordinance applies to everybody unless you have the misfortune to live next to
somebody who's got big lots, therefore your land is worth less because you can
only get x number of units. So they never pursued that concept. More
importantly for this, the idea of a hierarchy of uses, is kind of one that's
been around in zoning since it's inception in the 1920's. The idea was that
industry was evil and spewed smoke and disease and it kind of went down and that
you had to keep everything pure. The world's changed and hopefully we've gotten
a lot more sophisticated and what we've tried to do in Chanhassen is go with a
performance approach. In it's purest sense, it,means you can virtually put
anything next to anything as long as it's done correctly and responds to the
needs to protect the single family homes in response to needs to protect the
environment. We're pretty convinced that this project is shaping up to meet
that need. It clearly has to be refined a little bit but given appropriate
design, we can achieve the goal of buffering,,yet providing the density. One of
the reasons for that density being here is, on the other side, this is a block
47
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
away from our main street. This is downtown Chanhassen so it's a real critical
site and clearly it has to be treated with a great deal of sensitivity and care.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Any other discussion? If not, I would entertain a
motion for a conceptual approval. I think that Planning Commission also went
through that conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans
dated June 15th subject to the following conditions and they had 16 conditions
contained within. And with that, maybe you may want to add something of your
own.
Councilman Workman: Well I think everybody knows, you want me to put that in as
a condition?
Mayor Chmiel: 1 think there's some concern that you've had and whether it can
be met or not, that's another question. But it is at least going to be
addressed so they can look at it again.
Councilman Workman: Well I figured I had two options. Yeah, one add it in
1 there. Tell them to flip flop the whole thing or vote against the concept. I
was hoping to force that Sunny Slope dock on them too. So I don't know that
they're going to, I guess it would be simpler for me to say I'm not happy with
' the concept than to add that in there and then they're going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would still entertain a motion then. Of either approval
' or say you'd like to see something else as yet.
Councilman Workman: Well that's simple enough. I'll make a motion to approve
conceptual site plan approval for the Oaks with the 16 conditions plus the
' condition that we switch single family, or the for sale for the for rent.
Brad Johnson: See that won't work.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, maybe what you can do is just come back with something and
show us why it won't work.
Kate Aanenson: Can we word it that way?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm wondering if that can be to mean that the goal is set to
' switch them but I think that if the net result is they demonstrate to your
satisfaction that the alternative is to flatten the site, you're not going to be
happy with that either. So the goal would be to strive to relocate them or
alternatively respond to the concerns that are raised in other ways. But your
primary goal is to have them swapped.
Councilman Workman: Well that's why I felt it would be easier for me to just
say I don't like the plan. You guys are forcing me to make a motion so.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to restate your motion other than the fact that.
Councilman Workman: I'll withdraw my motion.
Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission went through this didn't they? There
were a lot of options presented there. Sketches I mean earlier in the
48
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
process. I guess I found this one to be maybe the most flexible or the one that
worked the best. Fit in the best. The other drawings I saw, I didn't like at
all. I can point blank say this isn't for me at all. This one I think with...
has kind of blended the land use in the buildings a little bit. I think it's
appeased the neighbors. Some of their concerns hasn't it? '
Paul Krauss: Well I think it's a process that's ongoing. I think there's some
progress that's been made. Clearly there's more progress that has to be done
but they've shown I think a good, the developer's shown a good willingness to
work with us and work with the neighbors and I think the architect is a
particular creative one and has come up with a number of ways of responding and
is continuing to do so.
Councilman Wing: Do we hurt anybody by approving this? The concept?
Mayor Chmiel: Not really. It has to go through the other stages. It still has
to go through HRA. So this is sort of getting the foot in the door but yet not
endorsing what's being shown. '
Councilman Wing: It's their option, if it's simply zoned, I mean right now it's
R -12. Their option is to simply come in and go by the rules and build it. And
have straight streets and I see the options as being a lot heavier than this.
With all due respect to you, because I agree with you.
Paul Krauss: Clearly there's a lot of worst things that can happen. I guess
you don't like to plan on the basis of, if you don't do this, you get that. I
mean we already had.
Mayor Chmiel: We had that. We didn't like that. '
Councilman Workman: So why didn't we get that then?
Mayor Chmiel: Because they weren't up forward as these people are right now.
Councilman Workman: Well, I don't mean to make a big stink out of this or back
down. I'm just saying, it's just that little thing about, because I bet you the
back of these will look fine. I'll bet you they'll look classy enough but it's
that little thing about pride in ownership and the way that people who own
things act versus the people who rent things and are going to move in 6 months
or have a different roommate or you know the whole thing. And so that it's that
kind of thing that weighs on people's mind, especially when they're looking out
a deck at what is a serene pond, wildlife area now. And then behind it as a
backdrop is going to be that. And it's not going to be so much, it's going to
in part be the architecture. I mean it's going to be kind of ominous but you
can kind of get used to that. But you can't get used to new tenants every
spring or whatever and so it's not ownership thing that I know these people are.
That's what they're aching about I think mostly. In that what do you, you have
less of an idea about what you're going to get from people. So it's a more
transient.
Brad Johnson: Two things. One is, I think if you measure your distant from TH
101...distance from their backyard into these units. 250 feet we'll have at the
shortest. And from their building, their lot line to these buildings, 200...
49 1
i
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
1 Councilman Workman: So they're going to be as close as TH 101 is?
Brad Johnson: Well, if you've got the whole apartment building inbetween you.
The distance from here to here okay. This is a long distance. This is quite a
distance away from that, what did we figure. 200. That's almost a football
field length from there. Just their property line, not their house. Their
property line.
1 Resident: Put the hill in perspective though.
Brad Johnson: Let me just continue on. Then number two is, well I can't
remember what it was. Oh...there will be no activity back here. And we can
take you to different units that they've designed and built and you can go and
walk around. There's nothing happening back here. We've designed everything to
1 happen up front of the building.
Councilman Workman: There won't be any decks off the back?
Brad Johnson: There's decks but you can go, we'll take you to some projects if
that's what you're concerned about. That have been built like this. On hills
like this and it just turns out that there is no activity. People...back. They
may sit on the deck but they don't walk around or use the back area at all. It
won't be mowed. These are all designed to open up into here. And then we've
also created, put as much buffering in here as we can. Now part of this is
design but your concern to me is the design. You know not who this is but the
design. I've lived in apartments like this in Washington D.C. and I'll tell
you, there's nobody around. It's just a wonderful place to live.
1 Councilman Workman: Personally, I have nothing against the people who are going
to live there en masse. I can't tell you who's going to live there.
1 Brad Johnson: But what you have to do is go visit a number of sites and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. I would still entertain a
' motion. Conceptual plan is still there. It's nothing cut in stone.
Councilman Wing: Don, I'll make that motion only because to the north it seems
relatively buffered. What we're forgetting here is to the east is the West
Village Apartments. This is not exactly abutting up against a prominent
neighborhood if you will of large lots, large homes. And the other south end
does abut directly upon downtown commercial. And this is somewhat of a
transient rental area so I guess it's sort of fitting into the gameplan here
plus it's zoned this way so I'll move approval of this conceptual site plan. I
guess that's all.
Mayor Chmiel: With an additional review?
Councilwoman Dimler: Plus the PUD? You wanted the PUD?
Councilman Wing: Yes. With the PUD.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
50
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the Rezoning of
property Zoned R -12 to PUD, and conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as
shown on the plans dated June 15, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: ,
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee 1
proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the
conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting ,
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver County
Public Works.
3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within
the public right -of -ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon
completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership. The
remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right -of -way shall
be privately owned and maintained.
4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the ,
utilities improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City.
As -built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction. 1
5. Appropriate No Park restrictions shall be placed on the private service
drives accordingly. 1
6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right -of -way for the proposed
east /west connector street. A 36 foot wide urban street shall be
constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standards.
7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the
proposed main east /west collector street. The sidewalks should be 6 feet
in width.
0. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan
and submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications.
9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the
previous and current review and development of this project. A cash escrow
account of $7,000. should be provided by the applicant to insure payment.
10. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails and
possible location of sedimentation pond before preliminary plat approval.
11. Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks and
trails.
12. Construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the
construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary
approval.
51 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning
ordinance.
14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers
and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the
oak trees to provide additional buffering.
' 15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly
portion of the site, should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its
place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north.
II 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction.
•
1 All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /CLAY MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF
II
PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTH OF THE GRAVEL PIT, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE.
Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to remove approximately
II 250,000 cubic yards of clay. This site is a 45 acre piece of ground that's the
north...illustrated there. It goes up to, almost up to Pioneer Trail up the old
railway tracks. The applicant also owns and operates the Moon Valley gravel pit
I which is...to this part to the south. These are two contiguous but separate
requests. The requested mining of the clay is to be used for the capping off of
the Eden Prairie landfill which is being closed. Upon completion of the
excavation, black dirt which would be saved on this site, would be respread and
I the area reseeded. The proposal calls for the construction of actually three
sedimentation basins. Two of them are illustrated on this diagram here, one
being located up in the north end of the property. A small portion of this
I draining that way. A large central basin and there's a request as well in the
packet for a basin at the south end which is basically in this area down here.
It's got a separate design detail but for the time being, we'll just refer to
' this one here. The grading activity itself, the mining activity would only
occur in an open field area. This is an area that was formerly farmed until
recently. Is all open field and would not result in the loss of any tree cover.
The treed area is illustrated in green. The mining activity takes place
II entirely outside of that. Basically they're going to take that open field,
lower it approximately 10 feet, recover it and have done with it. Mining
activity is allowed as an interim use in this agricultural district. There's an
I extensive history with the Moon Valley operation and I think you're all up to
speed on that. There's been litigation. A series of requests being made.
Hopefully that's on the final route to being resolved. Again, while this is
I contiguous to that operation, and is being proposed by the same applicant, it is
a completely separate request. It is subject to the new, well the 3 year old
now, grading and mining ordinance and is under the full control of the City
Council. As you probably recall, that old gravel pit predated the ordinance and
I had a lot of grandfathering rights and is under some court orders. So you do
have a lot of leverage and authority to get this done in a manner that's
consistent with City standards. Staff believes that the proposal to mine here
' is fairly sensitive for this type of an operation. Again, we are not losing any
trees. The land mass, major land contouring will not change visibly from off
52
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
site. Here are a series of significant erosion problems occurring on this site
that this grading is designed to address. Those retention basins will result,
we have a significant erosion problem going down in this ravine over here and
smaller one here. And the other one that occured was the water accelerates
down the track and takes off into the Moon Valley gravel pit where it eventually
dumps into the National Wildlife Refuge and had some problems. This is designed
to accommodate those concerns. These basins are a little bit different than
what we're used to. They're infiltration basins. They don't have structured ,
outlets. They're designed to permeate through the sand level in that water will
back up in there and slowly return into the ground water. The request itself is
also short term. The applicants indicated that they would be in and out as
quickly as possible, hopefully finishing this year. Their contracts and
requirements would encourage them to do so. The Planning Commission reviewed
this and recommended it's approval with a series of conditions that I'll get
into in a moment. I wanted to take a second to describe what's being requested
on the southern property here. This one's a little bit different though to get
a handle on. Basically you have the Moon Valley gravel pit adjacent to the
north,parcel. They have a very wooded hillside back here. This face of the
bluff has already been significantly mined in the Moon Valley operation. It's a
sheer bluff. There's no trees on it. There's not much there. If you look
across the river from Shakopee side, you can see it. It's really kind of
unfortunate in a lot of ways. But what you have here is a peninsula of land
that juts out. Here's the mine face and this juts out to the west. What the
proposal is to do in here is to excavate out a pond area that would intercept
the water running down the tracks before it's infiltrated in or slowly
discharged down into the gravel pit. That would be a significant benefit. A
lot of this water comes across that exposed mine face and it's going to be
exposed until the mine's shut down and erodes onto 169/212 and then across into
Rice Lake. But what this does is, it's kind of land reforming on a big scale.
Here you have that area that has no trees left and it's mined. What the
proposal would do is remove this peninsula, which is to the benefit of Mr.
Zwiers because he does get to mine the gravel out of that, but which would
expose this back slope, kind of a second bluff. The first bluff is essentially
gone and this would allow the secondary bluff to be visible from the river. Now
we don't usually encourage manipulation of land on this kind of a scale but in
this case, it's to rectify the damage that's there already. It's something we
would look at favorably. We think it's got some merit. We're also looking at
this in that there are some trees in the back little area that would be taken
down to support this mining and what we're looking to do here is to leverage
that into getting reforestation on that bluff on the Moon Valley parcel on the
south side which we otherwise could not accomplish. So we're trying to get a I/ bigger bang for the buck. Get a bigger benefit out of that, which is the
benefit of the Minnesota River valley and those who have an interest in that.
As I said, the Planning Commission heard this about a month ago and there was
considerable neighborhood input. They did recommend it's approval but they had
a series of questions to be resolved. Those included, they wanted the
establishment of a timeframe. A drop dead date if you will, where all the
activity on this parcel needs to stop. The applicant indicated that that was
their intent. To mine the clay and restore the site and get out. I should also
point out before we go on too much further that the applicant's stated intent
for this property is residential development Right now it could, well because
of the way the ordinances are structured now, the development that we see across
the valley could not occur here unless there's utilities provided, which there
53 1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
is a possibility that utilities could be provided in the future through Eden
Prairie. It's not an immediate situation but in leaving the tree cover in here,
you basically have the ability to put homes back from the bluff line but in an
attractive area, kind of overlooking it similar to what other developments have
' done in the area. Anyway, the Planning Commission wanted a date by which all
activity should cease and there's a condition that's been added that all
activity should cease by July 15th of next year in the off chance that they
' can't complete it this year. They probably couldn't complete the restoration
this year. During the meeting, I stepped outside and I talked to Mr. Zwiers and
Rick Sathre, his engineer, and they did raise a concern that didn't occur to
either of them or me when we came up with this condition. And that doesn't
apply at all to this mining up in here. Everybody's in agreement that the July
15th day makes sense. The question comes about in this lower area. The lower
area is mined according to market demand and there would be, it's not an-ability
to commit to doing this until they get to that area from the mine. So this
lower area would be, at some point in the future. Now that needs to be
clarified. But when we came up with this condition we wanted to make sure that
' the mining activity in this area, which is in the closest proximity to any
adjoining homes which are located across the railway tracks and up the hill.
It's some very rough terrain in there. That that be minimized. That that be
the shortest possible time. And that drop dead date does apply to that area.
We were asked to include standard procedures to include the tree preservation
areas are adequately marked and protected during the course of grading
operations. We were asked to do it. I agreed to do it and then I read the
conditions tonight and realized that I neglected to do it. So we'd ask you to
modify condition number 12 to put in language to the effect that tree
preservation areas be marked with snow fence or other means prior to the start
' of work and we have language that goes on to say that any trees designated for
preservation that are lost inadvertently due to grading activities, be replaced
on a caliper inch basis. That usually makes it fairly punitive to lose any 1
trees. We also plan on being out there with the inspection staff as often as
' necessary to make sure the operation is going as it's supposed to. The third
concern was that the applicant have potential impact on water supplies in the
area evaluated. Some of the residents raised a concern that by allowing these
infiltration basins, that you had a potential for adversely impacting the water
supply. Mr. Sathre pointed out at the meeting a couple points that I agreed
with him on, that the ground water flow in this area tends to be towards the
river which is away from those homes and that if, secondly if ground water
infiltration was a problem, it'd be a lot more significant problem from their
drainfields from their septic tanks which are a whole lot closer to the homes
than this is. But we asked that this matter be further researched and there is
' a letter in the packet from Larry Samstad who's the Watershed District engineer.
He does confirm that the ground water flow is away from that area and in his
opinion, allowing these infiltration basins is no different than allowing the
I rain to fall on the ground. Basically that's the only water that will come into
the site. It will be a grassy field at that point And you're only allowing rain
water to infiltrate. There was a question raised about the access point up on
Pioneer Trail. A gentleman was concerned about sight distances. It is actually
a Hennepin County road at that point. The truck traffic will not be on any
roads in Chanhassen because it runs to the east over Hennepin County roads. I
did contact Hennepin County Highway Department. They had a recent file on the
' permit for the application for the driveway out to Pioneer. They felt it was a
very safe intersection. They were looking at it with an eye to this being a
54
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
future street for this area as it develops. They did not have any concerns for
the sight distance. They did have some concerns that truck hauling signs be
posted and that there be a construction entrance and a couple of other points,
some of which we already had in our recommendations. We've added the rest. So
I think we're in full compliance with the Hennepin County engineers are
E recommending. The fifth one was that the property owners relinquish in writing
all future rights to mine this site. There was a concern that, okay you get the
10 feet of clay now and you come back in a little while to get some more. The ,
applicant didn't appear to object to that we added a condition that basically
said that. That it be written into the chain of title. The last item was,
staff was asked to reassess the requested letter of credit. There was, the
engineering department used a standard rule of thumb to come up with an original
letter of credit amount to insure site restoration and it was something on the
order of $40,000.00. What they did is they went back in and did a much more
detailed analysis plus added the cost for the letter of credit for the tree
reforestation that's going to be required on that south parcel, and came up with
a revised letter of credit amount for $121,900.00. And there's a report in here
from the engineering department that describes how they arrived at those
numbers. With those conditions as modified, we're continuing to recommend that
the City Council approve the interim use permit.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you Paul. Does the applicant wish to say something? 1
Rick Sathre: Your honor. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with the firm Sathre-
Berquist Incorporated in Wayzata and I am an engineering consultant to Mr. Tom
Zwiers, the owner of Moon Valley Aggregate and also of this parcel. Staff has
done a good job in reviewing and presenting the project. I'm going to first
talk a little about why I think the City should issue a permit and then tack a
little about some concerns we have with the recommendations. First, why is it
that the community should, and the public should want to do this? First the
purpose of this mining, this temporary mining is to obtain the clay to cap the
landfill. And certainly the existence of the landfill has been something that
the Eden Prairie residents have fought and wished to see end for some time. The
clay on this site is very tight. Water doesn't run through it very fast and
it's an excellent clay to cap the landfill and it's been hard to find for the
contractor that's going to do the work. He hasn't found anything better than
this clay. The second reason why it would be good to allow this is because of
the erosion problems that are out there now. The erosion scars that lead into
Eden Prairie and down to the railroad corridor will continue to increase in size
unless the water can be, that's running off of the ag fields can be diverted
away from those faces that are eroding. And this grading that we're presenting
here would do that. Would bring the water back internally into the site and we
I/
would let the water seep into the ground instead of running over the edge of the
cliffs into those erosion scars. And the third reason that it would be good I
think for the City to allow this is that, as Mr. Krauss indicates, it's an
opportunity to accomplish some very positive things down in the north end of the
gravel pit where the mature wooded slope is still there would be fully exposed
to view and you'd also get, have a way to get some additional tree planting on
the graded slopes down there. So what are the disadvantages and what's scares
the neighbors? I don't want to speak for them but I think that, as I see it,
the real disadvantages to them and to the city, are the temporary noise
potential. During this grading operation there would be equipment running and
trucks running and that could be disruptive short term. Certainly there'd be
55 11
i
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
I more traffic out on Hennepin County Road 1. And thirdly, there's the temporary
disruption of the land. Maybe the disruption to the land maybe isn't that
dissimilar to just the farming operation. But there's opportunity for the City
I and for Mr. Zwiers. Certainly Mr. Zwiers' benefit is he gets a chance to sell I
that clay and gain economically. The neighbors in the city gain the lessening I
of the erosion problem and less runoff water going downstream. And in general,
I again the landfill gets closed. So I think it can be a win /win. I think it is
a win /win. We just have to deal with the short term disruption of the area.
The staff and the Planning Commission have presented 16 conditions that are
attached to a potential approval and most of them we have, absolutely no problem
I with. I'd like to go through them and tell you what our thoughts are where
there is some concern. The first condition has to do with the applicant and the
grading contractor co- signing the application, the permit and being responsible
1 together for the promises that would be asked of them. I think as it pertains
to this north, the clay mining operation, they should be jointly obligated to do
the things that _you'd want. As to that- - southerly pond that-straddles the border
1 of the mine below and the north parcel, that's only Mr. Zwiers' operation. So
as it pertains to the north work, yes. They should be jointly responsible but
not as to the south. So somehow that would have to be cleared up and the letter
of credit amount that would bind or would guarantee to the city that the
I northerly work would get completed, we'd like to see that dollar amount
separated from what will happen to the south so that only Mr. Zwiers is
obligated for that work and not the contractor that's doing the landfill
1 capping. There's absolutely nothing wrong with number 2. We agree it was,
that's a Hennepin County initiated suggestion. In number 3, we proposed hours
of operation from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night. Probably from every
day of the week except for Sundays and holidays. And the staff has indicated
I that they may wish to shut down Saturday operations if there are complaints. I
think if they're significant, substantial and substantiated complaints, that the 1
city should have the right to shut it down. The operation down but I'd hate to
t see a petty complaint that was just lodged to, for not very good reason be the
I cause of shutting the operation down. But I would hope that the, if the city
chooses to restrict that or leave that to the engineer's discretion, that he be
directed to verify that the complaint is real. The next issue, or item that we
question is again down in number 6 where the letter of credit amount is
established. I think the staff fairly figured out what a suitable letter of
credit amount should be but we would ask again that the amount be separated
between what's dedicated to guaranteeing the north work from the south pond
work. I think my quick calculations would indicate that about half of the money
would guarantee, is allocated to guaranteeing the north work and half the south
work within a few thousand dollars on each. In number 7, the staff has asked
f for verification of where the sand layer occurs in the ground. We'll be
submitted soil borings that were done by GME consultants on behalf of the
grading contractor. They have been done but I have not seen them but we will
supply them. As Mr. Krauss indicated, the Watershed District has reviewed and
approved of this work. They met in July and approved of this. Again, in number
12, we need to separate the financial guarantees if this is to go forth. Or
we'd like to. And in 14, the July 15th date as Paul indicated would be very
adequate for the north clay operation but we really have no way to set a date
for the work down in the mine and gravel pit. So those are our thoughts. We'd
be happy to answer questions and again, I think this is a chance for a win /win
but I understand the fear of the neighbors. Change is always difficult. Thank
you.
1
56
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
makes some environmental sense and then leveraging it on the south property so
that we're going to get some improvements there that we couldn't otherwise
demand with the reforestation. If this is approved, this slope, maybe it will
show up a little better here. This USGS map shows a lot of contours that are
no longer here and you basically have a bit pit here. This is a sheer face of a
mine. Now we could make them, and we have made them establish grass on there to
prevent erosion but we don't have the authority to require trees. What we're
doing is we're leveraging the ponding in this area to require reforestation on
that south slope and kind of jumping over.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, now my question is, if you establish that linkage,
can they then come and claim hey the south parcel is grandfathered. There is a
linkage and therefore now the north parcel is grandfathered.
Paul Krauss: We discussed this at length with our legal staff because it was a
concern that we had as well. We're very confident that it doesn't and the
reason is, it's because of grading activities that they're doing on the north.
I mean there's some tree loss that they've got to compensate for. The only
place to compensate in this case is on the adjacent property that they happen to
own. That didn't provide them the window to jump through to say, these are all
one parcel and should be treated as such and by the Court and that we have
grandfathering rights all over. That was pretty clear to us.
Councilwoman Dimler: Elliott, do you want to comment on this?
Elliott Knetsch: Yeah. I would agree with what Paul's telling you and I think
we're satisfied that this would not somehow tie the two together and give them
greater rights in the north site such as they have on the south site.
Councilwoman Dimler: Because if it did, I don't think the payback to us is
substantial in order to allow that to happen. Those were my two concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I'd just like to piggy back on Ursula's question on that
south piece because it's confusing to me also. What's the future of the south
piece? That's the Moon Valley I grew up with. With the big pit and the gravel
mining. Is that just going to keep going on?
Paul Krauss: No. You know Mr. Zwiers has given us some idea of the, we have a
plan. The ultimate removal of material with the final grades that he's got to
re- establish there. Now what you're left with is a big bowl when all's said and
done. You know arguably, what is this big bowl good for? The only thing from a
comprehensive plan standpoint theoretically that you can put in there right now
is agriculture or presumably some low density residential. We don't know how
many years it's going to take to finish it and we don't know what kind of
opportunities are going to be there at that time
Councilman Wing: There's more gravel mining will occur on the south most
likely?
Paul Krauss: Oh yeah.
59
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
11
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more?
Councilman Wing: Oh no.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot. I guess I'm kind of
waiting for maybe some of the neighbors to make comments.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have one more question of Paul, if I may. You talked
' about them allowing this to occur so that we could have a second bluff line.
Right? Now what's the guarantee that that bluff line's going to stay in place?
' Paul Krauss: Well a couple things Councilwoman Dimler. First of all their
approved grading plan shows no grading in that area. Nor would we ever
authorize or I would never recommend that you authorize it because it is a
primary bluff line. It's protected by our bluff line district and there's a lot
in there. Add to the fact that one of the conditions of approval is that the
property owners record against the title that there be no further mining on that
parcel period. I think it pretty well protects it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you're confident that that will protect it? Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Once they take 250,000 cubic yards of clay out, we can stop that
right there after that?
Paul Krauss: You mean once they.
Mayor Chmiel: Can they come back in and say, well we need another 50,000?
Paul Krauss: Theoretically they could make a request of you. You would be
' empowered to deny it but under the conditions of approval, I don't know if
they're constrained Elliott but if the condition gets recorded against the
property that Council's certainly under no obligation to release them from that
condition.
Elliott Knetsch: Yeah that's right, plus we have the July 15th cutoff date.
' I guess your question might be is if they get the 250,000 off this year and then
come back next year for addition. Well, they could certainly file for a permit
like they're doing now and we'd put them through this review process and have
the opportunity to approve or deny, just as we do now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Workman: I guess that maybe leads into a question I have for
Elliott. Under what grounds do we have to deny this?
Elliott Knetsch: Well this is similar to, the interim use ordinance that you
have is similar to your conditional use permit process. You look at the overall
proposed use compared to whatever detrimental effects it may have and I think
there's some specific guidelines laid down in the ordinance for you to judge the
use by.
Paul Krauss: There's a series of findings that you would have to make one way
or the other. And frankly there's also, the grading ordinance provides for a
' 60
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
300 foot setback of activity. It also provides for a waiver of that setback if
they meet some criteria. But still that's a determination that you have to make
1 whether or not it warrants that waiver.
Elliott Knetsch: That is a specific variance that you have to give that here. 1
Paul Krauss: Well, no. It's not. Roger and I went through that. It wasn't
written as a variance. It was written as a waiver so that there's findings that
you have, you make the finding. You don't have to give it a variance. You just
waive the requirement.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue or have
concerns? Come forward and please state your name and your address.
Jon Lonstein: Mayor and Council members. I'm Jon Lonstein. I live at 9861 1
Deerbrook Drive. I actually have lived there for exactly 3 weeks and the reason
I'm becoming involved in these, I'm Lot 14 in Deerbrook which is just over the
railway tracks from the meadow. A little bit of background is that I've been
working with the planning department obviously in building my house and was very
appreciative and went along with all their concerns with erosion and maintaining
the bluffs and putting in retaining walls so that we wouldn't destroy the bluffs
and that's what some of the concerns I'm raising tonight. Obviously only being
here for 3 weeks and missing the original meeting because I was out of the
country, I read through the report of the Planning meeting and the Minutes of
the meeting and Mr. Krauss' report and it seems to, there are three separate
things here. One is the mining of the clay. The quarter million cubic yards of
clay from the meadow. The second thing is the establishment of three
infiltration basins or seepage basins. And the third thing is the extension of
mining into the south end of this north parcel for the portion abutting onto the
original mining. With the clay meadow mining, my concerns are firstly,
obviously noise. They are going to mine a tremendous amount of clay in a short
period of time. There's going to be noise from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. We had
just in the vicinity this past weekend they replaced a leaking gas main and it
was just one single truck plus a single grader that was working and it was very
disturbing, all through Saturday. The second thing is, even though the access ,
is on Pioneer Trail and the County and the State say it's a safe access, the
access will be such that the volume of traffic to move this amount of clay in
the period of time is approximately 25 to 30 trucks per hour each way on Pioneer
Trail. Because otherwise it's not possible to move this volume of clay in that
11 hour span, 6 days a week. One of the infiltration basins. Nobody knows
infiltration basins. We're talking about infiltration or seepage basins when
we've got no reports of what the soil is down. Is there sand down there or is
it clay going through a deep dip? We don't know. Yes, it is like the rain but
what happens, we're trying to prevent erosion but we're going to be creating
something in clay. Clay doesn't hold water if there's no sand and therefore in 1
a large storm, you're just creating another source of erosion. What's the
effect of that water sitting there on our current water table and the aquafir?
We don't know. Yes it's like water just falling but you're creating a place for
the water to stand. The other thing is, I know it's the Minnesota State bird
but what about the mosquitoes, obviously are going to love these basins. The
other concern is on the lower mining operation.. Reading through Mr. Krauss'
report, it's very obvious and the Council knows the long history that goes back
with the mining on the south parcel but reading through the report, the
61 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
restoration on the south is such that it's not a year, two years, it's as the
clay and as the soil and gravel is needed for Mr. Zwiers' business. Is the
permission you're giving him just extending the mining operation into the north
parcel because there's no time limit? What about the amount to reforest? Are
we reforesting with little seedlings or reforesting with real trees? If you
reforest with trees, and I spoke to a couple of landscape people. If you forest
with trees, and say you're really conservative putting 2 to 3 foot trees, 400
trees to an acre, and a quarter of those trees being deciduous trees and the
other 3/4 being something inexpensive like dogwood trees which are $25.00 each,
is going to cost you somewhere between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00 to reforest an
acre. Have we got guarantees that when this is (a) that it's going to be done,
and (b) that the money will be available for that? The other question is, on
the north meadow, on the meadow that's going to be, clay is going to be taken
out. This is going to be residential development in the future. You cannot, it
has to be residential development where utilities are brought in because
obviously once the soil is disturbed, you cannot put in any sewer, any mound
systems. The other question is, we've no reason to waive the 300 foot
setback...reading and inquiring, this 300 foot setback is such that you want to
protect the neighbors and protect the environment and protect the land from
going right up to the border with no setback, even though you're going to be
regrassing that area, creating problems in the future for future erosion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else?
Dennie Bartholow: In another 20 minutes I'd say good morning. I'm Dennis
Bartholow, 9841 Deerbrook Drive. I'm on Lot 14, directly across from the
seepage pond. There's a few things I'd like to bring up. One of them in
regards to traffic. I realize that this is Hennepin County that the trucks will
be driving but in my calculations on the amount of traffic, I've got 35 trucks
per hour each direction on that highway. Pioneer Trail is a 55 mph highway and
just prior to the exit from the landfill area is a strong dip in the highway, a
' curve and you come up over a hill and immediately to your left is the exit. Now
this is where the trucks are going to be returning from the landfill. They'll
be coming up over the hill and stopping, waiting to take a left hand turn. In
essence waiting for traffic to clear and making their turn. If you have one
i truck that stops there and you come up behind it at 55 mph, it's a very scarey
i situation. But if you had two of them, it's a very, very dangerous situation
and the likelihood of that happening I think is very strong. Rush hour at that
area, which is around 5:00 to 5:30, backs up almost to the top of this hill. It
can back up past the bridge into Hennepin County. Just give you an idea of what
kind of traffic we're dealing with. Also, in the morning, the inbound traffic
coming from Carver, Jonathon, all of that area, it's difficult to get onto
11
Pioneer Trail and they're going to be operating at 7:00 in the morning. So
again we have a traffic problem. In that case, the trucks will be leaving the
pit, going up over the hill and disappearing and then the traffic will come up
behind them doing 50 mph and they're just waking up at that time. So I have a
real strong concern about the safety issue and legal ramifications as to if
something happens to my family, would I come back to Chanhassen and try to
collect on it. We also have a problem right now that we're dealing with
Williams Pipeline goes across that property. And they discovered a leak just
recently and they're tearing it all apart and replacing it. If we have all of
this tonage driving back and forth over Williams , Pipeline, in essence I've got
25,000 truckloads is what it's going to take. A quarter of a million cubic
' 62
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
yards. 10 cubic yards to a truck, that's 25,000 truckloads that's going to be
driving over this pipe. If this pipe breaks, who's held responsible for it?
And is there a possibility of contamination to my ground water because of it?
I'm concerned of that right now. This is, as I recall, this pipe I think is
refined fuel. I do not believe it's crude so it would have a better chance to
leach. When we get to the ground water concern, if we look here we'll see that
they're going to strip away the clay to an elevation of 800 feet. Again, I'm
directly across the railroad tracks on 14. And the elevation of my home is 910
feet. When we put in the well, we hit water at 160 feet deep. Okay, so that
puts it at 750 feet. Is this is at 800 feet, my ground water was at 750 feet,
that's 50 feet of filtration, which does not seem to me like a whole lot. Also
mentioned at the Planning Commission was that if we had a super storm, we would
fill up these basins but that they would recede at a rate of 1 inch per hour for
in 72 hours, I would have the entire super storm in my ground water and to say
that all of that flows towards the Minnesota River, I find that very difficult I/
to believe. My background is engineering and I don't think it's that cut and
dry. We don't know what the ground is like underneath there. Again, if my
ground water is contaminated, who would I go after legally for it? Would it be
the contractor? Would it be Moon Valley? Or if just simply dissolve his
corporation and then I'm stuck out in the middle of nowhere? I don't know and
that's something I'm very concerned about. As far as future development in that
area, if they want to put in residential areas, again is that going to mean that
I'm going to have to handle the city coming out with sewer when I've got
$10,000.00 into my mound operation right now? There was a comment made about
there shouldn't be a concern about the ground water because look at where your
septic system is relative to where this system is. Yes, my septic system has a
lot of clay between it and the sand does the filtration. They want to go
directly into the ground water with it and that's very scarey. As far as '
erosion concerns, I don't know if any of you have been down in that area but at
the turn of the century the railroad came through and dug a big ditch right
between my property and the proposed mining operation. They have sheer cliffs
there. It's been there for 80 years. Erosion's never been a problem. Back of
my property is probably 50 foot cliffs and nobody's ever made a mention out of
the erosion problem so I don't understand why that's a major concern now. It
just doesn't make any sense. And also when we bought the property, we were
under the assumption that the bluffs were protected and that we wouldn't end up
having bluffs torn down. On the southern operation over here, this is where the
mining operation is now. This is a very large bluff peninsula right here that
blocks our view of the mining operation. If we tear this out, we get the
opportunity to watch a mining operation and for how many years, nobody knows.
So yes, you're exposing a second bluff but you're destroying the first one to do
it. Sure, half of the first bluff has been destroyed but the back side of the
bluff is in perfect position. Why tear it out? And then, now I'm stuck looking
at a mining operation both directly across the railroad tracks from my home and
also when I view Shakopee, I'll be looking at an ongoing mining operation. As
far as the Eden Prairie facility. The landfill.. I believe it was mentioned
that they do have a second source for clay. That the landfill has a second
source for clay? No? I thought at the last Planning Commission that had been
mentioned.
Rick Sathre: Well if this is denied, they'll have to find another source.
Dennis Bartholow: Okay, and I think that's about all I have.
63
11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
1 Linda Revere: My name is Linda Revere and I'm at 9881 Deerbrook Drive and I
don't have a lot to add after my neighbors. I agree with what they've said.
I Just a couple of questions I'd like to raise. And this kind of goes back to
what Councilwoman Dimler had mentioned. You had a date of July 15th of next
year as the deadline for both projects and yet they're saying that they can have
I the top clay removal by the end of the year. I would suggest having two
deadlines. If they say they can have it done by the end of the year, have a
December 31st date for the clay removal and then the lower, the southern end,
July 15th or whatever but have them be separate dates I think would be
j perferable. One concern that we do have is the noise. Growing up I lived
across probably 2 miles from a quarry. Very, very noisey and if this is
approved, I would suggest that Saturday be eliminated from the days of •
' operation. One concern with that south end, if that little peninsula is removed
and then exposing the secondary bluff line. What's going to prevent that
secondary bluff line from eroding? I think there should be some study done or
some looking into that. And that's all I had, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
II Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail. I guess
using the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, it had been mentioned in either
the Planning Commission or Paul's comment as to why Chanhassen didn't ask for
' one. Last Wednesday evening I was talking with, I believe she's a planner for
Carver County and that's when she mentioned when they have over so many, I think
it's 16,000 cubic yards, it's just done. And here we're moving an awful lot
more than that. I don't know really what is all done in an environmental
II assessment worksheet. Chanhassen did not have one on file that we could look
at. I guess if you had your druthers of what part of this project could be
completed and what you maybe wouldn't like to see, I guess taking the clay out
I is one thing. I don't know digging it as deep as they're going, how that's
going to look but I guess I could put up with that. I'd be very wary of
connecting the southern parcel with the northern parcel because I guess the way
' that line is there, the green tree line, that whole southwest corner of the
northern parcel is going to be mined and then a sediment basin put in there. Is
that the plan? I was talking to Paul one day over the phone and I think from
the railroad right -of -way where if you're walking on the old railroad
1 right -of -way now. I think he said you'd be taking trees out approximately 70 to
100 feet up from where the river right -of -way would go over to that hill. I
don't know, I think that's an awful lot of trees that are going out of there.
If you get to some point there where all of a sudden Moon Valley feels,
determines well this isn't working. We have to do something else. What do you
do at that point? Do you, I mean what can you do then but let them go further?
As far as having the trade off of letting them mine that southwest corner to
II getting the, I want to say the south slope of the southern parcel reforested. I
think as Mr. Lonstein pointed out with trees, it's gbing to be a very expensive
project and if you put little pines in there, it's not going to hold. I also
1 don't know if from the, what permit was given to the southern parcel earlier
this year. At one time I heard they were asking to mine right up to the line of
the northern parcel. Because they owned both properties, they could do that. I
I don't think they have done that yet but I don't understand it. The way I
understand it, it's not entirely cleared up. I think they, I guess I'm just
' 64
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 R
thinking. They possibly could do that or choose to do that. If this other
things are granted when they do that, where do you go from there? In all my
observing of Moon Valley's operations, I have not seen anything reforested or
resodded or reseeded or anything. On the mining that was done on the north
parcel in 1988, from about the first of September to the middle of November,
whatever is all gone up there was taken out in that time. I don't know how many
cubic yards that was but nothing has been done to restore it and how do we know
when 250,000 cubic yards are taken out? Is there a way that you can really
tell? Those are just some of my objections and I just think the people too that
bought lots at Deerbrook, you know there was no mention any time of having a
mining operation across the lane from them and I think, I don't know how you
would ever have made someone aware of that. That it was possible that it could
be done. But again my big thing I hope the two parcels are not linked. That
there is no chance that that can ever come back to haunt Chanhassen. Thank you ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
Richard Vogel: I guess one quick thing. We do have enough signatures for an 1
Environmental Assessment Worksheet and I'll give them to Paul or whoever.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? '
Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive.
I'm one of the people that live across from the south site. The original Moon
Valley. I think everything that could be said has been said about the entire
Moon Valley operation up to this point. Most of you people were here several
years ago when this whole fiasco started so I'm not going to try to elaborate on
the concerns and all of the rest of it about the entire Moon Valley operation. I
think that's been presented pretty fairly. You people are going to have to come
to your own conclusions about whether or not this is really a necessary
endeavor. What it's going to do to the environment and all of the other real
concerns that everybody else has expressed tonight. I have a more direct
question though I guess to Paul, more than anybody else. Ever since this whole
thing with Moon Valley has started, what have we gotten? The City. The
Council. The taxpayers and everybody else. What have we gotten from Mr.
Zwiers? I'd like an honest answer. What have we gotten?
Paul Krauss: What have we gotten. We've been in litigation for the best part
of the last 3 years. You could flip the question over and say, what do we
expect to get.
Terry Beauchane: No. No, no. Let's not flip the question over. Let's put the '
question where it is because we've been through this for over 2 years. What
have we gotten from Mr. Zwiers?
Paul Krauss: Well Terry, are you asking for me a character reference?
Terry Beauchane: If that's what it takes because he's the one who's giving us
all of this, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna. My promise, my promise and my
promise. What have we gotten from his so far?
Paul Krauss: Well, I think what we've gotten on the south side we've gotten
through some Court rulings that we regard as being favorable. I often deal with
65 ,
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
a lot of folks who's ,credibility comes into question, which is why the City
11 requires development agreements and contracts and things to be filed against
property title and everything else.
Terry Beauchane: Let me put the question more direct, and I guess I'll put the
question to everybody including you. Is there anybody in here that trusts this
guy?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we're here to judge his character or not.
Terry Beauchane: We are here because he is asking you people to do something
that you have to make an approval on and the only thing that you've got to go by
is his word and so far, since this whole Moon Valley thing has started, all he's
done is cause everyone a lot of aggravation and time and money through this
whole process because he does not want to comply with anything that this city
sets forth. So what makes you people think he's going to comply now? Even if
you give him the permit and he puts up the money, and all the rest of it. You
' people know how a corporate entity works in this country. As soon as he's done,
he can snub his nose at you people and all the rest of us, again and walk away
from it and say, it's all yours baby. Do what you want with it. And who's
going to get stuck with it? And he's done that so far. What's to say he's not
going to do it again?
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comment but I think that's something that we're
' going to have to decide on and come up with a conclusion ourselves.
Terry Beauchane: I hope you give it very serious consideration.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We will. What I'd like to make a suggestion this evening is that
there's been a lot of good points brought up Paul by the people and those would
be contained within the Minutes that we've had with the recording. I'd like us
probably at this particular time to review all the questions that have been
addressed and all those questions answered. I would like to table this until
our next meeting and come up with those respective answers. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, if I may just quickly have one additional question of
Paul up to this point.
1 Terry Beauchane: I have no further questions.
Councilman Wing: I don't own the property. Mr. Zwiers owns the property and I
' understand there's a large history of litigation here. His rights and
grandfathering. He was there before the rules and then after the rules and it's
kind of like this beachlot thing. Who can do what? I'd really like a more
clear cut picture from the attorney what his rights are as a landowner and his
II use of that property. What can he and can't he do? I mean there may be some
areas here that's like Eckankar. You simply can't say no to. You can't vote
against. So this is no whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. What his rights
II are and as a landowner what he maybe can and can't do and how this litigation
and all the history fits into the package overall.
Paul Krauss: Well sure we can get the City Attorney's office to draft something
up along those lines. As far as responding to the questions that are raised to
1 66
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 1
us, I'd be happy, to. I mean I'm not sure what else we can provide. I mean if
there's something specific to do. I can certainly call Virginia Harris up and
find up what kind of rationale the County uses. But if there's some area
specifically. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess one of the questions that was brought up that
I thought was excellent was how are we going to police or tell when they've
taken out that 250,000 cubic yards and then that's it. How do we police that? '
Paul Krauss: We monitor it. We have an end state grading plan and they also
owe us an end state survey demonstrating that the grades are what they were
supposed to be.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor to table.
Councilman Wing: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to have us respond to all those questions that were
brought up. There were a lot of good questions prior to, and I think that's the
only way we can really address this. Yes, you have your hand up.
Contractor: Can I make a comment? I'm with Carl...and Sons. We are the '
contractor... My concern would be the north parcel...to complete my project.
It's been passed from Council meeting to...couple of weeks ago. I've got work
to do yet this fall. As far as the work being done on the north parcel, I'm
going to be doing it... If somebody in here has got a problem with Mr. Zwiers
and Moon Valley, that's not my problem and as far as I'm concerned, it should
not be tied to the north parcel. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Well my concerns are, as I want to have all the information
available to me with the questions that are to be answered and that's my
suggestion for tabling. If it takes 2 more weeks, it's going to take 2 more
weeks. So with that I have an entertainment on the floor with a second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for '
Earth Work /Clay Mining for Moon Valley Aggregate until the next City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have all that data and informaiton next time before
us.
Councilman Wing: I appreciate that comment on delays but this is such a large ,
impact on the city, I think it's really our responsibility to.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I don't want to come up with a conclusion right yet. ,
So with that, thanks for coming. As you're well aware, you know what our
timeframe is. Normally 11:00 we shut down the machine. I would like to also
make a suggestion that we table item number 7.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: And hold off with Council presentations and Administrative ,
presentations until next meeting.
67 '
City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Amend Article VII of the City Code concerning Planned Unit
Development regulations for residential districts until the next City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
1 City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 68
1
11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jeff Farmakes
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II;
and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON A RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bill Hickey 6301 Elm Tree Avenue
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
' called the public hearing to order.
Bill Hickey: Good evening my name is Bill Hickey and I'm the Vice
' President of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association. I really don't have
anything to add other than what the staff report contains. I'm here
primarily to answer any questions or concerns that the Commission might
have regarding this particular application. I would note that I spoke
with Tom Huntington who is the President of our Association and he has
spoken with both of the neighbors to the adjoining land to our beachlot.
Both of whom voice no concern about the portable toilet use at that site.
' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else from the public like to comment on
this conditional use permit?
' Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Batzli: Ladd, do you have any questions?
Conrad: There are no, are there any homeowners here in the Association on
either side of the outiot?
Batzli: Nope.
Conrad: Paul, your comment, I wasn't quite sure on the fencing. The
fencing you recommended, you don't know that it should be up? I guess I'm
not sure.
Krauss: I didn't get a chance to...defer to your judgment but we had
assumed that that was illustrative of additional fencing...
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 2
Conrad: What kind of fencing is that?
Krauss: I believe it's redwood. Yeah, and that's true. We do have some
photographs of the approximate location.
' Conrad: Okay. What's the renewability on these portable toilets? Is it
forever? Until there's a problem?
' Krauss: With annual licenses.
Conrad: It is an annual?
Batzli: An annual. That's what our ordinance. We put in our ordinance.
' Conrad: But we won't see that?
Batzli: Right.
Krauss: As long as it's in compliance with the conditions, it's an
administrative approval.
Conrad: Okay. I don't have any more questions.
Ledvina: Let's see then. One of the conditions is that climbing vine
' shall be planted along the base of the portable chemical toilet's wooden
framework. So you're recommending that this be omitted?
' Krauss: Yeah. If there's an acceptance that additional fencing isn't
required, that's not necessary.
Ledvina: Well I guess I wouldn't have a problem with omitting that item
' seeing that there is a opaque fence surrounding this thing and the
neighbors don't have concerns with the way it exists right now. Is that
right? They have no concerns, the neighbors as to how it's sitting there
right now?
Bill Hickey: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay.
Batzli: Matt, can I interrupt for just a second? What happens if for
' example since the fence really isn't a part of this application anymore and
we take the part out about the climbing vine, what happens if they remove
that fence and put in something else?
Krauss: They're required by the conditions in the ordinance relative to
chemical toilets to have it screened.
11 Batzli: But we put in some of the conditions into our CUP but we haven't
put all of the conditions in there. Why did we choose some of them? You
know we put in the Memorial Day to Labor Day prohibition. We put in annual
basis to renew the license. Why didn't we put those other things in there?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 3 1
Krauss: We probably ought to or have a catch all that says compliance wit
conditions contained in the ordinance.
Batzli: I'm sorry Matt, go ahead.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I guess then if I'm reading the staff's opinion of 1
this recommendation, then number 5 would be omitted. Is that correct?
Krauss: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. No other items.
Batzli: Okay. Steve.
Emmings: How long, you've had a chemical toilet down there in years past II
haven't you?
Bill Hickey: We did not last year but the year before there was one.
Emmings: I guess, you know I live just 3 or 4 houses, 4 or 5 houses I
guess west of this thing and I've never seen it and it sure has never been
a problem of any kind. It looks like an appropriate thing to me. 1
Batzli: Okay, Joan. Do you have any other questions?
Ahrens: No. As long as the conditions are complied with. I don't have II
any problems with it.
Batzli: Okay. I don't have anything else other than I would like to see, II
yeah. Steve was pointing out that in condition 4 we do have a location
restriction that if they moved it but I guess I'd like to see compliance
with the ordinance or some kind of thing in there. I think that would.
Ahrens: That should be standard for all.
Batzli: Yeah, I agree because otherwise I don't like putting in some of II
the conditions and not others because then it looks like we're doing
something different than what the ordinance would require. Having said
that, is there a motion? 1
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve Conditional Use Permit ##92 -1 to allow a portable chemical
toilet on Minnewashta Heights Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot.l
It will be conditioned by their compliance with all of the conditions in
the ordinance and the specific conditions as set forth in the staff report."
Batzli: Numbers 1 thru 4.
Emmings: 1 thru 4. 1
Ahrens: Second.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 5, 1992 —Page 4
Emmings momved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
1 approval of Conditional Use Permit *92 -1 to allow a portable chemical
toilet on Minnewashta Heights Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot
with the condition that it comply with all conditions in the ordinance and
the following specific conditions:
1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis
prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet.
' 2. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day
to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachiot during the rest of
the year.
3. The beachiot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner
consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements.
4. The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the
application /plans received by the City on June 26, 1992.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR LAKEVIEW HILLS
APARTMENTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Del & Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley
' Norbert Lickteig
E. Kottke 9111 Lake Riley Blvd.
9221 Lake Riley Blvd.
John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road
Ray Luis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Batzli: Would the applicant like to be heard at this time on this
application? Anyone from the public like to speak on this particular
application? For or against.
John Bushey: My name's John Bushey. I live at 9000 Riley Lake Road in
Eden Prairie on the chart there and immediately to the east of the beachiot
as indicated. I guess I'd like to comment on the uses as they exist now.
I'm in a pretty good position to observe at all hours and I get a chance to
observe at all hours. As staff has indicated, it's a unsecured and
' unsupervised beachiot with a lot of I guess you'd have rambunkish action
carrying on at all hours of the night. I can't comment on what the status
of the dock was in '81. I've lived there since '85. But there have been a
number of delapidated docks since then. Different ones built by, as I
discovered last night, the most recent one was built by a tenant. That's
not necessarily provided by the Association or the apartments' owner. I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 5, 1992 - Page 5
•
guess I'd like to urge the consideration of a permanent gate or some kind
of control of the beachlot with regard to access for trailered vehicles an4I
use of the beachlot and the dock by non - apartment personnel. If you drivell
by, it's a totally open area to Lake Riley Blvd. on that side of the city
line. And the fact that it's uncontrolled, it is used regularly by people
when the Eden Prairie city park parking lot is full. The other issue is '
the use of the boats that have been used there in the past have been
relatively delapidated also and occasionally swamped and just left on the
beach, even though there was no permit for docking. They have been tied ull
and beached and full of water and I guess just to look through the parking
lot there, some of the same owners of the cars that are up on blocks in the
parking lot in the apartment building may indicate the quality of the boat"
that are being left there. It's a bit of an eyesore and I don't believe
that that's going to change in the future just by the fact that you have to
have city approval to put some docks and parking and storage of boats on
trailers. Boats are stored there now without approval. I guess approval, II
I'm not sure what it's going to do to improve any situation that's there
now. I guess that's about all I have to say.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on
this application?
Ray Luis: My name is Ray Luis. I live at, my wife and I live at 9071 Lake
Riley Blvd.. I prepared a letter for the Commission. I'll just briefly
read the letter. My wife and I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd., across the
north bay from Lakeview Hills beachlot. I wish to express my concern about'
the abuses of the beachlot priviledges and the effect on our community. I
think the city beachlot ordinances are intended to provide reasonable lake
access for residents, their families and accompanied guests. The most II bothersome abuse is the noisy and rowdy parties which frequently occur in
the spring and summertime. On several occasions in recent months we have
endured yelling voices, music played so loud that I can hear it in my house
1/3 of a mile away with the windows closed at 2:00 a.m.. As I drove by the
beachlot during one of these parties, there was perhaps 20 vehicles parked
in and around the beachlot area. I wonder how many of the party goers were
residents of Lakeview Hills. If so, I think the parking lot near.the II building should be used. I'm also concerned about control and use of the
launch ramp. The boat launch ramp on the beachlot. Lake Riley is a
treasured public domain asset enjoyed by many people each year. Extensive II
time, energy and expense by the community, city and at state levels have
gone into preserving all of it's recreational uses. Apparently we are at
war with menaces of Eurasian Miifoil and nutrient runoff problems. It
presents the presence of an uncontrolled launch ramp results in additional ,
risks of further weed infestation and erosion. I suggest that there is no
reason to have two boat launch ramps on a 300 acre lake. Recommendations.
If the Lake Riley Hills Homeowners Association consider wild parties to
continue to be important, an enclosed party room facility should be
provided. This is commonly accepted and provided by many apartment
complexes. Control of beachlot noise should be mandatory to maintain II beachlot priviledges. The boat launch ramp should be closed unless Lake
View Hills can demonstrate effective control of it's use and protection of
the lake. It's really not much of a problem to use the public launch ramp
a little ways down the road. All the rest of the residents use it. In all '
other respects the Lakeview Hills residents should retain all other
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1( August 5, 1992 - Page 6
priviledges enjoyed by other beachiot users and allowed under current
' ordinances.
Batzli: Thank you. Could you do one thing for me? Could you show me on
the map where the other launch is that you're speaking of?
Aanenson: I think it's in Eden Prairie.
Batzli: Is it in Eden Prairie? Okay. So it doesn't show up on there.
Krauss: It's off the map.
Batzli: Okay. Did you have other comments?
' Ray Luis: No.
Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Commission?
Del Smith: My name is Del Smith and I'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. and I
guess I'd just reiterate what John and Ray have said. It would be
appropriate I think to have some kind of a curfew. Eden Prairie does have
a park across the lake and there is a curfew and that is watched fairly
regularly and controlled both by the, I think they have a park ranger and
both the police are through there. We have had a lot of problems. Late
night. This 12:00 to 2:00 kind of business where there are fairly good
sized parties there. The other concern as far as controlling that area is,
there is a new development that's going to be started that's adjacent to
the apartments and I guess I'd like to have you address some kind of
control. Concern there is that those people may also be down there using
that that aren't necessarily residents of the Lakeview Hills Apartments.
So I think that whole issue of control and who's_really using it might be
an issue.
Batzli: Has the noise problem been a recurring theme over the years or?
' Del Smith: We've only been there for a year. We've only lived where we
are for a year. I can't answer that. Maybe Ray or John can.
Batzli: I think you indicated you had lived there since '85. Has this
been a problem?
John Bushey: Yes, it has been a recurring problem. This year seems
particularly bad with parties going... Another issue that has come up is
boats. I can't say with 100% certainty they're coming from the beachiot
but I would bet something on it. Running wild with yelling and screaming
out on the lake at...at the same times as the parties are going on so...
5o that may be a safety issue as well as.,..
Del Smith: I guess I just have a question too. There is a dock there now.
Are we talking about an additional dock or you're just approving what dock
is there currently?
Batzli: I think we're looking at the existing 30 foot dock.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 7
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: So that would not be in addition to that. '
Del Smith: Okay, thank you.
Batzli: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission?
Norb Lickteig: Good evening. My name is Norb Lickteig and I live at 911111
Lake Riley Blvd. with my wife. I just think that all of us on the lake
want everybody to enjoy the lake and we don't care if they have picnic
tables down there and bar -be -ques and all the rest of it. All we want is
some responsibility. If they are going to use the lake, they use it in a
responsible manner. If they're going to use that lakeshore property, they
use it in a responsible manner and leave at a responsible time. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the r
Commission? Is there anyone from the applicant in attendance at all?
Okay. ,
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: .loan, do you want to start?
Ahrens: Is each apartment in the apartment complex belong to the
association? Is that how that works?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ahrens: And so there's a group of people who are moving in and out of
apartments all the time who are trying to make the decisions for the
beachlot and make the decisions for the association. Nobody's here tonighll
obviously.
Aanenson: No but there is a management person who filled out the
application.
Ahrens: Is that an on -site management, caretaker?
Aanenson: It's my understanding they're not on site.
Ahrens: Pardon me? ,
Aanenson: They're not on site. That's my understanding.
Ahrens: They're just there during the day or how does that work? '
Aanenson: They're not in the building. 'They just own the apartments or
manage the apartments. They're off site. Leasing or whatever. '
Ahrens: Oh, it's like a management company?
Aanenson: Right.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 August 5, 1992 — Page 8
Ahrens: Have you looked at the Association By -laws or anything? I mean is
' there anything in there that regulates control of the beachlot? It sounds
to me like it's totally unregulated. It's just kind of like a swimming
pool in an apartment complex.
' Aanenson: Unfortunately because when this was built in 1960's, there just
wasn't anything put together at that time. It's really run pretty loose.
' Ahrens: If a complaint is made to the Association, who takes care of the
complaint? The management company. Have any of you people ever complained
to the management company or the association?
John Bushey: If you look on the sign going into the apartments, it says
professionally managed by the blank corporation. It's just a big painted
out area. I don't even know who owns it or manages it.
Ahrens: By the blank corporation?
' John Bushey: It's just painted over.
Del Smith: I think calls have been made in the past by residents...to the
police department.
John Bushey: I have called the police.
' Del Smith: I don't think we have any idea who to call.
John Bushey: Particularly at 2:00 in the morning.
' Ahrens: Do the police show up?
John Bushey: Yeah. Well, the music stops.
Batzli: It sounds like it's a weekly hang -out from looking at the call
' sheet here to the police.
Aanenson: That was just the last 2 months I put in there.
' Batzli: Yeah, but it's every week it looks like. Every couple days.
Ahrens: Well my question is, even if a gate is put up there, I mean gates
' don't keep people out if they want to use a beachlot bad enough. If they
want to have parties there and abuse their priviledges. I guess because
there's such a lack of control here, that I have a real problem even
' addressing these other issues. I mean who's going to monitor the use even
if a gate goes up. And I understand, I think Mr. Bushey brought up the
problem with boat storage on the property. Are you saying that there's
more storage on the property than what?
John Bushey: There's not room.
Ahrens: They're saying that there's 7 boats on land?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 5, 1992 - Page 9
it
John Bushey: I can't say how many there are right now. There have been
boats parked on trailers in past years and there are canoes there now.
Ahrens: More than 7?
John Bushey: I didn't count.
Ahrens: What's your guess?
John Bushey: My guess is it's 7 or less right now. ,
Ahrens: Okay, so that's not a problem?
John Bushey: No. 1
Ahrens: It's just that the number of people using the beachiot and that ,
it's unsupervised because nobody really has a vested interest in what's
going on there. I don't know how anybody would supervise this if there's
no on site management. Certainly the tenants aren't going to do it. Short
of the police department putting an off duty police person there all the II
titre. I mean there doesn't seem to me to be any realistic way to monitor
the situation. Is the dock dangerous? I mean is it in disrepair? Put up
by a tenant? Whoever feels like it. Whoever has a little extra money that
year puts it up.
Aanenson: I wasn't aware of that.
John Bushey: I just discovered that in discussing it with a resident who
was fishing on the dock. There was some kind...built it last year and he's
since moved out. There's a very high turn over rate. '
Ahrens: I guess since I don't see how, staff is recommending that the
beachiot have better controls. That there be some supervision. That the
partying cease. I don't see how that can be done. I can't go along with
approval of this. There's just too many.
Batzli: Speak to us Paul. Can we yank their beachiot? ,
Krauss: Well to the extent that, we were just talking about that. Maybe
we ought to clarify. I mean some of the aspects of this with the City
Attorney. It's clear that there's a right to have boats there under the II
assumption that they had some boats before. But going beyond that and
asking them to chain the property and establish clear identification of
who's in control and who's a responsible party. Keeping the thing neat and,
clean. Those are additional conditions that sure would be nice to be able
to impose.
Ahrens: Can we do that? Can we demand that they post a sign with the name'
of a person and a phone number to call if there are complaints?
Batzli: Well more than that even. I mean this right now is a nuisance. All
public nuisance to the people on the lake. And at some point they may have
this right to use the beachiot but at some point the police power of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 —Page 10
11 city has to, we have to be able to say something about a public nuisance.
Y Y g P
And clear that's what this is right now as it's currently existing.
Aanenson: I think we need to separate the two issues and maybe we should
ask for a table and get Roger's opinion on that because there is the
grandfathering issue and then there's the nuisance problem and they do
blend together but I think we need to figure out how we can resolve that.
1 Batzli: Well I clearly don't want to approve this given the fact that the
applicant didn't show up and there's a lot of concern.
Aanenson: So maybe tabling would be the best.
Batzli: Is there a motion to table?
Emmings: Well yeah, I couldn't agree more. They're not being responsible
running the beachlot. They're not even showing up here tonight. I think
it may be two issues but it's all one problem. So the other thing I'd like
to know is, when we give approval for 7 boats and all they've got is 6
canoes, that's saying. I know that's '91 they've got 6 canoes but I don't
want to give approval for boats if all they've got is canoes and that's all
they had back then. That's a real difference to me. But I agree, this
' ought to be tabled and we ought to find out from the City Attorney what we
can bring to bear to force these people to be responsible for their
beachlot.
' Ahrens: And if we can't pull their beachlot permit, I mean what are we
doing anyway?
' Emmings: Well we can't because they're grandfathered in.
Krauss: I think the issue here is the ability to impose additional
' conditions.
Batzli: But at some point, if they don't follow those conditions, what do
' you do?
Krauss: What's the recourse, correct.
11 Batzli: Yeah. Matt, did you?
Ledvina: Yeah, I had a couple of questions. You know the whole, basis for
our decisions in the past has been the 1981 baseline survey and I'm just
wondering why was this site missed with the survey at that time? I mean
was it just overlooked?
' Aanenson: I have no idea. People were just hoping it would go away. I
don't know.
I Emmings: I think the person who did the survey was afraid to go down there
maybe.
I Ledvina: If we don't have that survey, you. know we've looked at
documentation. Detailed documentation. Ledgers and things like that from
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 5, 1992 —Page 10
i
city has to, we have to be able to say something about a public nuisance. II
And clear that's what this is right now as it's currently existing.
Aanenson: I think we need to separate the two issues and maybe we should II
ask for a tab1 &and get Roger's opinion on that because there is the
grandfathering issue and then there's the nuisance problem and they do
blend together bu\ I think we need to figure how we can resolve that. II
Batzli: Well I clearly don't want to approve this given the fact that the
applicant didn't show up and there's a lot;of concern.
II
Aanenson: So maybe tabling would be the ts
Batzli: Is there a motion to table? II
Emmings: Well yeah, I couledn't agree mire. They're not being responsible
running the beachlot. They e not even showing up here tonight. I think e l
it may be two issues but it' all one P� roblem. So the other thing I'd lik
to know is, when we give appr al for / boats and all they've got is 6
canoes, that's saying. I know hat's /91 they've got 6 canoes but I don't
want to give approval for boats 'f alit they've got is canoes and that's all
they had back then. That's a real difference to me. But I agree, this
ought to be tabled and we ought to f ind out from the City Attorney what we
can bring to bear to force these pe to be responsible for their II
beachlot.
i
Ahrens: And if we can't pull their beachlot permit, I mean what are we
I
doing anyway?
Emmings: Well we can't because ey're grandfathered in.
II
Krauss: I think the issue here is the ability to impose additional
conditions.
II
Batzli: But at some point, if they don't follow those conditions, what do
you do?
1 Krauss: What's the recourse correct.
Batzli: Yeah. Matt, did ydu? 11 Ledvina: Yeah, I had a co ple of questions. You know the whole basis for
our decisions in the past as been the 1981 baseline survey and I'm just
wondering why was this si a missed with the survey at that time? I mean II
was it just overlooked?
Aanenson: I have no ide . People were just hoping it would go away. i II
don't know.
Emmings: I think the erson who did the survey was afraid to go down there'll ,
Ledvina: If we don't have that survey, you-know we've looked at
documentation. Detailed documentation. Ledgers and things like that from II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 11
the homeowners association and what we have for documentation here seems
pretty scant in that we've got a photo that says, this was 1977. Sincerely,
Leo Ganglehoff. Is he here today? No. I think that, have you verified
that this information is accurate with other people? That yes this was?
' Aanenson: Yep.
Ledvina: Okay, so that was the use as of 1977. Were there 7 boats at that
time and how was 7 boats determined? Was that just what they said?
11 Aanenson: Yeah.
Ahrens: ...7 boats there, I think there was just a dock there.
Ledvina: Well 7 boats on land.
' Emmings: That's what they're asking for.
Ahrens: Right. They didn't say that that it existed.
' Ledvina: Yeah, at the time.
' Emmings: The application says that.
Ledvina: At the time. They're asking for continuation of the use from the
' point at 1981 so when the ordinance came into effect. So if there were 7
boats at that time, that should be documented as well. I think 7 boats on
land. Let's see. Would it be possible to put a curfew in terms of no
personnel or no individuals allowed on this property after 10:00 a.m.?
' Something like that. Or 10:00 p.m..
Krauss: Matt, that falls into those questions we have to raise with the
City Attorney. There's a good reason to be skeptical over what was there
in 1981 too. I mean we don't have the same level of information that
you've seen on other ones. Nor the variety of people that can attest to
' it.
Emmings: What do we, who's burden is it? Ours or their's?
Aanenson: There's.
Emmings: Okay. And if we don't believe them?
Aanenson: We didn inventory it either so.
Emmings: Maybe the best thing to go by is what they have now. Huh?
' 8atzli: Well, it's clearly going to change much more so than a normal
beachlot if in fact there was a turnover in the apartments. There's not
' going to be the same number of boats year in and year out. I mean it's
going to change every year.
Conrad: Was the dock put out every year? It was not, okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 5, 1992 - Page 12
Aanenson: Non - conforming would fall in then if we can document that. You 11
have to put it out every year to maintain non - conforming.
Krauss: We'll put it together for you and bring it back. 1
Batzli: Ladd, do you have anything to ask before we table this Ladd?
Conrad: Are there boats on trailers stored there right now?
John Bushey: I don't recall if there are boats on trailers right now.
There have been.
Conrad: There have been. Primarily canoes right now? What kind of boats?"
John Bushey: There have been motorboats on trailers...
Conrad: My comment is, when I came in here was, they can have some of the II
things that they're asking for but they have to be closed down. They just
have to. You can't have an access that doesn't have control. I mean the
milfoil stand alone. It's ludicrous so I guess my only comment, yet I I
think they do have some rights and I'm not disputing that. If they were
here I'd be telling them that but they do have some rights to use the lake
but right now it's real abusive and it can't be, my perspective is, that
site can't be used for launching until there's control. Period. And I
don't know what leverage we have but it's just like Paul, I would be
following this up real quickly. It's one of those things that geez, I
can't believe this is really happening. ,
Emmings: This is like Lowell Carlson.
Conrad: There are some parallels but it's just like, I can't believe that ,
there's no control on it. That's terrible.
Emmings: But when people are required, or non - conforming beachlots are 1
required to get a license. Is that right?
Aanenson: Permit. ,
Emmings: Permit?
Aanenson: Or cease and desist within one year of adoption of the ordinance"
so if they don't have a permit by February, it's like 26th, 27th of 1993,
then they don't have a beachlot license anymore.
Emmings: What if we denied an application? What would be the effect?
Krauss: Well, I mean without having Roger here, the basis for denial that II
I see is that there's not verifiable or acceptable verifiable evidence that
there was anything there in 1981.
Batzli: Well I think it would be difficult to deny that there was a ,
beachlot. The issue is more of, what was on the beachlot.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
It August 5, 1992 - Page 13
Ahrens: But there have been other beachlots that can't document... We've
II approved those.
Emmings: We've had something on most of them haven't we? We've had our
II own survey and we've had what they said.
Conrad: You know they're asking for 6 or 7 canoes which is nothing. Yeah,
that's in my mind, those are not issues. If they want 6 or 7 canoes, fine.
11 The issue is access.
Batzli: Access and supervision.
II Conrad: And supervision and they're not asking for that so I don't know
how we tackle but that's a huge issue.
II Batzli: Okay, is there a motion to table?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to table the Non - Conforming Use Permit for a
I Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments for further
clarificaiton from the City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
II Batzli: This Non - conforming Use Permit is tabled and it's tabled pending
staff's approaching the City Attorney to determine what conditions we can
li
II place on this application for access and supervision to the beachlot.
Anything else?
Conrad: And can we get that back in here in 2 weeks? Oh we have a flooded
II agenda in 2 weeks.
Krauss: Well I think this is something that we can, we'll try. We will
1 notify the neighbors of when it's on.
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in.
II PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND
II LOCATED AT 7201 JUNIPER AVENUE, GREG DATTILO.
Public Present:
1 Name Address
Dorothy Downing 7200 Juniper Road
II Sam Potts 3628 Hickory Road
Greg Datiilo 7201 Juniper Avenue
Tom & Kathy Paradise 3755 Red Cedar Point Road
11 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
II Greg Oatillo: I'rn Greg Oatillo. I think Kate did a great job in
presenting it. The only question I have is, on the erosion part. If the
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 5, 1992 —Page 14
part that would cause a problem for any wetland to get destroyed from the
erosion. You know there's really only going to be like one spot, like
right over there. If I could just put it up there instead of putting it
around the whose area. I don't know if Kate, I'm sorry, I can't.
Batzli: We have our engineering expert here.
Hempel: Staff's concern I guess would be to the adjacent property owners.
It is a low point of the neighborhood. I think the wetland or the area
that you're filling is right up to the common property line. That would be'
of concern of any potential property damage on your neighbors from runoff.
Greg Datillo: That's fine but you know the area where it's real high on I
the, okay thank. I mean that's.
Batzli: Okay so, he can work it out then with City Engineering or staff as
far as which portions he would have to place the erosion control around?
Hempel: That'd be acceptable.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Did you have any other questions? 1
Greg Datillo: Yeah, no. She did a great job. Thank you.
Batzli: If we have questions, we'll let you know. Anyone else like to
comment on this application?
Dorothy Downing: We are the adjacent property owners and we're fine with II
it as long as everything is, I'd rather have it level as long as everything
is going down to the wetland. So I don't know if the swale line would need'
to go inbetween the two properties?
Aanenson: Yeah, it would go right in here.
Hempel: It would follow the common property line basically down towards
the wetland.
Dorothy Downing: Okay. 1
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment on the application? II
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Ladd, do you want to lead off?
Conrad: Kate, the purpose of this is, the particular function of this
wetland is what? Based on our inventory.
Aanenson: It's just a holding pond before it goes into the lake.
Conrad: It is a holding pond for the lake?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 —Page 15
Krauss: If we could also clarify something too. I think you're aware that
there's a new wetlands ordinance that's in the development stage. On
Monday night the subcommittee, Swamp subcommittee working on it completed
it. It's going to come to the whole Swamp Board on next Wednesday and it's
going to come to you in September. One of the things that is contained in
that ordinance is an elimination of this 200 foot but not impacting the
wetland standard. Where we trick the wetland alteration permit. Here you
have a clear example of an activity that's of no direct bearing to the
wetland. One which engineering could well have handled administratively
and we could have taken care of that in a grading permit. Yet because of
how the ordinance is set up right now, we've had to run Mr. Datillo through
this and it takes an extra few months. So you won't be seeing many of
these in the future if that ordinance gets approved the way it's drafted
right now.
Batzli: Is that next Thursday?
Krauss: Thursday?
' Batzli: I thought it was the 13th.
Aanenson: Thursday.
I Krauss: Thursday.
' Batzli: The 13th. Next week from tomorrow right? 13th. You were going
to show up on the wrong night weren't you?
Conrad: Okay, anyway. The function is filtration and we're not effecting
that? Okay.
Batzli: Okay, Matt?
Ledvina: I guess I don't have anything to add beyond the recommendations
from staff.
Emmings: Will this be a buildable area once it's filled?
Aanenson: The lot?
Emmings: Yeah.
Aanenson: ...the lot?
Greg Datillo: I have water and sewer to the site but...
' Emmings: My only question is, if this is a buildable area, would you be
putting any different conditions on it based on that use as opposed to use
as a playground?
Greg Datillo: No. Currently...
Emmings: No, I'm asking the staff.
Planning Commission Meeting
1
August 5, 1992 -.Page 16
Aanenson: No. As a matter of fact, if he came in for a building permit on
it now, we'd be doing the same process. ,
Emmings: Okay. You wouldn't look at it any differently? Then I'm fine.
Batzli: Joan. Matt, were you done? ,
Ledvina: Yes.
Batzli: Okay, Joan.
Ahrens: Is this going to be a public park? _ 1
Greg Datillo: No. Can I talk?
Batzli: Yeah, go ahead. 1
Greg Datillo: My profession is insurance. So for liability, I can't put
Datillo's Park on there. In other words, right now I put a basketball 1
court across the street and that's already in there 2 years ago. And as
long as I kind of, you know I have kids so it's their friends that come
over and 50% of the time my kids aren't even over there but right now kids
are playing. And my liability, I do have a million dollar liability policy,
and you know, for liability purposes I would never name it Datillo's Park
or anything like that. Right now it's got a swingset over there. I mean
there are things already over there. It's just that I don't have a
ballfield... I'm not putting anything in writing that it's a park.
Ahrens: You're not going to have the same kinds of parties that they have
over on Lake Riley?
Greg Datillo: Maybe my kids. 1
Batzli: But this is your private property then and you just let kids come
and play on it?
•
Greg Datillo: Yes. That's right. Exactly.
Emmings: You let them come and trespass on it. 1
Ahrens: I don't have any questions.
Batzli: Okay. I don't have a proble as long as the neighbors concerns are l
taken care of that whatever needs to be done so that there's no runoff or
that we're diverting water onto their property is taken care of. Is there
a motion? al
Conrad: I recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -8 as
shown on the plans dated July 1st with the conditions in the staff report. II
Batzli: Is there a second?
Emmings: Second. '
I Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 17
1! Batzli: Is there discussion?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit *92 -8 as shown on the plans dated
July 1, 1992 with the following conditions:
II 1. A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Chanhassen.
II 2. Type I erosion control shall be installed between the existing wetland
area and the entire fill area, and shall be removed once the vegetation
has been re- established.
II 3. A swale shall be created between the area of fill and the wetland edge
at approximately the 960.0 contour to maintain the existing
neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff shall inspect the final grade
prior to seeding.
4. Clean up debris.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE ADJACENT TO A WETLAND.
CHEYENNE TRAIL AND HWY 101, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
II Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
' Batzli: So Dave, speak to us about this sedimentation catching dealybob.
That's a technical term guys.
Hempel: This is what was employed at Lundgren's development up at
II Trapper's Pass where there was just simply no area to build a sedimentation
pond due to the terrain. The sediment basins were recommended on behalf of
the Watershed and staff. They do help from a water quality standpoint by
I removing the larger sediments that wash through the pipe and so forth.
It's not as desireable as a sedimentation basin or a NURP pond which
removes a lot more of the nutrients and so forth but this is much better
I than what is currently transpiring out there right now with an open ditch
section and it's been continually eroding into the wetland. So the
improvements that we're proposing here will definitely help from a water
quality standpoint, as well as a traffic safety standpoint with turning
II movements on TH 101 and Cheyenne.
Batzli: So this will improve the current sedimentation problem that's
I running into the pond but it otherwise won't improve the water quality
other than to catch the large sedimentation currently going in there throug
the existing culvert kind of thing? Whatever's there now.
I Hempel: That's correct, yes.
Batzli: Okay. Is there anything that we could do that would improve the
II water quality or potential for spills off the roadway or something? Is
there something we could be doing that we're not?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 18
c 1
Hempel: A sedimentation basin or NURP pond would be a little bit more
beneficial than what we're proposing but also would require mitigation of I
the wetland and DNR approval and possible Army Corps of Engineer approval
also.
Aanenson: Can I just speak to that a little bit? When we first looked at II
this issue, we were concerned because there is drainage and utility
easements all around this entire wetland area. And basically the wetland
goes beyond the edges of all the drainage and utilities so there's not, in '
this area if we did go in there and do some work, there's not a lot of area
to mitigate. We'd have to take the mitigation elsewhere and that was part
of the concern I guess. That's why we originally thought about the
sedimentation basin may do a better job. In looking at it, there's nowhere'
to mitigate so we felt this was the best alternative.
Batzli: But really the fact that the road has gone through or what have II
you has probably eliminated the natural whatever you'd call it of the
nutrients and other things in the water and currently, all this is going to
do is take the particals out The big chunks. But it's not going to do
any other filtering that would normally be done prior to entering this type`
of a wetland.
Aanenson: Well, there's two drainage that goes in there. One from the '
Eden Prairie side. Storm water and then one that runs through the ditch.
So those two are the ones that we're trying to trap. You're right. The
ones that are running off the road, the sheet flow. '
Batzli: Yeah.
Aanenson: You're right. We probably wouldn't be catching those. '
Hempel: This is a rather small area actually contributing to the storm
drainage system here. A ditch a few hundred feet each side of the culvert.,
And a little bit of the backyards on the Eden Prairie side. 5o it's not a
very large area that we're talking about contributing to the wetland. The
wetland is essentially pretty much a dry wetland and it's very heavily
cattailed and so forth. To do the filtering through the cattails.
Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on '
this wetland alteration permit?
•
Aanenson: I was going to say. We did receive phone calls from some of the
residents that were concerned about impact to the wetland and whether or II
not there was a need for the right in turn lane. I guess they were
concerned we were going to be taking out some of the wetlands. I spoke to
quite a few of them so I don't know if we answered their questions. '
Batzli: Okay. The record shows there's no one else in the room.
Aanenson: I was expecting quite a few people here actually.
Batzli: Well, there's no one else in the room that wishes to address the
Commission. Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? '
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 19
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have any comments?
Ahrens: Dave, essentially you're saying that it's just too much of a
hassle for the City to put the sedimentation pond or NURP pond in because
you'd have to go through the DNR and possibly the Army Corps.
Batzli: But then there might be mitigation as well required somewhere
else.
1 Aanenson: But there's no where to pick up the mitigation. Yeah, we can't
pick up the mitigation on site. The wetlands gone beyond the easements.
We'd have to take it off site.
Batzli: So you're going to have a net loss. You'd have a net loss so
you'd have to take your mitigation to another wetland and enlarge it or do
something else somewhere else, so yeah.
Ahrens: So what?
Batzli: Well yeah. Is it a hassle, is that your question?
' Ahrens: Thanks for restating my question.
Batzli: I'm sorry. I didn't understand it. Anyway Dave...
' Hempel: Not necessarily expense. The project is being funded by MnDot's
checkbook if you will so the whole issue though I guess is, are we from a
water quality standpoint maybe enhancing or improving that somewhat but on
the other hand, actually constructing a pond in the wetland areas. Is that
an equal trade off, I guess. You've got the natural wetland right now.
Going in and actually dredging it to create a NURP pond. It's a balancing
act I guess. Kate.
Aanenson: I was just going to add that if we did mitigate it on site,
because we've gone beyond that boundaries, there'd be impacts to increasing
' that wetland itself and what it would do to those homeowners. They'd
obviously lose less of their backyard and that was an issue too because it
is a large wetland as far as how much it encroaches into the property
owners and I'm not sure, at this point if they want a larger wetland or
less backyard.
Ahrens: In the long run, what's better for the wetland?
Aanenson: As far as the quality of the wetland, it's not that great of a
quality wetland right now.
Batzli: We could make it better.
Aanenson: We could. We always can.
Ahrens: Yeah. Anybody want to answer that question?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 20
1
Aanenson: Well we are right now. We feel like with the sump catch basins,
that we are improving it from what it is right now. ,
Ahrens: But of all the alternatives that are available to you, what is the
best alternative in the long run?
Hempel: I guess that would be the sedimentation basin. From a water
quality standpoint. For nutrient removal.
Ahrens: ...bigger hassle. 1
Hempel: It's the expense and time delays. We are on kind of a time
constraint here. MnDot, we applied for this project last August and it's II
taken until now basically to get through the hoops from MnDot. To get this
project in their books and so forth and if we delay it beyond the
construction season this year, we could possibly lose the funding mechanism"
for this project.
Ahrens: Okay. I have no other comments. 1
Batzli: Thank you Joan.
Ahrens: Unless you have a question for me to ask. 1
Batzli: Yeah, would you ask them if it's. Steve.
Emmings: I'd just resort to general principles here and that is, I give 1
the City anything they want as long as it doesn't involve a special
assessment on my property.
Ahrens: I suppose you get a cheaper water and sewer bill.
Emmings: If it works out that way, that's fine with me. 1
Batzli: Matt?
Ledvina: Looking at the staff recommendations, they were considering the 1
installation of a sedimentation basin, is that correct? So we should
modify those?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So should we substitute the word catch basin where it says"
sedimentation pond? Would that be appropriate? Okay.
Hempel: I was going to suggest that we just maybe modify it, condition
number one to read, all filling should be limited to the 918 contour. The 11
project shall implement a sump catch basin to improve water quality in the
wetland. Just strike, except for the extension of storm sewer pipe and
sedimentation pond. 1
Ledvina: Okay.
1
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
1! August 5, 1992 - Page 21
Batzli: Did you want to say something Kate? You really looked like you
II did.
Ledvina: Okay, then for condition number 3. It says, there shall be no
II filling or dredging permitted within the Class A wetland except for
sedimentation pond or do we say, except for the catch basin construction.
II Aanenson: I don't think it's applicable anymore.
Ledvina: It's not applicable at this point? Okay, so strike condition
3...and that would be it. The catch basin now, obviously you're catching
11 sediments and what is the capacity for that? Do you have an anticipated
schedule for cleaning and are there similar type structures? Is there
equipment for cleaning?
II Hempel: Yes. The City does have a VacAll truck that will have to, staff
will have to monitor as the sediments accumulate. We do have a number of
these type of catch basins in the city now so it will require an annual
II cleaning.
Ledvina: Annual cleaning? Do you think there's enough capacity in that
II for an annual basis?
Hempel: We periodically will check them and see if there's house
II construction nearby or some other kind of construction which will increase
the amount of sediments washing into them but typically it's on an annual
basis.
II Batzli: Ladd.
Conrad: Dave, how much water is draining from Eden Prairie into this area?
1 Hempel: I would say probably a couple hundred feet in each direction on
the culvert, backyards east of TH 101.
II Conrad: This wetland used to be a lot bigger. The house...basically built
into the wetland. And I think the wetland has deteriorated in quality in
terms of what it can do. It's such a pretty wetland. So on the one hand,
II it's probably an area that's, 200 feet? See this one really is balancing
act. On the one hand I start and I say, hey well the developer basically
built, put more houses in there than maybe...built right into the wetland.
II Yet we don't have a whole lot of drainage going through this. I don't
know, I guess I'm going to have to go with the staff report on this. It is
a balancing act. I guess in this case I'd go with the staff
recommendation.
11 Batzli: In general principle Ladd, do you agree with the notion that
because of hassle or because of expense or something else, we shouldn't do
II what's best for the wetland here?
Conrad: Well you know, we are improving it. I think Dave's right.
I Things, we could improve it more and that's the issue. We are making it a
little bit better. And so from a philosophy standpoint, I can go with
that. If I thought that spending x number, - I don't care where the money's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 22
coming from really...if it makes good economic sense, and if Dave's done
the limited drainage that they think it can...I'm not sure that I would
spend a tremendous amount of money...It's just sort of a gut reaction as t
much money is being spent and how much it would cost to do. I
certainly don't feel that the City should get by with anything but I think
our standard has always been, do we improve it? Is this situation being
improved and we are meeting that standard and I guess I don't feel that we
need to push it beyond that. A little bit of me is saying primarily
because I know how this area was developed a couple years ago and basically'
a lot of the wetlands...and I don't know. That was probably more damaging
than anything else.
Batzli: Would you like to see staff at least be able to provide some ideal'
to City Council as to what would be the significance of making it much
better? How much money does it cost? At least in terms of around tens of
thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars. If it costs $200.00 more to II
do this and 6 more weeks, than I say do it. If it costs $50,000.00 more
and it can't get done in 3 years, then I say let's improve it a little bit.
But we don't know that and that's what I have trouble with. Anyway, that's/
what I have to say. Is there a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -10 to allow construction within 200 feet of a�
Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a
Class A wetland with the following conditions: Condition 1. All filling
shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall implement a catch II
basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the associated wetland.
Number 2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction
boundaries of the wetland.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it. 1
Batzli: Okay, discussion. Would anyone like to see added to that motion a
direction to staff to look into the costs or other, further ways that water
quality might be improved into the wetland?
Conrad: Yeah, I would like to do that Brian. I don't know how to word.
The motion is to approve it as worded but to also have staff. The motion
reads to approve it per the staff report. And you would suggest that that
also advises the Council on the cost for an alternative.
Ledvina: Should I amend the motion then?
Conrad: Dave, what kind of exercise do we get you playing when we ask you
to do that?
Hempel: It would just take some rough calculations on the area of
excavation.
Conrad: Are you talking about an hours worth of your time?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 23
Hempel: Couple hours. Couple phone calls. Maybe consult the City's storm
water consultant on it too and see what their input is to the improvements
or the sedimentation pond would be significant.
Conrad: I'd like you to do that. Yeah.
Ahrens: It's kind of ironic the City, you know we have this pond committee
and we have a lot of lip service for preservation of wetlands and we're
going through all this effort to identify wetlands and then we have this
wetland and maybe it's not the highest quality wetland. Maybe it's not the
biggest wetland. Maybe it's not the greatest wetland in the city but just
because the City's the applicant, and the City comes in and says the
timing. Because the timing is short, we need to get this project moving
and we may lose the funds. And this seems to be the most, easiest way to
get it done at this point because we don't have to spend as much money
mitigating someplace else. And it seems ironic that we push this along
like this when Dave himself said this is not the best solution for this
wetland. What are we looking at? The immediate solution or a solution 10
years, 20 years down the line.
Aanenson: First of all, we're not in the wetland. We're within 200 feet.
That's the reason why we're here. We're not in the wetland.
Ahrens: But it's impacting the wetland.
Aanenson: No we're not. The catch basin's outside the wetland. The
reason we're here is because we're within 200 feet. We're outside the
contours of the wetland. What we're saying is, as long as we're next to
' it, we'd like to improve it. Okay, that's why. Originally we thought we
could put the sedimentation then we realized we're in the wetland now.
Okay. But our goal was to stay out of the wetland. Not to even touch it.
But we said, as long as we're next to it, what can we do because we've got
two ditches running in there. What can we do to improve it. We were
trying to be proactive. And our original thought was that we could do the
sedimentation but then we realized wow, we haven't got any room to pick up
the mitigation. This wetland. Maybe those lots shouldn't have been there.
I know that we've got concerns from some of the other neighbors that those
homes didn't belong there because they impacted the wetland to begin with
so. We thought we were being proactive.
Ahrens: The City is trying to...okay but if the City's going to go to the
effort to correct mistakes made in the past, why not do the best job they
can do? If it's not going to cost a whole lot more money. If it can be
done in a reasonable way. Why make the effort?
' Krauss: We can look at that certainly. The potential for additional costs
comes about the need to mitigate 1 for 1. There's no room to do any
mitigation on this wetland which means we'then wind up having to buy other
land someplace else and expand a wetland on that property.
Ahrens: Is that something that has to be done immediately or is that
something that could be done in conjunction with another plan when you have
to mitigate?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 24
i
Krauss: Well we've done that in the past but.
Ahrens: It doesn't mean that the City's going to have to come up with a I
whole lot of money immediately out of pocket and buy other wetlands.
Krauss: But we're setting up that kind of a wetland banking program.
We've done it in the past.
Ahrens: But it's not in place right now? 1
Krauss: But there is a State law in place that says you have to do it now.
Ahrens: You have to do it at some point right? '
Krauss: Or you have to post letters of credit to say that you are doing it
and do it within a certain time frame. ,
Ahrens: Well, sometimes it's maybe more beneficial to find out ways to do
it than to find out ways why you can't do it. '
Hempel: Let me just add also I guess, as you're aware, the wetland has
been reduced in size over time with development. Development adjacent to
this wetland also has reduced the amount of runoff going to the wetland ands
in some cases actually are pre- treating. Like Kurver's Point Addition used
to drain towards this area and now it's being pre - treated and taken towards
Lotus Lake so the overall drainage area contributing to the wetland has
been significantly reduced with the area development. As Kate stated, the II
improvements that we're proposing are cost effective. It's something
better than what's out there right now. The overall, to go that extra
step, it may be feasible for us to do it. On the other hand, it may delay
the project until next year and jeopardize doing nothing out there.
Batzli: I don't think anybody disagrees that what you're doing is going toll
improve the wetland. Our question is, have we looked at the alternatives.
Can we be doing something else? I'd even love it if you'd come back and
say well gee, yes. We should do this. We can't do it right now but we II will phase it in and we'll try to do it next year when we can mitigate it
by buying another piece of property. I'd at least like to see the City -
look at it in order to be fully responsive to the wetland that we're
spending so much time on in other committees.
Conrad: Matt, would you amend your motion to add a point 4 that would ask
staff to examine. 1
Ledvina: Point 3. 3rd condition.
Batzli: We got rid of number 3 last time. ,
Conrad: Ah. Okay. 3rd point that would ask staff to examine the cost and
feasibility and benefits to improving it with a holding basin. And staff ,.
should spend no more time than 2 hours. Is that appropriate?
Ahrens: Then we're back to the same problem where we're approving this and"
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1! August 5, 1992 - Page 25
then adding another condition. I mean either we have to do one or the
other.
Batzli: We have approved it and as part of the approval, staff is going to
1 present alternatives to the City Council. I don't see a problem with that
personally. We've asked staff to do things.
Emmings: I think there is a problem.
Batzli: Why's that?
Emmings: First of all, I guess my position on this would be that, I agree
with what Joan has said in principle, and Ladd and Brian. All of you I
guess. But I don't think it ought to be applied in this case. It doesn't
seem to me to be a case that requires all of this attention. And I think
if you want to do what you're saying, I don't think you should approve this
because then it goes up there saying, we approve this but we want
alternatives presented. When in fact what you're saying is, if there's a
cheap alternative, you think the alternative ought to be taken and not
this. So I think you've got a problem there. I would approve what's here.
Ahrens: I agree with what you're saying. Either we approve this or we
don't approve it.
Emmings: Yeah, I agree. That's the way it's got to go.
Ahrens: Although I don't agree with your first statement.
Batzli: What was the first statement? That it shouldn't be done in this
instance?
11 Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli: Is that the first statement? Well, I disagree with both
statements but that's besides the point.
Conrad: The point is, if you two decide you don't like it this way, you
could potentially could delay the project.
Ahrens: We don't know.
' Conrad: We don't know but you potentially could. And the City Council's
going to make their decision. All we're doing is saying hey staff, you've
improved the situation a little bit. And in the process, in the next 2
weeks you could look into another alternative and they're going to give
City Council a chance to take a look at a broader picture. Versus kicking
it back to us and us kick it back to City Council. Which staff would give
them two alternatives, a second alternative that might be less possible.
' Batzli: We've done this a billion times in my opinion that we've asked
staff to look into something and settle something. I'm convinced.
II Emmings: Yeah but not something that's contrary to what you're approving.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 26
II
Batzli: No. I don't think this is contrary. What my point is, is that I
they have improved the wetland. I would like them to examine to see if
there are other ways that would even further improve it. That doesn't
necessarily mean that it has to be part of this approval process. Because
I would like to see them get into the habit of excelling rather than just II
saying well, we've improved it a little bit right here. See that's what I
think we have to do with the wetlands eventually.
Emmings: If they were working in the wetland, I'd agree with you. If they'
were going to do anything in the wetland, I'd agree with you.
Conrad: But your point is, you think this is, now I don't know where you II
stand.
Emmings: I think this is, for what's being done here, I think they're
II
doing enough.
Batzli: No but see, I disagree from the standpoint that when you look at
the non -point source pollution, you're looking at the stuff coming down the,
whatever they are and that's what they're working on. That's what they're
trying to get rid of. They're trying to get the sediment coming down the
dealybops on the side of the road. Whatever those are. 1
Emmings: Ditches.
Batzli: Thank you. And you know, we're looking at the non -point source II
pollution. We're looking at the runoff off the streets. We're looking at
this stuff and this is when you fix it. They shouldn't go into the wetland.
to fix it. That's the whole point.
Emmings: But that's what you're asking them to do by building a
sedimentation pond. 1
Batzli: Well if it can help further remove the non -point source pollution,
they should look at doing it because it will improve the wetland. Even by I
going into the wetland.
Emmings: Okay.
Conrad: Call a question. il
Emmings: Well now wait.
II
Batzli: Well no one ever finished it, seconded it.
Emmings: No one ever seconded it and I won't. I won't change my second. II
Conrad: I will.
Emmings: Well, is that procedurally what happens?
Batzli: If you don't withdraw your second,_we vote on that motion as it '
stood before this amendment. So we will call a question on the motion
before us which was prior to his amendment.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 27
Ledvina: The original motion with the 2 conditions.
Batzli: The original motion. You have to approve the friendly amendment.
So we'll call the question.
•
Conrad: What was the motion?
' Batzli: The motion was to approve this, I'm sorry.
Ahrens: Approval with the first 2 conditions right?
1 Batzli: Approval with first 2 conditions except it was rewritten to get
rid of the sedimention pond.
' Conrad: No, don't you have to approve the motion. See I'm not going to
approve that unless I know that I've got the votes for my addition. Don't
you have to approve the amendment first?
' Emmings: Technically yeah. You're supposed to vote on the amendment first
if you've got a second to the amendment.
Conrad: You don't.
Batzli: Well, we might. Okay. So I'll withdraw calling the question.
Your amendment was what? Give me your amendment again.
Conrad: Geez, this may not be worth the whole time.
' Emmings: I thought Matt had made the motion.
Ahrens: Matt had amended.
' Emmings: Matt amended his motion.
' Ahrens: Can't we just start over? Come on guys.
Batzli: I tried to call a question. Nobody let me.
1 Ledvina: Should I start over?
Batzli: No, just give me what your amendment was again please.
' Ledvina: Okay. The third condition to the motion was to direct staff to
evaluate the cost and the time schedules of constructing a sedimentation
basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: I second that.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded an amendment adding a third condition to
read as follows:
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 28
3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland.
All voted in favor of the amendment except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. 1
Batzli: Okay, it passes 3 to 2. We'll vote on the full motion now which
includes conditions 1, 2 and 3. Is there any discussion first?
Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -10 to allow construction within
200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane
adjacent to a Class A wetland with the following conditions:
1. All filling shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall
implement a catch basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the
associated wetland.
2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction
boundaries of the wetland.
3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland. II
All voted in favor except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli: And your reasons for opposing.
Emmings: I would simply approve the original motion. I don't think they
should go to the time and effort of looking into a sedimentation pond in
this case. '
Batzli: Okay. Joan.
Ahrens: I think they should just look into the idea of approving'or the I
idea of sedimentation ponds period and forget approving this original
motion. It doesn't make anything, it's contrary to approve this
application and at the same time tell them but go ahead and find out if
there's something better we should do. Do one or the other. I don't
understand that reasoning.
Batzli: Okay. Sounds good. '
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 15, 1992 as presented. 1
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: Well I didn't give you the City Council update because there 1
wasn't much on the agenda and I was in Seattle.
Aanenson: Wait a minute, I was there. '
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1! August 5, 1992 - Page 29
I Batzli: So Kate, was there anything new at the City Council meeting we
should know about?
Aanenson: The beachlot on Sunny Slope was tabled.
-
II Emmings: The beachlot?
I Aanenson: Sunny Slope. They asked to be tabled so it will be on in 2
weeks.
I Conrad: What were their reasons for that?
Aanenson: Originally I think we told them the 10th...they wanted a chance
to go through and see what other beach considerations for the other
1 beachlots had been given. I can't remember what else was on.
ONGOING ITEMS:
1 Batzli: Do we need to talk about that? We're probably going to talk about
that in great length in a few minutes here so let's put that aside for the
I moment.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS:
1 Batzli: Any administrative approvals of note?
Krauss: No. In terms of, well there is a note. I copied you on a letter
I to Halia Nursery. I think that's going to come up at the next Council
meeting as well. Ongoing issues with them but there's nothing new about
that.
1 Batzli: Okay. Are we going to adjourn before we hold our work session?
Krauss: That would probably be appropriate yeah.
1 Batzli: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
I Conrad: Wait, before you do that. Under just some things that have, I
wanted to bring it up for public awareness. Over the last month I think
I've had like 5 citizens call me and they've talked about some excellence
of city staff. Planning staff and engineering department. I was real
I impressed and they were too. They really said, and these were unrelated
issues and just out of the clear blue so I just wanted to pass that along
to the staff and Dave left before I got to say that. I think it's real
1 important that they hear those things. They were real complimentary.
Batzli: well tell Charles and Dave for us. I wonder how much they had to
I give those people to come up to you and say that.
Emmings: I think it was Charles and Dave that called him.
I Batzli: Was there anything else Ladd? You've been out on the lake with
your boat out on Lotus at all?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1
August 5, 1992 —Page 30
Conrad: I take the risk every now and then.
Batzli: Is there milfoil out there?
Conrad: Quite a bit.
Batzli: Is there?
Emmings: Lots on Minnewashta. '
Batzli: Lots on Minnewashta too huh.
Conrad: That's a whole different issue. We really have some serious '
concerns with access and how the spraying was done and now public was
notified that 24D was put in their front yard. A whole bunch of issues I
like that but I've been up, we go and pull it every Saturday morning and
see what we can do.
Batzli: Okay. '
Emmings: You pull it up and then.
Conrad: You've got to get it by the roots so you've got to, really what '
we're trying to do is, the Lake Association is to just everybody go out on
the weekend and take a shovel and we try to get it by the roots and take it
totally out. But then you also see, it's so easy to fragment. It's just
like whoa, I just wonder if we're helping or hurting.
Krauss: There was an article is last weekend's paper talking about, I
interviewing somebody from the DNR on lake weed control. They pointed out
that they know of only one lake in the entire state that milfoil was
actually successfully eradicated on.
Conrad: It will not be eradicated.
Emmings: You just have to be careful to do that on a day when the wind's 1
blowing out from shore.
Conrad: Seriously, on Lotus Lake it's such a shallow lake, it literally
could be a carpet.
Emmings: Oh is that right? '
Conrad: Yeah. The whole lake could be closed down. The good news is, the
lake's so dirty that it might be too dark to grow. So we'll see. You
don't want to yell wolf, but it could be devastating to the lake. '
Ahrens: Is that from over -use? Is that why it's so dirty?
Conrad: Yeah, pretty much the motorboats. And the drainage. The drainage'
throughout the years but it's gotten worse over the last 10 years with all
the development around it and I don't think any of the controls we put in
have really done the job. But it's stilt a dirty lake and really when you II
see like last week, you get kind of suspect of the DNR. There were 35 -40